South Sudan News Agency

Thursday, Oct 30th, 2014

Last update02:25:00 AM GMT

You are here: Opinion

The Gurtong Trust-Peace is a revenge preaching and killing Machine: why are the Norway, the UK and the Swiss’ Governments’ Foreign Affairs funding it?

By J. Nguen Nyol

October 5, 2014 (SSNA) -- Is this how the world works? I am shocked and saddened by the fact that an organization that preach revenges day-in and day-out is still getting hundreds of thousands of dollars funding from well to do nations, like the Norway, the UK and the Swiss. Isn’t it ironic? Where justice in this absurd dealing?

This contradicting proposition reinforced the notion that revenge is sanctioned and in our blood like it or hate it. For one, the Americans perfect revenges like nothing else, wholesale, on daily basis. They do it in disguise of protecting national interest or maintaining human security. The good news is however, U.S., doesn’t preach revenge. Their approach is reactive in nature but disproportional to the core. Call it furthering U.S. hegemony or maintaining human security is not the trajectory of this piece. 

The bottom line is, as I write, U.S. is on a full pledged war campaign against the ISIL, the militants organization based in Iraqi and Syria. ISIL made a lethal mistake for beheading two American citizens in cold-blood and threatened yesterday to behead another and called it a show of force. As a result there are now paying for their ruthless deeds and miscalculated combat tactic.

The truth is, hate speech or preaching revenge wherever it happen is a crime under the stature of international law, which is the focus of this article. An essence, any organization or state that promotes or aids this kind of language financially or otherwise is a terrorist and must be dealt with severely with a full force of the law.

Based on this principle, no one, no organization or state is above this clause. Surprisingly and for some reason, Gurtong Trust – Peace and media Project is allowed to preach revenges on daily basis and still gets funding from Norway, UK and the Swiss. Why is Gurtong Trust –Peace and Media Project immune to hate speech crime? Why is it allowed to promote hate speech and revenge without it being made accountable?

As a concerned citizen, I am bothered and saddened and decided to write about it. Thus, I feel I am perfecting my duty furthering forceful stand of international law. Second, it’s my rightful duty as a world citizen to ensure that peace and human security prevail. Therefore, this preluded my legal rights to call to question any wrongdoing or warmongering to prevent futuristic anarchy and bloodshed, even though damage is already perfected in Gurtong’s case.

For example, on December 15th, 2013, Dinka militias directed by the President, who is also a Dinka, went on a revenge sphere against the Nuer innocent civilians in Juba. In this fiasco, perhaps, we know the planners and promoters of the Juba Nuer Massacre and Gurtong Trust –Peace Media Project topped the list.

To put blatantly, Gurtong Trust- Peace and Media Project as an organization is a prime promoter of the Juba Nuer Massacre; a massacre, which subsequently triggered a countrywide bloodbath.

For those who might not be aware of what “Gurtong” stand for and what it means in Dinka, you are missing out. BIG TIME! “Gurtong,” by itself is a double-edged sword and lethal at best. Gurtong are two words combined, “gur” and ‘tong’. Gur means revenge. “Tong” means war or spear in a lesser degree. The direct translation of Gurtong is REVENGE THE WAR. What war?--- is indeed what makes Gurtong Trust – Peace Media Project a revenge preaching and killing machine of all time in South Sudan’s shaky history.

To place this into a neat perspective, Gurtong Trust –Peace and media Project was founded in 2002 by Napoleon Adok Gai as “Gurtong Peace Project” in London, UK and registered in Nairobi, Kenya in 2004. Subsequently, in 2007, Gurtong was registered in South Sudan under “Gurtong Peace and Media Project,” where it now exists as “Gurtong Trust - Peace and Media Project.

In the paragraph above, we may have noticed that words such as “peace” and “trust” were thrown in the mix. It was done so intentionally to confuse the funders to ensure monies flow, and it worked. From then, to now, Gurtong is being funded by Norway, UK and Swiss, who would otherwise calls for its shutdown, if they knew better.

Considering its managing characters, Gurtong Trust –Peace and Media Project’s daily business is runs by Mr. Jacob Jiel Akol as its director after Mr. Gai call it quit. Mr. Akol called himself, a veteran journalist. Interestingly, there is no coincidence why Mr. Akol took Gurtong’s managing director. Mr. Akol knew quite well Gurtong’s mission as a revenge preaching and killing hub.

Mr. Akol was the subject of the so- called “Bor Massacre” documentary, which flooded the western media outlets in the 1990s. Akol himself is from Bor where 1991 incidence occurred. Let’s say, he is from the grieving community though everyone was a victim in the “triangle” or beyond. Given Akol’s brief background, it’s sufficient to conclude that he has every reason at heart and purpose in mind to keep the Gurtong running at all cost. Hence, the prime purpose is to keep the Dinka community reminded and to eventually cue Dinka to take revenge against Nuer for 1991.

Below, I provided logical reasoning and justifications for this to make sense to ordinary South Sudanese and Gurtong’s funders. Gurtong Peace Project” as mentioned above was founded during peace times. One, it was formed at the time of the “merger” between two South Sudanese principals, Dr. Riek and Dr. John Garang’s factions after the split of 1991.

Not only that, 2002 was the year when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was negotiated and where some vital protocols were signed between the north and south Sudan warring parties. In 2004 and 2007, when Gurtong was put to operations in Kenya and South Sudan respectively, it was times of tranquillities.

Therefore, I find it very difficult for anyone to call for revenge given the political developments in Sudan at time. Undoubtedly, you will agree with me that calling for revenge considering the circumstance makes no logical sense if ill intention was not the very motive of Gurtong. If not so, then, why are the Gurtong founding members calling for revenge yet the whole country was gearing up for peaceful settlements of her crises?

Is it not true that during peace times, peace promoting organizations would have sprung up and formed at ease? Why calling for war revenge? And to whom was this revenge intended against? After December 15th, 2013, one concluded that Gurtong’s founding members had one thing in mind, preach revenge against Nuer nation.

As planned, a cruel and heartless revenge killing happened against Nuer ethnic group on December 15th. 2013. Reports estimated that more than 20, 000 thousands innocent Nuer civilians were murdered in cold-blood within 4 days. In this case you would say Gurtong’s mission of revenge fulfilled. 

Hence, there is no room to deny this. There is no logical reason to argue that Gurtong was preaching revenge against Arabs. This is unrealistic. After the CPA was concluded in 2005 and independence in 2011, any revenge preaching misconception against Arabs north is obsolete.

Based on these grounds, it’s sad to report that the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the Norwegian People Aid (NPA), the UK and the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs funded and still granting monies of well intentions aids for criminal activities, Gurtong Trust – Peace and Media Project’ mission to revenge.

The lingering question that needs answers from Gurtong’s funders is whether they knew that Gurtong means revenge the war in Dinka or were they simply blindfolded and cheated by words “trust” and “peace” added in the mix to cover up Gurtong’s vicious plan?

Sadly, before our watchful eyes, Gurtong Trust – Peace and Media Project continue to tell us it trusted revenge and yet three Western nations continued to grant hundreds of thousands of dollars for it to exists and preach revenge and bloodshed in South Sudan. Is it not true that the phrase “Gurtong Trust” mean the organization trusted revenge?

At this juncture, I put my case to rest. However, the ball is in the Norwegian People’s Aid, the UK government and the Swiss’ Ministry Foreign Affairs’ courts to decide whether they should keep aiding and enabling a revenge preaching machine. 

J. Nguen is a concerned South Sudanese living in Canada. He can be reached This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Federal system of government salvation of South Sudan

By Jacob K. Lupai

October 6, 2014 (SSNA) -- South Sudan is in crisis that could have been avoided. The crisis has brought untold sufferings to many innocent people, probably more than the sufferings endured during the bitter wars of liberation for independence of South Sudan. It is with horror that in independent South Sudan people should turn ferociously on each other in a senseless struggle for power and leadership.

There could have been a peaceful way out in winning the hearts and minds of the people for power and leadership. Unfortunately the use of guns and bullets as a shortcut to power and leadership was erroneously conceived with little or no conceptualization of the consequences. Poor calculations have resulted to unnecessary destruction and senseless loss of innocent lives notwithstanding the deep polarization of communities along ethnic lines.

The ongoing crisis in South Sudan is a litmus test of the political leadership whether they have the guts and the will to climb above partisan politics and ethnic cleavages in the national interest. There is no denial that this senseless armed struggle for power and leadership has taken ethnic dimension where members of one ethnic group in the wrong place have been brutally dealt with. The ethnic dimension of the ongoing armed struggle for power and leadership is well documented in the Interim Report on South Sudan Internal Conflict December 15, 2013 – March 15, 2014 by South Sudan Human Rights Commission.

The ethnic dimension of the ferocious conflict suggests that those who imagine that South Sudanese are one people are nothing but merely wishful thinkers. South Sudanese will never be one people even if the Son of Mary comes for the second time. What they can only be is as people of one destiny. Being of one destiny was the only unifying factor that brought independence to South Sudan.

Before and after independence of South Sudan

Before independence of South Sudan in 2011we were all people of one destiny because we were oppressed and marginalized, being forced to occupy second class citizenship in the old Sudan. As people sharing the same fate we were untied for strength to liberate ourselves from the yolk of Arab oppression and marginalization. We therefore fought as people of one destiny for equality, justice and freedom.

As people of one destiny the unity of people during the struggle transcended ethnic, religious and regional divide. South Sudanese were united in their strong desire for freedom and an independent homeland where they could live in dignity. Arab marginalization and the treatment as second class citizens were too painful that the people of South Sudan preferred to die in the battlefield for freedom and dignity.

According to the Sudan people’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Manifesto 2012 the people of South Sudan are united by a common history of struggle against oppression, different forms of colonialism. This clearly suggests that South Sudanese are people of one destiny but not necessarily one people as the propagandists would like us to believe.

The Manifesto affirms in no uncertain terms that the people of South Sudan are forever inspired by the ideals of human rights and dignity, and by the insistence on respect for fundamental freedoms, social justice, equality, prosperity and democracy. Now the question to ask do those ideals still hold after independence of South Sudan.

After independence the fear and hatred of Arab colonization that had previously united South Sudanese as people of one destiny seemed to have vanished overnight. There was nothing much to unite people as before. The project was over and there was the lack of concepts for other projects to unite people as during the struggle. South Sudanese appeared to have become individuals, tribes or clans looking first after their own interests where national interest was taking the backseat.

The euphoria after the referendum results gave way to bitter disappointment in deficiencies in the ability of the government to deliver security and basic services as some of the most anticipated peace dividends and rewards for independence. There were also claims of corruption, nepotism, exclusion and domination of government and business by some ethnic groups. This was not in line with people’s expectations and aspirations before independence.

People had expected that in an independent South Sudan security of individual and property would have been provided. That was not the case. For example, land grabbing should not have been of concern in independent South Sudan. However, according to the International Republican Institute public opinion poll in all the 10 states of South Sudan, land grabbing is of concern but only in Equatoria.

The cries of poor victims of land grabbing in Equatoria by citizens from Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile are often ignored while the land grabbers are rewarded. For example, land grabbers terrorise legitimate landowners with guns yet these criminal land grabbers do not face the law nor are the guns collected from them as a security measure to preempt anarchy. One can only speculate as to what is going on and how is that going to promote national cohesion and unity.  

Systems of government

There are many systems of government in the world. Each country adopts a system that is seen to address its unique needs, compatible with its vision. However, a system that works perfectly well in one country may not necessarily be suitable to another country. What may happen is that a country adapts a system to address issues of diversity and development. However, the system must be seen to be reducing social and regional inequalities and poverty.

A system of government adopted must be seen to be efficient in service delivery for a high standard of living of the people. The system adopted must also be a response to deep social fissures along ethnic, cultural and regional lines where a civil war may be looming. An adoption of a system of government to defuse tensions may save a country from collapsing.

Some of the systems of government are unitary, federal and confederal. A unitary system is the one with only a single, centralized, national tier of government. In the unitary system powers may be highly concentrated in the centre to the disadvantage of the peripheries. It is here that problems sometimes arise when the peripheries are ignored or starved of development to improve living standards.

In a unitary system of government a single ethnic group may consolidate its grip on power over the whole state through nepotism to the detriment of national unity. A unitary system of government can therefore be seen as inappropriate to a country full of ethnic, cultural and regional diversities.

In a federal system powers of government are divided between the national government, state and local governments. Under the federal system each level of government has sovereignty in some areas and shares powers in other areas. For example, both the national and state governments have the power to tax to generate revenue to deliver services but only the national government can declare war.

In a federation, the self-governing states as well as the division of powers between them and the national government, are constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision neither of the states nor the national government.

The confederal system is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. The closest entity to a confederation is the European Union. However, any existing federal state can be transformed into a looser confederation instead of breaking up into totally different independent nations.

Diversities in South Sudan

In the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011, South Sudan is considered a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-racial entity where such diversities peacefully co-exist. However, the statement in the last part where it is asserted that “such diversities peacefully co-exist” is arguable. There are always inter and intra ethnic clashes and violence. There are also regional diversities in physical features that can provide comparative advantage in development.

In South Sudan there are mainly two modes of livelihoods. Some communities are pastoralists while others are sedentary farmers. Clashes between pastoralists and farmers are not uncommon with poor delivery of security, characteristic of a centralized system that may be hopelessly too remote to be effective.

Sometimes, arrogance and insensitivity of pastoralists to the feelings of farmers make things worse. It is common for pastoralists to drive deliberately their animals into cultivated fields for the animals to feast on food crops. This is adverse to farmers’ food security. When the farmers complain the pastoralists do not listen and hardly control their animals for a peaceful co-existence with farmers.

It is very clear that the diversities in South Sudan call for a system of government that is robust, closer and adequately responsive to peoples felt needs at the grassroots. A highly centralized system that is hopelessly remote and cannot deliver services as anticipated is not for South Sudan. South Sudan is apparently in need of a system of government that accelerates development for a high standard of living of its people.

Federalism for salvation of South Sudan

The present system of government in South Sudan is quasi federalism. It is a quasi federal system because it is midway between a centralized and a federal system with many attributes of federalism, of course, lacking. There are 10 autonomous states but are limited in powers. For example, the states have limited powers of having their own judiciary, police, prisons, wildlife and fire brigade. The states also may have limited power to tax to raise the needed revenue for development.

For the states to perform and deliver the badly needed services a federal system of government is the most appropriate because the states will then have more powers. Some people have argued that the existing 10 states show that South Sudan is already a federation. This, however, is false. This may be partly due to ignorance of what a federal system entails or it could be the case of those tunnel vision reactionary centralists who exploit and benefit the most from a centralized system of government.

A federal system of government is the most recommended because it will turn South Sudan into a strong vibrant united country where diversities are a source of strength with more powers to the states to address the current deficiencies in service delivery for development.

Conclusion

As mentioned above there are three types of system of government under consideration and they are unitary, federal and confederal. For South Sudan it is envisaged that a federal system is the most appropriate and a good compromise. Although at first it was shunned, the federal system is now widely recognized in the nation and regionally. What remains are the details. In principle federalism is already accepted.

The Sudan Tribune website on September 27, 2014 showed the Government of the Republic of South Sudan agreeing to a federal system of government.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Protocol on Agreed Principles on Transitional Arrangements Towards Resolution of the Crisis in South Sudan, 28 August 2014, in part, stipulates that the “Transitional Government of National of Unity (TGONU) to initiate and oversee a permanent constitution-making process, during the Transitional Period, based on the principles of federalism and taking into account unity in diversity, and to devolve more power to the states”.

One wonders what will the opponents of federalism make of the government’s acceptance of a federal system and the acceptance of principles of federalism by IGAD. It is hoped the opponents of federalism are not out of touch with the reality unfolding.

In conclusion, a federal system is the only way for the salvation of South Sudan for national unity in diversity and sustainable development out of the mess and turmoil that has been unnecessarily created.

Jacob K. Lupai is the author of a new book, South Sudan, Issues in Perspective, which will shortly be launched in Juba, South Sudan.

Dr. Riek Machar and South Sudan!!

Quote “Leadership is the lifting of man‘s visions to higher sights, the raising of man’s performance to higher standard, dedicating to fight for public interest, the building of man’s personality beyond its normal limitations”—Peter Drucker

By Bol Khan Rom

October 6, 2014 (SSNA) -- This analysis will concentrate on historical past facts of the time and present. Albeit, our history seems still full of sensitive issues, my pen may not ink them all. Dr. Riek Machar Teny is South Sudan and South Sudan is Dr. Riek Machar Teny. Without Dr. Machar’s humble behavior and wisdom, South Sudan’s Independence would never have been achieved. Narrated other way around, historically it won’t make sense at all!

Dr. Riek Machar Teny is a kind of a leader who talks when He has something to say and not when He has least to say. Dr. Riek has integrity. He has qualities of character and behavior in Him, which enables Him to exert internal personal influence. He has ability to persuade others (subordinates included) and to motivate them to work for accomplishing national objectives. He inspires His people—the South Sudanese. He doesn’t discriminate. Dr. Riek accepts any appointment from any human being, regardless of one’s own age, occupation, abilities, so on and so forth. Dr. Machar creates, determines and has a spirit of laying down goals and policies for citizenry to follow. He limits or reduces chances of conflict between his people. He unifies the efforts to accomplish goals.

Dr. Machar has qualities desired in leadership. He has in Him a proven charity and forgiveness. Many attempts had been made to assassinate His expensive personality. Yet, He finally says “Let him/them go”, even those who were evidently found to have had intentions to kill Him. Dr. Machar is intelligent, He has a power of judgment, vision and foresight, mental maturity, self-confidence, human relations and expensive attitude to mention just but a few. Dr. Machar is brave enough to say NO to South Sudan’s destructive dictators. He goes even to fatal places, even where all leaders hesitantly fear. He does challenge, diplomatically, whoever envisions to erase the case of Self-determination and now South Sudan as a country.

Muolana Abel Alier, in 1983 violently crushed the South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM/A) of Joseph Lagu despite all the political programs he [Lagu] had in mind for the betterment of the Southern Sudanese people. Mr. Lagu was forced to exile for years. He returned only after when the CPA was signed. By the same token, South Sudan Independent Movement (SSIM/A), SPLM/A -Nasir & South Sudan’s Dr. Machar would have been crushed otherwise to ashes in 1990s, 2008 and 2013. Dr. Machar Has a national notebook in which he wrote national programs and steps that can be followed on how South Sudan must be built. So, without Dr. Riek Machar Teny’s holy wisdom, South Sudan as a country could never have existed today or appears in any unified manner!

Those who forget history are asked to repeat it

In English they defined history as “a study of the past facts (present) events”. What do you think we would have expected as a result, if the then theoretical, political and now practical Independence wasn’t announced, and opposed the deeply rooted New Sudan Vision in 1991?

I think we would have expected Secular United Democratic New Sudan. We would have Khartoum today as our national capital city; South Sudan would neither have attained her independent nor enjoy the resources that are currently abused by the New Sudan groups, would they? Our history of struggle has it that two Southern Sudan Liberation Movements (SSLM/A- Anya-Anya One &Two) were mainly in the bush for South Sudan’s Independence. The SSLM/A, a separatists movement of Fr. Santarino Olure, Joseph Lagu and members of Southern Liberal Front (SLF) were operating since 1955 to 1972. The second SSLM/A (Anya-Anya Two) of Samuel Gai Tut, Vansion Kuany Latjor, Akuot Atem, Abdhala Chuol, Gordon Koang etc rebelled again as early as 1975. In 1983 the SPLM—United Sudan Vision dismantled Anya-Anya Two or South Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM/A) politically but not militarily. As a result, the possible Separatists’ door were clocked. Thus, the door remained closed untill 27 August 1991. Thereafter, on 28 in the same month the doors were reopened, in a third search for total separation of South Sudan. And the following political objectives or programs were announced in Nasir:

1. Right to Self-Determination for the people of Southern Sudan (SEPARATION) instead of UNITY of Sudan (New Sudan Vision).

2. Democracy.

3. Human right and Rule of laws.

Practically, Nasir Declaration mounted a lightening force on Southern Unionists who closed separatists’ doors in 1983. Two and half years later, Dr. John Garang was in Chukudum’s first Conference, caught red-handed by the SPLM-Torit faction members in 1994. And given strictly two choices: “Either you accept the Self- Determination, unconditionally adopt it in the Movement’s manifesto or risked being removed from the SPLM-Torit faction’s leadership”. This panic was forced by the defection of many Generals including the founders of SPLM/A, Kerbino Kwanyin Bol and William Nyuon Bany to Dr. Machar’s Independent Movement in 1992 and 1993. So Dr. Garang had to accept Self- Determination; immediately adopted it in the SPLM/A-Torit faction’s manifesto. Albeit, bitterly blame Dr. Machar of having had staged a military coup against him, on the other hand, that reopening announced on 28 August 1991 gave the Northern Separatists a clue. It was, as well welcomed globally by all Southerners and Southern Sudan’s Friends. Dr. Machar’s deeds in a process that led to South Sudan’s Independence speak louder. As a matter of fact, Independent of South Sudan that was theoretically and politically announced in August 1991 informed the formation of South Sudan Independent Movement (SSIM/A) and the rebirth of separation.

For the third time in history, 1991 announcement marked the rejuvenations of the political procedures in search for South Sudan Independence. The first were Anya-Anya One & Two Movements of 1955 and 1975, respectively. Soon SSIM/A began its diplomatic campaign, asking the international community, therein, to support the SSIM/A’s leadership in bringing Self- Determination for South Sudanese people. Dr. Machar was receiving a very warm welcomes during His campaign on a red-carpet in every country He went to. Successfully, and internationally, SSIM/A under His leadership became a recognized Movement with clear political objectives. In Germany-Frankfort, for example, South Sudanese people’s legal right to Self-Determination, declared by Nasir Faction in 1992, was recognized.

Three years later, Dr. Machar went to Khartoum and signed Khartoum Peace Agreement (KPA) on 21 April 1997 with NCP of President Bashir. A workable political charter if we can also call it, because after Frankfort Agreement, Machar wanted Self-Determination to be recognized within the country, enacted into the national constitution. Receptively, Dr. Lam Akol seconded the recognition of Southern Sudanese people’s right to Self-Determination and went to Khartoum via Fashoda in 1998.

More importantly, Dr. Machar wanted to mobilize the Southern Sudanese people from within (the Sudan), about how significance an Independent country would become to all South Sudanese people. When Dr. Machar reached Khartoum He said and I quote “I am here to stop bloodletting, South Sudanese people want to determine their destiny in an organized Referendum. So, killing Sudanese sons & daughters in military uniforms isn’t a moral interest of any one of us. Peace won’t come to Sudan through barrel of guns, rather through dialogue. This problem is a political problem and it needs political solution” end quote. A lot of people who were listening, therein, shed tears in happiness. However, before the peace agreement could be signed into the famous charter, the KPA, national and international actors in attendance put two imperative questions to Dr. Machar: (I) Now that you have your people‘s right accepted, in your hands is the right to Self-Determination, then, where is Dr. John Garang as we sign this charter? How is he going to take-part in a peace negotiating process?

Dr. Machar instantly replied them that, what was needed first was an enactment, acceptance and international recognition of Southern Sudanese people’s right to Self-Determination. Saying, “I know where he is and I know as well how to convince him, he will soon come to negotiating table”. Indeed, as planned, the Right to Self-Determination was enacted in Sudan’s constitution for the first time in Southerners’ history of struggle in 1998. Along with that, Dr. Teny Dhurgon effectively mobilized Southern Sudanese within, talked to them and almost all of them understood the importance of having an Independence country.

In contrast, the SPLM-Torit faction was also busy campaigning for United Sudan or New Sudan Vision, mostly in the Middle-East, Asia and also within Sudan. The SPLM/A-Torit faction signed their Cairo Accord, Asmara Agreement, declaration after declaration, even an Alliance with NDA but all were seeking United Sudan. They were selling their New Sudan Vision as Dr. Machar on his part was also advertising His people’s case of self-determination. When all these were completed, Dr. Machar left Sudan in December 1999 for Diaspora in order to make further mobilization and explained the historical progress He made. Taking with Him the political charter document He signed with Khartoum. Firstly, Dr. Machar went straight to number of targeted African countries. Secondly, He met the London based Group (which was a staunch separatist group) and then preceded to the other European countries, Norway, Canada, US etc. explaining everything accordingly. Thereafter, when He finished all the needed preparations (mobilizations) He alerted and invited the global community to provide the needed helps, to support the people of South Sudan’s peace processes, followed by diplomatic pressures.

There are many different ways to skin the cat

Many based their arguments on Dr. Machar’s return to SPLM in 2002. They behold this as His failure in achieving the Self-Determination. I say to them that taking it as such would be a big historical or political error of the time by those naive analysts. Let them answer the following questions. What is politics? And what is military? Does rigidity exist? Where? Who did see and touch the SPLM/A in 2002? Wasn’t SPLM/A of 2002 an abstract noun? There is a proverb which says “It is possible to give without loving but it is impossible to love without giving”. Invitation to eat and drink from an already prepared dishes, to sign already discussed case or to lead; simply doesn’t qualify a man to claim political credit. You cannot make your pregnant wife fight human killers. Can you? The most important thing in an objective modern political life is to influence your opponents or drive them diplomatically to your political ideologies or objectives. Thence, Dr. Machar decided to meet John Garang and convinced him as He promised the International community and Khartoum in April 1997. That meeting gave Dr. John Garang vested interest more than ever to take-part in the peace process, as he was rendered leadership etc.

But conditionally, the Southern Sudanese people’s right to Self-Determination approved internationally in Frankfort and accepted (enacted into constitution) by Khartoum must be in an upcoming would-be Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Immediately, Dr. Garang agreed to the latter and the talks for CPA with Khartoum were initiated. This was primarily stated in a political charter inked in 1997 between the NCP & UDSF. Where Southern Sudanese people were granted the constitutional right to choose between UNITY and SEPARATION in a well organized Referendum. That meant the case of Self-Determination discussion was already finished. It wasn’t discussed again when the SPLM/A & NCP were negotiating CPA, because NCP accepted it since 1997 in Khartoum. Only the time frame was changed from four to six years after which Southerners were asked to cast their true voices in a Referendum. The deployment of Peacekeeping forces—United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS).

Unfortunately, when Beny Museveni’s helicopter took the life of the Sudanese’s hero, Dr. John Garang, a political leadership vacuum was created. As a result, the most qualified Dr. Riek, with more political and diplomatic knowledge than many other SPLM members, who knew how the void could be successfully handled, was proposed by some to fill the leadership vacuum. However, he said “No Salva Kiir must take over the leadership. I will only assist him in leadership”. Kiir in that juncture accustomed himself into a fatal mode. He was extremely in need of leadership. That was why he applied his military tactics to kill Dr. Garang just one month prior to CPA conclusion in 2004. As He promised His comrades in Eastern Equatoria’s new site, Dr. Machar continued His already started process of removing all visible obstacles which could prevent Southern Sudanese’s right to Self-Determination/ Referendum (SEPARATION) from happening. He negotiated successfully all Secession-related issues, yet, again with Mohamed Taha of NCP cunning regime in Khartoum.

Irreproachably, in 2008/2009 came the preparations for 2010 Sudan general elections. Of course, NCP and SPLM were implementing the CPA and it was stipulated in the CPA that the SPLM’s Chairman and his deputy will be possible Candidates in national (Khartoum) and Southern Sudan’s Presidencies, respectively. Which mean the SPLM’s Salva Kiir was set to stand against NCP’s Bashir in national’s Presidency in Khartoum. While SPLM’s Dr. Riek was set too to stand against other Parties’ able candidates in Southern Sudan’s Presidency in Juba. Perhaps, Dr. Machar telescoped it that Kiir was going to fail in Khartoum and Kiir’s failure, undeniably, would set Southern Sudan on fire for Kiir would never accepted going home peacefully as agreed in the CPA that any Presidential candidate who would lose elections would automatically go home.

This as well would mean that the Referendum would have not taken place peacefully. Dr. Machar reversed the matter because it seemed as a trick from the unionists. He (Dr. Machar ) went to Beny Kiir Museveni again and said to him. “Mr. President, here you are, takes our Presidency in Juba instead of going to Khartoum. I need South Sudanese’s people to vote freely, peacefully in their overdue Referendum comes 2011. I want the stoppage of our people slavery, more than this Presidency given to me by the CPA”. What a wise and visionary Leader! Viva Dr. Machar! This I think was the genesis of the two “Gentlemen agreement” in 2008-2010. As He promised in 1991, Dr. Machar worked very hard for 20 good years (1991-2011) until His opponents, the Southern Unionists, convinced and practically believed in a wise saying that goes “It does exactly what it says on the tin”.

Vividly, South Sudan Referendum was indeed held in a peaceful convincing environment on 15-22 January 2011. These and many more are the steps, processes that were wisely taken by Dr. Machar Teny only to secure an Independence Republic of South Sudan. Now we have our INDEPENDENCE country! The question of why Kiir Museveni failed in administering South Sudan’s affairs in a short period of less than two years is entirely based on Naath wise saying below. “Every Man knows how he lies in a fastened-liked way, with his wife in a bed”. This can poorly illustrates as If a man is asked to lead, build a country or implement political programs which he never dreampt of, then every things would eventually fall apart.

In a retrospect, as a SPLM/A-Torit Unionist’s Chief security, Kiir Museveni was busy planning a revenge on the Southern Separatists. They were all dreaming to put up Khartoum not Juba. It appeared, what Kiir Museveni was preparing for, during those two years of Independence, was how to have his old rival group slaughtered in part or in whole and claim their credits, such a failure’s mentality. The unionist are still guilty as they read this article. He was very proud to become the world youngest country first President that he did not prepare for, a position he soon used against his old rivals. Unlike Nelson Mandela of South Africa who was jailed for 27 years, if arrested in December last year in Juba, Dr. Machar might have been killed or given life imprisonment by Beny Kiir Museveni, but, thank God Dr. Machar survived that well-planned assassination and massacre of Nuer Ethnic tribe, which was calculated to begin with Him in the evening of 15 December 2013.

Give what belongs to Cesar to Cesar and what belongs to God to God!

This piece of historical facts article is aiming at giving rightly what belongs to Southern UNIONISTS and what belongs to Southern SEPARATISTS. There is no recognized University or College worldwide which can award Bachelor’s Degrees anyhow to everybody just in a given city. Educational Degrees are always awarded to Students who physically did all due processes and completed all semesters-courses accordingly. The same thing, in all political schools of thought, political and historical credits are entirely given to the right owners. I mean the credit must be given to genuine Engineers who politically and evidently won that sort of entity.

Unless you brought Self-Determination to the ordinary people and make sure they are categorically rightly mobilized-well from grassroots to vote overwhelmingly; first of all, you need to have had well-informed subordinates in every corner that can effectively sensitize or mobilize population on their own. Unequivocally, tell them why they should vote for UNITY or SEPARATION that you favor like Dr. Machar, Peter A. Sule, Alfred Taban, etc did. Otherwise you would end up alone whispering shamefully while biting your fingers’ nails on a chair of failure. Hence, we shouldn’t mix up political and historical Leaders’ achievements. If I happen to write South Sudan‘s history today, for instance, and I mention in it that Justice Peter A. Sule of UDF, was an extreme Unionist during the struggle, who would agree with me?

If not, let’s us call spade a spade. In fact, New Sudan Vision or United Sudan would have been SPLM/A-Torit’s Unionists achievement if they successfully mobilized Southern Sudanese people to overwhelmingly voted for UNITY in the Referendum in 2011. On the other side of the coin, given the processes that led to South Sudan’s Independence 2011, some of which narrated above, South Sudan is Dr. Machar’s achievement. If there are people to be apportioned any of this achievement, then it should be other separatists’ leaders like Fr. Santarino Olure, Mr. Gai Tut, our former President Mr. Joseph Lagu, Mr. Akuot Atem etc. So, an overall prize or political credit must squarely be awarded or given to Dr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon!

Conclusion

Moreover, should Dr. Riek Machar Teny succeed again in His current diplomatic search for Federal Democratic Republic of South Sudan, with Human Rights and successful application of Rule of Laws, as the last portion of His three political programs, the objectives which He first announced in 1991, then Dr. Riek Machar Teny will automatically be nationally and internationally recognized as the Genuine Founding Father of South Sudan.

The author is a concerned South Sudanese commentator. He can easily be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

More Articles...

Page 10 of 601

Our Mission Statement

To bring the latest, most relevant news and opinions on issues relating to the South Sudan and surrounding regions.

To provide key information to those interested in the South Sudan and its people.