South Sudan News Agency

Saturday, May 30th, 2015

Last update04:16:34 AM GMT

You are here: Opinion

The Armenian Genocide, the Khartoum Regime, and the National Prayer Breakfast

By Eric Reeves

February 4, 2015 (SSNA) -- The "National Prayer Breakfast"—a sixty-two year tradition in Washington, held annually on the first Friday in February—will this year commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Bringing together a wide range of guests from all fifty states and more than 100 countries, the event is hosted by the U.S. Congress and is designed to facilitate engagement between various social and religious groups. This year President Obama and the Dalai Lama are headline guests.

But we must wonder about the appropriateness of one of those invited, Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti of the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime in Khartoum, Sudan. Any perusal of Karti's "record of service" to this cabal of génocidaires should make all in attendance uneasy, particularly given the terrible genocide of a century ago that is being commemorated on this occasion. For Karti has long been a key member of the regime and done some of its dirtiest work, particularly as head of the Popular Defense Forces (PDF)—a militia organization notorious for its savage attacks on civilians (Karti was appointed in 1997). The PDF were particularly active in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan, where the Nuba people were targeted for most of the 1990s in a brutal campaign of extermination. No student of the period characterizes the actions by Khartoum and its military and militia forces in the Nuba Mountains as anything other than genocide.

And Karti is presently the international face of a regime that remains committed to genocidal counter-insurgency in Darfur. Indeed, efforts to destroy the lives and livelihoods of the non-Arab or African tribal populations of Darfur have accelerated dramatically over the past three years, particularly in 2014, when some 500,000 people were newly displaced. The UN Panel of Experts on Darfur has recently reported that in the first five months of 2014, more than 3,300 villages were destroyed—overwhelmingly those of the region's African tribal groups. As has long been the case, displacement and violence in Darfur correlate extremely highly. North Darfur is presently the region that is enduring the worst atrocities committed against civilians, including mass rape, indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets, village destruction, land appropriation, and murder on a large scale. Again, the targets are inevitably the African tribal groups of the region perceived as supporting the longstanding rebellion; and Khartoum is using not only its regular Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), but the new Arab militia force known as the Rapid Response Forces (RSF), a part of the legacy of the PDF that Ali Karti once headed.

Currently some 3 million Darfuris are internally displaced or refugees in eastern Chad; many more are in critical need of relief efforts, efforts by distinguished international humanitarian organizations that Khartoum has, for more than a decade, systematically obstructed, harassed, expelled, and intimidated.

And yet Karti has attempted during his tenure as Foreign Minister—he was appointed in January 2010—to minimize the genocidal destruction in Darfur. In August 2011, speaking to a pending UN resolution—Karti's office declared at his behest:

"The resolution is full of negative and obsolete references to be resolved within the framework of the tripartite mechanism, such as visa problems and allegations of aerial bombardment and the violation of human rights," the foreign ministry said. (Agence France-Presse [Khartoum], 2 August 2011.

In fact, what Karti referred to as "allegations" had for years been substantiated by every human rights group working on Darfur (until they were all expelled, along with all independent journalists). These include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Physicians for Human Rights. The civilian bombings were and have continued to be verified by the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur. To refer to confirmed atrocity crimes as mere "allegations" tells us that above all, Karti represents the NIF/NCP regime, not the people of Sudan. And there is nothing "obsolete" about the daily reports of atrocity crimes committed in Darfur.

In short, Khartoum continues to wage genocidal counter-insurgency war in Darfur, and efforts by Karti to minimize these realities make him deeply complicit.

The regime Karti represents to the world also continues its campaign of more than three years against the people of the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State. Relentless aerial and ground assaults in the two areas have left more than one million people displaced and without humanitarian resources; many are close to starvation because Khartoum has imposed an embargo on all relief efforts in areas controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-North (SPLM/A-N). It is nothing less than a repeat of the genocidal campaign of the 1990s in the Nuba. And for this, too, Karti makes no apology—even when SAF combat aircraft deliberately strike at hospitals, as has been the case at the Mother of Mercy Hospital in Gidel and the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Frandala, South Kordofan. The latter, winner of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize, has been attacked twice in the past year, despite apprising Khartoum of their location.

Because Karti is well-spoken, and has made some of the right noises for Western audiences, he is the point-person in Khartoum's present charm offensive, particularly as it is addressed to the U.S. and the Obama administration. Karti has met with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and twice with current Secretary of State John Kerry. The effort, evidently encouraged by the Obama administration, is to achieve a détente between Washington and Khartoum. So lustful for counter-terrorism intelligence is the Obama administration that it is willing to overlook all the crimes this regime must answer for. Notably, for example, at a meeting on October 1, 2013,

Secretary of State John Kerry met his Sudanese counterpart [Karti] for talks on Monday on the South Sudan peace process and conflict-hit areas like Darfur, but did not raise U.S. concerns over the government’s crackdown on protesters, the State Department said. (Reuters [UN/New York], 1 October 2013…

This meeting followed immediately upon an extraordinarily bloody effort by the regime to put down a popular uprising over rapidly declining economic conditions. Amnesty International reported at the time that security personnel had been given "shoot to kill" orders in dealing with demonstrators, and many hundreds were killed or wounded in Khartoum, Omdurman, and other major towns in Sudan. Kerry knew this, but chose not to raise the issue with Karti. Karti for his part would have subsequently reported to the génocidaires in Khartoum that the U.S. was not inclined to press the regime on human rights abuses of the worst sort, this in exchange for putative counter-terrorism intelligence provided by Khartoum (which hosted Osama bin Laden from 1992 – 1996, the years during which al-Qaeda came to fruition).

Nor has the Obama administration pushed for a humanitarian corridor to be opened to the people of the Nuba or Blue Nile; indeed, the administration never speaks about these scenes of terrible human suffering and destruction. Thousands have already died from malnutrition and disease, and some 200,000 have fled to Ethiopia or South Sudan. People have fled their homes and villages to live in caves or ravines—desperate to escape the shrapnel-loaded barrel bombs that are a daily reality, particularly in the Nuba. For this Karti makes no apology; indeed, he and other civilians in the regime have long ceded decisions about war and peace to senior military officials. One of these men, Defense Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, has been indicted by the international Criminal Court for massive crimes against humanity in Darfur; President and Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir has been indicted by the Court on multiple counts of crimes against humanity and genocide.

The failure of the Obama administration to push hard and publicly for a humanitarian corridor to provide food, medicine, and shelter to many hundreds of thousands of human beings gives us all too clear a picture of the cost of doing business with the regime Karti represents.

Karti has arrived in the U.S. for the National Prayer Breakfast with a visa issued by the Obama administration's State Department. He is accompanied by a less conspicuous but no less savage regime survivalist, political secretary of the NIF/NCP Ibrahim Ghandour, who was also issued a visa by the State Department. Ghandour's views are revealed in the leaked minutes of a secret August 31, 2014 meeting of the most senior military and security officials, where he reveals his support for (among other policies) a scorched-earth campaign in the Nuba Mountains, designed to "starve"—the word accurately translates the Arabic—the Nuba people by burning their fall sorghum crop, the staple grain of the region. His comments from the minutes are excerpted and annotated at http://wp.me/p45rOG-1AO . His main task is clearly to rig the "re-election" of President al-Bashir; and the lengths to which the regime is prepared to go to orchestrate a "legitimizing" electoral process are both extraordinary and extraordinarily comprehensive—and completely corrupt.

The Obama administration has already declared its willingness to stand by the regime despite its record of serial genocides, which includes the massive human destruction and displacement of the Nuer people during the "oil war" (1997 – 2002) in what was then Western Upper Nile, now Unity State. Karti's PDF militias were active participants in the conflict at this point. Former special presidential envoy for Sudan, Princeton Lyman, declared in late 2011—after the campaigns of annihilation were well underway in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and continuing in Darfur:

“We do not want to see the ouster of the [Khartoum] regime, nor regime change. We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” (Asharq Al-Awsat, 3 December 2011 | http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=27543

By "we" Lyman meant the Obama administration, which has expediently indulged this preposterous political scenario. This is the same administration that decided to "de-couple" Darfur from the issue of real strategic interest: counter-terrorism cooperation with Khartoum. The word "de-couple" was used by an unnamed senior State Department official, but was reported in the official transcript.

The Armenian genocide should be commemorated at a National Prayer Breakfast; the refusal to recognize this genocide—and the belated recognition by much of the world—is a failure to acknowledge the terrible suffering and destruction of the Armenian people a century ago—it remains a "stain on our soul." But this is the same phrase that candidate Obama used to describe Darfur in 2007:

"When you see a genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or in Darfur, that is a stain on all of us, a stain on our souls .... We can’t say 'never again' and then allow it to happen again, and as a president of the United States I don’t intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter." ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEd583-fA8M#t=15 )

Obama's attendance at this year's National Prayer Breakfast, in the company of Khartoum's Foreign Minister Ali Karti, signals precisely that he is "turning a blind eye" to realities in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile—that he has "abandoned" them to on the going slaughter in which Ali Karti is deeply complicit.

It is a day of national disgrace.

Eric Reeves is the Author of Compromising With Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007-2012 (www.CompromisingWithEvil.org).

Confusion on 'Government' and Joke of 'Equatoria Community'

By James Okuk, PhD

February 3, 2015 (SSNA) -- I read the agreement by President Kiir and Dr. Riek on "Areas of Agreement on the Establishment of the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) in the Republic of South Sudan" and its annex on proposed power sharing formula. Also I read the Conference Resolutions of Equatoria Community presented by its three governors to the IGAD's Mediators Envoys in Addis Ababa.

1. The agreement could be termed as semi-break-through because IGAD seems to be reaching the tipping point of the dead-end of the whole affair. IGAD warns: Finalize it before it is too late for you or count us out of it if you don't compromise to reach final peace agreement by April 2015. I hope this is a real final call from IGAD before its flight kicks off for good. Arusha got buried in Addis Ababa; requim mass for it is the only wait!

2. As the principals of war and their negotiators go back to Addis Ababa next three weeks, I would like some clarification on the term 'Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS)'. There is confusion in the usage of this term, unless the negotiators and mediators have come up with another meaning from what we know from literature of politics. Who shall be that 'Government' when the implementation of any sharing of power is finalized? Will the government be composed of SPLM party's members at home (e.g., Salva Kiir, Wani Igga, Manase Magok, Joseph Bol, et al)? Will it be composed of the SPLM party's members at home in addition to other political parties' members who are participating in the current Kiir's government (e.g, Elia Lomuro, Martin Tako, et al)? In short, will those political parties who are part of the current government (executive) be sharing the proposed 60% for the GRSS so that the proposed (10% or 14% or 20% or whatever leftover %) share remains reserved for 'Other Political Parties' who are not part of the current government? Not only this, but also who shall be called the 'Government' after the implementation of the percentages of the shares have been actualized? Will it be all of those parties' members participating institutionally in the government from the agreed shares or it shall remain to be referred to those with Kiir? In my understanding, the power sharing needs to be for the government. It does not make sense but confusions if a government shares power for a government! The use of 'SPLM-IG' could make sense in sharing for government positions than the use of term 'GRSS'.

3. The Equatoria Community is killing political partism in the Republic of South Sudan. Its resolution is an evidence that those who came up with the resolution are not loyal to the SPLM but their own region only. If governors of every regional community (Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal) adopt the same political behavior, I don't think South Sudan is going to head anywhere politically as far as governance is concerned. Perhaps, it would be better we encourage creation of political parties called 'Equatoria Party', 'Bahr el Ghazal Party' and 'Upper Nile Party' rather than allowing and supporting the scrupulosity of one region.

4. I laughed when I read in the resolution that Equatorians are for Salva Kiir to remain as the President of the Republic but at the same time proposing rotational presidency during the transitional period. Why rotate Kiir to a lower level if you are sincerely for him at the top post? Why mix courage with cowardice! Equatoria Community is joking. I tend to think so.

Dr. James Okuk is lecturer and public analyst in area of politics. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Arusha resets SPLM for another round of senseless violence

By Elhag Paul

February 3, 2015 (SSNA) -- The agreement for the unification of the SPLM signed in Arusha, Tanzania on 21st January 2015 by the three factions of the SPLM party must not be bought by South Sudanese as a solution for stability in the country. Right from the word go the IGAD leaders believed that for the ragging conflict in the country to come to an end, the SPLM/A needs to be united. 

This belief is based on assumptions that the SPLM represents the entire people of South Sudan. How they reached this conclusion nobody knows. IGAD ignored all the facts presented to them by the media and continued to pursue their misguided plan. Please see, ‘IGAD inadequate strategy in South Sudan’ http://allafrica.com/stories/201404140864.html and ‘The solutions to South Sudan’s political problems lies in new blood’ http://allafrica.com/stories/201404040507.html

What is clear is that the SPLM represents the interest of a single social group and it is this concrete fact that is responsible for the chaos and fragmentation of the country. SPLM/A is the cancer of South Sudan and reunifying it and supporting it will just lead to more uncertainty and insecurity as there is today.

The IGAD leaders exerted all their efforts to realise that end. Now they have their agreement. Will it really bring peace and stability to South Sudan? This remains to be seen. 

SPLM/A is incompatible with the state of South Sudan. It’s very foundation is anti South Sudan and because of that it has not visualised itself governing an independent South Sudan. Its vision looked towards seizing power in Khartoum and configuring the entire Sudan to realise its objective of the so called “New Sudan”. 

The very notion of independent South Sudan has always been an anathema to the SPLM/A. To embed this fact, let us revisit the words of this infamous organisation’s late leader Dr John Garang. In his speech of 3rd March 1984 he boldly and confidently declared, “The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) has been founded to spear-head armed resistance against Nimeiri’s one-man system dictatorship and to organise the whole Sudanese people under the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), through revolutionary protracted armed struggle waged by the SPLA and political mass support.” (John Garang Speaks, 1987 p19. The following year, Dr Garang went on to elucidate this position in his speech of 22nd March 1985 (ditto pp 25 -37).

SPLM being broad based movement adapted policies reflecting its main objective.   For example, it promoted a wide multi isms in the social and political space intended to destroy the dominantly imposed Arab culture and identity of the Sudan to realise a ‘New Sudan’. Theoretically, there was nothing wrong with this policy except that practically South Sudanese had had enough of Arab oppression based on culture and religion and they wanted an out from the Sudan.

As SPLM had been concentrating on its grand objective it failed to develop plan ‘B’ policies for governing South Sudan should it break away. So when the South Sudanese voted for secession SPLM was caught with its pants down. All of a sudden, it lost its objective as a liberation movement and became a hollow shell. It no longer had a ‘vision and direction’. The internal report which identified the loss of vision and direction of the organisation in 2013 appears to have failed to pinpoint the real cause of this situation.

Dr Riek opportunistically on 5th March 2013 seized on this finding and nominated himself to the leadership of the organisation in its national executive meeting. Impatiently and imprudently, he heaped the entire blame of failure on President Salva Kiir while distancing himself from everything that had been going wrong. For example, the massive corruption and lawlessness crippling the country. It must be remembered that this was the source of the current conflict destroying innocent lives in South Sudan.

Dr Riek all along since 2005 till 23rd July 2013 had been a member of the leadership of SPLM running the country. He bore equal responsibility for the failure of SPLM like President Kiir and the others. The reality is: the loss of vision and direction of the SPLM is neither President Kiir’s nor Dr Riek’s making. It is the result of a default occurrence emanating from the secession of South Sudan from the Sudan. President Kiir being semi illiterate can be forgiven for failing to foresee this important development.

However, Dr Riek who is highly educated should have identified the vanishing vision with the emerging ideological vacuum in the SPLM. The supposed apparatchiks of this infamous organisation – Pagan Amum, Dr Anna Itto, Suzanne Jambo and so on who are well educated should have equally identified this very problem and reacted to it. No one among them asked the simple question in January 2011 after the referendum: Now that South Sudan had decided to go its own way, what would be the vision of SPLM? The answer to this question would have helped them to think of alternative ways to adapt their party to realities of independent South Sudan.

Unfortunately all of them were asleep and busy plundering the new country of its resources. Please see, ‘Corruption saga: The SPLM five big guns or the quintet squirrels’ http://www.southsudannewsagency.com/opinion/articles/corruption-saga-the-splm-five-big-guns-or-the-quintet-squirrels

It is surprising that all of them latched on to the finding of the SPLM report to advance their own personal interests without examining the root cause: the secession of South Sudan has rendered SPLM irrelevant in the new environment of a new country.  It has become like an empty shell abandoned by the snail owner. 

Another thing that Dr Garang constructed into the working of SPLM is conflict. Conflict is an important part of SPLM’s life. It is what gives it the ability to constantly rejuvenate itself. For instance in mid 1980s the SPLM/A targeted the Uduk people of Upper Nile and the Equatorians in the far south of the country to advance its unionist policies as well as its hidden agenda of building Jieng power base in the movement simultaneously. 

This argument may sound bizarre but careful examination of it makes proper sense. Since SPLM officially is supposed to liberate the whole Sudan, it needed to be seen to bring all the people of the Sudan together. 

However, because SPLM also had a hidden tribal agenda, the two can not go in tandem. Bringing the people together meant that it would be impossible to concretise Jieng tribalism. The way to go round this obstacle was to institute a policy of divide and conquer. Dr Garang openly boasted of his ability to hit one tribe with the other in the then radio SPLM/A beamed from Ethiopia.

Tribalising the SPLM was not difficult for Dr Garang. The schisms of 1970s and early 1980s between the Jieng and the Equatorians discouraged the majority of South Sudanese tribes from joining the movement. The Jieng incensed by the decentralisation of South Sudan flocked to the movement in massive numbers with the intention to revenge. As a result Dr Garang filled the entire structure of the movement with the Jieng although there were people from other tribes present who qualified for such positions.

This tribal construction has since become the key generator of conflicts in the organisation. For instance, in mid 1980s saw SPLM/A target the secessionists, the Nuer and Equatorians; in 1991 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Nuer again; in mid 1990s saw the SPLM/A targeting the Equatorians especially the Didinga and Toposa; in 2004 saw the Jieng fighting among themselves over the governance of the movement; in 2008 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Chollo which resulted in the founding of SPLM-DC and then in December 2013 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Nuer for the third time.

In all these schisms except the 2004 one where President Kiir and the late leader of SPLM/A disagreed over management issues, the rest on surface appear to be wars over the objective of the movement but underneath they also were tribal wars of dominance just like the current ongoing conflict. Whenever a non Jieng expresses interest or aspires to challenge for leadership of the movement, the Jieng react violently while lying and rallying the other tribes to hit their target. It has become a habit of the Jieng to constantly vilify any non Jieng who wants to lead as a traitor. In 2008, in defence of Jieng interest Dr Lam was violently pushed out of the party and labelled as an Arab agent.

These internal wars within the movement and within South Sudan together with the larger war with the Sudan government in Khartoum coupled with the abysmal tribal management of the movement ushered in a culture of violence in the society which awfully has taken root in the psyche of the state of South Sudan.

From the foregoing SPLM/A clearly is a violent tribal organisation that does not represent the people of South Sudan. Its very existence is the fuel of conflicts and divisions in the society. This is all the reason why it is difficult to understand the reasoning of IGAD and the SPLM supporters in promoting its reunification. Obviously the IGAD countries have a reason and that has to do with their own interest which I will dwell on in a later piece.  Nevertheless, anybody arguing that the reunification of the SPLM will bring peace to South Sudan only exposes their ignorance of the organisation and its dynamics. Such a person knowingly and wilfully promotes the destruction of the country.

If anything, the SPLM/A needs to be disbanded or dismantled by any means available for the sake of survival of the state of South Sudan. SPLM members of-course would not welcome the contents of this piece. They are busy promoting the unification of the SPLM as the only thing that can bring peace to the country even when the evidence point to the other direction. For example, the writings of Dr Luka Biong Deng which unethically promotes Dinkocracy and those of Dr Peter Adwok Nyaba which mainly is leftist oriented.

I will not waste time to critique Dr Deng for obvious reasons but it is important to comment on Nyaba’s recent new position if only because he is a true patriot. 

Dr Nyaba publicly resigned from this monstrous organisation in June 2013 following its implosion. He unequivocally accepts it is a total failure (organisationally, structurally and ideologically). However, he finds it difficult to admit its slow but sure demise. In his article ‘Our intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology’ published by South Sudan Nation on 16th December 2014, he nostalgically argues, “The SPLM remains the only viable political forces that united South Sudanese across ethnic and regional fault line. It is therefore the only guarantee against fragmentation of South Sudan”.

This argument is grossly misleading because it seems to stem from a surface analysis and not from an in-depth examination of the realities of the struggle in the then Sudan from 1983 to 2005 and thereafter. SPLM has since its inception been an exceptionally violent, divisive, chaotic and tribal organisation. The evidence litters Dr Nyaba’s own book: The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan.

The current destruction of the resources of South Sudan including its people which the internationally community calls, “man made” derive from SPLM’s concept of ‘born to rule’. The Jieng, the owners and managers of this useless outfit proudly proclaim - the SPLM is the Jieng and Jieng is the SPLM. The two are faces of the same coin. 

SPLM benefitted from backlash to local, regional and international Islamic violence. Thus the reason South Sudanese joined the SPLM is not because it was a unifier of the people, but rather because Arab intensive oppression coupled with Islamic extremism and intolerance of the ‘other’ pushed the people of South Sudan to the bosom of SPLM. Khartoum’s theocratic policies left the people of South Sudan with no option but to flock to the SPLM in pretence in order to survive. In essence what appeared at face value as ‘love’ of SPLM by all the people of South Sudan giving it a false image of a unifier is in fact a ploy for survival. The true feelings and secessionist aspiration of South Sudanese was later to be proven at the referendum.

Remember SPLM’s objective has firmly been unionist in nature and antagonistically to the aspiration of the South Sudanese people. The late leader of the SPLM Dr John Garang proved the point by persecuting secessionists ruthlessly and crowing loudly that ‘our first bullets were fired against the secessionists.’ Garang violently imposed unionism on South Sudan through the killing of Akot Atem and Samuel Gai Tut.

Nyaba undoubtedly is a formidable intellectual and a gallant fighter. He fought for South Sudan as an SPLA officer losing a leg in the process. His fearsomeness and audacity can not be questioned. Nyaba while in Juba, the lion’s den, used his pen to demolish President Kiir’s lie of a coup in December 2013. Please see ‘From Dr Adwok: Sorry Sir, it was not a coup.’  http://www.southsudannation.com/from-dr-adwok-sorry-sir-it-was-not-a-coup/ 

When Nyaba resigned from the SPLM those of us who respected his intellectuality believed he would at last be shading light to the right path for South Sudan. Unfortunately, to our deep disappointment he regressed by rejoining the same hopeless organisation he quit in June 2013. His current position arguably can be seen as the embodiment of SPLM very pathology. Please see, ‘Arusha agreement briefing: We can’t leave the SPLM party to Salva Kiir’ http://nyamile.com/2015/01/25/arusha-agreement-briefing-we-cant-leave-the-splm-party-to-salva-kiir/

Now the Arusha agreement intends to unify this monstrous organisation yet again, which will reset it for another round of bloodletting, as soon as a non Jieng aspires to lead it. However, even before this happens the agreement itself lays the seed of divisions in the centre of Jieng power. If the SPLM truly unites, the Jieng generals and their militia and the Jieng Council of Elders are likely to find themselves pushed away from the centre of power. This may lead into internal violent squabbles fracturing the delicate unity of the Jieng.

Another scenario which may be more likely is that the generals may take matters into their own hands by seizing power and handing it to one of the members of JCE. Whichever option that will transpire will be unacceptable to the people of South Sudan which means the conflict may continue to rage on for the unforeseeable future until the SPLM/A itself due to its violent nature hacks itself down into non existence leading to capture of power by the people.

The only positive thing from Arusha is that the process has exposed the facade of the Jieng system in Juba. It has educated the African leaders and shown light on the true culprits in South Sudan. This is highly welcome.

So, neither SPLM-IG, nor SPLM-IO, nor SPLM-G10, nor SPLM-DC (now excluded from the deal), individually or collectively or united can provide a solution to the country. They have never had a vision for South Sudan other than theft, corruption, killings, tribalism and chaos. What is needed is a new group with a new vision and humane values driven by the concepts of ‘common purpose’ and ‘common good’. 

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

The author lives in the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

More Articles...

Page 22 of 652

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.