South Sudan News Agency

By Asha Abdel Rahim

March 4, 2013 (SSNA) -- While South Sudan has many resources at its disposal (oil, other mineral deposits, agriculture, animal resources) that can be the basis of wealth for all its citizens, a multitude of constraints hold back their exploitation: unambiguous land rights, a minimal road infrastructure, absence of railways, poor state of river transport; lack of electricity and effective communication systems (e.g. internet connectivity), and a very low level of education and health care.

As the private sector is still in its infancy, the public sector plays an overriding role. Because of this, the quality of fiscal (revenue and expenditure) management is vital. Three strands of discussion are relevant to this context: first, the discussion on state building, especially in a post-conflict context. Second, the discussion on public finance management and its reform; and third, the discussion on the challenge of dealing with dependence on mineral and aid rents (termed as 'resource curse').

In each of these areas numerous lessons have been learnt but controversies remain. South Sudan has tried to adopt such lessons and its experiences can also provide interesting insights and inform the discussion.

This article focuses on state building. Because the country was largely neglected both during colonial rule as in the independent Sudan, the challenges of state building and post-conflict reconstruction basically coincided. In both of these fields many mistakes have been made internationally and many lessons were learned. One key misconception in both efforts has been the serious underestimation of the tasks. A second has been the view that 'best practices' developed anywhere can easily be copied and transplanted in any context. Basically, development experts believed that building the capacity of the state to carry out its core functions - security, infrastructure development, health, education, and taxation to finance all these tasks - would be an easy endeavor.

However, reality has proven otherwise. 50 years after independence of many states, their capacity in these respect is still the same or even worse. Professor Pritchett, who recently visited South Sudan pointed out the dangers of over-ambition in regard to goals and standards relative to available capacity, the establishment of bodies that have the form of modern organizations but do not really execute their tasks, and the neglect of local contexts. These lessons of other countries should give a warning sign to late-comers to state building as South Sudan. Are these lessons taken on board here?

During the six year peace period following the signature of the CPA in 2005, numerous governance institutions and organizations were set up and plans, laws, and concept papers were laid down. Since independence in July 2011, this process continues. While these institutions are largely following the model of a modern democracy, unsurprisingly they do not yet measure up to their standard. The country's transitional constitution of 2005 constitutes the three arms of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary.

The country has no less than 29 ministries (recently reduced from 37) and 21 commissions. It introduced a decentralized system of governance with the central national level, 10 states, and the local government level with 73 counties. Substantial powers are devolved to the sub-national levels (see below next section). Not all of the commissions are, however, as yet effective, nor are all the laws and policies.

A parliament with two houses - the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and the State Council (SC) with representatives from the 10 states - 332 and 50 members respectively. While the lower house has also members from the former Sudan parliament, and members appointed by the political parties and by the president, the members of the upper house are partly from the former Sudanese State Council and partly appointed by the president. Thus the system cannot be called 'elective democracy'. Nevertheless, in the opinion of most people, the parliament meets the aspirations of an inclusive body, covering all regions, political and ethnic groups and gender (25% of the members have to be women).

The ruling party, SPLM, holds 90% of the seats. While five opposition parties are in the parliament, they do neither have the resources nor the experience to formulate policies and to pose an effective and credible opposition. Moreover, these parties tend to be one man shows and/or are based on a specific ethnic group. If anything, the potential for democratization through parties is currently more within the SPLM that has various factions, including army officers, academics, activists, and modern professionals.

A major reason for the very limited control function of the parliament is the ignorance of many members about the function of a parliament and the limited competence especially in the English language. While some are highly educated and experienced, others have little education, among them veteran civil war fighters. Whether the parliament will grow into a relevant institution will depend on the ability of the members to acquire the means and the competences that are required. However, it will be decisive for its role and the relevance that civil society will expect and demand from parliament.

The Interim Constitution provides for an independent judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. The president’s Supreme Court appointments must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority in parliament (the National Legislative Assembly - NLA). The embryonic court system is under huge strain. In September 2011, the chief justice said the courts had the capacity to handle 100,000 cases a year, but in fact faced four times that number. He called for a greater use of traditional dispute-resolution systems to ease the burden of the court system. Interference by the Executive also undermines the independence of the Judiciary.

The South Sudan Anti-Corruption Commission (SSACC) has not proven to be effective. Corruption is widespread and has not as yet been effectively addressed, as many of its beneficiaries are known to be among the top leaders and are regarded as deserved former freedom fighters that seem to be untouchable. No official has been prosecuted for involvement in corrupt practices since the establishment of the SSACC five years ago.

Both South Sudanese citizens and international actors are increasingly concerned about the pervasive and destructive impacts of corruption, but according to the OECD, despite statements to the contrary, 'there is little will to address it'.

A ray of hope is the South Sudan National Audit Chamber (SSNAC), which, despite very limited means, published reports on the government financial statements for the years 2007 and 2008 that spell out the numerous and major shortcomings. Although presented to the president and to the parliament, no concrete steps seem to have been taken.

Another positive and important development is the establishment of the National Bureau of Statistics (SSNBS) that continues to bring out more and more economic and social data that provide a basis for a more evidence-based policy making process. This institution thereby contributes to transparency in government and with regard of the social situation.

The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP) combines the tasks of annual economic planning and longer term development planning as well as donor coordination. Its capacity has been strengthened since 2006. However, this is not the case for the remaining 28 other ministries which often have quite limited tasks and may also have overlapping functions, like those for transport and roads & bridges, or are closely related to each other (as an example, there are two ministries for education).

All in all, the large number of newly created government bodies is troublesome. First, they have to cope with the extremely limited pool of skilled staff to get them working. Second, they create a large scope for duplication, and for overlapping and conflicting functions. Most importantly, the broad number of organizations has negative implications for depth of fulfilling tasks and for effectiveness of operations.

Why did this happen? What are the motivations behind? Two explanations offer themselves: First, bloated organizations are created to absorb former fighters, to create jobs, and to benefit on other elements. Second, donors press for and (part-) finance institutions they think are important and that are currently in vogue in development circles. These include for instance the SSACC. It doubles functions that should be done by others, including the Auditor General, the Ministry of Finance, and the Judiciary. Furthermore, the budget of the SSACC even surpasses that of the vital South Sudan Audit Chamber (SSAC). Similar arguments could - and should - be made for most of the Commissions, whose tasks should be executed by the ministries themselves. The effectiveness of many of these Commissions is reportedly very weak.

In the context of present austerity, existing organisations need to be thoroughly scrutinized. Necessary priorities of South Sudan need to be listed and accordingly the vital institutions should be capacitated - that means, be given the resources to function properly. A key lesson is: not everything can be done at the same time.

The author is Assistant Professor and Head of Economics Department, University of Juba, an executive member of South Sudan Economic Association. This article is based on the academic article Macroeconomic policy formation in South Sudan: Building fiscal management jointly published with Dirk Hansohm.

By Peter Reat Gatkuoth Both

“The chain reaction of evil — conflicts producing more wars — must be broken or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation”(Martin Luther King, Jr).

March 3, 2013 (SSNA) -- In these recent centuries, there has been an increased international and national concern over the impact of conflicts and wars associated concerns on the civilian populations. These wars and unplanned attacks on the civilian territories had brought the global society to experience an unimaginable destruction. This destruction has caused a great atrocity to the civilian as a result of indiscriminate attacks on the civilian dwelling centers that were connected with the military garrisons. In most cases, surprise attacks always resulted in heavy casualties especially to the innocent civilians in the villages or towns because they are always not aware of ongoing dispute between the warring parties.

The reciprocity and the principle of distinctions are of central importance in the conflicts scenario that involved non-state actors. Reciprocity in international law “refers to the expectation by belligerent states that other state parties to a conflict should respect similar and behavioural norms” such as non-use of prohibited weaponry, minimization of collateral damage, inhumane treatment of prisoners of war while Principle of distinction is “a legal concept proved by the international law society, and it imposes on commanders and soldiers the duty to distinguish military objects from the civilians objects.” Therefore, in an attempt to reflect on this commentary concept, the scope of this article argued that the principle of distinction is a legal framework, set forth for the improved protection of civilian populations - an understanding that allows for the greater application of international humanitarian law to the non-state actors.

“The principle of distinction is the cornerstone of the set of rules or norms of international Humanitarian law regulating the manner in which hostilities must be conducted.” It holds that civilians and combatants are clearly distinguishable protagonists on or near the battlefield. “This tendency exists not only in relations to non-international armed conflicts that take place within the territory of state, but also with regard to international armed conflicts, resulting from the third States.” Although violation of this principle of distinction from the combatants is clearly acknowledged in many cases such as the attacks of Donja Vieceriska in April 1993 by HVO (Bosnian-Croat Armed forces); the law of war as a system of military legal rule, regulated that “technical limits, at which necessities of war sought to yield the requirement of humanity,” ought to be respected as indicated in the legal procedure in international humanitarian law.

It worth knowing though that this principle of distinction in military operations have always been a steps to be taken in order to ensure the “principles of humanity, precaution and principles of discrimination and proportionality” when military personnel are conducting war or war associated actions in order to fulfill the expectations of civilians’ safety and protection of the others in army conflicts. Bosnian-Croat armed forces had once shown a severe example when they attacked many villages and killed “172 Bosnian-Muslim and destroyed 420 buildings.”

This massive violence or ethnic cleansing campaigns against Bosnian-Muslim civilian violated the first Additional Protocol of Geneva convention, art 48 which indicated that “in order to ensure respect, and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants; and between civilian objects and military objects, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives or target.” Note that this provision sets out a dual obligation. The first is that the attackers must always distinguish between its own combatants and its own civilian populations. The responders must then direct its operations only against combatants and not civilians or civilians’ properties.

But in a nutshell and as an example to elaborate this commentary concept, the Bosnian-Croat armed forces finally failed not to distinguish between their own combatants and the civilians. The forces intentionally targeted the civilian population’s objects and failed to see the civilians as humanitarian agencies might wish them to do so, either because they decided that, innocent or not, killing the civilians is useful, mercy and perhaps necessary as a part of their “ethnic cleansing campaign” or inevitable options in their wars choice. Wider shocks at that time frame of the conflict remain often the hardest part for the poor Bosnian-Muslim community especially when their villages are repeatedly attacked and burn into ashes persistently. The Bosnian-Croat armed forces insisted on attacking and carried on, capturing towns while burning the villagers’ properties to ashes without limits on the conduct of warfare. This clearly demonstrated that not all national armed forces in the world are aware of the principle of humanity to protect human persons in a complex situation.

It was noticed that the forces did not recognize and accept the principle of distinction or the rule of engagement. They forced all the villagers by burning their houses, Mosques and churches across the dwelling centers. This act of burning mosque, churches and residential areas violated the first protocol, art 53 (a) that clearly stated that “all forces are prohibited to commit any acts of hostilities directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of the people.”

Notwithstanding though that the precaution in principles of humanity and distinction always highlighted and “prohibited the use of weapons that cause superfluous injuries such as poisoned projectiles, dum, dum bullets and so forth.” According to the international law perspective, “the contracting parties must always agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body; for instance, the bullets with hard envelope which does not easily cover the core or is pierced with incision.” The international military norms/rule stated that military operation should always aim at the target and differentiate the civilian from the combatants, simply because of the above concerns. This essence is one of good example of the principle of precaution that established the regulations that a “states must never use a weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military objects such as shelling the villages or bombarding the congregated dwelling centers where vulnerable members dwell. Instantly, few cases and materials of international law study indicated that even the NATO forces had once violated such an international humanitarian law “when they attacked the federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 to enforce a solution to the dispute over Kosovo.”

In the aftermath of the war over Kosovo, many questions arose regarding their compliance with international Humanitarian standard and expectations because there were many casualties during their first bombardment against the civilians, simply because they had incapably distinguished the civilians and military objects. In their first two months of aerial bombardment attacks, NATO forces had “killed 500 civilians and wounded 800 people on ground.” This aerial bombardment of NATO forces against the Yugoslavia clearly violated the principle of distinctions stated in the first protocol; that “any attack directed against civilian might be considered an indiscriminate attack.” This aerial bombardment in the spring of 1999 “caused a severe incidental loss of civilian lives, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects and properties which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

Although the NATO force intervened for the reasons to protect the civilians from the guerrilla forces as illustrated in the “responsibility to protect charter”, this act of aerial bombardment violated the first protocol, art 51 that indicated that “the civilian population and an individual civilian shall enjoy general protect against the danger arising from military operations and shall not be the objects of attack.” NATO interest at the time was to rescue the innocent children as indicated in UN security council resolutions; hence, the Yugoslavia civilians became subjected to maltreatment even when they adopted a zero-casualties strategy, which meant that the bombardment should be undertaken from height at which NATO aircrafts could not be hit by the enemy. The number of casualties increased higher as well than the first few months because of disproportional action taken in the height as to secure the safety of NATO pilots and aircrafts.

In the first Protocol to the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War which prohibits indiscriminate attacks, the principle of proportionality dictates that “launching an attack, which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian lives, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects/properties or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is prohibited.” Although in some instance, there are noticed unusual circumstances that the military forces are exposed; “proportionality is not a separate legal standard but ways in which a military commanders may assess his/her obligations as to the Law of armed conflict principle of distinction while avoiding actions that are indiscriminate.”

It should be an international call with consequences or sanction thereof that the methods and the means to fight has to be in standard of the Law of armed conflict although some wars usually forced the armed forces to conduct war with the tension to inflict pain or cause a big destruction as to win the war. This is in reference to the current terrorists war of our modern time where some states attacks the other states with the notion of causing a great pain to the states that they deem practicing and supporting the terrorists activities such as in Afghanistan.

In this scenario, Civilians always pay the price or become the victims of military operations because few armies usually do not want to fight a war in absent of the civilians. They sometimes used civilian as shield, and few militias group always like to be with the civilians even if it’s a time of operation for some reasons. If the international community and particularly, leaders of nationalities are serious about the safety of harmless civilians, then they must enforce these norms as a legal military system with severe consequences to the violators in particular. They must train the national army and put it forth as a law that the principle of proportionality must be highly expected from all parties involving in any conflict, and all of them regardless of their status as international, national or unconfirmed groups should always be required to “take all feasible precaution training and orientations in the choice of means and methods of attacks with the view to avoid incidental loss of the innocent civilians’ live.”

For instance, the WWI and the WWII are good examples to human and environmental destruction. This indiscriminate attacks of the two world Wars had brought a great adverse and severe effect to the lives of innocent civilians and therefore, it is of great interest to lawmakers, human rights activists, social activists and academia that any armed forces must always follow the military principle of distinction during an armed conflict, locally, nationally and internationally in order to limits the damage and suffering caused by conflicts. This includes “the protection of the victims and POWs of armed conflicts and in particular, those who reside in areas under the control of a party to the conflict to which they are not affiliated.”

In summary, the principle of distinction is a legal framework for any combatants that ought to be enforced worldwide to the men and women in uniforms. It regulates and prohibited all means and methods that cannot make a distinction between the civilians and those who take part in hostilities. It calls upon all combatants that the civilians and combatants must be distinguishable protagonists on or near the battlefield. “This tendency exists not only in relations to non-international armed conflicts that take place within the territory of state, but also with regard to international armed conflicts resulting from third States.” In the legal perspectives (principle of distinction) any attacks to the other State must have a “common agreement, fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity.” Although the world is changing as technology is rapidly changing the lifestyle of all human being, our old traditional lifestyle taught us (this is in African perspective) that battlefields should always be distanced from vulnerable groups, women, children or non-participants in conflict.

In most instance and in the interest of the people, the contracting or acceding parties usually reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever or wherever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles of distinction which they have established and to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity. In this perspective, President Clinton had once said it right that “we must always use military force selectively, recognizing that its use may do no more harms than provide a window of opportunity for a society and diplomacy to work. We; therefore, will send American troops abroad only when our interests and our values are sufficiently at stake. When we do so, it will be with clear objectives to which we are firmly committed and when combat is likely—we have the means to achieve decisively.” These requirements are as pertinent for humanitarian and other non-traditional interventions today as they were for previous generations during prolonged world wars.

Ubuntu Regards,

The author of this article is planning to write an article within few weeks to come, entitled “The responsibility to protect the citizens: An expectation that the international community wish South Sudan Government to perform in its national situation.” He holds a BA, and MA in International Law and Human Rights. He can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit his commentaries site @ www.peterreat.blogspot.ca

By Kuir ë Garang

February 27, 2013 (SSNA) -- The capitalist tsars in the West want to maintain the way things are. And that is, they want the poor to remain [poor] and the rich to continue to get rich. They employ the lower classes who work 40-60 hours a week to make the capitalists wealthy. Still, these poor workers are called lazy!

Yet still, we look towards Europe and America for guidance and goodwill. Then we wonder why Africa is still mired in the indescribable. Our poverty and political mess only help them remain wealthy.

How about Jubers! Nea! The hopeless me better not say!

I know all of us have been or are now being schooled in eurostandardized world. Our thoughts, our view of ourselves and our ideas are such that they have to be in line with what Europe has already standardized. This is required in some cases, however, there are cases where following this dug snare and ditch becomes our political and economic stagnation. Am I supposed to be optimistic?

I recently published a book: Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful? This book looks at Race, Color and Racism from an African perspective you can’t find in our contemporary euro-literature and scholarship. However, from the subject of the book, it’s very easy to see why such ideas are not addressed in the manner in which they are supposed to be handled. Most of us think “Black is Beautiful?” However, many of us don’t actually see the fatuitous insinuation in the proposition. So buckle up!

People scratch their heads when I ask them what you call a person who is proud of his or her race! They don’t have the answer! Why? Because Europe has decontextualized and instrumentalized the appropriate word.

I maintain in the book that the color (black) that has been used by the Europeans to describe the Africans wasn’t meant to be a presented glory for the Africans. However, the color has become so dear to the African person and the person of African descent to the point that they’ve owned the color per se. The African person has been so much lost in the ontic of this loosely descriptive, and begrudging color that she sees no difference between this describing color and her own skin and humanity. Black becomes her skin and her skin becomes black.

Okay, let’s get silly! Black President! Black Market! Black Friday! Black Man! Black Panther! Black Magic! Black Days! Point out your choicest pick! What a miasmatic state of affair for the scions of the colonized and the enslaved.

So, to be proud of oneself, one has to be proud of the color [black]. But does the color black describe the skin of the African? Does it describe the skin of the person of  African descent? No, obviously! However, the color has been accepted with near divine essence that black as a color and the African are seen as one and the same.

The question one would ask me is: if we are not black then what are we? You are black only because someone says you are. We have no name that stems from our own ingenuities. We are what Europe says we were… what we are now, and what we’ll be in the Future. 

Blackness is a description used by the Europeans to degrade the African person. And the poor African embraced it wholeheartedly! What else can she do anyway! The magnificent Europe calls herself white. Who dare ask the ridiculous?

So what is happening in South Sudan? This same ‘looking outside’ for the solution to our problems has crippled South Sudan and it will take it to its economic and political grave.

What is lacking in South Sudan is not creation of ideas strictly speaking, but the methods through which these ideas can be implemented. If corruption has to be dealt with comprehensively, then it has to be dealt with at all levels. Laws and regulations don’t implement themselves. There has to be across-the-board systemic instruments to deter every civil servant and politician from putting his hand into the cookie jar. And if that person is so callous as to put his hands into the jar, then these systemic methods can cause this civil servant’s hand to be caught inside then cookie jar.

If the Vice President, Riek Machar, calls for peace and reconciliation, he has to draft a comprehensive strategy and plan on how this peace and reconciliation can be achieved. Ideas and goodwill without any methods of efficacious implementation are just as good as the fancy ideas of that perennially drunken old fellow around the corner.

President Kiir calls for the police and the security agents to respect the average citizen. Without any systemic and institutional methods devised by the government to check the daily operations of these people and to hold them accountable, these people will continue to kill at will.

We need day-to-day instruments that can check daily operations of people in public offices. If some people slip through these instruments, then they can now be held accountable through instituted regulations and laws.

Let’s stop looking outside; at America and Europe for ideas that’d help us prosper. The poorer we are the wealthier the capitalists (who drive politicians like cars) in the west get. So don’t expect Europe and America to give us ideas that are helpful… in essence.

Let’s harvest our internal powers. Let’s be ingenious and come up with economic and political ideas relevant to our realities. And let’s not forget the methods to implement them; because implementation is the KEY! Let’s stop quoting the ideas of Dave, John and McDonalds from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford etc… etc. Okay, so you went to those universities! Why are you still talking about their ideas? Where are your own ideas?

Why do I even blame South Sudanese leaders when 90% percent of Africans and people of African descent answer ‘YES’ to this question: Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful?

Without strong innovative ideas and feasible ways to implement them then we are off the cliff! How long will we continue to look towards Europe for Salvation? And you expect me to be optimistic!

Kuir ë Garang is a South Sudanese poet, author and publisher living in Canada. For more information about the author, visit www.kuirthiy.info or http://thenilepress.com. You can follow the author on twitter: @kuirthiy