January 7, 2014

Dear Mr. Booth:

January 8, 2014 (SSNA) -- We, the undersigned South Sudanese academics, wish to acknowledge and commend you for the active role you are playing in finding a resolution to the tragic events currently unfolding in South Sudan.

The long suffering people of South Sudan, like any other people on earth, deserve better from their leaders. We suggest a short term and a long term approach to end the current tragedy.

In the short term, pressure must be brought to bear on the warring leaders of South Sudan to enter into immediate and unconditional ceasefire arrangements.

Once a ceasefire and monitoring mechanisms have been agreed upon, any long term solution, in our view, should include:

1. Restructuring of the Army (SPLA). This is essential to the realisation of long term stability in South Sudan. Currently, the two major communities – the Nuer and the Dinka – constitute more than two-thirds of the army, at all levels. Any of the two can hold the country at ransom, as recent events have demonstrated. In the interest of long-term stability, the three greater regions of Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr el Gazhal, should be equally represented in the armed forces.

This is a tried formula that held well in 1972, following the Addis Ababa Accord. At that time, while Equatoria alone could have supplied two-thirds of the absorbed Anyanya forces, for the sake of stability the leadership at that time in its wisdom decided to absorb 2000 soldiers per region.

Restructuring the army in this manner would aid the process of professionalizing and de-politicising the army. At present, the army's loyalty seems to lie mostly with the SPLM party, rather than with the state of South Sudan.

2. National Dialogue. It is important, in our view, that the discussions in Ethiopia be followed by a National Conference where representatives of all stakeholders would be invited. The relevant stakeholders include all the political parties, church leaders, youth and women organisations, veterans groups, and various other civil society groups. The problems facing South Sudan are national and thus require a comprehensive approach.

If need be, a transitional government headed by technocrats should be put in place with the mandate to organise the forthcoming election, reorganise the army, and conduct a national census.

3. South African Type of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The institution of such a commission would help to heal the deep wounds of hurt following the unspeakable violence and destruction and help to restore a sense of trust between the various nationalities in South Sudan.

The choice of the chair is important. There are few individuals with the moral authority to chair such a body in South Sudan. The natural choice would be Emeritus Bishop Paride Taban, who stands morally head and shoulders above everybody else in South Sudan. In the absence of the Emeritus Bishop, or other South Sudanese religious leader of high moral standing, it may be necessary to recruit someone from outside the country for this purpose.

4. Overhaul of the civil service. There is great need for a professional civil service, where appointments mirror experience and objective qualifications, rather than the current sense of entitlement based upon an individual’s perceived role in the liberation struggle. Unless the civil service is reformed in this manner, the delivery of much needed services to South Sudan’s citizens will remain elusive; in turn, leading to dissatisfaction and possible civil and political unrest.

5. Constitutional Review. The current Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan needs to be thoroughly revised with the aim of reigning in the excess powers given to the President, which includes wide discretion to fire elected governors. A fixed term of office for the President must be enshrined in the constitution. A fixed term may have help to avert the current power struggle between the incumbent and the deputy. The absence of a fixed term means that there is no definite entry point for any aspiring leader and creates undue political uncertainty.

Additional constitutional measures include strengthening individual rights, enacting greater separation of powers than now exists among the branches of government in South Sudan, and empowering the judicial and legislative branches.

6. Investigation into the Killings. We call upon the international community to ensure that a thorough investigation is undertaken into the reports of ethnically motivated killings of people of any national origin in all the theatres of war: Juba, Jonglei, Unity State, Upper Nile and any other areas. Anyone found guilty should be made to feel the full wrath of the rule of law, even if this means being referred to the Hague.

Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Yours Sincerely,

By [name withheld for security reasons]

Washington, DC, January 13, 2014 (SSNA) -- Just when you thought tribalism in the corrupt regime of tyrant Salva Kiir Mayardit could not get any worse, it reaches a new low, only this time it's happening just about a few blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C.

Sadly, if there are three words to describe the Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan to the United States, they are: The Dinka Embassy to the United States.

Let's break it down:

At the helm of this corrupt Embassy sits one of the most, if not the most, tribalist, corrupt and bigoted diplomat in foreign service, Dr. Akec Khoc, who shamelessly and heartlessly has turned what's supposed to be the people's Embassy into a family business. He employed his own tribesmen and women to be the only ones at his official residence. All of whom are in the payroll of the Embassy.

In addition, two of his relatives are released for studies while they continue to draw their monthly salaries from the Embassy.

But if you think you have seen it all, think again. The list bellow reveals that Dr. Khoc is carefully following the same bad path that was once walked by his fellow tribesman, former Police Inspector General, Ruben Mach, which let to the " Kokora" and ultimately the destruction of the then Regional Autonomy in 1983.

Diplomats:

Now, anyone with such record shouldn't be our Ambassador to the United States or any other country for that matter. I am sure I sound anti-Dinka here. But that's not the case. I'm just a disgusted citizen, who has witnessed such reckless, divisive and malicious actions from our Dinka friends.

Of all people in South Sudan, the Dinka are blessed with the most highly educated people in all walks of life, but apparently history is not one of them. Otherwise, why would anyone repeat the dark history that we continue to suffer from its consequences to this very moment.

We call for an immediate removal of Dr. Akec Khoc along with the army of his tribesmen and women.

By Jean C.B. [name withheld]

January 13, 2014 (SSNA) -- The government of Uganda under pres. Museveni has decided to interfere with the internal affairs of the Republic of South Sudan. Various members of the Museveni regime have given different reasons as to their presence in South Sudan. Initially it was reported that the UPDF was there to evacuate its trapped citizens. Later on the UPDF decided to provide further support to Pres. Kiir. This support included financial aid and military support to the government of South Sudan. The UPDF has contended that their reasons for engagement are to “secure key infrastructures”. One wonders whether the indiscriminate bombing of villages in Jonglei by Museveni forces meet this criteria. Perhaps this explains Uganda’s government rather ill-advised “peace enforcement” comment. Not “keepers” but “enforcers”. This is a direct admission of military engagement in a sovereign country.

The government of Uganda has also claimed that their economics interests in South Sudan are at risk. This reasoning seems plausible on the surface. After all Uganda annually exports goods valued at an average of 250 million dollars to south Sudan. In fact Uganda is the number one trading partner of South Sudan. More than 70 per cent of the trade is in agricultural produce. The formerly marginalized northern part of Uganda has significantly benefited from this trade. And Uganda managed to relatively weather the 2008 financial crisis thanks to the available markets in South Sudan. It would therefore be true that any insecurity in South Sudan would have negative economic effects on Uganda. A case in point is the near zero growth rate in GDP per capita recorded in Uganda for the fourth quarter of 2011.This was during the oil shutdown crisis in South Sudan. However, trade and economic interests do not justify the invasion of a sovereign state. Economics alone is not a sufficient reason for invading another country. Markets are generally unforgiving. And human nature/fallacy is part of the elements that shape markets outcome. In any case trade is mutually beneficial and one cannot militarily force their will on a trading partner. It’s the willingness from the trading partners that make trade desirable. This desire to trade reduces transaction costs and makes trade relatively efficient.

Furthermore, under the UN charter, Uganda has no constitutional right to invade a sovereign state in the name of “economic Interests”. And Pres. Kiir, under the constitution of the Republic of South Sudan has no constitution right to invite another country to take part in South Sudan’s internal political conflicts. The president has a mandate in case of external aggression but no such mandate in case of internal conflicts.And Kiir’s violation of the constitution does not justifies Uganda’s interference.

Another argument that has been put forth concerns the issue of Security and the imminent threat of the LRA. Uganda has the right to protect its territorial integrity but it does not have the right to pre-emptively invade another country. Uganda is currently protecting the presidential palace in Juba and securing the Juba international Airport; these acts constitute an “invasion”. Uganda is not protecting the people of South Sudan, it’s protecting the balance of power in the country By providing military personal to protect such installations; Uganda has free the resources that could have been used locally for such purposes.

As such, Uganda has engaged in direct military actions against the citizens of the Republic of South Sudan. UPDF forces through their aerial bombardment have killed civilians in South Sudan. UPDF must then be seen as a participant in the war and by extension the people of Uganda are participant in the war.

And here lies the unintended long term consequences of UPDF engagement in South Sudan. Will the people of the Greater Upper Nile allow Ugandans traders to do business in their region? Note that a majority of oil fields in South Sudan are located within the Greater Upper Nile, a region that is predominantly occupied by the Nuer people. And the Nuer people currently support Riek Machar. And I suspect that in the near future the people of Greater Upper Nile region will in some form use the Ugandans traders as a proxy to UPDF forces. And if Uganda’s traders cannot operate in the Nuer area, then this would mean a loss of revenue to Uganda. The government of South Sudan might guarantee some form of protection to all foreigners in the country; however, enforcement of such policies are very unlikely. There are no well-established institutions in South Sudan to uphold the constitution. These will leave Uganda’s traders vulnerable to any aggression from the people of the Greater Upper Nile.

Furthermore, issues related to UPDF’s exit strategy, Finances and possible deployment of more troops into South Sudan must be raised. If there is no cessation of hostilities and the war continue until one party succumbs, how long is UPDF prepared to stay in South Sudan? And since as time goes on and more and more people learns about their relatives getting killed in cold blood due to their tribal affiliation, its likely that more people will join the war. And civil war might break out.  Uganda will be forced to provide further assistance to Pres. Kiir, this is going to leave Uganda vulnerable to possible attacks from LRA or any other internal threat/rebellion. Will Uganda manage to fight in two war fronts? 

And since under the Uganda’s constitution any military undertaking- under section 39 ACT- of UPDF must be approved by the parliaments; and the representatives of the people of Uganda have not yet endorsed such undertakings, are the people of Uganda ready to finance UPDF intervention in South Sudan? The logical conclusion seems to be that South Sudan will finance the presence of UPDF. This is obvious from Gen. Wamala’s statements regarding a “Status of Force Agreement”. This means that UPDF will not be leaving South Sudan anytime soon, thus increasing the possibility of UPDF members committing crimes. These crimes might range from petty ones (thefts) to serious violation such as rape, manslaughter and murder. How are these issues to be resolved? And will Ugandans act kindly to the execution of their fellow countrymen in South Sudan? And how then will South Sudan uphold its constitution in such situations?

The UPDF has put a stumbling block to the peaceful negotiation in Addis Ababa. The presence of Uganda’s military personel has unnecessarily strengthened Pres. kiir’s hand in negotiations. It has allowed the government troops to have access to resources they won’t otherwise have and has bolstered their confidence in the talks. The unforeseen consequence is that the failure of the talks plays against Uganda’s economic interests. The fact that Pres. Kiir’s forces are not in a position to militarily defeat Machar’s forces should be of great concern to any third party. As failure of any agreement would mean that Machar will resort to guerrilla tactics. And Uganda will be force to further support and engage in the imminent civil war. And if South Sudan’s plunge into a civil war, then mr. Odong’s claims on protection of civilians from genocide does not hold much water. Protecting the presidential palace in juba is not protecting civilians and neither is indiscriminate bombardment of villages near Bor by UPDF. Uganda must seriously weigh the long term consequences of its military engagement in South Sudan. Any hope of ending the current crisis in South Sudan lies in Addis Ababa. A political solution is required not a military solution.

By Micheal G.K. Gatwic

Bor, January 14, 2014 (SSNA) -- The Grandfather of tribal militia that carried out genocide in Juba lives in the State House of Uganda.

The President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni, the ruthless Oppressor of the Great Lakes Region, decides to use a coward mean of destruction to kill democracy for a reason (oil money) best known to South Sudanese. Sooner or later, the food forces that are given to Kiir by Museveni to protect Juba’s genocidal regime will regret.

Museveni who is already drunk with Uganda’s politics, the man who cannot even afford to compensate all the survivors of a brutal “Atiak Massacre”, which was committed on the 20^th of April 1995 by Uganda’s ruthless Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement (LRS/M) is the real mastermind behind the December 15 genocide in Juba. Now, Museveni is following the same path LRA/M took in 1995 when it carried out genocide in Amuru District.

This time, Museveni, the self-imposed strong man of Uganda, recently intensifies his air campaign against rebels’ positions in Jonglei and Upper Nile States in an effort to try to save his embattled friend Kiir.

The Ugandan fighter jets and helicopters renew their bombing campaign on the 8^th of January 2014 with objective to commit mass killings or even to poison all forces that are loyal to Riek Machar. Air attacks in rebels controlled positions are continuing as I write this correspondence. It is clear to me that Kampala wants to commit a second genocide for blood money, regardless of what the world says.

The International Community should punish Museveni for singing a genocidal song with Kiir!

To citizens of Uganda

Ugandans should know that South Sudanese are not against you, the person we are against is your president and some of his trusted confidants. We know them all by names, no problem!! Please, understand that we will win this struggle despite the consequences. You should also know that your children (Uganda’s soldiers) are losing their lives here in South Sudan because of Museveni’s love for blood money. We feel sorry for your loses because we know they were forced to come here and fight against us.

Please, tell Museveni to:

• stop buying blood money with humans’ lives.
• compensate all the survivors of “Atiak Massacre” before meddling in our affairs.
• stop acting like Idi Amin Dada.
• stop lying to Ugandans about the fates of their dead sons whom you sent to fight against us because of blood money.
• stop telling Ugandans that their sons died in car accidents or heart attacks when they were in fact killed in South Sudan fighting for a war they have no idea.
• leave South Sudan now.

Salva kiir has already killed more than ten thousands innocent civilians in Juba alone and yet, the blood-thirsty Kampala old man who supposes to play a neutral role prefers killing over diplomacy.  Here in our beloved country, the flaming question on every South Sudanese mind is: Is Museveni in his right mind?

Uganda’s Museveni is the Conspirator of the December 15 Juba Genocide and he must be equally held accountable for the crimes Kiir’s tribal militia committed in Juba. Museveni is the admirer of South Sudan destruction and he must be held responsible.

By: Weirial Gatyiel Puok Baluang

January 17, 2014 (SSNA) -- South Sudan has over 65 different tribes who speak different languages. These people are known for their diversity, hard work, courage, hospitality, and many other unique cultural norms. The idea that a plan created by a Ugandan dictator can succeed in South Sudan is absurd. Yoweri Museveni must first study the people of South Sudan, and only then can he be sure of what to do. The South Sudanese are brave people and are afraid of no man but God. Therefore, dictator Museveni, who established himself as the teacher of a Kiir in Africa’s newest nation, must bear in mind that he lost the direction; Dr. Machar the forced rebel cannot be like the rests of east African leaders who fear him. The south Sudanese (Nuer) whom he is trying to massacre again apart from Kiir’s December 16, 17, 18, and 19 massacres are afraid of no man on earth but almighty father. They were massacred because it was planned for almost eight years and they were not in power. That was the reason that they lost more than 4000 innocents Nuer civilians in vain, not because their cowardice.

The involvement of Ugandan dictator Museveni is not a surprise to me since I had known him as the only leader in the whole world who has been ruling our country after the death of our late hero Dr. John Garang Demabiour indirectly.

The fact that President Museveni sent Uganda’s soldiers officially into South Sudan to fight alongside Kiir against the forced rebel Dr. Riek Machar Teny (the only threat to Kiir&Museveni) is ironical. The international community and South Sudanese must know that the Ugandan president is the one who gave all these ill-guidance to Kiir and he is now assisting him with covert military assistance intended to deal away with Dr. Machar’s Prodemocracy SPLA who are the south Sudanese at the same time.

Museveni and his Kiir are the one responsible for the massacre of more than 4000 innocents Nuer civilians who had nothing to do with the SPLM issues and most of them had never known about SPLM let alone its activities. Now dictator Museveni is again touching the same wound that they have caused some times back by sending his troops to fight alongside Kiir’Gelweng against the prodemocracy fighters and the Nuers as a result of tribal cleansing. The Nuer whom some of them have been murdered by the two Godly friend ( Museveni&Kii) are not’’ WEWES’’(Ugandans).

Appalling crimes have been committed against the Nuer civilians for no reason than their ethnicity by the two friends (Museveni&Kiir).

To the best of my knowledge the involvement of this dictator will not be the solution but fueling it to the maximum.

It is a shame for the two presidents (Museveni&Kiir) to fights against south Sudanese with Jets and Helicopter in the civil war!

Where were this Uganda president and his jets Helicopters during the south Sudanese agains Sudanese army war in heglig?

Dictator Museveni doesn’t want to lose the free oil money that he takes from his friend Kiir’s administration since 2005 unknowingly. Kiir thinks that Museveni is freeing him by fighting alongside him but Kiir may be a slave to Museveni in case the two united forces UPDF& pro Dictatorship SPLA of Museveni and Kiir respectively wins the military war against Dr. Machar’s prodemocracy SPLA. This is a true analysis because in economics, when you are owed or you are given money for borrow by somebody than failure to pay them back in the due time you will automatically become the slave to the creditor. It is ironical for any foreign country to exercise his/her military against our people (South Sudanese).

Kiir shows the signs and the symptoms of the weakest leader in the globe due to the fact that he is helped by the outsiders against his own people. South Sudan is nothing to the eyes of the world because of our weak and coward president Kiir mayardit who turned to be one of the sons of dictator museveni.

The world, and the South Sudan in particular, must know that the Ugandan president is not an expert in any good governance; he is only an expert in dictatorship. I want the good people of South Sudan to understand that Museveni is an experienced killer in Uganda, and we must tell him to stay out of our home dealings or else our nation will be another Somalia in our beloved Africa. The people of Uganda are our African brothers and sisters; but Museveni is separating the two friendly countries by fueling the current crises in our country that he has created.

Dictator museveni is putting the south Sudan and Uganda future relation at doom due to the fact that his days on the earth are numbered because of the blood of the people he has killed in cool blood. The bloods of our great leaders Dr. John Garang, George Athor and the rests will drive him to the grave as soon as possible.

South Sudan have got a well-qualified leaders unlike Uganda that has only one man (the so-called Museveni)

I came across the world history but I have never seen a foreign intervention in other country’s affairs directly like what have been done by dictator Museveni of Uganda.

Museveni doesn’t like president kiir as seen in the entire step he has taken, museveni a foreign president declare the capture of jameiza by his forces not the SPLA, what a shame to our president!!!

If all presidents were like my president kiir than there would have been no need of creating the country boundary. Museveni must not compare the south Sudanese with Ugandans, we the strong people of south Sudan we fought 22 Arab countries during the liberation days but we had never surrendered yet we gains our independence.

In conclusion,

I as a patriotic son of this expensive nation, I appeal for my brothers and sisters in south Sudan and in diaspora to strongly condemn the direct involvement of president Museveni of Uganda which has a bad contribution on our future generations. Remember our population during the 2008 census was less than Ten million but it will decrease in and increasing rate if this dictator Museveni involved militarily.

Furthermore, Ugandans must put in mind that their friendship with the south Sudanese got spoiled completely.

The author is concerned citizen of south Sudan: he can be reach through makakopaul@gmail.com

By Khorhok Gal

January 17, 2014 (SSNA) -- In March this year, SPLM higher political office, the Political Bureau met to discuss issues pertaining party documents among them are Basic Rule, Code of Conduct, Manifesto and the Constitution.  In the meeting, disagreement emerges among top leadership.

The disagreement was based on argument that whether the voting in party election should be by show of hands, or secret ballot.

Prior to this disagreement, Dr. Machar the Deputy Chairman and SPLM Secretary General Mr. Pagan Amum declared their intention to contest for Chairmanship of the party.  This has infuriated Mr. Salva Kiir and his inner circle, and the result was a delay of Political Bureau meetings.

However, by July after the President realized that he does not have much support from top leadership of the party he and his group decided to reshuffle the entire cabinet leaving only five of them among twenty –seven national ministers not mentioned assistant ministers.  The grand-reshuffle, made some of the party heavy weight to wonder whether Salva Kiir has sideline them from decision-making within ruling SPLM party.

Nonetheless, before reshuffle, the President also suspended the Ministers of Finance and Cabinet Affairs due to their involvement in corruption scandal that involves more than $7.9 million USD.  The suspension of two ministers was criticizes by SPLM Secretary General as tribally motivated by the president and that can instigate tribalism in the country.  In response, the president suspended the Secretary General by putting him under house arrest in addition stopped him from talking to media.

These events were follows by December 6^th 2013 Press Statement by discontents group led by Machar and Rebecca Nyadeng the widow of late Dr. John Garang the founding father of SPLM.

Instead, for president to find amicable solution to ongoing crisis within the ruling party, he proceeded ahead with meeting of National Liberation Council refusing to heed the call from members of Political Bureau of setting up an agenda before National Liberation Council meeting. Subsequently, during National Liberation Council, all basic documents were pass and the SPLM Secretary General was dismiss.

All above-mentioned issues are root cause of the current crisis.  The situation was follow with rumors, allegations and incendiary suggestions from both sides ahead of National Liberation Council meeting. During National Liberation Council meeting which was held on December 14, 2013, in his speech the president blasted Dr. Riek and group as traitors that cannot be trusted.  The meeting continues for 3 days. However, Dr. Machar and some of his supporters did not attend Sunday’s session.

On the same Sunday night, the Presidential Guards Commander decided to disarm all his forces by order from the President. All weapons were taken to storage facility.  Then around 10:00pm local time, the Presidential Guards commander decided again to rearms Dinka folks leaving their Nuer comrades unarmed.  After disagreement over who to be armed who should not within presidential guards, then fights breakout between Nuer and Dinka Guards.  These soldiers were station in two military barracks.

In the morning, president Kiir convinced a news conference dress in military uniform and declared the incident as a failed coup attempt by soldiers’ loyal to former vice president and his group. The president assured the general public that the army are in control and declared that curfew from 6:00pm to 6:00am be observed.

On that night which is December 16^th, the Presidential Guards Tiger Battalion were in charge of security of the city. However, before sunset the president ordered arrest of most of formers ministers accusing them of plotting to overthrow his government. 

While everyone was expecting that, the president will deal with his political rivals without affecting ordinary people. His presidential Guards the Tiger Battalion went to house-to-house searches in residential areas that are populates by Nuer ethnic group, and then young men were roundup and killed in cold blood.  According to eyewitness more than one thousands (1000) ethnic Nuer were massacre by Presidential Guards for period of three (3) days.

After Nuer soldiers that are servicing in army learned that their families and relatives were slaughter by government in Juba, most of them decided to fights the government that killed their families and the fighting spread all over the country, from Jonglei State Capital Bor, to Unity State Capital Bentiu. One week later fighting is also reports from Akobo, Malakal s and other towns around the country.

What started as internal party power struggle took ethnic dimension; people were targeted base on their ethnicity by armed militants from both sides of the conflict. It is important for International Community to know that there are three components in this conflict, namely SPLA matters, SPLM party, and ethnic dimension. These matters need to be address separately.

Recommendations to IGAD Mediators:

There is doubt, regional leaders and international community is struggling to come up with formula on how to arrest the current political crisis in South Sudan. However, I believe the following suggestions can bring a lasting peace and stability to the Republic of South Sudan.

The above-mentioned points are crucial for negotiating team to look at and add them to whatever suggestions they proposed for long-term stability of the country.

Khorhok Gal Gar, can be reach at khorhok@hotmail.com

By Micheal G.K. Gatwic

Bor, January 18, 2014 (SSNA) -- Juba has become a seat of revolutionary lies and propagandas. It was not long ago when Uganda's president declared war against South Sudan’s rebels because he needs free oil money from the South Sudanese President Kiir. Both the people of South Sudan and the International Community know that there is no need for the SPLA to keep lying!!

If you wonder about the title of my article, you are not alone! But, if you really think that the SPLA recaptured Bor, then you are either a liar or believer of Juba’s lies and propagandas.

SPLA announced that its forces took back the strategic town of Bor on Saturday.  One wonders how president Kiir’s once mighty tribal militia who killed innocent civilians in Juba on December 15 last year failed for three weeks to recapture the capital of Jonglei State, Bor.

Can you recall (few days ago) when it was announced through media outlets that the capital of the oil-rich Upper Nile State, Malakala, was recaptured by the rebels? I am sure you know what I am talking about here. The SPLA only acknowledged its defeat in Malakal after the United Nations (UN) admitted that Malakal is under the control of the rebels.

Ugandan’s fighter jets and helicopters started to strengthen their air campaign against rebels’ positions in Jonglei on January 8 and the bombing campaign has been continuing since then. The truth is that Uganda air campaign forced the rebels to withdraw from Bor on Thursday morning and completed their withdrawal on Friday evening because they want to re-asses their next moves.

As I write this letter, I can confirm to the entire world that Juba-backed militia, SPLA, and their Ugandan counterparts are here in Bor town but they arrived here 12 hours after rebels withdrew from the city.

President Kiir’s tribal militias plus his regular SPLA soldiers tried many times to recapture Bor from the rebels but failed awfully with heavy causalities inflicted on them. And now they are claiming that they defeated the rebels.

But the masters of lies and propagandas in Juba who always prefer lies over the actual image maintain that their forces recaptured Bor on Saturday. It would have been better for them to declare to the entire world that Uganda’s troops recaptured Bor from South Sudan’s rebels and not the SPLA.

The president of South Sudan Salva Kiir who designed the fake coup against his genocidal regime turns out to be the most power-hungry man in the history of the Republic of South Sudan. What surprise most South Sudanese is that Kiir is the one who planned the fake coup so that he can eliminate his political opponents. What a leader!!

President Kiir, the man who rules our country through decrees is no longer a trusted leader because he commits serious crimes before including the recent Juba genocide.

Again, I would like the whole world to know that Uganda has recaptured Bor and the SPLA is claiming responsibility as if it (SPLA) defeated the rebel forces.

By Stephen Par Kuol

January 19, 2014 (SSNA) -- The leadership theorists in academia have been grappling with the question as to whether a leader is made or born, but not much has been academically debated on the question as to whether a dictator is made or born. In my book, a dictator is made and you can make one. This is hypothesis based on my own practical experience watching Kiir being made by some of our comrades who are still languishing in his brutal jails at the time of this writing. What goes around comes around!   Dully made at the time when South Sudanese were preoccupied with transitional issues such as preparation for referendum and statehood, Kiir enjoyed the benefit of the doubt and seized more autocratic control of the state in the making. The circumstantial Joshua then got intoxicated with political powers beyond his intellectual faculties. In no time, he discovered some false wings on his shoulders to soar and became the Kiir he is today. In all fairness, Kiir, the veteran of national liberation struggle and the only surviving founding leader of the SPLM/A deserves better, but Kiir, the political leader made by tragic circumstance of Dr. John’s demise and groomed into dictatorship by his sycophantic surrounding has been a political disaster, to say the very least.

Cognizant of his humble background as a middle school dropped out and war made politician without conventional political credentials and charisma, Kiir gave it his best to emerge on the post- war political scene as an agent of peace and reconciliation, politically inclusive, a democratic leader governing through a web of consultants and experts. Beside some faceless consultants at home and abroad, behind the throne (in the kitchen) were also some self-made political counselors and sycophants. In a political environment like ours, dictators are always mad by sycophants and we have too many of them in South Sudan. Naturally, sycophants are self-serving servile flatterers and are often slavishly submissive to the dictators they want to build. Psychologically and socially, the dictator and sycophant need each other. For one thing, the dictator is completely dependent on the Sycophants to feed his sick ego, to feel important and powerful. The sycophant on the other hand is also dependent on the dictator who gives the sycophant social standing he/she otherwise would not have attained. In sum, the relationship is symbiotic.   That was how Kiir made the people who in turn mad him. Countless songs were sung to his ego rallying the masses of  people of South Sudan behind him to cross that stormy river to the promised land through the referendum which gave them political sovereignty and independence on July 9, 2011. In return, General Kiir promised the people of South heaven on earth:  freedom, democracy, human right, multi-party system, equality, economic prosperity, zero tolerance to corruption, you name it!

Having drowned in deep sea of political oppression and poverty for decades, the people of South Sudan held tight to a 'snake' hoping that it could take them afloat throughout the transitional period. Unfortunately, by default, a narcissist dictator has been produced out of this war made political mediocre. The question that must be asked then is: "When did Kiir take on his megalomaniacal persona and became the dictator he is today?"  The other relevant questions are: what is the dictator and when does a dictator becomes a dictator?"  Dictators, like all human beings, go through stages of moral or immoral development.  At some point in their lives, they were not known as the tyrants they came to be.  In Kiir’s scenario, his true self came out when he began ruling by presidential decrees. The year 2013 will go down in the history of South Sudan as a Year of Rule by Presidential Decrees. Our seasoned young journalists like Rejoice Sampson of SSTV were mechanically programmed to excel in pronouncing: “I General Salva Kiir Mayardit decree removal of so and so and appointment of so and so”. Under the legal and political counsel of his soul mate, Mr.Tilar Deng, Kiir unleashed a reign of unforgettable political terror in the nascent state. In what seemed to be selective exercise of his constitutional authority, Kiir unconstitutionally dismissed elected governors and replaced them with his loyalist, some of who are grossly in competent just like himself. Among those is General Matur Chut of Lakes State who is functionally illiterate. From then on, Kiir became a full blown dictator if not the made mad man I would prefer to call him. Psychologically, Kiir began to show all clinical symptoms of a dictator.  Like any pathological dictator, he misrepresents facts, opportunistically shifts positions, ignores data that conflicts with his fantasy world, is overly confident and acts as statesman when in truth, he is a mad man. Ultimately, Kiir projects himself to be above the law. One of our most accomplished journalists, Jacob Akol articulated that well in his article entitled:  Why Kiir’s Decrees Are Scary and Assuring. In this article, Jacob articulated that Kiir is making the nation to take him for the law and the law for him.

Like any typical African dictator, Kiir displays false modesty while sublimating aggression and grudges. What makes this career butcher even dangerous is his lack of consciousness combined with his high self-serving intelligence and likable personality that has fooled and outsmarted many in South Sudan. Toward the year 2012, the career military spy Kiir spontaneously exhibited his true persona. Politically, he began to be highly intolerable of criticism and would do any thing to eliminate his political opponents.  Running his country in a police state model, General Kiir becomes increasingly controlling, brutal and tyrant. Whenever that control is challenged, he feels threatened and responds as if his very physical survival is at stake.  He then abandoned his historical comrades in arms and colleagues and surrounded himself with local codependents, enablers and followers and if anyone of them challenges his authority, he would just discard him as if he never existed. Kiir rules through rumors mongers and street gossipers he takes seriously.  My own psychosocial assessment as a student of social psychology tells me that like any pathological dictator, Kiir is a clinical case of a mental health disorder known as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).  NPD is a syndrome consisting of a cross breed of the narcissistic personality disorder, the antisocial personality disorder as well as paranoid traits. Clinically, the sufferer of this disorder is an emotional vampire, cruel and sadistic and enjoys other persons’ suffering. Most of the serial killers fall in this category.  Narcissistic dictators are self-seeking and insensitive to the plight of the governed. They take over and subvert key state institutions (civil service, judiciary, media, etc) to serve their interests. They are poor at governance given that good governance entails not only cognitive wherewithal but also the ability to compromise and bargain successfully with a plethora of competing groups.

Pathological dictators like Kirr fear civil political competition as they are impervious to reason with. The only voice a dictator listens to is his own voice. That is why political repression is the only effective weapon in the hand of the tyrant. Opposition parties in autocratic states like this one of Kiir in South Sudan are either outlawed or accorded very little political lee way.    Using the state institutions of the police state, the key opposition leaders are often arrested, intimidated, hounded and even killed. Cowed into submission, some intellectuals in the opposition tend to switch camps to serve their bellies and ensure their physical survival. The bitter truth of this culture is that it depletes human conscience and dignity. It compels intellectuals to sell off their consciences, integrity and principles with cheap political appointments. As we have all witnessed in South Sudan, the pet aversion of all dictators is press freedom. Censorship is imposed; journalists, newspaper editors, and columnists are harassed and arrested for telling the truth. The very critical and stubborn ones are murdered like in the case of Isiah Abraham or bought off like in the case of my learned friend, Ateny Wek Ateny. Newspapers, radio and television stations that are critical of the despot are shut down. Typical dictators would go extra miles to hide their failures and the heinous crimes they have committed and continue to commit like in the case of the ongoing genocide in Juba.  Free media is erstwhile enemy of the despots like Kiir as it exposes their lies, bloopers and incompetence. Dictators are terrible hypocrites. Being the only made man with testicles in the political space, the dictator like Kiir would shamelessly accuse his political opponents of corruption as he and his cohorts plunder the people's treasury incessantly and live flamboyant life styles while his people drown in an abyss of abject poverty. Dictators are war-like and take refuge in extreme nationalism to divert the attention of their populace to external threats of their own creation.

World History and human experience have taught that the human breeds called dictators are interesting creatures. They are erratic and socially weird. I take more interest in the weird things they do at the end of their reigns. For example, the leader of the Burmese (Myanmar) gave government employees two days notice and hurriedly moved the capital city from Rangoo to a remote location deep in the jungle. Mobutu Sese Seko did the same thing by moving the presidential place to his remote birth village deep in Congolese Tropical Rainforest until the events in Kinshas over took him by surprise. Akin to all of the above is Kiir’s  Luri cattle camp where  the ongoing genocide was planned. Also, Just like Kiir Mayardit, Mobutu Sese Seko was predominantly threatened by his sophisticated advisers and highly educated colleagues. Hence, he only trusted the incompetent ones with limited knowledge to tell him what he wish to hear such as gossips within the military and who is planning what. Those who lived in Juba in the last three years would remember how many times rumors of baseless coup originating from “J One” were circulated until the recent disarmament targeting those who were perceived to be planning a coup within Tiger Battalion on December 15, 2013 sparked the developing genocidal war. Also like Kiir, Idi Amin Dada's advisers were his drinking buddies and cronies, who tell him exactly what he wants to hear. This way, the dictator in question is bound to loose touch with the real world until the miserable end of his reign. Read all the books about the dictators and tell me a single dictator that stuck to his dictatorial guns and had a happy ending! The end of South Sudan’s dictator in the persona of Kiir Salva Mayardit will be definitely similar to that of Nicholas Chacisco of Romania and the rest in that class. Through his mediocrity, dictatorship and poor leadership skills, the made mad man has squandered his virtuous legacy as a veteran of national liberation struggle and leader who managed to unite his people and delivered them political independence. It is a gross pity that he will be remembered more for only pathetic things like his weird trade mark (the giant cow boy hat), his controversial presidential decrees, his boring speeches, political blunders, institutionalized corruption, nepotism, political tribalism, political incompetence, genocide and tyranny.

May God Almighty save whatever is left of South Sudan from this made mad man!!

Stephen Par Kuol is a former Deputy Ambassador of the Sudan to the United Republic of Tanzania and the former State Minister of Education in the Government of Jonglei State. He is also a researcher and freelance writer on academic topics pertinent to Human Right and Post-conflict Criminal Justice Administration.

By Kuir ë Garang

January 22, 2014 (SSNA) -- Enter but with no guns and uniformed men, Minister Makuei was told. Now, this is being twisted by President Kiir and company!

I always believed that President Kiir is being misled by people around him. ‘He’s a nice uncle surrounded by bad people’ as my brother would philosophically say. However, one has to sit back and think hard. Is President Kiir this clueless as to be completely blind to the realities of what is good and bad?

The government should avoid controversies and focus on helping civilians in Bor, Juba, Malakal, Bentiu and other areas. The senseless massacres and utter destruction we've seen in Bor and other areas should be our main concern as national healing will be next to impossible given the massacres, destructions and Minister Makuei’s and president Kiir’s attitudes. Riek failed as a leader and you are now failing civilians through mindless arrogance!

Stop making excuses for your own failures! The current mess was created by lack of conscientious leadership by President Kiir and exacerbated by callous thirst for power by Riek Machar and his forces.

Four UN soldiers were killed by SPLA forces when helicopter was shot down in December of 2012. And two more UN peacekeeping forces were killed by Riek’s Rebels in Akobo in December of 2013 but the UN is still helping our people. Please blame the culprits and stop making excuses!

Riek Machar is a man who’s distinguished himself as power-hungry even before he joined SPLA in the early 80s. The man has a dumbfounding mythic belief that can even have my daughter say: “Hey grandpa…don’t you think that’s a little naïve?”

With no doubt, Riek Machar inhabits his own world and he’s a man who’s predictable. This makes it extremely dangerous for Kiir and his trusted elements to use Riek as a pillar through which Kiir’s goodness meter can be calibrated.

Riek has lost what he has to lose but Kiir is still the president of South Sudan. He has to act like one; not like a rebel on rampage; and certainly not like a child who doesn’t care about the consequences of what he says. How can our president talk like some man on the street? Why would the president talk anyhow? As Jiëëng people from my home area would say, muuk yi yic (have self-control)

While Kiir is a leader of a sovereign nation, he needs to understand that we need allies, formidable allies…and trading partners. China alone wouldn’t do!

"I think the UN want to be the government of the South [Sudan] and they felt short of naming the chief of the UNMISS as the co-president of the Republic of South Sudan.” This is pathetic coming from our president.

President Kiir should be the one who should clearly understand the role of UN in South Sudan. Ministers don’t just enter UN premises just because they are ministers! They have to follow UN protocols just as South Sudanese government has protocols.

Is Kiir being destroyed by his allies or is President Kiir completely a lost man in a role he has no clue how to perform?

Someone needs to rescue president Kiir’s legacy; whatever is left, that is.

Michael Makuei Lueth, the current minister of information, is a man who plays by no rules. With no shame, the man swims majestically in ridiculousness. He says whatever comes to his mind.

I don’t even know why Makuei wasn’t arrested with the 11 political prisoners when he was present in the December 6 press conference. We know that conference is the center of the ‘coup attempt’ claim.

Why doesn’t Makuei, a lawyer by profession, know that entry to the UN premises is governed by rules and regulations that need to be respected? Being a minister doesn’t entitle one to forceful entry to UN premises.

Minister Makuei wasn’t prevented from entering per se as claimed by President Kiir and his officials. The gentleman at the gate told the minister he could enter with no uniformed and armed officers (the video is here as proof). Lueth was allowed entry if with civilian entourage. Assuming that he’s a minister, he wanted to be allowed to do whatever he wanted; that is, enter with SPLA generals.

Sorry, some people play by rules even if we, as South Sudanese, don’t!

President Kiir needs to know who’s destroying or has destroyed his legacy! We are a young nation and we can’t afford isolation.

In all indications, President Kiir and his officials are sticking to the ‘coup attempt’ claim when the whole world hasn’t seen enough evidence to declare it ‘a coup attempt.’ The world isn’t saying there was absolutely no ‘coup attempt.’ What’s being claimed is that there’s no enough evidence to conclude that it was a ‘coup attempt’.

Respect is only in proving what one claims not in just professing that such and such a thing is true.

I need the president to take the following issues very seriously:

• Control the follow of information as ministers contradict themselves and reflect the president in a grim light. Makuei Lueth says one thing and Ateny wekdit says something else.
• Let your officials research and double check facts from different sources before going to the media. The ministers say ridiculous things in the media and our country looks like a nation of idiotic men and women when that’s absolutely wrong.
• Let your officials know that the government is supposed to come up with solutions for the country’s problems instead of whining all the times.
• Remember that respect and integrity rest solely on what can be proved. Professing things emotively because they appeal to the majority without proofs is a folly not worthy of presidency.
• The world has helped us gain our independence; don’t spit on their faces with made-up claims like those of Makuei Lueth.
• Makuei Lueth’s actions at the United Nations’ compound were shameful. Makuei wasn’t refused entry for argument’s sake. He was allowed to enter as long as he entered with unarmed people not in uniform. People like Makuei Lueth will bury you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, double-check everything you are told because your officials tell you things they don’t research. You might be a president of a sovereign nation; however, sovereignty comes with responsibility and mutual respect.

Your legacy will be written tomorrow. Don’t let it be spoiled by people you trust.

Kuir ë Garang is an author of seven books including “South Sudan Ideologically” and “Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful?” For contacts see Twitter: @kuirthiy or his blog, www.kuirthiy.info.

By: Daniel Abushery Daniel and Luk kuth Dak

They say: "Never did anything wrong that they can take a picture of"

January 24, 2014 (SSNA) -- History is filled with dictators who ruled their nations with iron fist, bringing untold suffering to their people. Of course, that is not true of all rulers, for some of them rose to power to serve their countries. South African former President, an emblem of peace, the late Nelson Mandela and US President Barrack Obama are exemplary. 

When it comes to South Sudan, the exact opposite is true. Benny Salva Kiir Mayardit has decisively abused his power for personal gains and to the detriment of the Nuer people in what will go down in history as one of the worst single day's massacre in the capital Juba. As we speak, Kiir's racing to the top of becoming the world's most brutal dictator ever, only second to fugitive and ICC indictee, Sudan’s president Omer Hassan Ahmed al Basher.

Fortunately, the entire world community has come to believe that South Sudan's conflict was a creation of a deeply rooted hatred harbored by Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit against the Nuer people in general and Dr. Riek Machar in particular. Atrocities and hostillties against the Nuer have been relentless. Members of the Nuer community are being beheaded and gunned down in the street of Juba, including those who were loyal to the regime.

To his advantage, Mr. Kiir has almost all of the Dinka intellects in his corner. Apart from a handful, namely Entrepreneur Just Maker Bol, Professor Majok Arou, and of course, the widow as well as son of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior, the Dinka think tank machine is stone silent, almost gleeful to Mr. Kiir's efforts to wipeout the Nuer people. 

Apparently, even though Mr. Kiir may not have pulled the tiger or fired a single bullet at the unarmed Nuer citizens in Juba, there is no shadow of a doubt that he had ordered those organized crimes, and deliberately failed to protect helpless civilians, who had nothing to do with the adversarial relationship between him and senior SPLM party leaders, the majority of whom ended up in detentions. But the rule of thumb is “when massacres are committed, consequences follow.”

The world has a moral obligation to see to it that Benny Salva Kiir is indicted for crimes against humanity. And as far the Nuer people are concerned, the demagogue Kiir has lost the legitimacy to be President of the country. How can he effectively govern after he ordered the massacre of citizens under his care, for absolutely no crime other than the fact that they were Nuer? Consequently, those heartless Nuer who continue to serve under this murderer must take a stand, and in a hurry. Not doing so will have some severe consequences, the least of which is being held accountable for the massacre.

What we really need at this juncture is for all of the Nuer people to move back to our homeland. We don't need to be in Equatorian’s land, or the Dink land for that matter. We have enough land and resources of our own. So let's go back to Akobo, to Bantiu, to Fangak, and to Nasir, knowing that this nightmare will somehow come to an end.

More to the point, there is one chance, and one chance only that will bring this Nation back which is Kiir’s admission of the fact that there wasn't a coup attempt. Consequently, all political prisoners must be released, Kiir's tribal armed militias be disarmed and face Justice for the atrocities and heinous acts they committed against innocent and unarmed Nuer civilians. That should be coupled with the formation of an interim government which will be charged with drafting a permanent constitution, and prepare the country for general elections.

Lastly, the Juba Nuer massacre and the involvement of Ugandan troops in an internal crisis must be investigated thoroughly. Otherwise, nothing will be called united South Sudan! This is a serious matter!

They said the devil is in the details!

Don’t get us wrong, we are not war mongers, instigators for revenge or for continuation of this horror; we are peace loving people asking those who are still serving under a tyrant and thuggery regime to quit before it’s too late.

The incident that occurred to the head of the most powerful branch of the government, “according to the country’s constitution,” the speaker of the August house H.E. Manasseh Magok Rundial during today’s rally in Juba, when in front of everybody a Microphone was instantly grabbed off his hand before he could finished his remarks to the audience, was a living proof of “read my lips” we don’t want you here!

Kiir and his associates are going to pay a high price for the atrocities and barbaric acts they committed against Nuer civilians, being harsh on Unmis personals in Bor; calling them names is a last kick of dying horse, always accusing whoever politically differed with him by having “a parallel government working in South Sudan” in all his speeches is illusion and madness, and lack of vocabulary and English wording. Beside, lack of leadership style and enough knowledge. Who would blame him? After all, the man is uneducated and uncivilized human being. And for Makui Lueth of information Ministry by not knowing the fundamental role of UN with his law background, astonishes, and a big embarrassment to the regime. I couldn’t edit this paragraph because I could not grasp the gist of the content. Either delete or rewrite to clarify.

The United Nations representative in Juba, Hilda Johnson who was closely following all the political games that were played by Benny Kiir said it best after evacuation from Juba to Kenya’s capital Nairobi. And we quote; “we all like to have peace, we all just pray for peace. Let the people of South Sudan change from their perception that there was a coup. This is a wrong concept from the President and his followers, and there is no coup that has been planted. President Kiir is the one who is fighting his own government.”

That’s what breaks the Camel back!!

You can reach the authors by e-mails at ddnaniel575@yahoo.com and lukedak@hotmail.com.

By Kuir ë Garang

January 25, 2014 (SSNA) -- “The world has a moral obligation to see to it that Benny Salva Kiir is indicted for crimes against humanity,” Luk Dak and Daniel Abushery wrote in their recent article,Indict Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit, published on South Sudan News Agency (SSNA) website.I wished they’d add Riek Machar next to President Kiir.

What worries me the most in regard to the current crisis in South Sudan isn’t the slaughter of innocent civilians in all corners of South Sudan. Indeed, my main worry is what this tragedy has done to people of good intellect and conscience; people who could stop such massacres in the future.

I’ve seen people I greatly admired lose their cool and reduce themselves to itsy bitsy of tribal demagogues or even careless firebrands. This means that another tragedy is most likely to happen in the future given the mindlessness of our intelligentsia, young intellectuals and the would-be leadership of South Sudan.

I read that tribally charged article (SSNA- January 24, 2014) written by the above mentioned individuals and I couldn’t believe what I was reading. These two individuals are some of the finest writers in South Sudan. Unfortunately, the current tragedy has reduced them to tribonationalists of their former nationalist selves.

I’m responding because I respect these two writers enormously. Their role should be to devise ways in which we can make trust-building possible instead of being short-sighted and divisive.

One can understand their level of anger and emotive suffocation they are experiencing given the massacre of innocent Nuer civilians in Juba between December 15 and December 18. There’s so much for them to be angry for and to call for president Kiir to be indicted for war crimes. No right-minded South Sudanese wouldn’t condemn the deaths of innocent Nuer civilians in Juba. I’ve written extensively about it on different South Sudanese news sites and on social media front.

Hear it from me again! The massacre of Nuer civilians in Juba is an undeniable fact!

However, I have to note something here because our future depends on it: the danger of hypocrisy. There is truly a need to bring ALL perpetrators of the massacres to account. However, there’s also a need to be truthful in what we write and say. There’s so much hypocrisy going around. I didn’t expect this level of hypocrisy from the likes of Luk Dak.

I get it, there are mindless Jiëëng people, who only talk about the massacres of their Jiëëng people and deny the Juba Massacre of Nuer civilians. I’ve condemned this tribonationalist attitude several times. And this is the same unfortunate, myopic attitude Luk and Daniel are encouraging!

What’s happening in South Sudan isn’t an apocalypse. It’s a national tragedy that’ll come to pass. Why are we behaving like this is the end of the world? How about tomorrow? Do tragedies kill our intellective and logical selves? To encourage Nuer Tribonationalism is to disrespect the massacred Nuer in Juba!

Why couldn’t Luk and Daniel acknowledge all the massacres committed in South Sudan? Why this level of hypocrisy from distinguished South Sudanese writers? Why are they exploiting this unfortunate issue instead of prescribing methods that can help us live in peace and harmony? Who’s going to hold South Sudan together if thinkers and intellectuals withdraw into their tribal shells?

“What we really need at this juncture is for all of the Nuer people to move back to our homeland. We don't need to be in Equatorian’s land, or the Dink land for that matter. We have enough land and resources of our own. So let's go back to Akobo, to Bantiu, to Fangak, and to Nasir, knowing that this nightmare will somehow come to an end,” Luk and Daniel wrote.

This is certainly simple-minded and dangerously ignorant. Is this the South Sudan these esteemed South Sudanese want?

How about other suffering South Sudanese?

Are Luk and Daniel blind in regard to the massacres of Jiëëng people in Akobo, Bentiu and the town of Bor? Are Luk and Daniel insensitive to the women killed in the church in the town of Bor, the rape and the killing of the sick and elderly in the hospital in Bor? Are Luk and Daniel blind to the utter destruction in Bor and the Nuer tribonationalists writings on the building walls in the town of Bor?

Disregarding the suffering of others is antithetical to any call for peace! Do these gentlemen know that?

I’ve lost relatives in this tragedy including an aunt who was killed with the women in the church. The people of my county, the Twi County of Jonglei have suffered severely from Lou Nuer and Gaweer raids and massacres. However, as a person with a national duty, I still believe we have to remain objective and stick to the facts that can help bridge the divide. 1991 Riek’s and Lam’s defection destroyed my home area but no one was held accountable. We still forgave one another and moved on.

We can speak for our people, I understand; however, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye on the suffering of others. The two gentlemen didn’t send a message of condolence to all the dead civilians and acknowledge the displaced residents of the town of Bor and the Bor County generally. Is that the call for peace?

I do believe Kiir as the president needs to answer adequately for the deaths of Nuer in Juba. However, it’s too simplistic and erroneous to say that Kiir ordered the massacres of Nuer in Juba. Daniel and Luk are smart enough to know that. It’s no doubt President Kiir hates Riek Machar with passion, however, to say that President Kiir hates Nuer people and that he wanted to wipe them out is a mindless sensationalism and hate-mongering that should have no place in South Sudan.

Kiir is a weak and incompetent leader. We know that. Kiir has, inadvertently, allowed Nuer to be butchered under his watch. But that gives no one of us any reason to be blind to the suffering of others and fuel more hatred and bloodshed.

“Don’t get us wrong, we are not war mongers, instigators for revenge or for continuation of this horror; we are peace loving people asking those who are still serving under a tyrant and thuggery regime to quit before it’s too late,” the two gentlemen wrote.

Seriously! This is where I lose hope in South Sudan. Everything in the article is about Nuer suffering and how Nuer in the government should quit and how Nuer should retreat to their homeland…blah blah…! Does that sound like a call for peace and togetherness? Can Daniel and Luk mention to me one sentence in the article that honestly negates their tribonationalist myopia and divisiveness?

Why do we blame President Kiir if this is the best our intellectuals can do? Given the fact that they’ve intentionally ignored the suffering of Jiëëng and focus on the massacre of Nuer, wouldn’t they do to Jiëëng civilians what Kiir’s forces did to Nuer if they were in position of authority? How are the two gentlemen different from other mindless warmongers and tribalists?

And to add insult to injury, and to really prove that they are calling for more blood-bath, the two writers didn’t mention a single condemnation of Riek Machar and the atrocities committed by ‘white army’ in the article.

So the gentlemen think that killing of women in the church, the killing and rape of the sick and elderly in the hospital in the town of Bor shouldn’t be condemned because the victims are not Nuer? Who’s to be held accountable in the gentlemen’s opinion? Kiir?

Shouldn’t Riek Machar as the leader of rebellion be held accountable? Of course they are Nuer triboationalists and only the suffering of Nuer makes sense to them? Were the two gentlemen like this all along or was this tragedy too strong for them to remain logical and nationalist?

I know Riek Machar didn’t start this tragedy. He was forced into it given the facts we know. However, he supported a rebellion that caused senseless deaths, suffering and destruction. This same suffering happened in 1991 and no one was held accountable. It happened again in 2013/14. And the two gentlemen are silent on it.

I’m deeply worried about South Sudan. I agree President Kiir MUST GO, but not through the barrel of the gun, gentlemen!

Kuir ë Garang is an author of seven books including “South Sudan Ideologically” and “Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful?” For contacts see Twitter: @kuirthiy or his blog, www.kuirthiy.info.

By Magok Alier Akuot

"Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” [[1]]

January 26, 2014 (SSNA) -- Today, South Sudanese politics is clothed with veils of propaganda and misinformation suggestive of Goering’s reasoning. In particular, the polity of distortion, exaggeration and mind games has widened in the face of the crisis-logic and reason do no longer appeal since the nation’s leadership is housed in a premise of masked lies. But whatever the motivations may be, this state of affair is self-defeating and does not envisage any solution. And like the heading suggests, let’s get to mental work.

Two years ago, at the birth of our state, the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, adopted Resolution 1996(2011) [[2]] establishing the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). The UN Secretary-general appointed Hilde F. Johnson, as Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG), [[3]] and Head of UNMISS. The resolution provides for mandate of UNMISS which is to support the government in consolidating peace and security as well as establishing conditions for development in the Republic of South Sudan with a view to strengthening their capacity. In particular, section 3 of the resolution provides support for the Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) in exercising its responsibilities for conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution and protect civilians through:

(i) Advising and assisting the GRSS including military and police at national and local levels appropriate, in fulfilling its responsibilities to protect civilians, in compliance with International humanitarian, human rights and refugee law;

(ii) Deterring violence including through proactive deployment and patrols in areas at high risk of conflict, within its capabilities and in its areas of deployment, protecting civilians under imminent threat of physical violence, in particular when the GRSS is not providing such security;

(iii) Providing security for UN and humanitarian personnel, installations and equipment necessary for implementation of mandated tasks, bearing in mind the importance of mission mobility, and contributing to the creation of security conditions conducive to safe, timely, and unimpeded humanitarian assistance.

Whether UNMISS has acted in fulfillment of its mandate is subject to academic debate which is not the gist of this article but the overall impression seems to suggest UNMISS has and is acting in fulfillment of its mandate. And some of the perceived failures are understandable given the limited number of personnel involved coupled ethnic conflict and inaccessibility in some areas such as in Jonglei where there are no feeder roads linking counties. Other perceived failures of UNMISS are general failures of UN system and lack of knowledge of UNMISS mandate. Precisely, section 4 of the resolution “demands that the GRSS and all relevant parties cooperate fully in the deployment, operation, monitoring, verification, and reporting function of UNMISS, in particular by guaranteeing the safety, security, and unrestricted freedom of movement of UN personnel, as well as associated personnel throughout the territory of the RSS.”

The UNSC further adopted resolutions 2057(2012), [[4]] 2109(2013), [[5]] and 2132(2013) [[6]] respectively. The first two resolutions extended the mandate of UNMISS while the last resolution increased the number of military component up to 12,500 troops of all ranks, as well as a police component up to 1,323, including appropriate Formed Police Units. This last resolution was adopted prior to Secretary-general’s letter [S/2013/758/] sent to the 15-member UN Security Council following the ensuing of the violence.

On 19 December 2013, the Lou Nuer youth attacked UN Compound in Akobo County in Jonglei state demanding that the UN Peacekeepers surrender the Dinka civilians who had gone for refuge but the peacekeepers refused. The said youth randomly fired bullets killing two Indian peacekeepers and injuring another as well as at least 20 individuals of Dinka descent seeking protection. In the preamble of resolution 2132(2013), the Security Council “condemned in strongest terms attacks on and threats made to UNMISS personnel and UN facilities, demanding that all parties respect the inviolability of UN premises and to refrain from any violence against those gathered at UN facilities and in this regard reiterating its condemnation of the attack on UNMISS camp in Akobo, on 19 December, which resulted in the death of two Indian peacekeepers and the wounding of another, as well as at least 20 other casualties of individuals seeking UNMISS protection.”

On 8 August, 2011, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Deng Alor Kuol on behalf of the GRSS signed the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) [[7]] with UNMISS. The SOFA is a binding agreement between UNMISS and the GRSS since it provides and limits responsibilities of both parties. On his part, Deng submitted: “This agreement between us is very important because it regulates work between the government of the Republic of South Sudan and the United Nations. And it organizes the relationship between various government institutions and UNMISS ….We are going to mobilize our people and enlighten them so that they understand this agreement between us and the mandate of the mission.” But the reigning culture of impunity proved the contrary.

Honourable Makuei Lueth acted to the contrary by engaging in an unjustified dispute with UNMISS team leader in Bor. On 19 January 2014, he demanded forced entry into UNMISS Bor compound with armed SPLA bodyguards. This act was in violation of the SOFA. And his argument may be inferred as ignorance or willful violation of the terms of the said agreement. It may also be inferred as an excuse for searching UNMISS premises. But in doing so, the minister squarely failed to recite the provisions of sections 16 and 19 of the SOFA. Accordingly, section 16 provides “…….. Without prejudice to the fact that all such premises remain territory of South Sudan, they shall be inviolable and subject to the exclusive control of the UN.” This is supplemented by section 19 which provides “the UN alone may consent to the entry of any government officials or of any other person who are not members of UNMISS to such premises.” It has been a known practice [before the violence] UNMISS and indeed all UN agencies do not allow entry of any armed personnel into their premises. One is therefore in criticising the Minister for his act. However, “politics is about mood as much about policy….” [[8]]

In response to this disturbing act, the UN Secretary-general reacted in defense of UN personnel and in condemnation of the act of threat made against the team leader. The statement issued by his spokesperson read: “The Secretary-general condemns the threats made against UN personnel and demands that all parties to the conflict respect the sanctity of UNMISS protection sites.” [[9]] This statement is threefold. One, it reveals the truism UN premises are not under the control of national authority which justifies the need to seek entry without guns-no excuse for forced entry. Two, threats against UN personnel is a breach of SOFA since the government is to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and associated persons. Three, it is polite in the sense that it requires all parties to the conflict to respect the terms of SOFA.

Sometimes, we fail to understand the reasoning of our leaders. For goodness sake, one would simply use logic and good judgment in this situation and condemn honourable Makuei Lueth for his actions but propaganda was candidly exploited and UNMISS became a victim in the reasoning of our president. The overture of his tone revealed the reticence of his political tact. He resorted to unconvincing criticism: “I think the UN want to be the government of South Sudan and they felt short of naming the chief of UNMISS as the co-president of the Republic of South Sudan ….. And if that is the position of Ban Ki-Moon, they should make it clear that the UN wants to take over South Sudan.” [[10]]

First, this statement is unhelpful. Secondly, it doesn’t make sense in any way and is shortsighted, and thirdly, it fails to consider in the three basic principles of UN peacekeeping namely Consent of parties, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. The president seems not to know that the lives of UN peacekeepers rests on the shoulders of UN Secretary-General and that he is accountable to the Security Council in such situations. He has legitimate reasons to bring to the attention of South Sudanese leadership that acts of threats for whatever reasons are intolerable. Even under our normal national laws they are severely sanctioned and I wonder why my learned Minister cannot use his legal background to rebuke those who threatened the Bor team leader.

Kiir along with those who think they are justified in their criticisms ought to note the fundamental functions of a Peacekeeping Operation are: maintenance of peace and security, facilitating political process, protecting civilians, assisting in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, supporting the organization of elections, and protecting and promoting human rights and assisting in restoring the rule of law. From Former UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) to UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), the principal objective mentioned above have not been compromised and most importantly the issue of civilian protection has exposed UN peacekeepers to adverse effects including claiming their lives during SPLA fighting against David Yau Yau and his supporters in Jonglei State.

The president, in making this reckless statement, failed to note the numerous occasions UNMISS has suffered in fulfilling its mandate of civilian protection. But history is a good judge and remains unbiased consultant during moments when we can no longer remember our past. Just to mention two of those tragic episodes, five Indian Peacekeepers were, on 9 April 2013, killed in an ambush near Gumuruk while escorting UNMISS convoy [[11]]. Eight months later, another two Indian peacekeepers were killed in Akobo when about 2,000 rebels ransacked their temporary base in Akobo. The rebels asked for the surrender of the about 30 civilian South Sudanese who had sought refuge in UNMISS compound but the peacekeepers refused at which point the rebels shot indiscriminately killing two Indian peacekeepers and injuring another. [[12]]

While president Kiir and Honorable Makuei have had a big share of propagandized politics, others such as SPLM Secretary for External Affairs and SPLA Spokesperson deserve mention. The former, Suzanne Jambo, crossed the thin line for whatever justification, one cannot understand her reasoning but she submitted “The UN should allow the government to search for guns among those seeking shelter in the camps. How on earth can anyone explain to us, South Sudanese, that some armed soldiers who defected from the SPLA and entered into the any UNMISS camp with guns and military uniform yet the UNMISS says it is protecting civilians."[[13]] This same reasoning was echoed by SPLA spokesperson, Philip Aguer, who queried “what was inside that UNMISS Compound] which they did not want the minister of the incumbent government to see.”[Op cit. [9]]

It has also been submitted that UNMISS gave its vehicles to rebels to fight the government forces. This could be true. If the rebels could enter UNMISS compound in Akobo and killed two peacekeepers and civilians, then they can as well forcefully take UNMISS vehicles. Does this justify that UNMISS is citing with the rebels? No I don’t think it does.

First, to think that rebels and UNMISS are of the same feathers is totally a propagandized lie aimed at winning public support. And just to borrow Suzanne’s words, one would as well ask “how on earth would UNMISS allow rebels [who had killed their colleagues] enter UN premises with guns?” But the principal object of any propaganda is not how truthful it sounds but what impact it draws from the public. Exactly, it does reap good fruit which is why the youth in Juba went to the streets demanding that UNMISS leave South Sudan. They were convinced their government and indeed the Minister of Information said it all and to them UNMISS is their biggest enemy. This is unbelievable given the fact that UNMISS has sheltered innocent men, women and children in places such as Juba, Bor, Malakal and even Akobo although the peacekeepers were outnumbered and could painfully not provide protection.

As to the last question of Aguer, there is nothing that UNMISS does not want the Minster of incumbent government to see, but the minister is not allowed to enter into UN premises with armed bodyguards. Sometimes, we tend to be naïve during crisis and think that everyone has to do away with binding laws, unfortunately it is not the same with everyone. UNMISS simply stuck by SOFA while the government simply refused under the illusion that rebels entered UNMISS premises with guns. If surely they did, then they would have killed civilians of rival ethnic tribes since the conflict lost track from being political to ethnic conflict. But like most will not understand, the propaganda is only aimed at targeting majority of us who lack good reasoning and judgment. I am sure both Aguer and Makuei must have had relatives who were protected by UNMISS in Bor and if rebels did enter with guns into UNMISS Bor compound, then they would have been killed. Let’s be logical and rational in our analysis not to deceive the nation with cheap propaganda.

But if I can assume that the suspicion is right then let us imagine the rebels entered UNMISS compound with guns having guised themselves as civilians seeking protection. Imagine that the government has knowledge these rebels are hiding with guns in UNMISS compound(s) as a mix of individual civilians. And if we could venture and ask a logical question: was Honourable Minister [Makuei Lueth] going to disarm or fight the rebels who are with civilians? And even if he were going to disarm or fight them how would he know they are not just civilians since they had hidden their guns? And even if he were to identify them and immediately they pulled out their guns and fought back how would he protect innocent men, women and children supposing his bodyguards would fight back in self-defence and indeed in protecting him? Did he and the rest think clearly of the consequences involved in choosing that approach?

In any violence I know one or the other party is going to point fingers of accusation at a neutral body. It is a normal state of warfare which has long history and does not just start with South Sudan. But how to deal with your accusation in finding out the truth and justifying it is more important than the accusation itself. The best approach would be to sit down with UNMISS and discuss how to track down the alleged rebels who are suspected to be hiding in UNMISS premises with guns. Both the government and UNMISS must agree on a mechanism which will not expose innocent civilians who are seeking protection in those camps to risks. There is no need for forced entry or search. It doesn’t help either the government or UNMISS, but the risks associated are more harmful than the expected outcome. A compromise in relation to SOFA should be sought if the government is fully convinced of its suspicion but what is more important is the safety of civilians.  

Honourable Makuei, instead chooses to ask for a written apology from UNMISS failure of which invites further action to be taken against UNMISS Bor team leader and the SRSG.[14] He has not justified why this apology must be written and on what basis must UNMISS apologise. It is sometimes laughable when you read statements our leaders make. It is as if they jump out of their beds full of emotions and not knowing what to say, and finally find themselves talking loudly without hearing themselves talk. Since this is a legal dispute, it would best be addressed in accordance with the provisions of the SOFA. Accordingly, section 57 of the SOFA, 2011 provides: “any dispute must be by arbitration of three arbitrators-one representative from the government and one appointed by the Secretary-general and a chairman to be appointed by both the government and the UN, the decision of the arbitration shall be binding and final”. So you see, there is nothing like what the honourable Minister insinuates. No need for forced apology nor sanction for failure to apologise-relevant application of law is required here. It is high time honourable Makuei revisited assigned Ministerial portfolios and spare the nation of this scandalous misinformation. Kiir must not be supportive of all sorts of falsity in order to justify political inaction. This is totally embarrassing which needs serious sanctioning.

One thing I have clearly understood in this accusation is the fact that the government wants to part with UNMISS because of the on-going investigation into the violence. The government knows its mess will be uncovered by UNMISS report. The accusation is meant to discredit any UNMISS report under the guise of having cooperated with rebels. It is meant to shelter the government with a view to politically proving innocence in the face of civilian massacre. Yet, crimes of international nature won’t and do not go unpunished. International criminal law jurisprudence has rich precedence against impunity. It is high time the leadership backed on genuine political communication avoiding missed truths, misinformation and propagandized accusations which are hefty manifest of inherent weaknesses and lack of political direction.

Magok Alier Akuot is a South Sudanese Master of Laws student at the University of Sussex. The views expressed herein are entirely his and where appropriate reference has been made. He can be reached at: unclelouish@gmail.com

By Raluca Besliu

January 27, 2014 (SSNA) -- Just two years after obtaining independence from neighboring Sudan, which marked the end of deadly and long-lasting civil war, South Sudan seems to be heading toward an internal crisis that could turn into civil war since December 15, 2013. South Sudan’s President Salve Kiir stirred the current rebellion by dismissing Riek Machar, the acting Vice-President, in July 2013, after the latter announced his intention to run in the 2015 presidential elections.

While many actors, ranging from China to the United States have direct interests in guaranteeing that the situation in South Sudan is rapidly resolved, it is the country’s northern neighbor, Sudan, which might be most invested in seeing a self-serving solution take place in South Sudan. During secession, Sudan lost most of its oil, while South Sudan obtained 75 percent of the reserves situated on the two countries’ borders.

Left with the needed oil infrastructure and equipment, Sudan was comforted by the fact that its landlocked neighbor depended on its pipelines to transport its oil. However, the relation between Kiir and Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir has been strained by South Sudan’s unwillingness to pay due oil transit fees and pursuit of alternative pipeline projects, in an effort to bypass its Northern neighbor, thus potentially costing its transit fees. Although officially declaring that it has not and will not support Machar’s rebels in South Sudan fighting against the government, Sudan might be interested in seeing the former VP take over power, as a way to increase Sudan’s influence over its neighbor, due to closer political collaboration between Bashir and Machar in the past and the latter’s stated willingness to cooperation with Sudan on multiple issues.

Immediately after being dismissed in July 2013, Machar announced that he would challenge Kiir’s leadership of the ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), before the upcoming presidential elections. On December 16, Kiir accused Machar of staging a coup-d’état, which the latter denied. The former VP claims that he was used as a scapegoat for Kiir’s purge of the SPLM of opponents, to avoid reforming the party.

If Machar were to gain presidency, South Sudan’s relationship to Sudan would be different from the one pursued by Kiir since the 2011 independence. Machar has a long history of collaborating with the Sudanese regime. During South Sudan’s cessation war, Machar was a rebel leader in the SPLM lead by John Garang, who was advocating for a united and secular Sudan. Instead, Machar had always promoted self-determination for the south. Machar separated from Garang in 1991, forming his own rebel group, which allegedly received support from Khartoum and started fighting against Garang’s troops. In 1997, Machar signed the Khartoum Peace Agreement, making him Omar Al-Bashir’s assistant.

However, in 2002, he rejoined Garang and the SPLM reached an agreement and after the latter’s death in a helicopter crash in 2005, he rapidly became a key SPLM leader. For his past behavior, Kiir has accused Machar of being an unscrupulous opportunist, ready to cut deal with his enemies only to further his power. Bashir might consider Machar’s changing behavior and their previous political collaboration easier to influence, perhaps even control, than Kiir’s mostly oppositional and often confrontational positions toward his Sudanese counterpart.

Machar visited Sudan on an official visit for the first time after the 2011 cessation in July 2013 and was greeted by both the Sudanese President and VP. With his counterpart, he managed to reach several agreements, aimed at easing the tension between the two countries. 

Machar has already stated that he could work with the Sudanese regime to protect the oil fields in the Unity and Upper Nile states, sought-after by Khartoum since the 2011 cessation, due to their abundant oil resources. Ever since South Sudan obtained independence in 2011, Juba has repeatedly accused Khartoum of supplying weapons to insurgents in the Upper Nile state, in order to destabilize the newly created country. Khartoum has repeatedly denied these allegations. In June 2013, Sudanese troops were accused of pushing into South Sudan’s Upper Nile, with Khartoum retaliating that Juba was supporting with arms, petrol, food and spare parts for cars rebels in Darfur, South Kordofan and the Blue Nile. 

Currently, both the Unity and Upper Nile states have been the battlefield between the South Sudanese and the former VP’s forces in the current battle for power. While Machar has not provided any details about what ‘working’ with Sudan in the two regions might entail, the sheer promise of uncontested influence these crucial oil-rich provinces will likely appeal to Bashir.

Machar’s promise of collaboration might seem particularly appealing to Bashir given acting President Kiir’s tense rapport with Sudan. Firstly, he failed to reach an agreement on oil transit fees, given the fact that South Sudan is dependent on its neighbor’s infrastructure and equipment to transport its oil resources. It kept exporting oil, until, in January 2012, Khartoum seized several million barrels of oil, invoking non-payment of transfer fees. Juba closed all of its wells and only resumed production in April 2013. By September 2013, South Sudan had made almost $1 million dollars in oil revenue, of which it had to pay one quarter to Sudan, for using its pipelines and for compensating the loss of most of its oil revenues with the secession. Apart from disloyalty in paying transit fees, so desperately needed by Sudan, Kirr has also moved to negotiate developing an alternative pipeline route through Kenya connecting it to port Lamu, which would entirely bypass Sudan. This would be a disaster for Sudan, as it would deprive it of the oil transit revenue, but also of foreign investments, from partnering countries such as China, which had almost entirely built its oil infrastructure.

There is one sensitive subject between Kiir and Bashir, on which Machar might also prove unwilling to negotiation: the contested oil-producing border region of Abyei, currently controlled by Sudan, but claimed by South Sudan.

The highly anticipated October 2013 summit between the leaders of the two Sudans did not ensure a final status solution of the border region, with the two leaders only agreeing in a joint communique on general terms for administering and policing Abyei. Immediately following the summit, an unofficial referendum was organized in Abyei, in which the voters, mostly ethnic Dinka, overwhelmingly chose to join South Sudan. The results were not recognized by either Khartoum or Juba and was deemed by the African Union as jeopardizing peace.

Machar has been a supporter of Abyei’s unification with South Sudan. After the referendum, then VP Machar called on both the Sudanese and South Sudanese governments to recognize the will of the people of Abyei, by accepting the outcome of the referendum. In fact, in July 2013, Machar was encouraging people originally from Abyei to return home and prepare for the October referendum. Machar’s previously firm stance on the matter might suggest an unwillingness to collaborate and reach an agreement with the Khartoum regime.

However, for Bashir, this latter point might less significant, compared to the fact that toppling Kiir might mean the end of alternative pipeline routes for South Sudan, as it might deter foreign investors to fund such costly long-term projects in a country unable to demonstrate its political and economic stability. This would only cement South Sudan’s dependency on Sudan, ensuring the latter its precious oil transit fees. So, although Bashir may deny his financial and military support for Machar, he is likely eager to see him replacing the uncooperative Kiir.

Raluca Besliu is a freelance journalist from Romania. She runs a blog about young change-makers and entrepreneurs called Taking on the Giant. Follow her on Twitter: @Raluca_Besliu.

By Kuir ë Garang

February 4, 2014 (SSNA) -- South Sudan is a tribalized and politicized society; something we should always see with critical ambivalence. Many people are politically aware and that makes it easy for the wrongs leaders do to be pointed out with ease. In other words, political awareness is a positive development. However, when uncritical minds combine cheap politics with unexamined tribal and mythical sense of reality, then we should all be worried.

Since the incident of December 15, 2013, which led to senseless massacres of innocent civilians in South Sudan, many causal theories, accusations and counter-accusations have been floated around. Some of these theories are mindlessly ridiculous, others merely questionable and others purely extra-terrestrial and unimaginable.

However, this tragedy has also brought out the best and the worst out of some politicians and leaders in South Sudan. Among the leaders slammed by many analysts, bloggers and social media bashers are South Sudan’s minister of information, Michael Makuei Lueth and the wife of South Sudan’s former president, Rebecca Nyandeeng Chol.

Nyandeeng has been severally criticized, libelled and even threatened with death and arrest. A certain ridiculous Kenya writer, Mbijiwe Mwenda, called for Nyandeeng to emulate Mama Ngina, the wife of Kenya’s first president. This ridiculous and naïve writer doesn’t know that behavioural disposition should be considered when it comes to how one perceives political involvements and the stakes within a nation. Every Kamau and Onyango; John and Becky, have become star analysts in regard to South Sudanese politics.

The question one has to ask oneself is why so much hate for Madam Rebecca Nyandeeng Chol? Is Nyandeeng a rebel supporter, a jealous former power-player or a misunderstood political reformist? Let’s analyse this.

Frustrated and Jealous?

There’s no doubt Dr. John Garang de Mabior was a giant of Sudanese and South Sudanese politics. He’d been actively and prominently involved from the late 1970s until his death in 2005. For all we know, the family of Garang has been the centre of South Sudanese politics for over twenty years. They were untouchable and their name commanded both respect and fear.

However, after the death of Dr. John, the power changed hands. It’s not clear to us what Garang’s family thought would happen after Garang’s death, however, the centre of decision-making and the power-base, naturally speaking, became a different reality.

The family found itself distant or even distanced from the decision-making. President Salva Kiir, who was very close to Garang’s family during the years of struggle, became a man of his own. He chartered a course different from Garang’s, his predecessor. Nyandeeng and the family realized that the importance they enjoyed in the past was fading or has faded. They were respected as the family of a great liberation hero and that was it. The power centre had shifted; a reality anyone in their place would find difficult to deal with.

But one has to ask one self. With the current events and the way Garang’s family has been very critical of Kiir’s administration, one has to ask whether this is just a question of jealousy or national duty. As we’ve heard from a number of Nyandeeng’s interviews, there’s an element of frustration with Kiir and his admiration. But what does Garang’s family want Kiir to do for them to be happy with his administration? Is it good jobs in the government or political influence? Or is it, as Mabior Garang loves to say, something to do with Garang’s Vision? But who put Mabior and Nyandeeng as the custodians of Garang’s vision? Has Garang’s Vision been reduced from a national ideology to a family affair? The Garangs need to come clear of this!

It’s natural for Garang’s family to feel a tint of jealousy given the fact that they’ve gone from absolute importance to slightly important or somehow irrelevant. However, the family has to be very clear on what they want or they’d just be seen as simply jealous given the fact that they now have no political influence in South Sudan except something for the history books.

National ideologies change all the time. If Kiir wants to change his political legacy through a different ideological ground, then that’s nobody’s business. And if the Garangs want to challenge Kiir as political opponents, something generally acceptable in any democratic set-up, then they have to be very conscientious in pursuit of that goal.

Rebels Supporter

We’ve heard the interviews Nyandeeng has done. You’ll agree with me that the interviews are damaging to the government whether or not what she says is true. Without doubt, she’d put the government on spot and the government has a lot to answer for in terms of the current tragedy in South Sudan.

What many people need to know from Nyandeeng is her position when it comes to the current rebellion. She’s been very much critical of the government so much so that her position regarding the current rebellion has been lost in the there-was-a-coup-there-was-no-coup claim.

We’ve never heard Nyandeeng coming out publicly to condemn the rebellion that has led to the deaths of many innocent civilians. We can all applaud her for voicing out the slaughter of innocent Nuer civilians in Juba, however, Nyandeeng hasn’t actually played the ‘joker’ role she said she’d play. She turned down the request by Riek Machar to represent the ‘SPLM/A in opposition’ but is that enough a dissociation with the rebels?

However, one wonders how Nyandeeng can play a joker role when she’s very critical of the government? A joker would have pointed out the mistakes and atrocities committed by both sides. How do you call yourself a ‘joker’ when the only person you’re critical of is Kiir? There’s no doubt Riek Machar was intentionally forced to flee, however, that doesn’t mean he had to form a rebellion. Kiir has, with no doubt, lost any iota of credibility in the public eye; not even mentioning the international community. Like it or not, Riek Machar was on the right path until he announced that he was leading a rebellion. Nyandeeng therefore needs to separate her solidarity with Riek when it comes to political reforms prior to December 15, and her solidarity in the face of the current rebellion!

Any conscientious or mindless South Sudanese would assume anything but we need to hear it explicitly from Nyandeeng.

Does Nyandeeng support the rebellion? If not, then what’s her position regarding the rebellion? Nyandeeng, as the joker she says she is, has not called a press conference in Juba or anywhere in East Africa, to express condolences to all the bereft, condemn violence on both sides and spearhead an independent path to peace in South Sudan. Why can’t Nyandeeng show the way to peace by inspiring young women, girls and women leaders in South Sudan to inculcate the culture of peace in the young ones?

I know Nyandeeng’s heart is in the right place; however, the methods she’s adopted are very counter-productive. Yes, standing up for people not from one’s own tribe is not only risky but rare in South Sudan. This is a credit to Nyandeeng! However, giving interviews in foreign media and talking without first taking a pause to see what is worth saying and what’s not worth saying isn’t wise. These interviews are only raising her political profile. They are doing absolutely nothing to help the suffering South Sudanese and the volatile political atmosphere in South Sudan.

I’d assume Nyandeeng doesn’t support the rebellion. Like her victimized colleagues, she only needed political reforms within the SPLM. However, in politics, one has to be very clear or else any interpretation of one’s words can be detrimental to one’s political ambition and aspirations of the people.

A Misunderstood Political Reformist?

Uncle Elijah Malok Aleng wrote in his book , The Southern Sudan: Struggle for liberty, that he had to support Abel Alier instead of Joseph Lagu purely because they were not only Jieeng, but also from the same District, the then Bor District.

Lagu was Aleng’s colleague in Anyanya I liberation struggle and it would have made a lot of sense, in nontribalized societies, had he supported Joseph Lagu instead of Abel Alier. Aleng’s argument was that had he supported Lagu instead of Alier, he’d have had no political future in the then Bor District (which by then housed the tribes of Bor, Twi, Nyarweng and Hol).

Such tribe-inspired political affiliation is the culture in South Sudan and it’s the same lens used to judge politicians. For the Jieeng people, Nyandeeng should have acted like Uncle Aleng; to disavow any association with Riek Machar whatsoever.

Many people, except for the myopic, tribal linear thinkers, supported calls for political reforms within the SPLM. However, a number of people turned away from this line of thought when the December 15, 2013 mutiny ended up being a rebellion that’s now led to the senseless death of innocent civilians.

Like many politicians in South Sudan, Nyandeeng has a knack for speaking without first thinking about how any political utterance would be perceived. Nyandeeng is accused; especially by some Jieeng people in Jongeli that her interview, immediately the shootout started in Juba, caused the destruction we’ve seen in Unity, Upper Nile and Jongeli states. That’s a mindless claim! She spoke out about the slaughter of innocent Nuer civilians; something we now know is true.

While I agree Nyandeeng should have been very careful regarding how she passes her messages, it’s mindless to think that she’s a rebel supporter or that she brought about the death that befell the residence of Jonglei state capital and especially the residents of Bor Country.

At the end of January, Rebecca Nyandeeng Chol had an interview with a Kenyan news site, Kenya Today, and many people were quick to misconstrue what she said. When she talked of the dichotomy between Ugandan troops and South Sudanese troops (which included both the government forces and rebel forces) by using the phrase ‘our forces,’ it was assumed by a good number of people that she meant rebel forces as ‘our forces.’

Anything Nyandeeng utters is assumed to be aimed at supporting Riek Machar in his rebellion. However, people seem not to see any difference between what happened prior and on December 15, 2013 and the current rebellion led by Riek Machar.

The saddest thing in South Sudan is that truth is only important if it benefits ‘us’ whoever the ‘us’ are. And you’re only a hero/heroine if you say what benefits ‘us’. As much as some of the things Nyandeeng utters need to be checked and analysed to verify the truth and facts in them, we need to acknowledge that too much focus on ‘truth only by our standard’ is our main problem.

I criticize President Kiir and Kiir’s tribal supporters are up in arms. I criticize Telar Ring Deng and some people from Lakes state are up in arms. I criticize Riek Machar and some Nuer are up in arms saying ‘here is anything Jaang.’ I criticize Kuol Manyang and Makuei Lueth and some Bor people are up in arms. I criticise Rebecca Nyandeeng and her son, Mabior Garang, but Twi people can’t do anything because I’m Twi myself. This is our reality and we are all guilty of it so let’s remember that when we criticize Madam Nyandeeng.

How many people in South Sudan would write to criticize people from their own tribes? The number is close to none. The Us-vs-Them divide prevents South Sudanese from being objective.

Nyandeeng has been, like Makuei Lueth and President Kiir, very careless in what she says and how she says it. This is with no doubt the culture of our uncultured politicians. They all talk anyhow without first thinking about the would-be consequences of their utterances. In essence, Nyandeeng has achieved what she wanted to do: present president Kiir as corrupt, hard-headed and incompetent. However, she’s done poorly in terms of what her political position and utterances mean to the dead, the suffering civilians and the future of South Sudan.

Nyandeeng has allowed herself to be misunderstood. It’s now up to her to position herself as the mother of all and comfort the suffering masses in South Sudan; Nuer and Jieeng alike.

She should come and lead an independent humanitarian effort in South Sudan. She’s demonizing President Kiir and his government for good or bad. This is also the same thing Riek and the rebels are saying. It’s therefore difficult not to be misunderstood in such instances. Nyandeeng needs to play the role of a mother as she claims!

Kuir ë Garang is an author of seven books including “South Sudan Ideologically” and “Is ‘Black’ Really Beautiful?” For contacts see Twitter: @kuirthiy or his blog, www.kuirthiy.info.

By Abraham Deng Lueth

February 5, 2014 (SSNA) -- Many of my friends and colleagues have been contacting me about my position that the reformists are not linked by any evidence to Riek Machar’s rebellion and they asked me how I came to such a conclusion. Several other questions have been asked. Let me try to answer them in this narrative.

Who told me they are not linked: all the information that is out there in the public does not indicate any link to the rebellion. There is a link to the reforming of the party as presented on December 6. If anyone has any evidence linking them with Riek’s rebellion and not the numerous assumption drawn (something substantial), please, share.

Why Mobilization of the white army in big numbers in a short time: The white army was already organized and things such as the killings of Nuer people in Juba and the political tension in the country could have been mobilizing factors. YES, I think that Dr. Riek might had established contact and had asked the white army to stay ready for any action or to take part in his rebellion which came after the facts of the “alleged coup” in Juba.

Who gave the reformists the name? Well, on December 6, they were talking about reforms. In the prison, they have told the world that they are not part of Dr. Riek’s rebellion and they have denounced violence and even went further to urge the signing of the cessation of hostilities agreement and not to use their case as a reason to delay a ceasefire.

What are/were the reformists reforming? It is not the government but the SPLM party processes. The documents of the SPLM have not been transformed since 1994 and some of the processes need reform to make the rules of the game fair for everyone vying for the leadership of the party. This conflict was caused by the SPLM chairman’s dictatorial tendencies aimed at blocking key challengers and securing the post at all costs (including the loss of innocent lives as we have witnessed in Juba, Bor, Akobo, Bentiu and Malakal). The issue here is not about the reformists backgrounds.

Those in the government share the same backgrounds as the reformists. Therefore, this notion of presenting the reformists as bad guys is baseless. The issue is that within the SPLM party, some called for reforms and others did not like those reforms. The two sides needed to sit down as one party; debate the issues and vote to allow democratic way of doing things to decide the fate of those reforms.

Let South Sudanese not be fooled; both Kiir and Riek were preparing themselves and were doing parallel planning. If you closely look at President Kiir actions from recruiting and training of tigers (private army), to reducing of Dr. Riek’s powers, to firing of the whole cabinet, to dissolution of the PB and establishment of military relationship with Uganda, you cannot doubt that something was going on.

On the other hand, Riek was planning as well. He established a network of forces within the army as we have witnessed during this crisis. He clearly was planning something that will involve military conflict. This was his one-man’s plan that only his close aides might have known about. This is where Gatdet, James Koang and the other military commanders in Malakal come in and his close aides like Taban and the likes.

His second plan which he gave priority seems to have been political ally. That is where he sided with the other politicians who were detained on the agenda of reforming the party electoral processes. Nyandeeng and Pagan were also candidates as we know; so, the argument that the group was supporting Dr. Riek on December 6 is baseless.

The three candidates and the rest of the SPLM members who were pro-reforms within the party (not government) agreed that they will need to use nonviolent ways to push for party reforms. Is this wrong? That is when the December 6 conference was born. The rally idea was in the air but under condition that if the Chairman of the party does not listen to their call for dialogues. Kiir refused all that.

What we have seen, given the evidence known to the public so far, is the preemptive action by President Kiir to strike first (disarmament of the Nuer members of the presidential guards, rushing to the T.V to call the incident among the guards a coup attempt, killing of Nuers in Juba and accusing Dr. Riek and everybody else who was calling for reforms within the party) before Dr. Riek strikes. Note: I am convinced that if Kiir did not initiate the disarmament, there would have been no violence on December 15 and hopefully, now.

Dr. Riek, even though I am convinced that he had a plan, still had some political leverage to use by December 15 and who knows, may be his plan would have not ripen, had the right processes been followed or if it ripe, it would not have drawn significant support from the Nuer community, resulting in less effects compared to what we have seen.

Kiir had two options regarding the reform call; to do what he did or to open up for dialogues and solve the problems through peaceful means. He refused and instigated the violence. The killings of Nuer people in Juba made things worse and honestly, speaking; it became the strongest recruiting factor for Dr. Riek. Most killings in other areas were retaliatory killings even though they outnumbered the Juba killings; they were done with a retaliatory spirits by the Nuers. I condemn all killings by any side and more must be done to avoid future re-occurrence.

Dr. Riek followed the same route by activating his forces and rebelling against the government of President, Salva Kiir. He made wrong calls; stepping down of president Kiir and the likes. He, too, had options; take refuge somewhere and denounce violence or rebel and don’t attack and only defend himself when attacked; leave the civilians out of the conflict and call for talks to end the conflict. However, his rebellion came after the facts of the “alleged coup.” Moreover, whether provoked or not, it is not acceptable. The two leaders are the ones who have caused our country so many pains. Each of them knew what he was secretly doing. The thing is, none of them is saint and they all have the bloods of innocent people in their hands.

The reformists get their names from their platform; it is simply, English. What is clear, my fellow citizens, many of us know the truth but we simply refuse to admit it and that causes me to question our seriousness to build a nation together.

I say that both kiir and Riek are wrong and should be urged to end this violence immediately. The notion of cheering up the government and only condemning Riek is a very irresponsible position and history will judge that. This rebellion has involved, both, Riek and Nuer community in a unique way that needs a great caution to address it, even though it is denied.

What clearly is not the case is Kiir supporters are not mainly Dinkas but this is because people say, Kiir is an elected leader which is true but being an elected leader does not give the leader a ticket to act irresponsibly to cause harm to his or her citizens. Supporting him does not mean he cannot be told the truth. I support him because he is an elected leader. I would never want an elected leader removed the way Riek Machar is trying to go about. An elected leader can be removed through the act of an impeachment by the people’s government (in our case, the parliament). If kiir was a president in the West, he would have been impeached long time ago. However, I still tell President Kiir that he is wrong and that he caused the violence and he needs to do more to stop it.

A good solution that is in the nation best interest is the one that ends the conflict through nonviolent way and does it immediately so that the social fabric of the country is rebuilt back quickly. There is no military solution by either side. Delaying of a solution only polarizes and widens the effects of the conflict. If Kiir and Riek have a case or political boxing contest, they should do it another time and not this time to save our nation from a serious cleavage. This is what has been my concern.

Many tragedies have happened and all of us are touched by them in a unique ways. However, we don’t want that to be the order of things in South Sudan and particularly, in Upper Nile, all the times from now on.

Abraham Deng Lueth is a Community Support Specialist at Truman Behavioral health Emergency Department in Kansas City, Missouri, United States; he is the President of Greater Bor Community-USA. He previously worked as a critical care laboratory technician and conducted an independent undergraduate biomedical research project which was published in the Plant Science Journal in 2007.

By Micheal G.K. Gatwic

Bor, February 6, 2014 (SSNA) -- Presidents of Uganda and South Sudan clandestinely planned a Kampala-led major military offensive against Sudan rebels and their leader Dr. Machar in Jonglei State and the campaign is underway. But, this time, the number one goal for Yoweri Museveni and Salva Kiir is to destroy Machar and his forces and then agree to negotiate in Ethiopia. The operation has been completed on Wednesday and all editors of all Ugandan influencial media houses are given two choices: either report what Kampala and Juba want or go to hell.

Museveni and Kiir believe that they win because there is no country challenging them militarily and no nation is questioning Uganda's military intervention in South Sudan. The two men make it clear that they will not be deter by strong words from foreign countries. Therefore, the world should not fool the people of South Sudan about peace talks that will not be honored by Kiir and Museveni.

Now the alleged coup has been trashed by the International Community including African nations. The only countries that still believe in that fake coup are Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. The world must not be fooled by the east African bloody dictators: Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Salva kiir of South Sudan.

Salva kiir press secretary Ateny Wek Ateny believes that the propagandas/lies-machine, the South Sudan Television (SSTV), is the only news outlet that tells the truth on South Sudan current crisis. On his way to his grandfather’s state, Uganda, Ateny vowed at Juba International Airport that he and his team want to educate the media houses about the ongoing conflict in South Sudan and he is set to educate Uganda’s media outlets. I am wondering if Ateny and his team will go to Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, or Eritrea to do the same thing there.

Intelligence sources in Kampala have gathered enough information linking Kiir and Museveni to a super-military operation planned to take place in all Lou Nuer counties/villages. Kiir and Museveni concluded that Riek Machar is in one of Lou Nuer counties of Jonglei State and they want to destroy him and his forces there.

At least, that is what they think! I would not bother myself for what Kiir and Museveni Special Forces will receive in return!!

It has been confirmed that Kiir and Museveni clandestinely agreed to use stalling tactics in peace talks so that they should try to find Machar hideouts in Jonglei and attack him. I want the International Community and IGAD’s neutral member states not to be fooled by Kiir and Musveni. You don't need a nother lecture from me because what happened in Juba on December 15-19, 2013, was ill-thought. In those days, Kiir killed innocent civilians who have nothing to do with his fake coup and he wants the world to believe him.

Who would want to believe in someone who killed thousands of innocent civilians in Juba? Again, only Uganda and Rwanda believe in Kiir.

After the 15^th of December 2013, Kiir and Museveni never get enough sleep because their evil plan to get rid of South Sudanese Former Vice president Dr. Riek Machar failed!! Anyone who has extensive knowledge of Kiir’s intention will agree with me that the ongoing IGAD-led peace is a waste of time. If IGAD and the International Community really want peace in South Sudan, then, they must tell Uganda to get out of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan must prepare themselves for what could be the beginning of all-out civil war, unless the International Community and IGAD change their current approaches to peace talks.

The author lives in Jonglei State, South Sudan.

By Micheal G.K. Gatwic

Bor, February 9, 2014 (SSNA) -- Salva Kiir, the man who staged a phony coup after he relied that his chance to become the next chairman of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is next to nothing has transformed himself into a Warrap’s Warlord in command of tribal militia. Men and women who still work for Kiir’s government in Juba have just discovered a term that they want to educate other nations about. The term is “sovereign”; these Juba professional liars want the International Criminal Court (ICC) to punish those who instigated the current crisis which resulted in death of thousands of civilians in Juba, Malakal, Bor, and Bentiu.

These days, all you hear on the Lies machine, SSTV, is that “The Republic of South Sudan is a sovereign State and therefore we cannot listen to anyone”. This is a meaningless political swindle!!

It seems to me that Kiir and his supporters are blindfolded by power and they either forgot international laws under Geneva Convention or are just ignoring them to fulfill their self destructive political egos.

Yes, the people of South Sudan and the International Community want all those who started the crisis to be held accountable, be it in the ICC or elsewhere, and as long as the perpetrators are punished to the full extent of the international laws.

The question is, who is the instigator of the current conflict? The answer is Salva Kiir Mayardiit and his blind political strategists. Again ,the other question is, who is the violator of South Sudan’s constitution? Again, the answer is Salva kiir Mayardiit. Kiir has been using the so called Republican Decrees to remove those he disagrees with and appoint all boot-licking men and women who sing Kiir’s dictatorial songs even in their beds; let alone those who were elected by their people (e.g state Governors, etc.). And now the instigator of the current conflict and violator of the constitution want to punish his political rivals for his own misdeeds. If you object to my answers, good; just go and watch SSTV and you will be fine (note that I am not endorsing your wicked project).

Salva kiir, the mastermind of December 15, 2013, bogus coup, is treating his national ministers like his political enemies. In Juba, only few ministers are allowed to go anywhere they want: in case you don’t know these lucky men, they are Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin, Minister of Information Michael Makuei Lueth, and Defense Minister kuol Manyang juuk, among others. The reason behind Kiir’s decision not to allow most members of his cabinet to move freely is clear: they will flee to neighboring countries and turn against his already unwanted leadership. Kiir even called back some of his ambassadors to Juba and told them to stay in Juba till further notice. This is a clear indication of a desperate leader who fails and doesn’t know what he is doing.

The self made coup is upside down, while Juba, Kapala, and Kigali are left with crumbling oil deals/promises. Don’t ask me why because the right people to ask are: Salva kiir Mayardiit and his trusted insiders plus Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.

In a surprise twist, Museveni is reported to have been having hard time paying his due to the African Union (AU).  I thought he got enough free oil money from Kiir to pay his bills since the two men signed their military agreement a year ago.

Museveni and Kiir kill thousands of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with their bogus coup and commit massive international money laundering in South Sudan (More mind blowing writings on these topics in coming days or weeks).

But, I have few words for Kiir and his no-nothing strategists: all the dirty and evil acts you and Museveni have committed including your current or future plans are being recorded and monitored twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Sooner or later, you will regret. Did you get it? In case you are not in good mood, just get a giant book for yourself and start recording all your actions in details, and make sure you begin it from August of 2005 to present.

Kiir, all your actions are being collected without your permission!! You don’t have power at all; all you have is Juba with frightening residents. And please, don’t treat your government ministers as prisoners. Let them walk free and go wherever they want to go. Oh, no, I forgot the fact that they will all defect and you will be left with very few ministers, setting another blow to your disastrous leadership.

It is true that South Sudan is sovereign country, but what Juba’s pathological politicians forgot is that being a member of the United Nations (UN) does not mean green cards in front of all government buildings in Juba. In short, the United Nations has rights to investigate human rights abuses, killings, and carrying out military strikes whenever it deems necessary to protect civilians or even to get rid of a ruthless bloody dictator with blood of innocent civilians on his hands. These are just facts and the Propagandists in Juba should not waste their time trying to keep calm the terrifying residents of Juba who are being denied access to the international media outlets for fear that they will talk to outside world who will then expose Juba’s brutal crimes. The International Community should not waste time with Kiir who killed innocent civilians and talk oil money the next day. Kiir is just fighting for oil and nothing else because he has lost legitimacy in south Sudan. Sooner or later, the oil money will dry up and the rest is up to you to judge. Salva kiir Mayardiit is the Instigator of the current crisis and Ringleader of December 15, 2013, fake coup.

The author lives in Jonglei, South Sudan.

By Deng Vanang

‘’Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it, proverbs 3: 27’’

February 10, 2014 (SSNA) -- This opinion piece centers around the draft document South Sudan political parties planned to present at the next round of peace talks in Addis before IGADD mediators, troika partner countries comprising of Norway, Great Britain and United States of America. More other invited observers to benefit from this opinion piece include interested independent states and international individual actors and institutions at the IGADD - sponsored peace talks. Though it is still draft to be fine tuned later, such a state doesn’t exonerate it from public scrutiny since it is unlikely future amendments therein won’t change the crux of the main points already deliberated.

While it is to be born in mind similar opinion doesn’t in any way deny the fact that what began as SPLM in house storm has spilled over and encapsulated the whole country. And therefore, as local citizens, political analysts and peace mediators mutually agreed, calls for the involvement of all political forces in the country to craft all an inclusive solution. Equally not to be gainsaid is the bare fact that all parties outside SPLM have the foresight needed to pinpoint the wrongs and rights, commissions and omissions as committed by both parties to the conflict. A conflict already defined by either side to the conflict as real or fabricated coup if their [political parties] participation has to be deemed as constructive and helpful to the country’s quest for peaceful, fair and everlasting resolution of the on-going crisis.

Unfortunately, however, the aforementioned legitimate reasons which require political parties to participate are hitherto jeopardized by three essential factors. One being an aura of fear necessitated earlier by the release of joint statement on 31^st December 2013 in Presidential Palace Hall [J- 1] vehemently denouncing the December 15^th shootout within Presidential guards unit as the aborted coup de tat. Such a one sided statement by political parties including SPLM devoid of justification is not cognizant of vital witnesses’ role in any crisis. A role which requires witnesses whether individuals or entities need not be at liberty to say anything they deem fit just to please certain benefactors. Instead, should have the moral obligation to present a credible burden of proof or else they may be subjected to a severe legal reprimand.  Added to such a piece of advice is that politics like any other games have rules and regulations governing it as opposed to what several expert actors and lay spectators perceived to be the norm. For the rule of the thumb dictates politics ought to be in the pursuit of people - centered goals and interests than purely selfish ones lest politicians loss public faith, confidence and much needed credibility. That is the only insurance cover against the mega loss of the politicians’ hard earned political careers through endless electoral defeats.

Two more elements added to fear are in the blurriness and confusion that have erroneously defined political parties current position paper christened as ‘’Road Map of the Political Parties on the Resolution of the Conflict’’ whichdrives them from the high moral ground to constructively mediate in the crisis and possibly envisage a better future South Sudanese people have been longing for not seen before by the SPLM rival factions into a lowly position of an irrelevance. Such a pompously dubbed document as their position in the IGADD – sponsored talks, in the first place, cited nothing new to add more value to the efforts towards restoring the lost peace than re-affirming IGADD position. The said position outlined three important issues to bring to an immediate end to the violence which has engulfed South Sudan. These are cessation of hostilities, addressing root causes of the conflict which include among others the inbuilt governance deficiencies that either greatly or in small way contributed to the current sorry state of affairs as well as repairing the damage done to the state – society and inter-community relations the internecine conflict has caused so far.

One more perplexing thing is the gist of the two – page position paper best and holistically captured by the below illustrated excerpts. Which begins with paragraph three of the position document quoted and highlighted as follows: ‘’The end result of this process should be a new political structure that re-affirms commitment to constitutionality, democracy and human rights and capable of restoring some confidence in the country’s political process’’ is made redundant by number one bullet point on page two under ‘’Frame work for Transitional Arrangements sub-title’’ which says and I quote: ‘’Recognition of the constitutional order in the country, but important changes are unavoidable. The elected President and elected institutions have to continue till the time for the elections, but anything else should be negotiable, it continues”.

Critique

To critique the above mentioned quoted excerpts, if the elected President and institutions have to continue till time of the elections, that means people still harbor full trust and confidence in them and therefore any purposed transitional arrangements are not necessary. The same hypothesis pours new wine into the old bottle which undoubtedly spoils the newness of the former. As it is not tenable to mandate same old, tired dual system to implement ideas it thinks threaten its very existence let alone championing them as a trash it loves to hate.

Secondly, the continuity of the Presidency and its affiliates it helped form depends by and large on the outcome of who in between President Kiir and rebel Leader Dr. Machar fabricated or staged the attempted coup respectively. Should the coup become a reality as staged by Machar, not only will he loss most political support locally, international trust and face the fate of a coup instigator in court of law, but also there will be no anybody to blame and punish Kiir for the fault that is not his. With such a verdict, then democracy as accepted system of governance in South Sudan in particular and worldwide in general together with its embodied institutional instruments under the legitimately elected President shall remain in full force unperturbed till the mandatory period of 2015 elections. Unless the President in his discretion of goodwill recognizes the reality of the conflict as having indeed occurred and resultantly eroded the little trust and social harmony previously existed between the affected communities and hence, the need to over haul state institutions to heal the wounds and take care of all doubts as well as instill misgivings in the hearts of the would be vanquished renegades and victorious incumbents.

While on the contrary, if the President is found to have instigated the coup attempt as the ploy to politically eliminate rivals in the SPLM and to more extent the ethnic group from which the so called ring leader originates, being Riek Machar, then there will be mounting questions and recriminations on Kiir’s legitimacy as democratically elected leader by and for all and sundry.

In pursuit of justice in that direction one scenario is something to do with the person who instigated a non-existent military coup that contributes to the death of countless number of people and destruction of property worth billions of South Sudanese Pounds. Such a person [Kiir] is no different from the one who mounted the actual coup de tat in all jurisprudential terms. For both before court of law can face equal charges of treason punishable with death if proven to be true leave alone the President remaining in power.

Second scenario is to do with the country where democracy is respected in letter and spirit as is the case in the Western world since any leader that makes foul play, like for an instance, undermining the democratic principles that helped his/her rise to pinnacles of power and subverting the course of justice which traditionally ensures the rule of law and stability simply to attain narrow personal ends of maintaining power at public and some individuals’ expense can voluntarily admit quilt, tender resignation and call it quits or else risks being removed through an impeachment in the competent August house. The same Western experience recently found credence and responsible for bringing down former President of the Republic of South Africa, His Excellency Thabo Mbeki in 2009. The land mark ruling happened just six months to the formal end of his Presidential term; when the Appeal court found it otherwise in the earlier proceedings of the alleged corruption charges in the Supreme court that he manipulated justice against his former Deputy President, Jacob Zuma so that he Mbeki got rid of Zuma in a highly charged secession politics never seen before in South African society from both the government and governing African National Congress, ANC.

Invaluable advice

For the South Sudan political parties to keep themselves afloat and relevant in the unfolding political situation in the country with an aim of seizing the opportunity they could not have attained had there been no blood stained political fallout in the SPLM party, need to keep some distance away from opportunistically fishing in the SPLM’s troubled political waters while constructively contribute their inputs that help the country get out of this quagmire. This in the future could earn them much needed credibility in the eyes of electorate since the formal end to this crisis, which is being presided over currently in the South Sudanese court of public opinion, IGADD - sponsored peace talks in Addis and possibly The Hague – based ICC, shall eventually be amicably resolved at the ballot box. By toeing a middle line in the crisis, either side that wines shall invite them to participate in a more foreseeable future unity government than taking sides and probably what will be the wrong side later in the situation still so fluid such as this shall be a blunder of an unimaginable proportion to continue tightening the lid on their present isolation from the main stream politics. Additional advice worth listening to is to further engage in agitating for all an inclusive deliberation on issues of governance where SPLM as the whole has been failing the general public in their demands and aspirations. These issues are political processes that will shape their elections campaign manifestos and improve on the chances of winning future democratic elections best tailored to the needs of the public already frustrated by SPLM poor governance in the areas of National Reconciliation and Healing, all an inclusive drafting of the permanent constitution subject to nationwide referendum, population and housing census with subsequent demarcation and delimitation of the boundaries of the would be newly established geo-political constituencies, unbiased registration of political parties a fresh as well as free and fair monitoring of the yet to be general elections.

Deng Vanang is a journalist and member of Executive Committee of the South Sudan leading opposition party, SPLM-DC and can be reached at: dvanang@yahoo.com

By Leo Rom-Yieri

February 13, 2014 (SSNA) -- While the Peace Process hangs in the balance in Addis Ababa, South Sudan is going through a very painful, destructive experience that has already taken thousands of lives since the start of the fighting on December 15, 2013. The conflict has taken many lives within a very short period of time due to the fact that the government, for whatever reason, decided to include the unarmed civilians in the list of those who had to be targeted. The reason for such an inclusion remains to be known when the time comes for a proper and impartial investigation to be conducted once the time is right.

But, what we know for sure is that when unarmed people are targeted by an armed group, it is easy to kill as many as possible as the targeted group becomes unable to keep the killers off. This inability to fight back and keep the armed attackers off places the attackers in a safe and comfortable position while carrying on with their attack. Then the armed group tends to go on with a fake bravery, for it does not fear any reprisals from its vulnerable target. This action is the kind that only a coward can commit, seeing it as a chance to strike the hardest blow at a soft target. Such coward attackers would kill a defenseless people with so much boldness that they would do it without even covering up their own tracks.

This was exactly what began on the morning of December 16 when the government used its militia to round up and kill the civilians who happened to be men and boys from the Nuer tribe, and whose crime for which they were executed was their tribal identity. They were completely innocent and defenseless as they were unarmed civilians—who did not even have the slightest expectation of what was coming to them—attacked by armed uniformed men who acted on behalf of the government which had just declared that a coup had been attempted. It was the ultimate crime that a country could commit against her own citizens.

What Happened on December 15, 2013?

The ongoing crisis in South Sudan did not just burst out on December 15, 2013 as a completely surprising and isolated event, as there had been other prior political events in the country preceding it, which had connection to the incident. The incident was actually a culmination of those prior political events. What surprised and is still surprising to many—nationals and foreigners alike—is the shape that the incident came to take beginning on the morning of December 16, 2013 and on when the Presidential Guards (the 15,000 Kiir’s personal militias) went on a targeted killings of Nuer men and boys on no other ground than their being Nuer by tribe.

For the purpose of simplicity, I consider it fair and reasonable to say that the political differences within the SPLM started with the SPLM 2^nd National Convention in May of 2008 when Salva Kiir, the then Chairman of the SPLM and President of the Government of Southern Sudan, unilaterally decided that he did not want Dr. Riek Machar, his then 1^st Deputy, to remain as his Deputy in the SPLM. Instead, he wanted the 2^nd Deputy, James Wani Igga, to replace Dr. Riek. He failed to give a convincing explanation as to why he did not want his 1^st Deputy to remain as such. He simply did not like him. But there was a problem with such a position.

During the 2002 merging of the SPLM (led by Dr. Garang) and the SPDF (led by Dr. Riek), it was decided, as a matter of unity for the people of South Sudan, that the original SPLM line of hierarchy should be used by the re-unified SPLM. The other position was that, there were two Movements, SPLM and SPDF, merging. As such, if the leader of one group took the first position, the leader of the other would take the second position, and so on. Eventually, it was agreed that there were no two Movements. There were only two factions of the SPLM, and as such, the first position was adopted (Garang as Chairman, Kiir as the 1^st Deputy Chairman since Kerubino and William Nyuon had died, Riek as the 2^nd Deputy Chairman since those who had been between him and Kiir had also died, and Wani Igga as the 4^th person in the line of succession since Lam Akol was now out of the SPLM at the time of the re-unification). It was this same formula that the Movement used at the death of its leader, John Garang, in a Ugandan military helicopter crash in 2005 after meeting with Yoweri Museveni. The SPLM, as a group had no intention to bring this formula to disuse. During the Convention, it became apparent that only Kiir and his supporters such as Paul Malong Awan, Daniel Awet Akot and others wanted to discard it for reasons known to him and few others. Ultimately, he failed, and the hierarchy of the SPLM was preserved one more time.

In 2010, national elections were conducted. Salva Kiir appointed his 2^nd Deputy, Igga, as head of a committee whose job it was to identify and organize for the nomination of candidates who would be on the SPLM tickets for different positions in the elections. As a result, unpopular candidates were chosen by the Party on the basis of their perceived loyalty to Kiir. It went against the wishes of the people. This resulted in a number of individuals who were favored by the constituents to declare their candidacies as independents. Kiir and his supporters saw that as a sign of disrespect for the leadership and authorized an open hostility against the independent candidates. Dr. Riek Machar and a few others were the only ones who felt that the independents had a constitutional right to run for offices within their respective constituencies. That did not go well with Kiir and his handpicked members of the Political Bureau. He was accused of working against the Party, and treated with disrespect by not allowing him to take any active role in the nomination process. In fact, his nomination as Kiir’s presidential running-mate came as a surprise to Kiir’s closest allies who had the understanding with Kiir that the election was the right event to leave him (Riek) out in the cold. But there was a very strong voice on the street not to make any mistake to leave him out. Kiir had to listen to that voice, as the referendum process leading to Independence needed Dr. Riek in the leadership circle of South Sudan for effective decision-makings. In the end, elections were rigged against the independent candidates and resulted in a number of rebellions throughout the country. Well known among those rebellions included those which were led by George Athor Deng, Gatluak Gai and David Yau Yau respectively.

2011 marked the Independence for the country. With this Independence came the need for a new constitution. The Committee that Kiir appointed to produce a draft came up with a document that was totally written with Salva Kiir in mind as the president. It centralized the state power and gave it almost all to the President. The previous Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan under a united Sudan was even more democratic. Dr. Riek was among those who favored a decentralized state power whereby power could be divided between the States and the National Government, and between separate branches at each level. That way, it would look more democratic and people-centered document. It would also decentralize decision-making in terms of service delivery whereby failure of the national government in one area would not automatically translate into failure by states in that same area. Basically, the proposal was leaning toward some sort of a federal arrangement. Kiir saw this as a challenge to his power, and accused Dr. Riek of running a parallel government. He knew very well that there was no parallel government that Dr. Riek was running. Instead, he intentionally chose to refuse to acknowledge the fact that writing of a constitution was a process that demanded different and competing proposals and opinions so as to afford the people a variety of choices to choose from. Kiir wanted the people to have no other choice but what he had proposed.

In March of 2013, the SPLM issued a report after a survey was conducted throughout the country on how the people perceived the ruling party. The results were damning. The people expressed their concern over the party’s loss of vision and direction under Kiir. Under normal circumstances, such reports call for a search for a solution both inside and outside of the box, and the party in question takes them seriously. It was after this report that high ranking members of the SPLM, especially members of the Political Bureau, started thinking of ways to correct the mistake. One of the ways to correct this mistake of missing the vision and direction was for Kiir to step aside and allow someone else to take-over the party’s chairmanship in view of re-energizing the party. Three of these high ranking party officials who expressed interests in running for the office of the chairman included Dr. Riek Machar, Pagan Amum and Rebecca Nyandeng. James Wani Igga indicated his interest for the position, but only if Kiir chose to step aside. Otherwise, he would run for the second position behind Kiir. The three would challenge Kiir in the 3^rd National Convention that was to take place in May of 2013.

The option of Kiir stepping aside appeared popular with the majority of the members of the Political Bureau. The popularity of this option prompted Kiir to take the position to delay the Convention so that he could have enough time to manipulate members of the Political Bureau by appointing some to ministerial positions and decreeing out those others who did not appear to support him in the party of ministerial positions. This was exactly what he did. Each time that a Political Bureau meeting was scheduled to discuss party documents which were due for endorsement by the body, it was postponed. Each time a meeting was postponed, he used the time in between to work on getting a majority on his side so that he could go to the meeting comfortable that his versions of the party documents would get the endorsement that he needed. Of course, his versions of the documents were and are still written in such a way that they gave or give him unfair advantage over his would-be rivals by setting aside a percentage of the electorates for the chairman and other unfair provisions.

It appeared that the strategy of buying people off with ministerial positions was not working the way that it was thought initially. Each time a person was decreed out of his ministerial or government position, he was indirectly sent straight to the opposition. The same cycle simply continued. Now, a new strategy had to be worked out. The second strategy was to take out the Political Bureau voting members who were not siding with Kiir by all means, including legal by placing criminal accusations on them. Those who were targeted in this scheme of things included Pagan Amum, Deng Alor and Kosti Manibe. The plan was to tie them down with legal actions hanging around their necks without taking them to court for trials for as long as it would take so that they could not participate in the Political Bureau proceedings and the Convention. This plan and others were intended to reduce the number of the Political Bureau members who were seen as unti-Kiir. They were intended to create an artificial minority in the Political Bureau. Riek Machar, Rebecca Nyandeng, Taban Deng, John Luk and others were incapable of being reached using these legal means. A separate plan had to be designed to take them out as irrelevant in the party political process.

In late November, Kiir dissolved the structures of the SPLM, excepting his office. Another structure that he left undissolved was the secretariat, minus its Secretary General, Pagan Amum. The Political Bureau, National Liberation Council and state structures were dissolved. In fact he instructed Governors, after the Governors Forum, to go back to their respective states and start organizing their people and choose delegates to attend the 3^rd National Convention that he and his supporters in the Political Bureau on one side and the National Secretariat on the other were in the process of organizing. At this point, unti-Kiir members of the Political Bureau who were incapable of being taken out using legal means were irrelevant because Kiir could now choose who to work with in organizing the Convention. Feeling that he had an exclusive control of the process, Kiir ordered that National Liberation Council meeting be convened to approve the documents that he had wanted approved so that he could go ahead with the National Convention in which he would be automatically elected Chairman of the SPLM, an election that would ensure his placement on the SPLM ticket for president come the 2015 elections. What was and is still puzzling was and is the fact that the National Liberation Council was called to meet after it had been dissolved. Where did it get the legitimacy from after the dissolution? He had not even attempted to re-appoint it before the meeting could take place. Was Kiir the only legitimizing and delegitimizing factor in the SPLM, depending on what he wanted to achieve? Kiir was now re-playing the Biblical story of “Let there be light, and there was light.”

At this stage, Dr. Riek and his group felt that Kiir had gone too far in destroying a democratic political process. The group called for a press conference to take place on December 6, 2013 to inform the general membership of the party, through the press, of the status of the outstanding political issues in the party. The press was briefed as planned. One of the strongest statements made was that Kiir’s previous dissolution of the SPLM structures was unconstitutional. If he was now convinced that what he had done was unconstitutional and that he had to recognize the legitimacy of the National Liberation Council to deliberate on the documents, he had to call a Political Bureau meeting before the meeting of the National Liberation Council so that the former could set the agenda for the latter. The group ended their press briefing by announcing that it would engage the public directly on December 14 if Kiir and his group failed to do the right thing.

The constitutional challenges put forward by the pro-democracy group became difficult for Kiir and his group to ignore. Here you have a Kiir who had dissolved the structures of the party. This same Kiir was now calling one of the dissolved structures to legitimize documents intended to curtail a democratic process. Even then, another structure, the Political Bureau, was bypassed in the process that was unfolding. But, this bypassed and unwanted structure, the Political Bureau, had a constitutional authority to give legitimacy to the actions of the seemingly favored structure when it came to the agenda for the latter’s deliberations. To solve this problem of contradictions, a mock Political Bureau meeting was quickly called for the pro-Kiir members of the body and blessed Kiir’s program in relation to the National Liberation Council’s business.

The initial date designated for the meeting of the National Liberation Council was missed due to Kiir’s attendance of the memorial service for Nelson Mandela. However, the meeting had to be rescheduled for another date. In a confrontational spirit, the pro-Kiir chose to reschedule their meeting to take place on the same day that the pro-democracy group had chosen for their public rally. That was a clear signal that the pro-Kiir group was planning for something illegal to take place on that day so that they could use it to involve the police. They might have been planning for a violent confrontation between their supporters and those of the pro-democracy group. This way, Kiir could have his opportunity to put the opposition leaders behind bars on the pretext that they were behind the violence.

Alarmed by the unfolding situation, Church and community leaders took the initiative to talk to the leaders on both sides, asking them not to allow their planned activities to coincide. Seeing the genuineness of that appeal, and perhaps in line with their desire to present a clean democratic challenge to dictatorship without allowing Kiir to make any criminal accusations against them, members of the pro-democracy group resolved to cancel their rally that had been scheduled for the 14^th even though they were the first to choose the date. The pro-Kiir went ahead with the National Liberation Council meeting, which was even attended by some members of the other group, including Dr. Riek himself. It was at this meeting that it became crystal clear that Kiir was not ready for an inclusive, democratic process.

In his opening speech, Kiir made two statements, which stood out of all the other ones in regard to the opposition. First, there was a statement that gave an indication that Kiir was not ready to tolerate any political challenge. “In recent developments, some comrades came out to challenge my executive powers. I am not prepared to allow this to happen again.”, Kiir said.

In analyzing this two-sentence statement, three elements are crucial, and they are “recent developments”, “executive powers” and “not prepared to allow” the challenge. By recent developments, he meant the party activities, especially the activities of the opposition, including the December 6 press conference. The executive powers he meant were his powers as president. The problem is that these two things: party activities and presidential powers to not operate together. Kiir is known to mix these things up so that he can use his powers in the government to achieve his goals in the party, and vice versa. This can only explain the dictatorial tendencies on the part of the actor. The third element that he was “…not prepared to allow…” a challenge to his powers, whether in the party or in the government, speaks for itself. It only indicated that he was ready and prepared to fight against his political nemeses at all costs using all means available at his disposal to maintain power—however irrelevant and illegal. The significance of the first two elements of the statement was that, he was ready to use the armed forces as the commander-in-chief to silence his enemies in the party.

The other statement was directed, as an attack, to Dr. Riek’s position and status in the SPLM. It went as follows: “After being accommodated in the SPLM, they took their positions in the government for granted. When they were reshuffled, they took the changes negatively.” By accommodation, he meant the reunification between Dr. Riek’s group and Dr. Garang’s group in 2002. He wanted to send a message that Riek was not a true member of SPLM who should challenge him, as he considers himself as the only true and real SPLM member deserving the position. He forgot that Riek was not being accommodated when he took up the third position in 2002 after Garang and Kiir. He was only occupying his rightful position in the hierarchy of the SPLM. Kiir himself was among the proponents of that formula, for he saw that he was about to be overtaken by Riek if the other formula was to be used. By saying that positions were taken for granted, he wanted the audience to think that Riek opposed him because he (Riek) had been reshuffled out. He had forgotten that the audience knew very well that Riek had voiced out his interest for the top position in the party before the reshuffle. In fact, he was reshuffled out because of that. How could he now be accused of retaliating for being reshuffled out when his opposition preceded the reshuffle?

Having seen Kiir acting the way he did on the first day of the meeting, members of the opposition group opted to stay out of the meeting on the second day. Kiir saw that boycott as a challenge to his “executive powers”, which he had promised himself a day before not to allow to happen again. This time, he felt that he needed to use his “executive powers” to arrest his challengers in the party.

As many know, the relationship between Kiir and the General Chief of Staff had been strained due to the latter’s refusal to see the army involved in what was a political issue that only needed a political solution. This position taken by the Chief of General Staff continued up to the 15^th of December. As committed to what he wanted to do as he was, Kiir bypassed the Chief of General Staff who had just returned from a long vacation in Australia and instructed his trusted General in charge of the Presidential Guard, Maj. General Marial Cinuor, to carry out the arrest of the challengers of the president’s “executive powers”.

Before carrying out the exercise, there was a problem to be solved first. The presidential guard was a mixed force, which included members of the Nuer tribe. Actually, the operation was mainly against Dr. Riek, and the Nuer soldiers were not trusted for the job. Not only that they were not trusted for the job, they were also thought to be a group that would not allow the operation to take place due to their tribal association with Dr. Riek. They had to be disarmed before the operation could commence. It was decided that only the Dinka members of the force should carry out the task as they were believed to be loyal to their tribesman, Kiir. The trusted General paraded the force and disarmed the members without any incident. But then, he started re-arming the Dinka members without anyone else knowing what was really going on. This aroused the suspicion of the Nuer members who felt that something was terribly wrong with what the General was doing. They did not feel safe, and demanded that the situation be explained to them so as to allay their fears. Failure of the General to explain to the soldiers forced them to decide to re-arm themselves for protection against the unknown, and that was how the fight started within the Presidential Guard’s Headquarters.

As soon as the fight broke out among the members of the Presidential Guards, the initial plan to arrest the challengers of President’s “executive powers” was dropped and the incident was immediately labeled as an attempted coup. Now, it is taken as an opportunity to arrest the same people as coup plotters instead. They figured that this would be a stronger accusation than the first one. The incident was also going to be used to carryout mass killings of the civilians whose only crime was their tribal identity.

But, the fact of the matter was that an attempted coup, as declared on the morning of December 16, 2013 by Salva Kiir, never existed. There was only a fighting resulting from a misunderstanding among members of Kiir’s force. Turning it around and calling it an attempted coup was only a way to interrupt a democratic political process by putting political adversaries behind bars, hopping to put a complete end to a political headache that he had experienced prior to the incident.

What Happened Beginning on December 16, 2013?

The events of the 16^th of December also came to take place as parts of a long-term plan that was only brought to actualization by the events of the night of the 15^th. It began to take shape with the training of the 15,000-member presidential militia force known by such names as Doot Beny, Thiang Beny, Koch Beny (president’s people) or Gel Weng. The incident on the 15^th was only used as an excuse for carrying out a long-term plan of mass tribal killings, just the same way that the same event was used to attempt on achieving a political goal of silencing political detractors in the SPLM. It was the story of “killing two birds with one stone”.

Everyone who was aware of the development (training of the militia) knew that a problem was on its way coming. But, when it came to imagining what that problem would be, almost everyone missed it. What was on everybody’s mind was that, the militia would be used by Kiir as secret hit men to assassinate his political enemies. No one could have thought that the militia would be used to slaughter unarmed, defenseless civilians on the basis of their tribal origins.

Initially, the recruitment of these 15,000 men was done by Kiir and Paul Malong Awan, the Governor of Northern Bahr al-Gazal, in Warrap and Northern Bahr al-Gazal states. This was done outside of the regular SPLA recruitment process. It was a private undertaking by the two men. In fact, the SPLA Headquarters came to be involved only when it was revealed that these recruits were part of the regular SPLA, and that their salaries had to be paid by the SPLA. This revelation caused some misgivings as there were SPLA recruits in some of the training facilities that had been there for years without being graduated. An example is the big number of recruits who had been in Mapel for more than two years. There were also people on training in Owiny-ki-bul. If Kiir saw a need for the size of his force to be increased, he could have just asked the Chief of General Staff to work something out.

The initial training of these men took place in Northern Bahr al-Gazal. After that, they were moved to Luri Mountain located west of Juba near Kiir’s cattle camp, for further training. It should be noted that from the time that they were recruited to the time that they were graduated and started their first operation on the morning of the 16^th, they had never been mixed with anyone from the other South Sudanese tribes. They were purely from the Dinka of Warrap and Northern Bahr al-Gazal trained alone for a mission that only they, Kiir and Paul Malong Awan knew. This makes one think that during the whole process, they were given a message that no other South Sudanese were wanted to know. And that secret message must be what they started to carry out on the 16^th.

To support this conclusion, one would cite a number of things. The first thing to cite would be the secret process that involved members of a single tribe, a tribe that is just one among more than sixty tribes. These men are not just from the Dinka community. They come specifically from the home states of the two principal recruiters: Kiir and Paul Malong Awan. The rest of the Dinka community was left out in this process, probably to protect the secret harbored by the two men.

The second thing that needs to be cited is Kiir’s inciting speech that he made in November in his hometown, Akon, where he spoke in Dinka language telling his people that there were people who wanted to take the leadership from him. He referred to the leadership as belonging to the people to whom he was talking. He basically told them that they had fought hard to get it. He asked them whether or not they were now ready to let others take it, to which the audience responded by saying, “A ci bi gam”. “A ci bi gam” in Dinka means, “it will never happen”.

The other problem was Kiir’s excessive references to the 1991 events after the split of the SPLA to remind people of what has become known as the Bor massacre. After the split, the two factions were locked in an inter-factional war that ended up affecting the civilians. Each side committed atrocities against civilians who were believed to side with the other. One of those events was the attack on Bor by forces majority of whom were members of the Nuer tribe. A big number of civilians were killed as a result of that attack. As such, some members of the Dinka community erroneously blame it on the Nuer community even though the fighting was between two SPLA factions. Any blame for the deaths of the civilians resulting from the inter-factional fighting should have been directed against the faction that was believed to be responsible for those deaths. Kiir and Paul Malong must be among those who blame the incident on the Nuer and feel that those killings must be avenged. What surprises people is that in recruiting these avengers, the Dinka Bor whose community would be avenged were left out in the recruitment process. They would have been natural members of such a group. This indicates that Kiir and Paul Malong might have their own separate agenda, and that the excessive references to the 1991 events was to arouse the emotions of their fellow Dinka men so as to put them in a revenge mode so that when the time was right, they would do anything in their powers to hit as hard as they could to ensure a maximum damage on the target community. He might have ordered the killings of mostly Nuer men and boys to deprive his arch political nemesis, Riek Machar, of potential supporters. Or he might have some other reason to hate the Nuer as a tribe.

Whatever the case might be, Kiir has succeeded in carrying out his mission to use the state power to kill innocent civilians in their thousands on the basis of their tribal origin to achieve a goal that is yet to be understood when the time is proper—an act that has placed a country in a dangerously destructive course. What is and ought to be more important than anything else at this point is to stop him from continuing to carry out his destructive policies against particular communities and against the country in general.  

What is the Plan for the Future of South Sudan?

Salva Kiir Mayardit has ceased to be a legitimate President. He has acted numerous times in contravention with the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan. He sponsored the destruction of the Lou Nuer community in 1996 on the pretext that the communities were too dangerous to themselves. At the time, three communities in Jonglei, namely the Lou Nuer, the Murle and the greater Dinka Bor were to be disarmed. The forceful disbarment began with the Lou Nuer. After the killings of civilians in their hundreds, the disarmament was declared a success. However, the general disarmament policy stopped there without touching the two other neighboring communities. That became a recipe for a disaster as the neighboring communities saw an opportunity to raid the Lou Nuer cattle without any resistance. That led to an all-out war between the Lou and Murle communities. Kiir, as the person who was in charge of the security of the country, did not see it as a problem. Maybe his main plan was to make the Lou Nuer vulnerable to their neighbors so that they could be devastated, as this became the case in Pieri Payam 2012. This incident, and others prior to it, forced the Lou youths to march to the Murleland in thousands to carry out revenge attacks on Murle—a march that only Dr. Riek put a stop to by personally going to the Murleland to intercept the advancing youths. It was only when the international community started crying out at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 that Kiir decided to act. He ended up doing the wrong thing: sponsoring the destruction of the Morle community on the pretext that he was restoring order by disarming the Murle and defeating David Yau Yau’s rebellion in the area.

In 2013, he unconstitutionally removed two elected state Governors, Chol Tong Mayay of Lakes State and Taban Deng Gai of Unity State. Article 101 (r) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan allows removal of a Governor only when there is a crisis in the state. In the cases of the two Governors there were no crises in their respective states. The only state with a crisis at the time was Jonglei where a rebellion by David Yau Yau was an ongoing. Surprisingly, Kiir did not remove Kuol Manyang, the then Governor of Jonglei. Anyway, after removing the two Governors, at different times, he appointed caretakers in their places. In each of the two cases, he failed to request them to organize elections within the 60 days demanded by Article 101 (s) of the Constitution. He arrogantly allowed the caretakers to continue unconstitutionally. He considered any advice to do something so as to be in conformity with the constitutional provision as a challenge to his authority. To him, the best way to respond to this perceived challenge was to stay put on the wrong side of the supreme law of the land. He considers that as a strength of leadership on his part.

Having a militia of his own besides the national army and other organized forces is a violation of the Constitution. Article 151 (3) of the Constitution does not provide him the option of organizing his own private army without a provision of a law. If he saw an urgent need for that, then he should have gone to the National Legislature to get some sort of approval and some legislative act of authorization, as this type of undertaking needed a law and money, and the National Legislature supposedly holds the national purse. What happened, beginning from December 16, is what the law prevents by not allowing personal militias to exist. It prevents personal loyalty. A national army trained to protect a country, not one particular person, would not have done what Kiir’s militia has committed. They would have refused to execute such a criminal order as their loyalty would be to the country, but not to Kiir.

Using the army to silence his political rivals in the party is unconstitutional. First, the party and the government are two separate institutions. While the SPLM is a private membership political organization, the government is a public institution that belongs to all South Sudanese irrespective of their party affiliations. The fact that the SPLM is the ruling party does not make it an extension of the government of South Sudan. It can only influence government decisions through its members who are running the government. In principle, the SPLM cannot fund the government, nor can the government fund the SPLM.

Second, the Constitution does not allow the use of military for political ends. This is exactly the reason why Kiir and his group have been going around talking about an attempted coup. They understand that using the army to “take” state power is unconstitutional. They want to use the words “attempted coup” to make the world sympathize with them as protectors of the Constitution, for a coup would be seen as a violation of the constitution. What he and his group fail to understand is the other side of Article 4 (1) of the Constitution: he cannot use the army to “maintain” political power. What he should have done was to allow the SPLM Convention to take place in May of 2013 so as to democratically “maintain” or transfer power without resorting to military force.

The eventual use of his personal militia and the very act of killing people in masses on the basis of their tribal origin and using the state power to actually achieve this, whatever the end goal may be, is the ultimate act against the Constitution, especially “right to life and human dignity” under Article 11 of the Bill of Rights. After all this, two things are now going against Kiir: the Constitution and other international humanitarian laws do not allow him to kill unarmed, defenseless civilians the way he did in December and, therefore, he must do a lot of explaining; and after the killings, South Sudanese have lost trust in him as a leader. After the Nuer, which tribe might be next? It is difficult to predict. And that is dangerous.

Looking at each of the cases above, Kiir can be said to have made a coup against himself for going against the very Constitution that gave him the power to be in the presidential office. Without this Constitution, he would have been just a Salva Kiir in some village in Warrap without any thing to do with the rest of the people of South Sudan. The Constitution is what constitutes South Sudan as one nation that brings together different members of the South Sudanese tribes as one people. That is his only source of legitimacy to lead all South Sudanese. Going against that document means going against himself as a leader. He has defeated himself. His only survival is the use of the Ugandan Army in keeping to perpetrate crimes against humanity. But time is soon coming for the Ugandans to get tired of dying in a foreign land for a reason that is clear only to Museveni. Once the time comes for them to get out, Kiir will surely want to leave with them.

The ethnic killings that Kiir has sponsored using his tribesmen have basically divided the country on tribal lines. And, this was done to achieve purely personal goals as it is believed that the rest of the Dinka community has nothing to do with that act. As such, the act was purely criminal and personal, not communal. The men from Aweil and Warrap and the government were only used for personal gains of an individual(s). Responsibility shall go to the principal and the agents who have taken active part in planning and execution of this barbaric act. The two communities have nothing to fight over, and should not allow the incident to divide them. They should only unite with other South Sudanese communities to rid themselves of Kiir’s criminal regime.

For the above reasons, Kiir stands accused and is no longer trusted by the people. He has ceased to be a legitimate leader of this wounded country. He, therefore, should go.

Peace Talks in Addis Ababa

The IGAD Peace Talks in Addis Ababa appear to be the right things to do to reach a peaceful solution to the problem. But, it must be stated right away that they took off with a hijacker onboard. Uganda has proven herself to be a spoiler in the process of making peace in South Sudan by choosing to wear two hats. Uganda initially stood with the IGAD to bring a peaceful end to the conflict. Then, before the IGAD could sit and formulate a way to start the process, Uganda was already seen fighting alongside one party to the same conflict. These two opposing positions taken by one of the members of the body that is supposed to be the peacemaker have betrayed the whole process.

The initiative by the IGAD was a genuine expression of the East African countries’ desire to have a neighboring peaceful South Sudan. But, the IGAD leaders did not realize that they had Museveni among them who had his own separate interest in South Sudan. It is true that Uganda has economic interest in South Sudan. And so are the other neighboring countries bordering South Sudan. The Ugandan claim that they have a security interest in the country is something that has to be understood later as time goes. If it is true that it has security interest in South Sudan, then it can also be said that other neighboring countries to South Sudan have security interests in the country that the Ugandan action could destroy. But, Museveni is believed to be having interests that are separate from the stated ones.

Some of the reasons are believed to be as follows: Kiir is seen as a weak leader who lacks confidence in himself when it comes to running a country, and Museveni is believed to be interested in seeing weak leaders in East Africa so that he alone can be the one to call the shots in the region; he wants others to believe that Uganda is the powerhouse in East Africa when it comes to maintaining security; and it is also believed that Kiir is sharing out oil money with Museveni. Museveni sees east African and Great Lakes regional conflicts as money-making. He took part in Rwandan conflicts to loot resources in that country with devastating results; he is benefiting from Somalia’s war by sending his country’s troops as peacekeepers so that they can be paid in Dollars and be compensated for the use of their aging military equipment by the AU. He took part in Congo’s war so that he could loot the diamond and other resources for his country’s benefit—an act for which the International Court has adjudged Uganda and ordered it to pay ten billion dollars (USD $10,000,000,000.00). All of these other interests, in addition to the stated ones, should not be discounted when looking at the actions of Uganda in South Sudan.

It is also believed that Museveni is working to destroy IGAD and strengthen his position in the Great Lakes and pull the East African Community member countries from IGAD to the Great Lakes. This way, Ethiopia, which Museveni believes to be an obstacle in his way to greatness in East Africa, can be isolated. If the plan succeeds, Ethiopia can remain isolated and weak in East African politics in particular and in Africa in general. How this scheme is going to play out in the future remains to be seen.

The Ceasefire deal reached on January 23, 2014 has failed due to numerous government violations. First, the fighting had not stopped because the government kept attacking opposition positions in the hope to acquire more territories before the IGAD monitoring team arrived. This way, the territories acquired as a result of the violations would be marked as theirs once the team arrived. However, they eventually refused to cooperate with the team thinking that they had advantages over the opposition. This is another violation to the agreement.

Second, the government refused to release the four remaining political detainees. The agreement was that the government and the opposition were to do a number of things before the Talks could re-start. Chief among these were for both sides to ceasefire; the government was to release political detainees and request foreign forces to leave the country. As alluded to in the paragraph above, fire never ceased as the government was out trying to cover more territories than the ones that it had prior to the signing of the ceasefire agreement. In addition to that, the government released only seven detainees out of the eleven, leaving four in its custody. The agreement did not provide the government with the option of doing selective release. They were all supposed to be released. Keeping the remaining four in custody is a violation of the agreement.

An interesting thing about the release of the political detainees is the fact that the government has been shifting from one position to another for too many times. This shifting on positions is a telling sign for a problem that the government is facing in making its case. It can be interpreted to mean that the government’s position in a political negotiation is not strong and that it wants to delay and see if it can win in the battlefield. Or the detainees know something that Kiir does not want the world to know about the conflict, or maybe, some of the detainees have been tortured or killed. Could it be that the government has murdered one of the four and is in the process of using the treason charge to try them and condemn them to death so as to claim later that a death sentence has been executed?

It started with the accusation that these detainees, plus Dr. Riek Machar, Lt. General Alfred Ladu Gore and Taban Deng Gai had planned a coup. As such, the eleven were arrested on the accusation that they participated in the alleged coup attempt and that they would be prosecuted for their roles. When the fighting in Juba started to spread out to places outside of Juba in a way that the government was not able to control, and the international community was trying to press for a ceasefire, the government took a position that it would release them. But, then when a good number of the Ugandan army took their positions on the ground, the government rescinded its decision to release them. The international community had to exert more pressure before the government agreed again to release eight, but to keep three on corruption charges. That was illogical because they had been arrested on charges that had nothing to do with corruption. It showed that they were all clean as far as the alleged coup was concerned, and that the only thing that they could do was to find some other reason to keep them in custody. Then the joint operation of government and Ugandan army started gaining more grounds in Jonglei. Seeing this as an advantage, the government again reconsidered its position on the detainees and decided that it should keep all of them. As the issue appeared to be a stumbling block in the way to the ceasefire and the apparent lack of evidence of a coup, the IGAD and the rest of the international community got serious with the government and the government relented, only to release seven of the detainees and withheld four on charges of treason.

What all of this discloses is that the government has shown a complete lack of consistency, taking one position today and taking the other the next day. Two (Deng Alor and Kosti Manibe) of the seven who have been released were among the first three whom the government initially cleared of involvement in the alleged coup and wanted to keep them in detention together with Pagan Amum only on corruption charges. At that time, they were free of the charges of a coup attempt as the rest (John Luk, Gier Chuang, Oyay Deng, Majak Agot, Chol Tong, Ezekiel Lol, Biar Madut) who were going to be released without charges. But, the latest position is a complete contradiction to the previous one. Now, four (Oyay Deng, Majak Agot, Pagan Amum and Ezekiel Lol)—three of whom were initially cleared of the charges and one of three who were going to be held on corruption charges—are kept in Juba on treason charges. This is one of the worse cases of inconsistency that can only be explained by lack of evidence against the accused.

Of course, lack of evidence alone cannot be the only reason here. There is the other side, and that is that the government is not interested in clarifying the issues that have led to the current mess. Each of the four people—Oyay Deng, Majak Agot, Pagan Amum and Ezekiel Lol—who are being kept is held for more than just lack of evidence. Oyay, as former Minister of National Security, and Majak, as former Deputy Minister of Defense, are being kept for knowing too much of Kiir’s security arrangements in dealing with opposition. There is some fear in Kiir’s circle that they would expose Kiir’s security plans. For Pagan, he has too much information on Kiir’s plans of paralyzing the SPLM’s political process that led to the crisis. As for Ezekiel, his problem is his perceived good relation with the American officials in the State Department as a former Ambassador to the USA. Their accusation that they have committed treason is just a pretext. The real issue is for the government to attempt to control the information that gets out as to the causes of the conflict throughout the peace process.

The third violation is the refusal to ask the Ugandan army to leave the country. Kiir knows that the people are not on his side to fight for him. The only way for him to remain in power is to hire the willing Ugandans to do the fighting for him so that he remains in power in Juba. But this is not power because it does not come from the people. Its source is foreign, and, therefore illegitimate. Success of the Addis Ababa process is good for him because whatever he gets out of the talks with would be legitimized by the talks. Otherwise, he can sit in Juba with Ugandan army officers around him for only a short period of time. They cannot stay there forever.

Kiir’s embarrassing reliance on the Ugandan Army is what drags the process. Remove the Ugandans, one would see Kiir wholly and honestly committing to the peace talks. The fact that the Ugandans helped him in retaking Bor, Bentiw and Malakal gives him a false hope that he is about to score a military victory against the opposition forces. But, he should know better than the Ugandans that military victory is nowhere within their reach. If he does not intend to let go of them, then he should be preparing them for a long and expensive process, not just harboring false hope of an eminent military victory.

At this critical time, IGAD without Uganda, and the rest of the international community must apply pressure on Kiir and Museveni to ceasefire, release the four remaining political detainees and tell the Ugandan Army to leave South Sudan without any delay. Only then that a genuine and honest peace negotiation can take place, as Kiir would cease to be under the influence of Museveni.

The author lives in the Republic of South Sudan.

By Abraham Deng Lueth

A citizen Letter to the South Sudan’s Youth Organization for Social Development (YOFSD) and the SPLM Youth League (SYL): The South Sudanese Youth and their Roles in Mitigating the Current Conflict

Dear fellow citizens,

The current crisis

February 13, 2014 (SSNA) -- No doubt that the current crisis is as a result of the SPLM power wrangling. It then slightly changed to ethnic targeting by both sides of the conflict. Therefore, the social capital of our nation has been heavily, terribly and uniquely broken and it continues to bleed helplessly.

Moreover, it is, undoubtedly, clear that both leaders, President Kiir and Dr. Riek, have a hand in the creation of the conflict. How can the Youth, the future generation of the country, choose a side in this conflict and expect to build a united, loving and prosperous nation in which justice reigns?

To The South Sudan’s Youth Organization for Social Development

It seems like Social Development is one of the key words in your organization’s name. As a result of this conflict, the social fabric of the country has been terribly disturbed and that should be of a major concern to you as an organization. How can it be re-amended? Is its rebuilding possible when you know the side you are taking has some serious contributions to the conflict? There is nothing wrong with side-taking but with a situation such as what happened within the SPLM where two leaders, Kiir and Riek, decided to turn violent, they must be disowned, condemned and urged to stop the violence immediately and return to the table to negotiate out their differences.

To The SPLM Youth League

The SPLM has been terribly troubled and its solidarity is uncertain. What can you do to maintain its coherence and rebuilding of its damaged image to set it up to win national approval over other political parties in the country again? The SPLM Youth League that is cheering up the government must know that they are not being nationalistic.

They are not being the country’s or people’s Youth but President Kiir’s Youth. This position is irresponsible. Given the nature of the conflict and how it started, this is not a good position for the SPLM Youth League if they want a good future for the SPLM and the nation. Are you encouraging the way the SPLM leadership has been handling the party leadership crisis that led to the current war in the country?

To all Youth in South Sudan and particularly, in Juba

Last time when the UN compound incident in Bor Town, involving the minister of information occurred, the Youth took to the streets and condemned the UNMISS representative; it was irresponsible. The Youth have held several events lately where they missed the opportunity to condemn both sides of the conflict and the atrocities that have surfaced as a result of the conflict; that is irresponsible. The Youth continue to miss the opportunity where they can present themselves as the real advocates for peace, unity and support measures that return the country back on the path to peace and development and this is again, irresponsible.

Any South Sudanese Youth entity needs to take a neutral or central position so that it can see all the irregularities on both sides of the conflict and condemn them. That is a position that will be good for the country.

The Youth should push the government to release the remaining 4 detainees (they have not participated in the coup if there was one, at all and their release will not only build confidence and trust in the peace process but they will have important contributions to make as well). Their case is no different from the other released seven. Playing politics to continue to keep them is not in the best interest of the nation we want to build.

The people who have rebelled against the state (whether enforced on them or not) are those who ran away and are currently leading the rebellion. The Youth can condemn these individuals and urge them to lay their guns down and join the talks to resolve their political differences. They, too, should be allowed to explain themselves and contribute to the peace process as soon as possible.

The Youth should call for unwavering support from the regional and international bodies to help South Sudan, not one side of the conflict, to get out of this mess. The Youth should urge all South Sudanese leaders (governors, commissioners, civil society leaders, church leaders, members of parliament, members of cabinet and more) to prioritize peace, “truth and reconciliation.” South Sudan belongs to us all.

Do not become the Unfortunate Youth

I call on all the South Sudanese youth to avoid becoming what I referred to as unfortunate youth. It is important that young people’s position in this conflict is based on the truth and principles that are of a nationalistic stand. Doing anything contrary to this stand is unfortunate. After the conflict, our nation will have a daunting task of “truth and reconciliation” that will be very challenging due to the extent at which this conflict has disturbed our social capital (trust).

The Seeds Youth

This is a group that our nation needs right now. This is a group of Youth that does not shy away from telling president Kiir that he has a hand in the conflict. Therefore, he needs to stop lobbying negative support (that causes him to think that he can continue to fight Dr. Riek to the finish). It should urge the President to focus on finding viable solutions (releasing the 4 detainees, reducing Ugandan soldiers to important installations and prioritizing peace) to the conflict. On the other hand, these Youth need to send Dr. Riek a clear message that says, NO to bullets and yes to negotiations. Dear fellow citizens, if we have done what I have just narrated on day one and continue to do it today, we would have peace by now. Cheering up either side pushes more for war.

Please, let me end by quoting these nice statements by one South Sudanese Youth.

“You fanatics of backroom designed constitution for the dictator and authoritarian state, I and many like-minded individuals will tell the other side you don’t want the world to know. You believed the white lie that there was a coup; we will keep saying there was no coup at all. Our misguided president made it up to purge his political opponents.

Your state’s ministers go around stonewalling the international community to know the whole truth about the foreign Ugandan’s troop’s presence in SS, we will say yes, they are here fighting and killing our own people we brotherly disagreed with politically.

You preach ethnic hatreds and play our majority ethnic card as a winning political strategy to say Riek and his loyalists are pure evil and a source of our problem, ought to be physically eliminated, we say no. They are not! Nuer and supporters are simply people just like us who want to seek their political interest. If you sit down with them and discuss politics civilly without attacking them first, they will not fight back.

In our severely divided society and violent prone, it is only our innocent peasants living across our villages who come to pay heavy prices in human and material costs. Our political power elites’ families don’t suffer. They don’t feel any pain. Their immediate families live abroad in millions dollar mansions. All our leaders in SS on both sides are human vultures. They live off trading and selling human bloods for their material selves-needs.

They are all doing it. But then, the smart ones holding power don’t want to share any part of the blames. They believe they’re living political saints. Their exceptional holiness attitude is beyond belief. They only want the praises, not the blame for their own mistakes. Social conformity is a rule of the game.

Well, until they somehow fairly get it right, we won’t stop thinking they are also hypocrites! Call me a rebel, disloyal, traitor, and what have you. I’m perfectly fine with it. It is time to tell the truth as we know it. If it will cost us such labels, then so be it!”

You may not agree with most of it but it is actually a test of nationalism. If you find most of it true, then you are a nationalistic youth, especially, when you are a Dinka. If you find most of it negative, then you must check your stand because I am afraid, you are irresponsibly siding and you are not helping this conflict. Do not be unfortunate youth who is just thrown around as needed. This piece challenges those who cheer up the government without recognizing its irregularities.

Remember, Dr. Riek must be urged to put down his guns and so is the government to stop pursuing the rebels. Both must respect the cessation of hostilities they have signed and work on the peaceful resolutions to the conflict. So, my fellow citizens, revisit your activities and align them with the future you want to see for our nation. The politics of victimizing opponents and barring them from political opportunities is a clear sign of tyranny that we should not entertain.

Abraham Deng Lueth is a Community Support Specialist at Truman Behavioral health Emergency Department in Kansas City, Missouri, United States; he is the President of Greater Bor Community-USA. He previously worked as a critical care laboratory technician and conducted an independent undergraduate biomedical research project which was published in the Plant Science Journal in 2007.