DEAR NAATH (NUER) IN UN JUBA BASES

By Tearz Ayuen, Juba

You have been sentenced to unspecified jail term and you do not know it. And the charge pressed against you by the government, your government, is innocence. You are guilty of nothing. You’ aren’t, in any way, party to the Dec 15 incident. You didn’t attack anyone. You didn’t kill anyone. You didn’t rebel against the government. You didn’t loot.

It’s been four months now since you fled to UNMISS compound. I understand why you had to leave your house in Gudele, New Site, Mia-7: the democide – the dreadful things you saw last December when the army extended an uncalled for hostility on you. I understand how you feel to lose a husband or brother. I acknowledge the pain you suffered, witnessing grand butchering of your beloved ones by ruthless soldiers. I feel you. I know they looted your valuables – furniture, TV sets, vehicles and so on.

Now, you and your fellow tribesmen are crammed in the UN compound where living conditions are so pathetic, so inhumane. You’ve lost your dignity. You and your children eat one meal per day. At times, they go to bed hungry. I understand rainstorm makes your life unbearable there. The makeshift tents are often blown away, leaving children unsheltered. With the rainy season approaching, an outbreak of cholera or of any other water-borne disease is imminent.

I believe you owe the UN your life for the protection they provided. You could have been killed if it wasn’t for the peacekeeping forces. However, I am sorry to say that the protection they are offering you is something else. I think they’ve commercialized it. Yes. Nobody amongst the ‘good Samaritans’ wants you to leave the camp. Why? – Because your presence there makes them more job secure.

This is why “The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and other agencies have started relocating thousands of civilians sheltering in Tongpiny camp, UN protection of civilians area, to a new location at UN house in country’s capital Juba” – UN website, March 17, 2014.

Anyone who claims to be concerned about your welfare would work harder to ensure that you return home, and not prolong your stay at the compound.

So, my message is simple: Go back home. That lengthy stay at UN protection sites is a booby-trap. You cannot live a life of a pauper in your country, especially when your house is a mile away. Your children have to go back to school. Go home.

Unite as one people and walk out of that compound. Don’t even look for means of transport. Just march on the streets of Juba. Fear not. Let whoever wants to kill kill. After all, he or she would never extinct Nuer people. Never.

Tearz ©2014

State Proliferation is not the Panacea to Jonglei’s Multiple Problems

WHAT IS TO BE DONE: ONCE IN A DEEP HOLE OF YOUR OWN MAKING, IMMEDIATELY CEASE FROM DIGGING FURTHER

By PaanLuel Wël, Juba

In his article, Multiple States Solution for Jonglei’s Multiple Problems, Dr. Bior Kwer Bior, who graduated in 2013 with a PhD in Cell Biology from the University of Vermont, USA, and is currently the Medical Director of Bor State Hospital in Jonglei state, argues that the answer to the multiple problems in Jonglei state is a peaceful and orderly break up of Jonglei into four major states. The rationales for the exigency of the multiple states solution to Jonglei’s multiple problems seem to run thus. On one part, the Murle community has been an unbearable menace to the Nuer and Dinka communities of Jonglei state; granting the Murle a separate state would go along way in disentangling that problem. On the other part, The Nuer white army has committed two massacres on the Greater Bor Dinka community—the 1991 and 2013 Bor Massacres. Because enough is enough, more so because the Greater Bor Dinka community is hardly going to forgive and forget the atrocities meted out upon them by their Nuer cousins, it is better, runs the logic, to put them in separate administrative areas. Ensconcing them in their respective separate states would someway assist to mitigate the extant tribal animosity and might preclude any future massacre that may revisit Bortown.

And this quandary is highlighted by the abysmal failure of the past attempts to resolving these perennial ordeals in Jonglei. “To bring about an atmosphere of peace in Jonglei,” the author contends, “a lot of things have been tried. Disarmament was carried out, but that didn’t work. These disarmament campaigns actually left the citizens of Bor vulnerable to the Murle relentless criminal expeditions. Community peace talks have been held, but those bore no appreciable fruits. At the expense of the Dinka Bor people in the state government, peace has been bought from the Nuer and Murle, but that wasn’t enough.” Because of these seemly irreconcilable ethnic differences and disputes, the author goes on to underscore that “to think that the [Bor] Dinka and Lou Nuer will ever co-exist as members of the same state will be an illusion of the highest order. It will be hypocritical to ask [Bor] Dinka to forgive their Nuer counterparts in the face of these unearned aggressions. The Nuer can say the same thing about the Murle, and the Murle will probably say the same thing about the Lou Nuer or the [Bor] Dinka. It is unequivocally clear that the relations between these communities have suffered a calamitous failure. The sooner this is realized, the quicker the ultimate solution to the Jonglei’s problem will be devised.”

The author further maintains that “a lot of things have been tried” but they didn’t work. Thus, he calls upon his fellow citizens, Jongleans in particular, to think outside the box because “to think that these tactics, which didn’t work in the past, will work now is crazy.” His thinking outside the box, which is barely outside the box for that matter, is that the panacea to stalking problem in Jonglei is one offered by none other than David Yau-Yau’s SSDM/A-Cobra militia group: state proliferation. One could palpably feel the author feverishly muttering: ‘give each militia according to their demand’, outrageous and impractical as it may be crystal clear to all concerned. This is what the author presents as the unprecedented “great political window of opportunity” that the nation cannot afford to waste, a rarity that must be seized on first sight. The author ends up proposing the dismembering of Jonglei state into four greater warring tribal states: Greater Bor State, Greater Pibor State, Greater Fangak State and Greater Akobo State.

This rejoinder does not in any way pretend to present a metanarrative on the remedy to the ills of Jonglei state. Rather, this is just but a refutation of the author’s assertion that the solution to the multiple problems confronting Jonglei state lies in the proliferation of states and ethnic balkanization in that state.

ON THE ONE HAND,

Is state dismemberment and ethnic balkanization the panacea to the cyclical multiple problems in Jonglei state? Surely, it is one thing to balkanize Jonglei state but it is another altogether to construe that that would be the remedy to the manifold ailments of the embattled state. After all, it is markedly clear to everyone that Murle has been attacking Eastern and Central Equatoria states, and sometimes deep inside Ethiopia in search of cattle to loot and children to abduct. The new Nuer and Dinka balkanized states would be as easily susceptible (and accessible) to the perennial menace from Murle as it was the case in the old troubled Jonglei state. Even if one were to concede that the establishment of Murle state might transitorily provide the political solution to Yau-Yau rebellion, how that approach would cure the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of the conflict is not made plain by the author. The Murle, certainly, would still be stalking, raiding Nuer and Dinka villages of cattle and children. There would be nothing to impede them in the ‘State Inflation’ model as advocated for by the author.

If state proliferation is not the key to the threat posed by Murle raiders to the Nuer and the Dinka communities, so is it not the case with the white army attack on Bor, an attack that always ends in massacres. Even if the Nuer, the Murle and Bor Dinka were to have their own separate countries, let alone states, the danger of the perennial conflict (the case of Murle) and the shadow of an impending massacre (the case of the white army) would still be as palpable as it has been, and is currently the case, in Jonglei state. The author appears to have mistaken his proposed Jonglei balkanization scheme for the Berlin Wall that had physically divided the city into non-interacting enclaves or the current Wall dividing the Jews from the Arab Palestinians. Will the author be audacious enough to propose such ghettoizing of Jonglei communities in the idealistic pursuit of peace and political stability?

The author has confessed to having previously feared the balkanization of Jonglei as a recipe for creating nothing less than “many warring tribal states”. Then the author, like Apostle Paul on his way to Damascus, had a dramatic change of heart because (1) Jonglei is allegedly disintegrating anyway and it is not a serious crime against South Sudan to speed up that inevitable process, and supposedly (2) there is a debilitating issue of mismanagement in the far-flung expanses of Anyuak, Jie, Murle and Akobo and that is resolvable by, to rephrase Dr. John Garang, taking States to the villages. Indeed, Malith Alier, in his article, How will President Kiir Sell his Agreement with Yau-Yau to the Greater Bor People?, describes Jonglei state as “the sick man of the Republic of South Sudan like the 19th century Turkey used to be in Europe.” Whereas it may be the case that Jonglei is ungovernable, and could be an internal classic case of a pre-failed state scenario, there is no reason to fancy that salvation lies at the ashes of its eventual demise. On the contrary, the disintegration of Jonglei state may herald the breakdown of the entire country, not its renaissance. Jonglei is not just the largest state in South Sudan, it is the most influential one. The Anyanya-2 uprising in Akobo and the SPLM/A rebellion in Bor commenced in Jonglei. Such political giants as Abel Alier, John Garang, William Nyuon, Arok Thon, Majier Ghai, Ghai Tut, Akuot Atem, Nyachigak Ngachiluk, John Luk, John Koang Nyuon, Kuol Manyang, among numerous others, hail from this flustered state. Above all, it is inhabited by some of the most notorious communities in the country—Dinka, Nuer and the Murle.

As for the devil of mismanagement, it is not just that the influence of state government in Bor stops at Pakwaw be that as it is arguably the case, it is the case that the failure of the state government is a statewide tribulation. It affects the counties of Great Bor, the counties of Greater Akobo and Fangak as much as it does on Greater Pibor and Pochalla counties. No one ethnic group has a right to monopolize that tragedy. Mismanagement and neglect is a state and a national problem, first given birth to and incubated in Juba, and then exported to all the ten states of the republic of South Sudan. State proliferation will simply be the quickest and easiest replication of that very problem, not the opposite, in the villages across Jonglei state. If Bor can’t do better than Juba, what could possibly make one contemplate that Pibor or Akobo would do better than Bor? There is no wisdom in incessantly digging the hole deeper and wider!

Moreover, what is not so clear is the benchmark applied by the author to arrive at, and justify, these supposedly peaceful and economically viable sisterly states. Is it the population, geographical landmass/area or ethnic make up relative to the already legally existing states? How does one go about defining a sizeable, manageable state anyway? Take Warrap state, for example, which is the most densely populated state in the country but by far much smaller in area relative to others. Should it be divided up too to avoid the obvious quagmire of having such states as Greater Bor that would be nothing more than the tenth of Warrap state population? In short, should density, ethnic makeup or landmass determine the proliferation of state in South Sudan? It is preposterous to talk of ‘pursuit for peace’ as the criteria for balkanization of Jonglei state as there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a Murle Continent, a Nuer Country or a Bor Dinka State would avail and guarantee peace and harmony among the denizens.

More practically, the cost of administering these new areas would be daunting. Already, because of budgetary constraint, the federal government in Juba, that takes more than 80% of the national budget, has recurrently failed to conduct by-elections for dead or incapacitated elected MPs and relieved state governors. Preparation for the 2015 general election—such as the conduct of proposed national census, the constitutional review committee and internal party elections such as that of the ruling SPLM party that is yet to be legally registered in South Sudan—have virtually stalled. The government is embroiled in a costly protracted war with Riek Machar and the white army, and that is besides the simmering standoff with Khartoum over border demarcation and Abyei.

Whilst it is veritably the case that the current federal (Juba) government and state (Bor) governments have done absolutely nothing to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the people in those political areas, it is not crystal clear how the proliferation of states/administrative areas would make the delivery of goods and services any better. There is every reason to believe that the proliferation of states would do nothing more than increase and entrench multilayer state bureaucracy, grand corruption, patronage and nepotism.

On The Other Hand,

Some facets of the enduring conflict in Jonglei state has nothing to do with manageability per se but rather a militarized political grievance against alleged rigging by the SPLM party. The fundamental problem between Juba and David Yau-Yau’s SSDM/A-Cobra militia group was never a question of state mismanagement but rather a political question between Boris Judi and David Yau-Yau over the state parliamentary seat of Gumruk constituency. However, the rebellion later graduated into a statewide quandary when David Yau-Yau’s “ragtag bands of guerilla fighters” began concentrating their sustained attacks on Nuer and Dinka villages and towns, in addition to government military outposts in Murle land.

Yau-Yau’s rebellion, the author avers, is the archetypal example of “Juba’s hasty attitudes to meddle in the local politics…” Yet, it was not meddling as such for what transpired was the typical case of the primary election within the party that Yau-Yau, according to the SPLM party official record, lost badly. Later on, it was a state parliamentary election of which Juba was constitutionally mandated to oversee and Yau-Yau was again declared a loser. None of the two instances depicts a classic example of Juba interference in local politics for it was the case all over the country, not just in Murle land. And so was the allegation of election rigging—George Athor Deng in Jonglei state, Angelina Jany Teny in Unity state, Daau Aturjong Nyuol in Northern Bahr el Ghazal state and Alfred Lado Gore in Central Equatoria state, among numerous others, all claimed to have been rigged out by the ‘system’.

Therefore, the allegation that Yau-Yau took to the bush because of “elections rigging by the SPLM, import of Mr. Boris by the SPLM to take over the Gumruk constituency seat and the general neglect of the Murle tribe by the government in Bor town” is as unsubstantiated as his assertion that the solution to Jonglei multiple problems lies in the proliferation of states in Jonglei. First and foremost, the claim of “election rigging” is a common pretext advance by such weakling as Lam Akol who was defeated by a margin of more than 90%. It has been the Achilles’ heel of electoral democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa as hardly anyone ever accepts humble defeat but rather rush to shout, “election has been rigged and there will be dire consequences unless the election is immediately overturned/nullified and I am declared the winner”.

If Sub-Saharan Africans were to attend to every whimsical claim of “this election was rigged”, they would never have time to institute a functioning government. The rule of the majority, the sacred tenet of democracy, cannot be supervened by the tyranny of the defeated minority. Thus, since the allegation of election rigging has become as ubiquitous as urban prostitution, there is no reason whatsoever to take Yau-Yau on his own words, than to believe and embrace his opponent, without prior forensic study of the case involving the Gumruk state parliamentary election of 2010.

Likewise, the allegation of Mr. Boris having been imported/exported into Gumruk from Buma should rather be seen as a desperate attempt by the political opportunistic Yau-Yau to explain away his heinous crimes meted upon all communities of Jonglei state, including the Murle who borne the brunt of the conflict as their home areas were turned into the battlefields between the government and the SSDM/A-cobra militias. As far as Boris is concerned, and this is what informed the SPLM party to back him, he is as much politically and culturally connected to Gumruk constituency as much as Yau-Yau, and the claptrap that he is an outsider is the invention of Yau-Yau in the absence of a better argument for his rebellion.

As the author rightly points out, the government was indeed slow to appreciate the magnitude of Yau-Yau’s insurgence and was even ill prepared to attend to the conflict once it committed itself to fending it off. Yet, as the author has shrewdly shied away from venturing into speculating the exact course of actions that the government should have pondered and taken to end the conflict, it was a conflict with no easy military solution. Principally, it had become a proxy war between Juba and Khartoum, as the latter was earnestly bankrolling the rebellion. Secondly, military solution was severely thwarted by the hysterical actions of the UNMISS that was largely seen by the victims of Yau-Yau rebellion to have been sympathetic to the David Yau-Yau. Therefore, although Yau-Yau’s ragtag army was wrecking “serious and deadly havocs on the villages of [Greater] Bor Dinka, Lou Nuer and Anuak as well as on the villages of Mundari tribe in central Equatoria state” and in spite of the fact that “these communities lost thousands of children, livestock, lives, trust and love for the Murle people”, the government was in no better position to militarily crush the rebellion.

Indeed, the 2011 transient peace between Yau-Yau and Juba did not address the root causes of the fundamental problems in Jonglei. Still, that was not a license for Yau-Yau to resume his outrageous and senseless war. After all, the federal government has utterly failed to render socioeconomic development and political stability across South Sudan, irrespective of regions, states, counties, Payams and Buma or ethnic groupings. If the manifest failure of Juba were to be the basis to declare and perpetuate war in the country, Yau-Yau would be the last person to lead one, and Murle community would be but a minority among the agitators.

AND THEREFORE,

The citizens of the beleaguered Jonglei state must not necessarily just “jump upon this opportunity earnestly and push for these political dispensation” without first dissecting the problem presented, and examining the solution advanced, by the author as ideally and practically as it can be adopted and applied with immediate and tangible results on the ground. Thus far, there is no palatable reason to deem the author’s proposition of state proliferation and ethnic balkanization as the answer to the recurrent multiple problems in Jonglei. Rather, the purported ‘multiple states solution’ model would turn out to be a multiple states problems for Jonglei’s multiple problems as it would likely exacerbate, perpetuate and multiply the current multiple problems in the state.

Jonglei state multiple problems are a manifestation of Juba multiple problems. It is the national problem of state failure and leadership hiccup. It is not solvable from state level but only from Juba. Whatever is wrong with/in Juba is also wrong with/in Bor and would no doubt be wrong with/in Pibor, Akobo etc. Above all, the author need not necessarily rely on old tried ideas to proclaim salvation in Jonglei. The idea of state proliferation is nothing more than the instinct for southern secession to solve Khartoum problems, and the notion of ethnic balkanization is an importation of Kokora into Jonglei state. Separation from Khartoum didn’t solve any of the earliest predicaments of South Sudan. Importing Kokora into Jonglei won’t work magic just because the Nuer, Murle and the Dinka are balkanized into their respective ethnic enclaves.

Lastly, although his proposition is theoretically misconceived (the issue has nothing to do with mismanagement per se and David Yau-Yau is only a political opportunist) and practically dangerous (its implementation won’t solve the problem but would rather perpetuate and aggravate it, setting a perilous precedent across the country), Dr. Bior should be commended for taking his time to define and highlight the problem of Jonglei state, and more importantly for striving to prescribe a viable solution. On his part, this is a radical transformation for someone who has been idiosyncratically preoccupied with Madam Nyandeng de Mabioor, the window of the late SPLM/A leader, Dr. John Garang. One would hope that he has finally come around to appreciating and embracing his new societal status in the country, and would henceforth cease from getting embroiled in depreciating ranting that is sadly below his intellectual eminence and social standing.

PaanLuel Wël (paanluel2011@gmail.com) is the Managing Editor of PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers. He can be reached through his Facebook page, Twitter account or on the blog: http://paanluelwel.com/

Guilty of False Coup Allegation in Juba

By Manyok Mabiei, USA

From my field of Criminal Justice System, “a false allegation” is considered in which a person deliberately accuses another person of a crime that he did not commit and does so with full knowledge that the accused person is not guilty of that crime. It is some time as a form of revenge, an attempt to divert attention away from a guilty side, or as a way for the accuser or accusers to prevail in an ongoing dispute. The tactic for making falsely claims about a person’s behavior varies by jurisdiction in some places is treated as a crime in itself.

One of the difficulties in handling “a falsely allegation” is that there are some of the cases in which it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime even if he or she is in true of guilty. I considered a “false allegation” as a dangerous crime tough to overweigh and approve beyond the facts of reasoning of mankind.

I was silenced from a word “coup” since the outbreak of violence in mid of December, 15TH, 2013. While, I was busy searching for the enough evidences if that was a coup on that day of December, which turns a young nation into massive conflicts. As according to my views and some sources of evidences, this is a bitter humiliation in South Sudan.

Before, I begin “a false allegation coup” in Juba. President Kiir Mayardit is a longest veteran of the Sudan People Liberation Movement and same time he is an elected President of South Sudan. There is nothing this leader was expected to learn from her nation and the whole world that he wasn’t learned from his long struggles in the bush.

However, a survivable of the Sudan People Liberation Army/Movement and President of South Sudan Mr. Kiir Mayardit is ruling a nation into dark style of jungle laws. The 1983 SPLA Manifesto has not been changed, even though the South Sudan got fully independent as a country. As according to my understanding in a current Constitutional of the South Sudan there is no “term limit” of the President, as a matter of fact cause violence in the nation. I read the current Constitutional and there is no “term limit” was mentioned on it.

A last year of July, a President Kiir Mayardit was reshuffling his cabinet, ministers, and his party members at same time. At this point, is not a first time he made a reshuffling of his cabinet and members of his party, since he was in the Office of President in 9years! He made a reshuffling several times, but not including his Vice-President and large number of his cabinet. That was a good move, but it is not common in the society of law and the world of democratic.
It’s can be happen from any democratic society to give president some powers to remove any of his or her in the cabinet, but not all of them at one. There are some positions president have limit of powers to remove some of the positions including – – Chief Justice and Vice-President in the country without approvable from Legislative Branch.

Well, Mr. President Kiir sacks an entire cabinet and fired all his ministers and deputy ministers, along with Vice-President Riek Machar Teny. No answer was provided for the entire cabinet reshuffle on July, 2013. A message was announced on Tuesday evening broadcast South Sudan television a “presidential decree” from Salva Kiir, saying he had dismissed all of his cabinet ministers, including his vice-president, and ordered an investigation into the secretary general of his ruling SPLM party Mr. Pagan Amum.

President Kiir was sacked all his cabinet and others without using a language of admiration to address public and former leaders. I heard his announcement, while I was in my village Dotwong, Bor along the Nile River on the radio. I told the people in my present that “South Sudan will be in red zone” and it came true after I left the country on November, 5, 2013.

“Why should there be instability in South Sudan? This is a Constitutional problem (Kiir) is the head of the government. The decree provided no reasons for the complete dismissal rather than use a “term limit” in every position in the government. A word “decree” was commonly used by President of South Sudan to avoid his own cabinet and legislative branch to deal with public affairs. A word is commonly used by President Kiir in the government, which can’t help.

From my own presumption a word “decree” use by President Kiir is an unlawful to help the country. In any society of law like United States of America, if president need any change, it can be approved by the Members of Congress and Senates. Then the request will work or it can die without return back to president. It seems to me, President Kiir is working alone avoiding his own cabinet and members of his party to share the public affairs. This seemed to me, as a lack of confident and mistruth of fear to people around him as a part of problem.

For example, President Kiir had suspended Pagan Amun, the secretary general of the SPLA/M party, and launched an investigation against him, without mentioning further details. Mr. Amun was known as South Sudanese top negotiator in peace and cooperation talks with the North Sudan.

Mr. Amun is a well-known as a long veteran of the SPLA, since the beginning of the Movement. Amun was removed from his position as a secretary of the party and other politicians without legislative branch notification or awareness. Amun was engaging calling his President 10-times to call a general meeting of the party, because the rules of party were expired and he was kicked out in the party.

And President Kiir Mayardit was not responded until mid of December, while everything was built up from his party during reshuffling of cabinet and members of party.

So, what was really happened to look at in July, 2013? Mr. President Kiir was sacked entire cabinet and fired all his ministers and deputy ministers, along with Vice-President Riek Machar Teny. He also fired his own secretary of the party Mr. Amun. No reason was issued for the complete cabinet reshuffles on July, 2013, until now.

Do any concerns citizen blindfolded on that day these politicians from top to bottom in the government were sacked and fired should go out and silence without saying anything? I can say a person who is not in our living world can’t believe from that reshuffling nothing could happen.

Being a leader and public figure like Former Vice-President Riek Machar and Pagan Amun who were serving the nation within and outside were built up huge allies in their long term leaderships. As well as we know that Dr. Riek Machar Teny marriage two women from powerful nations. Emma McCune Teny was a British native and Becky Teny from United States. These two women will give him an “upper hand” of supports from Western countries not to pay attention on South Sudan domestic violence.

And Mr. Amun was a well-known through negotiator with Khartoum Government and some other allies with South Sudan. These two leaders were built up strong network outside and within the country. I doubt these politicians and public figures can go out and sleep without saying anything against Kiir leadership. Besides, that in mid-December Mr. President Kiir was overwhelmingly with a lot of pressures within a party to a call general meeting. On Saturday, December, 14, 2013 was a beginning of the first meeting in Nyakuron Cultural Center in Juba – – And there was no serious threat at that day as well as everyone was waiting, how, President Kiir will address the nation and thankful to those who serve the country from jungle to free land.

On day two Sunday, December, 15, 2013 there was “red eyes and hate faces” within the building things were turning ugly as well. Mr. President Kiir was mentioned in the meeting that, “some people were defected away in 1991,” such kind of language scared some of the politicians at that day without returning to the last meeting.

On Monday, December, 16, 2013, an entirely cabinet those who were fired with some ministers and deputy ministers, along with Vice President Riek Machar Teny were not return to join the last meeting in Nyakuron Cultural Center. Some of them were accused by President Kiir said that, “some people here were defected away in 1991. Is that correct to President Kiir to mention those words in the conference? If the Government of South Sudan open up the old files, so President Kiir Mayardit file should be open too like those criminals. We can open his file the time he was almost defecting away in Rumbek, Lakes State. Kiir was accusing Dr. John Garang that, “he carrying the SPLA as a briefcase with him anywhere he go.” Mr. Kiir also sings a song with one of the lady who attends the meeting on that day.

I believe some of these ministries were attends meeting to hear what President Kiir will say, like thanks and honors for their long serves in the nation. But things turn out in the meeting as a political threat and no peaceful dialogue. I believe to myself that people like Dr. Majak Agoot and Honorable Deng Alor will not take the guns and point them to their own people. If that true, then Mr. Kiir can turn a gun to other Dinka too.

On Monday, December, 16, 2013, was an ugly day in the history of South Sudan. President Kiir was accused his Former Vice-President Riek Machar was a “coup” attempt, while Mr. Riek Machar was hiding in Juba from house to house to get the exit, when things were turn brutally.

Well, what could happen if these politicians attend the last meeting on December, 16, 2013? I presume that if the politicians were attending the meeting, there could be no violent because Kiir side was waiting the politicians’ side what is their intention, before they can take action.

The question remains from Kiir side on that day, why these politicians were not show up in the last meeting?

Here is a right place I came up with this Title “Guilty of False Allegation Coup in Juba,” because Kiir side were presuming these politicians are not showing up today, maybe, they have plan “B” like a coup to overtake the government through the military action. This is the time they lost a point of reasoning and rush to the Headquarter of Military and disarm a man with circle marks. I’m not taken any side but I’m vision it.

But in military rules to disarm someone there are a few chances for survival or not survive. At that moment the South Sudan was in high alert of conflict, and was not easy to give-up your tool to someone easily.

Therefore, the politician’s sides were blaming Kiir side of using a word of rebellion of 1991 in the meeting and that why they don’t show up in the last meeting on Monday. Another point of view, maybe, Dr. Riek Machar was having plan “B” while some other politicians were not aware about his journey.

Why? A man was hiding from house to house in Juba and until he left to Bor at night. He was in Juba on December, 14, 15, 16, 17 and until he left Juba on Wednesday, December 18 to Bortown at night through motor boat along the Nile River. I believe if Riek Machar was not left Juba at that day and stay in his house or run to UN Company. I think the country could not reach this brutally stage of suffering.

I believe a “coup” is power assume political to control of the country by decisive change of government illegally or by force. There are three types of coups that I believe. (1) To use the military action to overtake the government by force. (2) To assume control of government, while current leader take a leave of absent. (3) To use political tactic to control military and assassinate a current leader.

These three types of coups – – Is Riek Machar fit in to attempt a coups in South Sudan on that day?

If this was a planned “coup” by Former Vice-President and other politicians who were struggles to reform the systems of Juba. Why not these politicians were not found in one place during outbreak of violent in Juba, if this was a planned coup? As according to my understanding all these politicians were in Juba in their houses until the government orders a warrant arrest, while other three were escaped arrest including Riek Machar, Taban Deng, and Alfred Gore flew to Bortown at night.

If this was a planned “coup” maybe, Dr. Riek Machar was using plane “B” while the other politicians were not aware about his objective.
I still doubt to some of these political detainees to take the guns against their own people in term of leadership. When, I look at this case of these detainees who fought the war in their lifetime.

On the other hand, Dr. Riek Machar was a well-known in the history of Sudan as “a coup plotter and defector” from earlier 90s-2000s. As for example, in August, 21, 1991 Riek Machar Teny was defected away from the SPLA/M and formed his own party called Nasir-Faction including Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, as a masterminded supporter.

Mr. Riek Machar was defected away in frontline near Juba; and went to his village to recruits his own tribal men and led them to Borland for attack.

At that time Dr. Riek Machar in 1991, was killed nearly 10,000 and unaccountable civilians in Borland were being abducted by their tribal men. Maybe, Dr. Riek Machar was a mindset to weaken the Movement behind by killing the civilians in Bor and some other communities; as well he did again in December, 2013.
While, Dr. John Garang de Mabior was wagering a secular and democratic of the whole Sudan in which the Southerners would have full representation in Khartoum regime; while Dr. Riek wanted a fully independent South Sudan right away from Khartoum regime. How come you seek for the separation, while you are not even recognize first by ruling government?

As well some of people saying that, “if you looking for peace stand for war and there will be a chance for peace.” “Right away from Riek Machar was dangerous miscalculation move.”

In August, 21, 1991, Riek Machar, Lam Akol and Gordon Kong announced that John Garang should be kick away from the SPLA and they can take power over the Liberation as their private agenda. This was a part of the Nasir-Faction. Dr. Riek Machar was involved in the Bor massacre, where 10,000 civilians were killed in Bor in 1991, while some were died in the years later from the resulting of famine and diseases.

After, that in 1997 Dr. Riek Machar was defected to Khartoum regime after he was defeated by the SPLA forces and he became head of the government-backed South Sudan Defense Force (SSDF).

In additionally, in 2000 he left the SSDF and formed a new militia, the Sudan People’s Defense Forces/Democratic Front (SPDF). After all, he recognized that the Southerners are almost getting full independent from Khartoum regime, and then he changed his signal and rejoined the SPLA/M, as a Senior Commander to support Dr. John Garang during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2000.

Dr. John Garang was accepted Dr. Riek Machar back to the Movement in Nairobi, Kenya in 2000, so that they can defeat a common enemy.
All these conspiracies were made by Dr. Riek Machar was spreading all over in South Sudan, as the vast majorities can’t believe him. Even if he trying his best of political move to clean his image.

There are still pains and recalls in some people minds that parents were kills from his political crime.

What was really happened in Juba might be “a coup” in some people minds, but I still doubt, as to say, “A political ideology,” of threat to the environment.
I will believe and join the believers of word coup, if President Kiir Mayardit will not run in 2015. That the time I will agree as a “coup plotter” was designed by Riek Machar Teny with his allies in Juba. Now, I will call it “a tactical scare allegation” to some of political candidates in coming election.

More to the points, some sources were described that there was no “coup” in Juba; because all the politicians were supporters of the South Sudan during struggle and referendum and they can’t make a coup to their own nation. The United States and United Nation were pointed out that there was no “coup” the time they look at it. Ms. Susan Page is Ambassador to the Republic of South Sudan from United States and she was invited to Northwest University in Illinois. She describes much about the conflict in South Sudan.

Along the lines, it is difficult in my own view to make a “coup” to any leader came from Dinka side. It can happen, but it is dangerous to those who don’t think beyond the risk takes.

Similarly, Dr. Riek Machar was trying to overtake the liberation in 1991 against John Garang and he was failed to achieve power. To take power by force against Dinka man is a suicide in my own view.

It can be easy to make a coup some of the smaller communities in South Sudan, but it can be difficult to make a coup against a Dinka community leader through violent. This is bad to say, but it true from the nation I knows where every citizen considers himself or herself as a tribal man or woman rather than consider himself or herself as a nationalist. unaccountable underpays on his backyard. Well, these three women they don’t known themselves because they are from different countries around the world, as his first wife so-called Anelina Teny from Nuer in South Sudan, second wife from British so-called Emma Teny and lastly but not lastly Becky Teny from United States as native of Minnesota state.

If December, 16, 2013 was a coup attempt against President Kiir through military action by Dr. Riek Machar, it could be worse nightmare and call it a 24 hours President of South Sudan. I know Riek Machar was not over control of the military in South Sudan during an outbreak of violent.

This is a simple case there is no way the citizens should be fool by individual because of self-interest in leadership. Dinka and Nuer had same similarities of culture background, since they were cousins in the history of South Sudan. In term of braveness or aggressiveness no one can claim much better than other since in their competences in thousand years ago.

Dinka is a majority amongst 64 tribes, but does not mean that they can fight Nuer to an end in short period of time in South Sudan. That is a wrong assumption to do so; evenly Dinka is 3.8 million in South Sudan according a referendum records in 2010. And to make calculation 3.8 million to 1.6 million it turn out that two Dinka and extra were fights against one Nuer. This will not even solve the mass-conflict in South Sudan if people fight against one another.
This gives North Sudan a chance of happiness in the CPA agreements.

But there is no easy solution the way I see South Sudan heading to. I don’t favoring military solution should be answer, because there are a lot of consequences on it. It is not a problem to any side to use self-defend between the government and rebel side, but there should be plan “B” in all side.
It is not a bad idea to fight a long war with common enemy like before, but this war is a war of madness and greediness.

More to the points, there is no government will function peaceful if there is a conflict between the communities. When, I look at it, there is no easy solution, but there is an easy solution if government thinks wise enough to safe the nation. To avoid military solution will prevent a nation not to fall in long civil wars and sufferings.

If anyone in Kiir position what will you do to make peaceful dialogue? I think the best tool to defeat your friend. Just simple to thanks and give them credits of their serving their nation.

No reason was provided for the complete cabinet reshuffle on July, 2013.

I will not agree with those who believed that an outbreak of violence in Juba was a “coup” while I called a “political tactic to scare” toward politicians in coming election in 2015.

By Manyok Mabiei who is currently in Chicago, IL. He is concerns citizen in term of humanity and dependently thinker. He is a one of the SPLA-Chapter Founders in Chicagoland as a leader and Former Red-Army of South Sudan in 1987. He can be reach manyokmabiei@aol.com.

THE AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON SOUTH SUDAN

PRESS RELEASE No 2

Addis Ababa, 2 April 2014

The African Union (AU) Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan held its second meeting yesterday and today. The Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry, former President Olusegun Obasanjo and other members of the Commission, namely Professor Mahmood Mamdani, Ms. Bineta Diop, Professor Pacifique Manirakiza and Lady Justice Sophia Akuffo were in attendance.

Following the swearing in of Lady Justice Sophia Akuffo, the President of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Commission is now fully constituted.

The second working meeting of the Commission dealt with a wide range of issues towards the fulfillment of its mandate.

The Commission of Inquiry revised and firmed up its work plan, agreeing on working methods and setting out the activities to be conducted as part of its inquiry into the crisis in South Sudan. The Commission also agreed on wide-ranging meetings and visits including leaders, victims, refugees, detainees, IDPs, and members of civil society that the Commission will engage with in the coming weeks.

With respect to the planned meetings, discussions and exchanges, the Commission has firmed up its first round of travel to South Sudan slated for before the end of April 2014. Following its planned meeting with President Salva Kiir, the Commission will engage with other actors in South Sudan, including former Vice President Riek Machar.

In the same period, the Commission has planned to meet with key leaders in the region, including Prime Hailemariam Dessalegn, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya.

The Commission also commenced its engagement with stakeholders and gathering of information that will inform its work. The Commission received expert information and report from several experts on matters relating to governance, institutional reforms and strengthening, one of the focal areas of the Commission’s mandate.

Those heard from were: former Director of Political Affairs of United Nations Mission in Sudan in Juba, former Chief of Staff of the Ethiopian Defence Forces; Chief of Staff of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel on Sudan and South Sudan; a civil society expert working in South Sudan and Gen former United Nations Force Commander in Abyei.

As the Commission prepares for its forthcoming meetings and field missions, it continues to receive information from the public in and out of South Sudan by way of memoranda on various aspects of its mandate.

To keep the public informed, the Commission resolved to hold periodic media briefings and to issue regular press releases. The Commission also resolved to create a website for this purpose.

The Commission of Inquiry agreed to reconvene before the end of April 2014.