Archive for January 16, 2015


Press Statement: SPLM Denies Rumours of Split

The Office of SPLM Representative in the UK and Ireland

November 30, 2004

Some malicious rumours have been circulating all over the world in the last few weeks. It is alleged that there is a split in the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement /Army (SPLM/A). The split is allegedly led by Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit, the first Deputy Chairman and SPLA Chief of Staff, and supported by other SPLA commanders including Cdr. Majak de Agot who is currently in London. It is also rumoured that Dr John Garang de Mabior, Chairman of SPLM and Commander-in-Chief of SPLA, has ordered the arrest of Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit, and that the latter is preparing for a showdown with the former. In addition, it is alleged that Dr John Garang de Mabior decided to appoint Cdr. Nhial Deng Nhial, SPLM Commissioner for Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs, to replace Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit as first Deputy Chairman of SPLM and Chief of Staff of SPLA. Rumour-mongers also alleged that Mrs Nyandeng de Mabior, the Chairman’s wife, was arrested by the British Police and Custom Officers at London Heathrow Airport with $3.5 million dollars in her handbag

The Office of SPLM Representative in the UK and Ireland would like to respond to all these potentially damaging rumours, lies and propaganda and set the record straight in the following paragraphs

(a) The SPLM/SPLA leadership is united. There is no split in the Movement. Dr. John Garang de Mabior and his first Deputy Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit are working together; they have been through the thick and thin together; they achieved so much together and they are determined to conclude their mission together, not arrest one another. Dr. John Garang de Mabior has never thought about relieving Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit of his duties and appointing Cdr. Nhial Deng Nhial (who is currently the ninth in the hierarchy of the Movement) to the position of first Deputy Chairman of SPLM and SPLA Chief of Staff. Such arrangement presupposes sacking seven members of the SPLM Leadership Council and this is simply unthinkable. It is also common knowledge that Cdr. Majak de Agot is a loyal and trustworthy senior SPLA officer. He has already responded to the allegations published by the Arabic daily Al-sharaq Al-Awsat, and SPLM/A has noted their apology to him and the Movement.

(b) We would like to make it clear that Mrs Nyandeng de Mabior was neither carrying such money as described by the liars, nor was she arrested by the British Police and Custom Officers at London Heathrow Airport as alleged. In fact, she has never seen such a big amount of money in her entire life. Besides, it is hard to imagine why she, or indeed anybody else, would tour the world with such a big amount of money in a handbag. Mrs de Mabior was received on her arrival in the UK and escorted to the airport on her departure by a group of SPLM/A members; they are willing and ready to testify to this effect.

(c) All these rumours, in our view, are desperate attempts by the Government of the Sudan (GoS) and its South Sudanese accomplices to mastermind another split in the SPLM/A. We are acutely aware of the fact that GoS is frightened by the prospect of sharing power with SPLM/A; it is desperate to give itself a new lease of life to maintain its grip on power in Khartoum. For this reason, GoS is hell-bend on undermining the peace process. GoS is addicted to dividing and abusing the marginalised people of the Sudan and hope to replicate its successes of the past and sow the seeds for another bloody South-South conflict. Such a conflict will serve as Khartoum’s excuse to opt out of the peace process and wage another proxy war in the South. It is evident that GoS is very reluctant to sign the final peace deal with SPLM/A. This is why GoS has been concocting numerous excuses to delay concluding the peace process. This attitude suggests that Khartoum is stuck in their old ways and wish to press ahead with their big cultural assimilation project. We believe GoS will delay signing the final peace agreement forever if they can

(d) SPLM/A has made a firm commitment and is determined to pursue and realise a just, comprehensive and lasting peaceful settlement to the conflict in the Sudan. SPLM/A will not be distracted by rumour-mongers. SPLM/A believes the IGAD peace process is irreversible. We would like to strongly advise the NIF government in Khartoum that there is no room for monkey business. There is only one road ahead, and that is a road to peace. We would like to confirm that SPLM/A is ready and willing to continue negotiating peace with GoS in good faith and through the usual IGAD forum, not through the press.

(e) We wish to urge all SPLM/A members, friends of New Sudan and the public at large to remain alert and vigilant. Enemies of the Movement are working hard these days, masquerading as good messengers, uttering empty slogans, abusing and misusing terms such as “unity of purpose”, “South-South dialogue”, “referendum”, “democracy”, “transparency”, “accountability” and others to cast a shadow of doubt over the credibility of SPLM/A. We are not sure they completely understand the meanings of these words in practice. They seem to forget that these words describe the realities and practices of SPLM on the ground. We will not allow perpetual politicians and their sponsors in Khartoum to divide us. We believe the majority of the people of the Sudan have been marginalised by Khartoum and subjected to inexplicable suffering for too long, and for no reason. It is the intention of SPLM/A to conclude the final peace deal to put an end to this suffering. We believe it is time for all the people of the Sudan to experience freedom, equality and justice. They deserve better

SPLM Oyee

SPLA Oyee

Long live the struggle of the marginalised people of the Sudan

Yours sincerely

Deng Yai, For/ SPLM Representative

—————

A moral case against Bona Malwal

By Kuel Maluil Jok, Achier Deng Akol, Sabrino Majok Majok, Mawein Akot Regina, and others

Nov 16, 2005 — Having detested successive policies of marginalization exercised by minority clique regimes in Khartoum, Dr John Garang de Mabior, Kerubino Kuanynin Bol, William Nyuon Beny and Salva Kiir Mayardit abdicated their privileges as high-ranking officers in the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), and walked to the bush in 1983. That marked the birth of contemporary Sudanese revolution, which became known as Sudan People’s Liberation Army and Sudan People Liberation Movement, SPLA/M, under leadership of Dr John Garang de Mabior. Despite difficult situations faced by the Movement during its 22-year-long armed struggle, John Garang de Mabior managed to successfully lead his forces, till he achieved Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) with the Government of Sudan (GoS), in January 2005. A crowd of unknown figure, estimated as six million people thereafter, received Garang as a victorious freedom fighter, when he returned to Khartoum for inauguration as the First Vice President of the Republic of Sudan, and President of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS).

Unfortunately, triumphant Garang passed away only three weeks, after assuming his duties in Sudan’s collegiate presidency in a mysterious helicopter crash. His death sparked wide range riots all over the country, leaving hundreds of people dead, and resulting in arrest of almost 4,000 people, mostly from South Sudan and other marginalized areas.

Honour to the visionary leader

Post Garang’s death, many people around the world expressed their deep sorrow and sympathy for his untimely departure. That was equally true for those who opposed him and allied with the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime. They were quick to pay him homage as an inclusive political figure who brought us CPA- the first ever peace agreement that allows people of South Sudan to exercise right of self determination, as well as advocating for restoration of dignity to all marginalized masses in Sudan. The global philanthropists empathized and sympathised with marginalized people of the Sudan in mourning for the death of Dr John Garang as evident in condolence messages sent by prominent world leaders, such as President George W. Bush of USA, President Youri Museveni of Uganda, Mr Amer Mussa of the Arab League, Mr Koffi Anan of United Nations and, even the long term rivalry of Dr John Garang, President Omar Hassan Ahmed el Bashir of Sudan. All in all, there was an internationally shared sense of shock and despair, but one person among many stood out distinctively against the eulogy of Dr Garang. That individual is Mr Bona Malwal Madut Ring, the current advisor to the president of Sudan. Unlike millions of Sudanese and their friends who are mourning the death of Dr Garang, Bona Malwal Madut is joyfully beating his harps in melody, giving thanks and praises to his Nhialic (God) over tragic incident that took away the life of John Garang. Bona Malwal even made a trip to Juba, during Garang’s burial to make sure that he sees the sand thrown on his coffin. He then, indulged in a ruthless campaign to defame a man he failed to discredit while alive.

Insulting John Garang in his grave

As if death is not in itself painful enough, it is sad for others to disrespect the dead and continue to abuse dead people in their graves. It is hurting to all people who care about the deceased not to mention the very close relatives and friends.

To all the oppressed and marginalized people of Sudan for whom John Garang de Mabior sacrificed almost his entire lifetime fighting for their freedom, justice and equality, his sudden death in the helicopter crash was more than a simple tragedy. They felt enormously hurt, more than just a loss of a human life, because John Garang was their light and hope for a brighter future and they were and continue to be devastated by his tragic death. Unfortunately, amid this period of pain and grief, Bona Malwal continues to rub sharp knives on their wounded hearts by repeatedly insulting John Garang in his grave. To insult a living person with lies is annoying and to do so to any dead person, whether that person was a leader or not is vexing, beyond imagination. That is why most traditions and cultures Worldwide choose to respect the dead.

We expect behaviour of Bona Malwal towards a deceased to conform with common norms and values of Sudanese. For instance, it is an abomination for any one to appear gleeful over the death of a person. The dead is respected to the extent that all pre-existing bitterness ceases between adversaries, if one of them dies. In fact, others would even make a plea for a bitter enemy who is very ill not to die, so that their bitter rivalry is not curtailed by death. Yet, it is ironic that a lot of the lies being spat on John Garang’s grave are coming from an elderly Sudanese national who is supposed to rebuke youngsters, if they attempt to disrespect the dead.

Bona Malwal does not say the truth

Our attention was first drawn to these insults, when we read the content of an interview that was conducted with Bona Malwal Madut, following his appointment as an adviser to President Omer el Bashir. That time he continued to propagate his persistent lie that his problem with the late, Dr John Garang was due to the concept of “New Sudan”. Then he made a disrespectful remark that he would have not joined the Government of National Unity (GNU), if John Garang were still alive. A lot of us who had continued to hold Bona Malwal in their hearts as a respectful elder could not believe what they read and wondered whether that was a slip of tongue, under pressure from a journalist. We will expand later below to indicate why we think the points he raised were pure lies.

Regretfully, Bona’s derogatory statements did not stop at the end of that interview. He continued to make more fabrications in London, during his meeting with number of selected audience that he addressed in Marriott Hotel in London on Sunday the 30th of October 2005. In that meeting, Bona is reported to have alleged that SPLM was given $490 million (Four hundred and ninety million US Dollars) around the time of the return of John Garang to Khartoum for inauguration as First Vice President of Sudan and President of South Sudan. Bona shamelessly implied that this money was given personally to John Garang by Omer el Bashir and also added that the sum was untraceable after demise of Garang. When one of the attendants questioned the validity of that allegation, Bona asserted that he was primarily told by President Omer el Bashir and confirmed to him by Vice President, Salva Kiir Mayardit. As part of our investigation, we delegated one of our journalists, Mr Giir Biar to find out the truth from President Salva Kiir, during his recent visit to the USA. An extract from that interview is quoted as follows:

Question: “…lately Mr. Bona Malwal in Oxford, stated that president Bashir told him that, there was some money given to Dr Garang and he claimed that money is not traceable. What do you know about that?”

President Salva answered, “I don’t have any knowledge about money that has been given away. So I was not present when Mr Bona Malwal was talking to President el Bashir. Anything that was discussed between the two I can not really come to answer about it nor was I well presented when the money was given to Dr Garang” end of the quote.

We also asked the same question to the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning of the GoSS, Mr Arthur Akuien Chol who simultaneously dismissed the validity of such receipt of amount to have reached SPLM account. Unless Bona has concrete evidence to prove otherwise, we came to conclusion that he is just fabricating these lies to kill the living character of a dead hero, Dr John Garang de Mabior.

War with militia

Unfortunately, Mr Malwal’s spree of lies did not stop in what he mentioned above. He is reported to has gone ahead in the same meeting in London to reveal that John Garang had issued a four-month period as deadline to Paulino Matip and his militia group to either join SPLA or Sudan Army. Bona went on to emphasize that it was fortunate that a potentially disastrous military conflict that might have taken place between the SPLA and Matip’s militia was averted by his death (John Garang de Mabior). Here is what he said, “South Sudan was heading towards a disastrous civil war but thank God John Garang is dead.” To associate what one considers to be a good outcome of somebody’s death is in our opinion an expression of relief and satisfaction over that person’s death and it hurts us a lot to learn that anything good is reported as an advantage of the death of our leader Dr John Garang De Mabior.

At this juncture, let us specify why we think all statements alleged above are lies. Since it is impossible for the late Garang to come out of his grave to defend himself over these slanders, we have taken our own initiative to do so on his behalf in total respect to him in particular and to the dead in general. It is to be noted that we conducted extensive investigations with concerned parties, mainly the SPLM/A leadership as mentioned above to find out the truth. We will now refute Bona’s lies one by one.

A) The concept of the New Sudan

We believe that it is a pure lie for Bona Malwal to keep saying that his dispute with John Garang de Mabior was over the issue of New Sudan, as a concept of liberation. This is because of two reasons. First, Bona Malwal had been fighting side by side with John Garang, as a resource person to the SPLM/A for twelve years, during which he attended most talks between SPLM and Sudan Government. At no time during that long period did he openly voice his discontent about New Sudan. On the contrary, he was vigorously propagating New Sudan and defending SPLM/A in his UK based newsletter, the Sudan Democratic Gazette. He was always praising John Garang as a good leader and defending the concept of the New Sudan as proved in the following extract quoted from the book, “The Horn of Africa”, edited by Charles Gurdon, published (1994, p.96). The full quotation goes as:

“…John Garang’s call for “New Sudan” of equal opportunities and responsibilities for all its nationalities is, to many northern Sudanese, as bad as call by some southerners for separation. How can John Garang, a southerner, think that he and his kind can be equal with the Arabs? There are endless anecdotes that portray the deep racism that characterizes the northern view of the south, but deference to brevity, two will suffice. A typical Arab northerner Sudanese, who cannot bring himself to accept the frequently repeated slogan of SPLA that they want to liberate the whole country and create a New Sudan, once remarked angrily: ” whom does John Garang want to liberate?” Another said, after the SPLA captured Kurmuk in Blue Nile province in December 1987 and was threatening to bring war deeper into the north: ” How can John Garang, the naked Dinka from the cattle camp, think that he can rule Sudan?” The speaker was a primary schoolteacher who may be very well not have gone beyond primary education himself, for often primary school-leavers are trained to teach at the same level. John Garang is not only an accomplished military officer, who has earned his present rank of colonel while an officer in the Sudanese army, he is also an accomplished academic who holds a doctorate in economics. Some would say he is over-qualified for any job, but to this simple northern Sudanese he remains a southerner and thus a “naked Dinka”.

As shown above, how can Bona convince us that he was not a part and a parcel of the concept of “New Sudan”? Even without concrete evidence in this extract, we doubt that a person of Malwal’s intellectual calibre would take such a very long time to process and object to a well-defined concept and objective of SPLM/A that he followed for twelve years! Furthermore, we know that Bona Malwal started whistle blowing, when late John Garang officially banned him from exploiting slave redemption program. We therefore, view Malwal’s discontent with the idea of New Sudan, as a counter reaction designed to mask the truth about his encroachment to slavery redemption program in Northern Bahr el Ghazal. We call it hiding or masking one’s anger for a different reason behind the curtain of New Sudan and singing a common song which most people who were discontented with SPLM/A for different reasons used to sing, a song called “I don’t like the concept of the New Sudan.”

Our charismatic leader, Dr John Garang de Mabior died after delivering us the CPA using the strategy of New Sudan, which embodies referendum. What better alternative than referendum can Bona Malwal offer to the people of Southern Sudan? And what is preventing him from doing so instead of continuing to criticise, criticise and criticise John Garang de Mabior who has paid the ultimate price of martyrdom.

B) Bona Malwal conditioned his appointment with the Death.

We also believe that it is a false imagination for Bona Malwal to assert that, if Garang were still alive he would have not had a chance to join the Government of National Unity, GNU. To the best of our knowledge John Garang had continued to involve Bona Malwal in major events, such as inviting him to attend the Peace Ceremony in Nairobi. Unless Bona had planned to decline any ministerial appointment offered to him, because of any grudges against John Garang, we feel that he was potentially one of those who would have been appointed, if Garang were still alive. Hypothetically, even if SPLM might not have nominated him for a ministerial or advisory post, South Sudan Democratic Forum (SSDF) to which he belongs could have offered him one of their shares in the Government as it did by granting him presidential advisory position to Omer el Bashir. Bona would have been in presidential palace with Garang, because there is no provision in the CPA or both constitutions, which specify that, “Bona Malwal is not allowed to join any Government in Sudan or South Sudan, as long as John Garang de Mabior is alive.”

C) War with Paulino Matip

To say that, if John Garang had not died war would have erupted between SPLA and Paulino Matip’s militia is another big fat lie from Bona Malwal. The CPA is clear about the fact that other military forces are required to choose whether to join SPLA or Sudan Army, which is exactly what they’re doing now. We do not understand why the same militias would have refused to do the same as specified in the agreement if John Garang had not died to an extent that this would have led to another war in the South. Disarmament of militia is not a subjective initiative which could make Malwal to rejoice over the death of Dr Garang, rather it is a binding regulation stipulated in chapter five of the “Security Arrangements” ratified at Naivasha, Kenya on 25th September 2003. Article 7 “Status of Other Armed Groups” states at paragraph (a) that, “no armed grouped allied to either party shall be allowed to operate outside of the two forces”, SPLA and the National Islamic Front Army. Again paragraph (b), under the same article states that those militia “who have the desire and quality shall be incorporated into the organized forces of either party (Army, Police, Prisons and Wildlife forces), while the rest shall be reintegrated into the civil service and civil society institutions”. The rejection of Malwal to disarmament of militia conforms to the allegation circulated by one of the Southern Sudanese last month at the Sudanile electronic website that Malwal was an advisor for the destruction of the people of the south Sudan and in particular the CPA.

D) Alleged millions of Dollars.

The allegation that John Garang was given over four hundred million US Dollars by Omar al Beshir and that the whereabouts of that money is unknown is a pill that was too bitter for us to swallow and tolerate compared to the three mentioned above. Our primary intention in writing this paper is to reassure all our people that our leader John Garang de Mabior did not receive or embezzle such money. He has only been falsely smeared by whoever fabricated that lie in London.

We also launched an enquiry on this matter and failed to find any substance of truth about any money given by Bashir to Garang. Our investigation revealed that huge costs incurred during John Garang’s enthronement as first vice president of the Sudan and President of South Sudan were met by the friendly countries, namely USA and Norway. The four aeroplanes bearing white colour of peace that transported the SPLM Leadership and other national delegates to the ceremony were generously hired by Norway, while the expensive hotel accommodation of delegates was kindly funded by the United States of America.

Post CPA, the GoSS is entitled to obtain its funds of oil shares from the government of Sudan as per CPA stipulate, thus Bona might have interpreted that as a bribery to Dr Garang. Yet, we confirmed that only around $200 million (Two Hundred Million US Dollars), a small fraction of the oil share owed was actually paid to the GoSS in successive instalments after death of Dr John Garang. These instalments are also being remitted through official bank channels and would not have been handed to John Garang, if he were alive. As the same way this instalments are not paid to either SPLM or Salva Kiir Mayardit in person rather than GoSS. Thus, we are proud to prove that our leader died without having received personally any amount of money from Bashir. If John Garang were susceptible to bribery, he would not have continued to lead the struggle for the marginalized unpaid for 22 years in SPLM/A and also in Anyanya-1. If money too were his preference and not the liberation of his land and oppressed people, he would not have given up his prestigious high-ranking military position in SAF and his professorship status at University of Khartoum with all associated privileges and life style only to go and lead a guerrilla war without any payment. If luxurious life was his dream and not the freedom of his marginalized and oppressed people, why would he, and others e.g. Salva Kiir Mayardit spent most of their lifetime in the bush and not in Oxford nor in the “Amarat” of Khartoum?

Although we are convinced that no $490 million was offered to SPLM as alleged we would like to give anyone else, including Bona Malwal himself a benefit of the doubt to provide indisputable evidence to back up this verbal allegation. We condemn all people who are engaged in the dirty game of disrespecting or insulting the deceased with lies in their graves and demand this practice must stop. Let it be known to every one that we are prepared to defend our departed leader against those who bombard him with lies. We urge everyone to leave the souls of Dr Garang and his fallen comrades to rest in peace.

E) Conclusion.

We the signatories of this paper and other supporters, who are deeply affected like us by persistent defamation of our martyrs, call upon Mr Bona Malwal to refrain from making further degrading remarks on our lost heroes. We would have made the same request to our departed leader Dr John Garang, if he were the one alive and continued to insult Bona Malwal in his grave although we fully believe that our leader, Dr John Garang would have never uttered a disrespectful statement against any dead person given his steadfast record.

We strongly believe that it is better for people who are alive and overcritical like Bona Malwal to implement what they think is the best way forward other than the gift of referendum that our martyrs delivered by sacrificing their lives, instead of only criticising endlessly. The least we can do to all the millions of our people who sacrificed their lives for us and our land is to remember them positively and let their souls rest in eternal peace irrespective of whatever views we held in our hearts individually against some of them when they were alive.

Signed on behalf of affected members of the SPLM

- 1. Mr. Kuel Maluil Jok, Helsinki, Finland.
- 2. Dr. Achier Deng Akol, London, United Kingdom.
- 3. Mr. Sabrino Majok Majok, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
- 4. Dr. Mawein Akot, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
- 5. Mr. Kwai Malak Kwai, New Haven, CT, USA.
- 6. Mr.Martin Mapour John Majak, Jonkoping, Sweden.
- 7. Mr. Darious Garang Wol Mabior, Sydney, Australia.
- 8. Mr. Akok Manyuot Madut, Missouri, United States of America.
- 9. Mr. James Kur Muorwel, Eskilstuna, Sweden
- 10. Mr. Martin Mou Mou Athian, Tronhiem, Norway
- 11. Mr. Daniel Deng Lwal (Deng Falasha), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
- 12. Mr. Acuoth Makuac Riak, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

South Sudan: A Slow Liberation (Paperback, 320 pages)

Posted: January 16, 2015 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Books

In 2011, after a lengthy struggle, South Sudan became the world’s youngest independent nation. The area and its people had endured a brutal colonial conquest followed by a century of deliberate government neglect and racial oppression. Sudan’s war of liberation—although victorious—resulted in many negative economic consequences, especially in rural areas dependent upon humanitarian aid. The violent aftermath of independence has resulted in looting, raids, and massacres in some regions.

South Sudan: A Slow Liberation examines these problems and provides a revealing, multi-layered description of the current state of the country. Looking specifically at the Jonglei state, South Sudan’s most mutinous hinterland, Edward Thomas explains how it came to be at the heart of the journey toward state power and liberation and has exemplified South Sudan’s history as a rebel threat to the Sudanese government. Drawing on hundreds of interviews, South Sudan gives a sharply focused, fresh account of the country’s continuing struggle.

Editorial Reviews

Review

‘South Sudan: A Slow Liberation succinctly examines the challenges that continue to face South Sudanese struggling for freedom while at the same time stubbornly refusing to break loose of the archaic social relations and customs that militate against modernity – the essence of liberation – and the emergence of the modern state in South Sudan.’ Peter Adwok Nyaba, former minister of higher education for South Sudan ‘This is the most lucid, insightful account of South Sudan’s predicament in print. Privileging South Sudanese voices, and threading together social and economic history and political and military analysis with personal testimony, demography and anthropology, it is essential reading for those wishing to understand the current civil war. It is also beautifully written.’ Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation and author of Darfur: A New History of a Long War ‘Thomas’s insightful review of South Sudanese history, ecology and its multiple societies explodes many of the myths that underlie present explanations for the conflicts in South Sudan. Instead of looking to primordialism or narrowly based cultural explanations, Thomas situates Jonglei’s violence-prone history within the context of uneven development, global incorporation and the failure of the ruling SPLM to overcome the resulting contradictions.’ John Young, author of The Fate of Sudan ‘This book is a rare achievement as it unfolds the present through the voices of those who live with the consequences of what has happened in the past. Thomas gives us a much-needed fresh understanding of South Sudan that, while uniquely modern, historicizes and moves beyond stereotypes and received wisdom.’ Mareike Schomerus, London School of Economics and Political Science ‘A must read for all interested in South Sudan, the world’s newest state. Thomas’s well-written book expertly documents how statehood came about, its fragility and the lessons from history for South Sudan’s future.’ Alex Vines, OBE, head of the Africa programme at Chatham House and co-director of the African Studies Centre, Coventry University ‘The book thoroughly examines the predicament of South Sudan, focusing on Jonglei state, where the worst kinds of violence along ethnic lines have occurred. It interrogates the explanations, particularly uneven development, that many authors have used in their works. The work is a must read for anyone interested in a comprehensive treatment of the events that led to the birth of the new country.’ Leben Nelson Moro, director of external relations at the University of Juba ‘This is an illuminating account of the contradictions of the theory and practice of liberation in an African periphery. Thomas teaches us how South Sudan’s slow and relentless integration into the global market confounds its liberation unravelling chronically in the bloody conflict theatre of Jonglei. From the local contingencies of South Sudan’s war zones the book draws universal lessons on the devastations of the nation-state.’ Magdi El Gizouli, Freiburg University

About the Author

Edward Thomas has lived and worked in Sudan and South Sudan for over eight years. He has worked as a teacher, researcher, and human rights worker for Sudanese and international organizations.


Press Release

The Mission is focusing on peace and reconciliation modalities among the people of lake state who are killing themselves massively without a good reason.

 bishops

                                                                             

January 16, 2015 (SSB) — First and foremost we thank the Almighty God for the mercy and His protection upon us as people of South Sudan since last year 2014 till 2015.

This article is the response to the article published by Panluel e wel website on 15th Jan 2015 title “ Archbishop of South Sudan and Sudan (ECSS & S) his Grace Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak, calling for a creation of Greater Agaar Administrative Area (GAAA) as the solution to the ongoing conflict”

We want to clarify this information to the entire public that, the information public by panluele wel website is baseless and actually has no root to be considered.

The high delegation led by archbishop of South Sudan (ECSS & S) his grace Dr. Daniel Deng Bul Yak including 9 other bishops, over30 priests and 104 Jol-Wo-lieec members is mainly for peace and reconciliation in lake state for period of fourteen (14) days. The Mission is focusing on peace and reconciliation modalities among the people of lake state who are killing themselves massively without a good reason.

We have nothing to do with politics or administration of the country. We have never blame government or put any challenge to any authority both in central and state government. The delegation is to change the hearts of our people to consider peace and reconciliation through forgiveness of one another and also to deliver message of GOD to those young men who are actually found of doing wrong things such as killing of women, children, elders, community leaders (sultans) and pastors and also to refrain from stealing some people cows because if you keep on stealing then you will bring a curse to your people.

The Archbishop and the team are further more encouraging the Agaar community to be united and live as one people but to expel out from clan to clan fighting that has no benefit at all.

However, we are not here to preach politics but we are to make solution to our people. We cannot just create problem to solve problem but to see possibilities of improving our people spirit of revenge and together think about the way forward to stabilize the situation of lake state people.

We don’t think whether situation of Agaar is related to Pibor issue as indicated in the article published by Paanluele wel. Therefore, Agaar community is not affected by any tribe in-order to be separated from other community and they are not fighting for administrative Area. The main mandate for the delegation is to campaign for peace to the people of lakes state and to transform them to behave like good citizen in the nation.

In conclusion, we would like to inform the general public that we would soon release statement after completion of mission. The statement would exams the policy of the ongoing problem and general analysis made by high delegation.  For this reason we are requesting everybody to wait for the official communication that will entail the causes of fight in the Lakes and how Peace can be brought to them as part of modalities and solution to it.

 —

Prepared By Simon Yak Deng

Secretary General of the Jol-Wo-Lieec Provisional Committee

Call for Unity between Jieng and Nuer Communities

Posted: January 16, 2015 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary

By Daniella Valentino Wol, UK

January 16, 2015 (SSB) — For years Jieng and Nuer have always had conflicts between them but always they have joined hands to battle their common enemy, as brothers they stood firm as a foundation to defend our way of life, land and freedom of innocent people, to live as Africans. Together we defeated the Arab madness and delivered us our own Country after years of war.

We stood up often against foreign oppression and confirm values that matter to us, our elders sat down under trees to work out conflicts and misunderstanding. Yes we have had rebellions and power seeking men who had taken us back from our vision and developments but never has parliament lets down our young.

Those elders were mixed and put in the parliament where they failed by falling asleep, silent killing is far more evil than the enemy you know. If sleeping was not allowed then they should have work harder in collaborations to improve living standards of fallen heroes’ children.

They would have seen our Juba streets filled with Uganda and Kenya sex workers where ministers lay them hotels room for 5 mins of sex paying them over $100 dollars excluding drinks money/hotel bill and our soldiers/Teachers get 300 ssp per month.

If parliament elders were not sleeping then they would have known our women do not cook or do the house work anymore but only carry babies without changing their children clothes. Surely you are meant to be wise and smart so how come? You do not see women with IPhone in Uganda beauty shop been given deep legs massage pushing their skirts up to the pleasure zone of lovers in daily basis.

If our elders asked ministers or govt officials How much do you get paid to have this lifestyle and your children at overpriced International schools than we could have had less corruptions.

Which one of you have not let down children of RSS? What made you sleep on as economic crisis hit citizens and ministers dance in corruption without questioning our outstanding dear thieves. Parliament saw men who threaten RSS future, values, freedom and turn a blind eye, surely they should have respond with one clear voice! They witness human rights abuses, violations and Silence of journalists.

The vast majority of you make me sick to the core of my soul, your tolerance of aggressive action and silent encouragement of fundamental breaches of human rights. You sweet elders have allowed abuse of powers and made officials stand on citizens heads, you have forgotten your mate in Heaven who died for our freedom, You fell asleep and allow our beloved motherland to be destroyed, you strengthen injustice and help build insecurity.

You have not spoken for 12 million South Sudanese and broken many laws within. You are powerless sleeping and Riek continue to destroy what The Lord has given willingly to each of us – peace. We will have peace but you need divine help since this crisis needs resolving in order to have better RSS.

Which one of you have not supported or made outstanding contribution to the suffering of children of RSS since Garang died? Silent witnesses to the suffering each day, “the parliament of sleeping elders”, you must acknowledge that you have given a valid licence to kill children of RSS systematically and diplomatically. Please consider going home to your Village for sweetcorn planting and cattle camp.

Kiir! Give our many young who are passionate and highly educated, jobs! How can you build a country without the young when they are the ones who see the future clearly we are tired of your “Excellency, Honourable Friends” delivering a toxic horrible mix to 64 unique tribes, Youth and women are your link to grassroots who come face to face with the challenges facing our govt. Love and Peace to you all.


FORMER POLITICAL DETAINEES (G-10 PLUS): THE ONLY INNOCENT SOUTH SUDANESE THAT CAN BE INNOCENT!

By Dut-machine De Mabior, Nairobi, Kenya

January 16, 2015 (SSB) — Dear readers, it makes no sense when unscrupulous sources tell us off to hell when the real truth is inevitable. I am therefore going to explain in this writing why all the members of G-10 plus (Former Political Detainees FPD) are the only members of our Greater South Sudan who are innocent.

Since the hell got loose in Juba, dating back to the 15th of December, 2013, a number of highly profiled members of the Ruling SPLM were arrested in connection to the ‘coup’ as claimed by the Juba administration. Whether there was coup or no coup is not the question being addressed by my writing.

This has been answered by so many bodies, U.S.A, EU, A.U, some South Sudanese and president Museveni as the Juba happening was just but a mere mutiny, an idea which I buy. But why it resulted into an armed rebellion must be a question to be answered by the rebelling body. I will justify myself here below that the G-10 are not in anyway connected to the rebellion that is taking hell on in the country.

The big speculation dates back to the press conference of the December 6 held in the SPLM house, Juba. This conference was attended by all the FPD and other government officials like Michael Makuei (Minister for information), David Athorbei (minister for finance ), Nhial William Deng (Head of government delegates to IGAD) and others who were not arrested like Paul Mayom Akech. This was an evidence in the court when the remaining four were being taken through trials that they had attended the said conference.

This is too an evidence to so many of us who pronounce the G-10 rebels by association. Just indeed they had attended the same political conference with the rebel leader Riek Machar, then they qualify as rebels by the virtue of association. I must say that the Rebel leader is a South Sudanese and it’s not specified anywhere in the constitution that any association with him amounts to rebellion. If attending the conference is rebellion, then my good ministers are too rebels!

If they are thought to have different ideas with the rebels upon declaration of rebellion, then why not the G-10? Ladies and gentleman, my fellow citizens, voicing the same concerns as members of a political group and then thereafter someone implements their own ideas does not make the ideology one anymore. To my judgment, the SPLM members whether in government, G-10 or rebels had the same ideas on December 6 in press, their ideas turned different upon declaration of rebellion and there is no correlation whatsoever between the three groups as at now.

G-10 did not follow Riek Machar as their leader. No! Riek was the highest ranking member of the SPLM at the time, indeed, the party’s vice chair, and because this was a meeting of the SPLM in the absence of the chair, Riek, the vice chair was the leader automatically. It doesn’t have to be confused that anyone was following anybody. It was just the SPLM hierarchy left by Dr. John De Mabior that made Riek the one reading out the press.

This hierarchy has been there for years. You and I have been members of the party, did you ever think that you were following Riek when indeed he presided over some state functions in that capacity, for me it’s a no! I was following the hierarchy of SPLM and he was the vice chair whether I likes him or not. The same case applies to the G-10. This therefore means that G-10 had nothing hidden for Riek other than the party line up that automated him to be at the top of all.

Hence, the G-10 are not for any other idea that is contrary to the party reforms which was meant to be achieved through dialogue. We the Facebook, Twitter and websites judges indict the G-10 as rebels and true enemies of the state. I beg to differ, the government of the republic through the courts of law found them not guilty. They were indeed exonerated from the charges.

Mach Paul Kuol Awar, an honourable Man of our society, the then director of Military intelligence of the country said categorically before the law that nothing in his disposal connects the G-10 to the crises in the country. This means they have nothing in common with the rebels and hence not even rebels sympathizers. Who else purports in our midst to know more than Gen. Mach can tell? Accept the truth just like I did, the G-10 are not rebels, whether in reality or disguise. How do I call them then, my name for them is that they are “political dissidents” period!

The word rebel is gaining a different meaning in our country and I wonder why our linguists have kept silent this far, they should introduce us to how to use the Oxford dictionary to find the true meaning of the same. Are we being fare to ourselves? Maybe no, perhaps we don’t understand the G-10 well. These are menwhom we know their struggling profiles well.

I must say that they are not cowards. Indeed if they are not, and their idea was to be rebels, what changed the stand after being released from detention? They would have joined the rebellion without prior permission from anybody. The facts that they denounced the rebellion prove to any reasonable mind that they had not thought of it before the December 15th. And if that stand to be a convincing reason, then I must not call them rebels because they are not.

Nobody can pretend to be a better decision maker than the G-10, they have decided not to be a party of any belligerent group, let’s not decide for them to call them a name they have opted not to be called. Perhaps others think I write this because the words rebel is bad. No! I would still write this piece if you were calling G-10 a government ally.

Other members of the cabinet have gone far to instruct their cohorts not to meet the G-10 because they are rebels and anyone meeting them would be perceived as rebels too. They have forgotten that the G-10 meets H. E Salva Kiir, the president and nobody perceives him a rebel, why me then? Let’s not be cheated because we have the right to be informed. I will in person seek for that information from anybody, Yes any free citizen of our country. we are blinded by the sycophantic nature to the extend of neglecting our own rights.

As I conclude my Dear country men and women, the evidences anyone give to nail the G-10 to any side of the conflict are not inherent. I am patiently waiting for the Obasanjo reports to tell me who exactly messed up the country. A report which I am totally convinced that no member of the G-10 plus is indicted. it makes no sense if you talk a lot yet your political favourite will be recommended to the Hague for trials. I therefore conclude G-10 are political dissidents, not rebels!

The author is a student of electrical and electronics engineering at Kenyatta University, Nairobi Kenya