Princeton Lyman and Andrew Natsios distorting some facts
about South Sudan
I used to feel sorry for
Africa anytime I heard ‘western’ countries and intelligentsia misrepresenting
Africa. However, the way I now look at the west’s perception and representation
of Africa has changed significantly. Bizarrely speaking, I now feel sorry for
the tellers of African realities and African leaders than for the average,
misunderstood African. And this relates to the integrity of the tellers of the
stories.
The current crisis in South
Sudan has brought out the best and the worst of western journalism, western
perception of Africa and her morbid realities. News is reported haphazardly with
contradicting realities emerging the following day. Opinions are written by
supposedly western ‘experts’ with mangled up facts. However, people who should
correct such misinformation aren’t given any opportunity to correct them.
This not only questions the
integrity of the news institution, it also questions the role of the news
institution in regard to what African countries go through.
I realized with worrying bitterness
that less care is taken when it comes to telling Africa’s stories. News is
published without thoroughly checking facts. This affects the integrity of the
news reporters than the integrity of the body being reported about. It is – as
clichéd – Africa of course!
Admittedly, the crisis in
South Sudan has left me with grave misgivings about the integrity of major news
institutions in the world. And these include the likes of New York Times, BBC,
CNN, The Guardian …etc.
South Sudan was destroyed by decades
of war and is now being destroyed by self-centered politicians. I therefore can’t
allow my country’s historical facts to be distorted or told by foreigners in a
disrespectful, careless manner.
On December 25, 2013, Andrew
Natsios published and Op-Ed article on New York Times: Save South Sudan from itself. While Mr. Natsios got the general sentiment
and the situation right, he was a little careless in interpretation of the
facts. He postulated the claims about the events of December 15, 2013 as if the
truth has already been established. That wasn’t wise in such a tribally charged
environment.
Being someone who’s been
involved in South Sudan and Sudan for a long time and especially the process
leading to the signing of Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005, I thought he’d
get the facts about South Sudan right, or be at least careful in regard to how
he interprets South Sudan historical events. He sadly wasn’t.
In the article Natsios claimed
that Dr. Riek Machar came back to SPLM in 2001 (instead of 2002) and that 1991
SPLA split was caused by ‘power struggle’ between Riek Machar and Lam Akol on
one hand and Dr. John Garang on the other. What happened in 1991 can actually
be seen as insubordination, opportunism and egotism. Power struggle only happened after the split not before
it.
While Natsios admitted to being
wrong (via email) on the first case, the reunification of Riek’s and Garang
camps, he claims he’s right on 1991 SPLA split. However, because ‘power
struggle’ claim in 1991 is a question of interpretation, Natsios could have
done justice to Sudan and South Sudan by explaining exactly why he thinks the
split was caused by ‘power struggle.’
Mr. Natsios claimed he had
excess to embassy cables and that he has proof that it was actually power
struggle that caused the split in 1991. Well, Mr. Natsios owes it to South
Sudanese to explain and justify his claims otherwise he’s just adding to the
misrepresentation of Africa by western elites and ‘experts’ on Africa.
To even make the matter worse,
the testimony former US envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, Princeton Lyman, gave
to US Senate Foreign Relation Committee on January 9, 2014 appalled me. Lyman
was involved in South Sudan for three years but he couldn’t get some facts
right. As someone who was presenting to select US law makers; people whose
decisions or recommendations could affect the future of South Sudan, I thought
Mr. Lyman would be careful and thorough with his facts.
How can we trust someone who
jumbled up facts about South Sudan to say what is in the best interest of South
Sudan? The testimony was like a joke: No facts referenced and basic facts were
jumbled up miserably. While the recommendation on what is to be done about and
for South Sudan was excellent, some facts were wrong.
Lyman, like Natsios, put 2001
as the time Dr. Riek came back to the SPLA. He claimed President Kiir is from Northern
Bhar El Ghazal State when he’s from Warrap State. He bizarrely claimed that
Riek Machar is a ‘Leader of Nuer’; something I fail to understand what it
means.
The testimony was like Mr. Lyman
wasn’t serious about what he was saying. It’s as if the testimony was something
he did just as ‘let’s get over with it!’
And how can we forget how news
reports about South Sudan were either wrong or contradictory. Bor, the capital of Jonglei state, was in
government control today then tomorrow the word is ‘sorry it isn’t!” The names
of the ministers are most of the times mixed up, states are mixed up, where
leaders come from is mixed up, the states where oil is drilled are mixed up …etc.
All these events tell me that care
is not taken when it comes to reporting or writing about South Sudan. Some of
us might not have access to prestigious news institution like New York Times,
however, we’ll flood the social media, the blogging community and our local
news outlets to show the world that the supposed ‘experts’ are either not
serious about our countries or are not the people we can trust with the affairs
of our countries.
These people should either
straighten up when it comes to what they say about our countries or we’ll
expose them as dishonest and incompetent.
We can’t have our historical
facts distorted or misinterpreted in our watch.
@kuirthiy
