TABAN DENG GAI SHOULD UNITE THE NUER FIRST

While Taban ascendancy to the post of FVP was a sinister scheme, his good working relationship with President Kiir is proving to be a dilemma for IGAD. He speaks of peace and renunciation of violence. While we know those are empty rhetorics, his words are politically efficient when it comes to their effect on regional countries and the international community. The international community only cares about PEACE in South Sudan regardless of who brings that peace.
This is going to be an uphill battle for Riek Machar as the odds are stacked against making him irrelevant politically. Taban has abandoned ARCISS. There's no, in principle, IO in Juba but SPLM. However, Taban's amplification of his call for PEACE and RENUNCIATION of violence is playing into the ears of peace partners. What he doesn't know is that his task is HARDER AND BIGGER than he realizes. The needless death that occurred between Lou Nuer and Jikany in the early 1990s because of Riek inefficiency shouldn't be allowed to happen again. Taban has a better chance of assuaging feelings in the country between Jieeng and Nuer if he succeeds in uniting the Nuer.

The major problem with Taban and his SPLM backers is to avoid dividing the Nuer and pitting them against one another. A divided Nuer, no matter how good Taban's working relationship is with President Kiir is, poses a real obstacle to peace and security in South Sudan. The unity of Nuer and South Sudanese can't be simply wished to happen by making Riek irrelevant. It needs a strategy that can bring reconciliation and healing.This is where Riek Machar and his supporters are very important. To dismiss Riek Machar as irrelevant or to ask him to quit politics and return to Juba as a 'normal' citizen without the cooperation of both Riek and his supporters is foolhardy. It's to brood another future conflict while calling for temporary peace.
Taban assumed Riek's position as a place-holder only to find the temptation of power too SWEET to leave. But if Taban appeases the angry Nuer by doing grassroots mobilizations without using money to buy support or use intimidation as he's currently doing in Juba, then his chances of bringing peace to South Sudan would be great. ARCISS was forced by IGAD and that's what brought its collapse. obviously, IGAD didn't create a good working relationship between Riek and Kiir.
Taban should, therefore, understand that bottled-up feelings are a crisis postponed. It's therefore important for Taban to start uniting the Nuer before uniting South Sudanese. Taban-engendered unity of Nuer is a precursor to the unity of South Sudanese and the advent of peace in South Sudan. Otherwise, Taban is only making things worse.

UN Trusteeship & Joint Administration: A Response to Nhial Titmamer

"UNTAG was established in accordance with resolution 632 (1989) of 16 February 1989, to assist the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to ensure the early independence of Namibia through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. UNTAG was also to help the Special Representative to ensure that: all hostile acts were ended; troops were confined to base, and, in the case of the South Africans, ultimately withdrawn from Namibia; all discriminatory laws were repealed, political prisoners were released, Namibian refugees were permitted to return, intimidation of any kind was prevented, law and order were impartially." Source UN.ORG

Calgary, Alberta 

The examples of Trusteeship I cited in my first response were Namibia and East Timor. And none of those cases failed. I didn’t give 'Congo' as a ‘success’ example so to cite it in response to my article is misleading. Both the Namibian and East Timorese examples I gave are neither impractical nor are they ineffective. Nations all over the world work with best practices. Your only concern was article 78 caveat; which I’ve addressed.

Besides, what you said about Namibia is historically inaccurate. By that time the South African government, which ruled Namibia, was fighting SWAPO’s armed wing, PLAN. So the trusteeship was a combination of three parties working together: UNTAG, South African government, and SWAPO-PLAN. The government you are talking about wasn’t technically an African government. It was the very government SWAPO was fighting. PLAN was fighting the South African government and the institutions were controlled by South Africans.

***

Recently the government of South Sudan amended the constitution to allow the president to create additional 18 states. Given that there was no provision in the constitution that allows the president to create states, the amendment made the president’s decision legal. So to say that my argument that article 78 could be amended to deal with the would-be legal hurdle is either a misunderstanding of legal processes or an ad hoc rebuttal. There’d be nothing ‘illegal’ if all the members vote to amend the article. Neither my call nor the process of amendment of any legal document (be it national or international) is illegal. You might say it’s unnecessary if you don’t like its causal factors, but by no means would anyone say it’s unnecessary either.

We are all making a legal point so to say a call for an amendment is to stretch the debate is rather bizarre. “It’s not to shift the goal posts’ but to say that your concern is addressed; and that, my friend, is the point of debate. Besides, any concerns in policy recommendations need to be addressed. That’s what I did. I didn’t shift any post!

We are staying put on the same article, on the same legal ground. Just because the call for an amendment deals with the concern doesn’t stretch the debate. It’s to address your concern within that legal context. There are indeed procedures to be followed as you put it; and amendment is one such legal procedure should the need arise. And whether or not it would pass, that’s not for us to decided.

“Things do not happen because we think they are right,” you wrote. Nothing actually 'happens', Nhial. We make things happen. And what prompts us to do things is that we believe ‘they are right.’ That we think ‘they are right’ is the reason that prompts us into supporting given processes that lead to them ‘happening.’ You’re rejecting the very basis of human moral action.

By the way, I didn’t say ‘article 78 is ‘no longer relevant.’ I said it cannot be applied in the same way it was applied when it was instituted, at face value. My point being that new conditions can necessitate changes in the article.

****

And to argue that I should have been ‘convinced’ with your explanation of article 78 is to lose sight of why we are discussing the topic in the first place. It’s not about convincing ourselves but about making our case for a governance framework that’d make South Sudan what we want. It’s not advisable to say “there, I convinced you so stop responding!”

***

What I don’t understand, however, is the inclusion of Dr. Majak, of all the South Sudanese who’ve made their cases for external assistance to the governance problems in South Sudan. Should I be convinced because Majak holds a given view? Or is Majak the paragon of acceptable arguments? Majak is usually cited by my critics to silence me because he’s something of a relative. Should I accept something because of Majak?

I’ve read enough Chomsky, Said and Cesaire to understand west’s imperial tendencies and love of skewed nature of international sociocultural and sociopolitical systems. I know enough international geopolitical favoritism to understand why 12 people die in Paris and all western leaders attend a solidarity rally while thousands are killed by Boko Haram and nothing of the sort happens. I know it’s contradictory for nations that hold freedom and equality dear to their democracies only to have five (5) members of the United Nations to bully everyone in the dictatorial ‘veto.’ 

***

You’ve also talked of ‘alternatives’; that you’ve offered alternatives to trusteeship and joint administration. You also said that I failed to give both merits and demerits of your ‘alternatives.’ First of all, what you called ‘alternatives’ are the normal functions of government. What you listed are things governments are supposed to do so calling them alternatives is to believe they are things other than what governments do.

Besides, if we were to accept them as alternatives, the question would still be: “Who’ll implement them?” Do we believe the same leaders will implement them or do we have some other leaders in mind? You seem to still have faith either in the current leaders or in the current system; both of which are no way to go. We need to remember that what is missing in South Sudan aren’t ideas as you seem to imply. Your ‘alternatives’ presupposes that these ideas or things like them have not being suggested. I would like to tell you that South Sudanese leaders have access to comprehensive development plans that outline not only the problems but HOW to solve them.

South Sudan's Dr. Riek Machar Reportedly in Khartoum for "Medical Treatment"

Photo credit: gurtong.com

Following reports by the United Nations on August 17th that United Missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) has extracted South Sudan's opposition leader and former First Vice President, Riek Machar, from the South Sudan-Congolese border on humanitarian grounds, Sudanese authorities have now confirmed that Machar is Khartoum for medical treatment.

Given the volatile relations between Juba and Khartoum, it was therefore imperative for the Sudanese officials to inform Juba that their reception of Dr. Machar was purely on 'humanitarian grounds.' From the pictures being circulated on social media, it's now apparent that Machar is in a very bad  shape medically.

Dr. Machar fled Juba at the beginning of the July following the resumption of fighting between his body guards and the president's body guards. While it isn't clear what happened on July 8th, the two parties have been accusing one another of having started the fighting. Machar claims he fled Juba fearing for his life while the government claims Machar was plotting to either kill the president or stage a coup. None of both claims have been independently verified.

Soon after Machar left Juba, Taban Deng Gai, the then SPLM-IO chief negotiator, was selected by IO officials in Juba to replace Machar 'temporarily' as both the IO leader and the First Vice President (FVP) until he [Machar] returns to Juba. Given the fact that Taban has changed his rhetoric, it's not clear if Machar will ever be allowed to assume his position as the FVP.

In his new capacity as the FVP of South Sudan, Taban toured Kenya and Sudan and called for Machar to 'renounce violence' and return to South Sudan as an average South Sudanese and wait for elections in 2018.

Since the reports of Machar having been killed turned out to be untrue and Taban not likely to relinquish his position, it's not clear what will happen when Machar gets better.

Self-esteem and Discrimination

As someone who grew up in war conditions and lived as a refugee for a long time, I'm  sometimes considered by many people in the 'west' to be prone to (or have)  low self-esteem, be poor or illiterate.  Living as refugees or displaced persons, who depended on the good will of others put people in a situation where they don't think much about themselves. But that's not everyone though.

As I stood by our front desk at my place work talking about Race and Identity in relation to my book, Is 'Black' Really Beautiful?, the issue of why many African peoples in North America become so over-sensitive when racial issues come up! For many rational people, this owes its origin to slavery and racial segregation.

But one of my coworkers, a person  of European descent, was surprised to realize that her 'black' friend, a very intelligent woman, easily becomes irritated by simple things she [friend] considers racist. The friend considers any mention of a watermelon racist; and complains a lot about 'white privilege.' This means that discrimination is considered something 'whites' don't face because of 'white privilege.' In any discussion between 'blacks' and 'whites', 'white privilege' issue comes up!

While racial discrimination is not something anyone can deny, it's sad to make everything about race. Racism has been taken to the extreme extent that any expression of racial pride by people of European descent is considered morally suspect. These people are human and should be allowed to express, freely, the pride in what they've done and who they are.

We shouldn't make ourselves emotional prisoners of Europeans utterances. We shouldn't feel emotionally hurt when things like watermelon are mentioned. We can't feel emotionally paralyzed if we're called monkeys. When are we going to have emotional strength! Don't we have things to say that can make Europeans emotionally hurt? And if they can't get emotionally hurt then we need to learn from them to be emotionally strong.

Inter-racial relations work well when we are honest with one another. This sounds utopian but it works!

This mindset has been adopted by some South Sudanese.  Simple things are tribalized. This speaks a lot about how we feel about ourselves. When we misconstrue what other tribes say about us, then the chances of us living together in peace are compromised. Instead of understanding issues in the manner others intended them, we simply rationalized them in the way we want regardless of the plea by the people who first spoke the words to us or about us.

Instead of focusing on important issues like police brutality or discrimination in the justice system, we complain about being called monkeys or calling people racist when some, like my co-worker, mention watermelon or fried chicken. We can't put our emotional health in the hands of others but then blame them when they can't take care of our emotions.

Developing strong self-esteem can help one in distinguishing between actual Racism and misunderstanding. We can't call someone racist when they are being proud of themselves or when they say something that offends us even when  they didn't mean to offend us.

A person who's well grounded, with strong self-esteem, thinks beyond the simplicity of everyday insults; and works towards changing the bigger things that affect the lives of the discriminated groups in a significant manner.


TO BE CONSIDERED...

Functionalizing Criticism and Diverse Political Opinions in South Sudan

When Diing Chan Awuol (Isaiah Abraham), a prominent South Sudanese political commenter, was killed in December of 2012, many of us hoped that his assassination would prompt the government’s protection of sound societal consciousness.

Unfortunately, Abraham’s death would only prove to be the beginning of the darkest chapter in South Sudanese politics, which would see an intensified war on critical voices, journalists and political opponents. Having realized what Abraham’s assassination would mean for the government’s public relations, the government promised to bring his assassins to book. So about a month later, on January 3, 2013, the then minister of information, Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin, told the nation on South Sudan Television (SSTV, now South Sudan Broadcasting Corporation, SSBC) that a number of suspects had been arrested. Sadly, until this day, none of the then claimed culprits has either been indicted or brought to book.

Ironically, the government, instead, formalized its repressive agenda against freedom of speech and freedom of the press, things which are clearly guaranteed in South Sudan Transitional Constitution of 2011 (24, 1-3). In October of 2014, the parliament passed a very controversial bill, which gave South Sudan National Security agents a carte blanche in their dealing with the press and political opponents.

Having adopted Khartoum’s culture of media censorship, the National Security agents confiscated newspaper publications that criticized the government. Advertising contracts were only given to newspapers allied with the ruling party or those that toed the official party line. The usually grumpy minister of information, Michael Makuei, took it upon himself to warn journalists who attempted to present a balanced newscast to South Sudanese. Makuei accused journalists of being supportive of rebels of Dr. Riek Machar, the leader of SPLM/A in Opposition. “If you go and interview a rebel and then you come and play that material, disseminating it to the people, what are you doing?” Makuei asked. Any report that tried to seek alternative perspectives from the opposition was translated as collaboration with Riek’s rebellion. National security then intensified its targeted intimidation and arbitrary arrests of journalists and activists. This is the fate Deng Athuai, a prominent South Sudanese activist, would suffer. He would be arrested, beaten and even shot for merely criticizing the government.

In the wake of this repressive atmosphere, some news publications in Juba either ceased publication or entered into self-censorship to remain in business or benefit from advertisement dollars. Newspapers such as Al-Mijhar al-Siyasi, Juba Monitor, Nation Mirror, Bakhita Radio, which remained faithful to journalistic honesty, suffered from increased security harassment, seizures and shut-down. As George Livio of Radio Miraya languished in jail since 2014, in December of 2015, National Security Services abducted Joseph Afandi of Al Tabeer newspaper and kept him in an undisclosed location until they released him in February with neither charges nor any reason why he was arrested in the first place. And in March of this year, Joseph Afandi, again, was abducted by national security agents, beaten, burnt with melted plastic and left for dead in a graveyard where his colleagues would later find him. This is just for merely criticizing the ruling party, Sudan People Liberation Moment (SPLM). Another journalist who’d suffered arbitrary arrest by National Security is Sylvester Luati of Anisa FM, who was arrested and released shortly after.

President Kiir underscored this by warning journalists in August of 2015: “If anybody among [journalists] does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time. ... Freedom of the press does not mean you work against the country.” This prompted a strongly worded criticism by Tom Rhodes of Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). A concerned Rhodes said that “The leader of any country threatening to kill journalists is extremely dangerous and utterly unacceptable…we call on President Salva Kiir to retract his comments immediately.” Statements like President Kiir’s make the death of five journalists in Western Bahr El Ghazal a painful remainder. Randa George Adam, Dalia Marko, Adam Juma Adam, Musa Mohammed Dhaiyah and Butrus Martin Khamis were killed in an ambush.

So what does this mean for South Sudan? Given the central place ideas and their critique play in any sociopolitical and socioeconomic development, the above repressive, official actions shouldn’t be taken lightly. First of all, no nation can develop ideologically as an institution of a single opinion. Diverse opinions and ideas need to be presented, debated, and thoroughly analyzed in order to evaluate their practical benefit to the nation. This democratic exercise, while enshrined in the South Sudan constitution, is being eliminated or threatened in the national consciousness. To expect all citizens to ascribe to a political singularity—an untested political ideal—is to subject the country to sociopolitical and socioeconomic stagnation. How do you ascertain that given ideas and ideologies aren’t working if they are not subjected to robust scrutiny?

As long as this disenfranchising climate continues, South Sudan isn’t going to benefit from the value of diverse opinions and creative capacities of her peoples. Journalists not only tell people things they need to know in order to enter national debates on important issues, they also help the government see where it goes wrong. This is imperative in sieving through what’s working and what isn’t so that the government can change course.