The dangers of uncritical ethnic allegiance

 

Photo: Mercy Corps

By the Editor

In this address at the 39th Ordinary meeting of African heads of state, President Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan pledged to restore peace to South Sudan.

This is going to be a tall order. The president has been making similar pledges for the last decade. Yet peace remains illusive for the people of South Sudan. What we witness today is the withdrawal into ethnic bases. This is putting civilians and the country at risk. Northern Jonglei State has become a battle ground. Civilians have been displaced, some killed.

But it all begins with the political elite.

But South Sudanese civilians have been caught up in the middle of a war with which they have nothing. Elite start their disagreement over power and political ambitions but then end up passing the suffering to the people. Elite don't suffer the consequences of their actions. They benefit from it. This is South Sudan.

Yet, the very people who are affected by elite selfish actions still stand by these elite. Why? In-group bias as a function of ethnic belonging. Civilians will support political leaders from ethnic group even when these leaders do absolutely nothing for the people. This is the case even when these leaders have in the past put them at risk.

South Sudanese elite therefore stir up the crisis knowing that they will bank on their ethnic basis as a default position. They don't have to say or do anything for their ethnic groups to support them. Political differences among the elite is therefore transformed wittily into an ethnic problem and then to a survivalist issue. "Support us or tribe X will exterminates you!" 

Peace will therefore remain illusive unless South Sudanese unite across ethnic lines. 

In my recent conversation with Dr. Gatluak Thach, two issues emerged. Signing another peace agreement with President Kiir will be tricky because the president has shown that he's not interested in respecting any agreement. On the other hand, war is also not an option. It leads to more suffering and death. It also allows President Kiir, who has turned the country into an authoritarian system, to re-entrench himself. 

Peace and war are therefore both difficult, though not impossible. 

But the most important solution is for the people of South Sudan to stare realizing that the problem is not the people themselves. Tribes are not the problem. Leaders using tribe to gain support are the problem. They should therefore start rejecting leaders who turn South Sudanese against each other.

Will Divine Guidance Rescue South Sudan from Turmoil?

Photo: Radio Tamazuj

There is nothing wrong with having a "national prayer" day. The problem with the government of South Sudan is that it has started to misappropriate religion for political ends. This is exactly what Khartoum's Islamic elite did with Islam. They misappropriated Islam as a political instrument for the subjugation of non-Muslims in Sudan.

Since Khartoum elite from the 1950s have used religion as a power instrument, South Sudanese have countered the imposition of Islam with what nearly borders on Christian fundamentalism. It was, in most cases, for a good reason. But it's now getting misused without any useful social value to the people of South Sudan.

The colonial regimes, with their colonial anthropology, the most compromised of disciplines as late Congolese philosopher V. Y. Mudimbe once argued, did not believe Africans had any religion on the same level with Islam and Christianity. Embracing both Christianity and Islam by South Sudanese was therefore a way to get global recognition.

 Being proselytized into Islam and Christianity was instrumental to South Sudanese and the religious regimes that converted them. It won them the support of western Christendom in the 1960s and the 1990s. 

Today, however, these foreign religions have become integral to the South Sudanese social and cultural fabric. They are no longer foreign religions. 

So when President Salva Kiir of South Sudanese recently called a National Prayer Breakfast, many South Sudanese appreciated it. However, there are many South Sudanese who took offense. Religion in South Sudan seems to have become an instrument for political and social blackmail. It has become a convenient tool the president uses to keep the hungry and destitute populace passive, zombified. 

For many South Sudanese, prayers cannot fix national issues. It will not pay salaries that have not been paid consistently for nearly two years now. Security situation has deteriorated, the economy is in taters, the agreement has been virtually abrogated, and the main signatory to the peace agreement (First Vice President Riek Machar) is undergoing an unnecessary court proceedings. 

These cannot be fixed by prayers. They need leadership from President Kiir. 

A national day of prayer could have been a day of forgiveness with President Kiir leading by example. But he does not. He prioritizes what serves him. He calls on South Sudanese to reject "tribalism, hatred" and embrace "reconciliation." 

However, opposition have noted that this day would have had a meaningful religious significance. Dut Majokdit, a senior political figure in SPLM-IO of Dr. Riek Machar noted that "For this country to realize national reconciliation, it must start from the top leadership." 

This is important. It is important for President Kiir to call South Sudanese to reconcile. But he must also start by reconciling with Dr. Riek Machar, his arch political enemy. 

Edmund Yakani, a prominent South Sudanese civil society leader, echoed Majokdit's words: "We wish the speech of the President could have broken the ground for real forgiveness and reconciliation."

Meaning the human, rather than the divine aspect of the national prayer has a greater chance of bringing stability to South Sudan. Divine guidance is useful only if leaders take initiative on behalf of the people. But when prayers are called only to engage in needless self-absolution, then religion becomes a convenient political tool. 

Reconciliation and forgiveness should not be something others do. It should also be a component of the South Sudanese governance structure. As French deconstructionist and post-modernist philosopher, Jacque Derrida, has noted, what we should give is not just the forgivable but also the unforgivable. 

It is not the divine that will fix South Sudan. It is the human design. 

_______________________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. 

 

Mabior Garang Mabior: Practice respect, humility and service to the people

Photo: Courtesy of Mabior Garang's Facebook account

I wish Mabior Garang Mabior luck in his new ministerial role. It's a trying role in a trying environment; but he seems prepared and skilled. That is the nature of the system in South Sudan.

But I have a message for Mabior. For those of you with long-writings-phobia, skip this. Do something better with your time!

I urge him to be a little humble. Being John Garang's son doesn't give him a special epistemic position or a socio-political weight above and beyond what the people are prepared to stomach. Twi supports him, Jonglei supports him, and South Sudan supports him. He's one voice, one mind. Let him remember that!

Meaning his ministerial stature after Kiir's decrees come knocking will depend not on being Garang's son. It will depend very much on what he achieves and how he treats people. Not people who pander to him but also those who disagree with him. We know his achievements aren't going to be many (if any) given the anomic system within which he's going to work in South Sudan.

However, being John Garang's son matters. While Mabior is revered for his wit and individual decisions he has made, making him apparently a man of his own, we cannot downplay the role of his larger-than-life father regarding how Mabior is perceived by the powers that be and by the lay public. Garang's Mabior's name opens doors, inspires respect and, sometimes, terror. This is not only the nature of human relations in South Sudan. Name recognition applies all over the world.

This also means being Garang's son should come with a considered and considerate responsibility. The sons and daughters of "no bodies" he is wont to make fun of on his Facebook comments and statuses are watching. They may not seem much to Mabior, but leadership necessitates that he perceives them, and respond to them, as amounting to more than he is willing to entertain. The average civilian in South Sudan expects this.

A question of principles. Mabior left President Kiir for Riek Machar's rebellion because of how President Kiir ran the system aground. Mabior was right. Yet he came back to the same Kiir when the country under president Kiir is in a much terrible state. He now, somehow obsequiously, supports President Kiir. What has changed? South Sudan is worse than when Mabior was Kiir's staunch critic.

Granted, political alliances change. Commonsense. But alliances should change with one's principles not majorly compromised. Otherwise, one risks becoming a political entrepreneur, making South Sudan what Achille Mbembe has called an economic system of reciprocity.

As a political leader of some import in South Sudan, Mabior should start providing answers, respectful and respectable answers, than his usual dismissive, abrasive slights. He carries the weight of a legacy, if not the legacy (with a capital "L") whether he likes it or not.

Humility. When Mabior told Mading Ngor of Terab Media that he didn't join Dr. Riek, that Dr. Riek joined him, I knew Mabior was an intellectual, his father's son. But the political implication of the statement left me scratching my head. I started to doubt his political humility in an ethnically diverse country.

While Mabior sounded political and witty, he was very arrogant in that statement. Mabior didn't form any formal political or rebel movement before the crisis of 2013 in South Sudan to say Dr. Riek Joined him.

Yes, his joining Dr. Riek was considered scandalous by the likes of Mading Ngor. Therefore, Mabior had to distance himself from Dr. Riek's legacy without distancing himself. It was a hard sell. It was a double-edged sword. It shows how less Mabior thinks of others, even political leaders with whom he agrees.

I admire Mabior’s intellect and eloquence. No doubt. He's also informed. He reads, unlike some "intellectuals" I know. I admire his drive. This is something the younger generation in South Sudan needs now. He can inspire.

But Mabior Garang has one problem. Hubris. I'm not sure if it is a personality issue or it is because he is Garang's son. Otherwise, Mabior needs to treat the sons and daughters of nobodies of South Sudan with respect and humility.

______

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR.

The Secession of Upper Nile Region: Brazen but not Ridiculous

 

By Kuir ë Garang (Editor)

Dr. Deng Bol Aruai. 

Photo: Courtesy of Dr. Deng Bol Aruai's Facebook Page

The proposal by Dr. Deng Bol Aruai (DBA) for the secession of the Upper Nile region from South Sudan is fascinating. It is neither ridiculous nor is it acceptable. It is a double-edge sword. Looked at carefully, one can find a silver lining in the proposition not only for Upper Nile but for South Sudan. I will come back to this silver lining.

How Dangerous?

But it can also be a very dangerous proposition. Meaning it can be used by power and ethnic entrepreneurs and megalomaniacs to create elite-centered, infra-national micro-states useful for resource control. The interest of such people is not freedom, democracy or the provision of services to the people. It is only the change of guards and the center of power.

This is what postcolonial African leaders did. They fought European colonial powers only to become the very colonial potentates and extractive politico-capitalists, quasi-foreigners subjecting their people to the same control structures. As Frantz Fanon has argued in The Wretched of the Earth, some freedom fighters were not fighting the oppressor for freedom; they were fighting the oppressor for a chance to be like the oppressor.

SPLM leaders, as many of us are aware, have done the same thing. They got rid of Khartoum’s elite only to assume the same oppressive and marginalizing governance modus operandi in Juba.

In other words, Dr. Deng’s proposal could provide a political, social and economic currency for those whose interest are small fiefdoms, some pseudo-feudal states they can control.

Because I have not talked to Deng Bol to ascertain the deeper social, political and economic issues behind his proposal, I want to be circumspect about assuming his motives. I will therefore leave my cautionary statement at that.

And I have not forgotten. Secessionist processes can be bloody and protracted.

Of course, Deng Bol is not ignorant of this. Political independence is never given away peacefully. Southern Sudan (Sudan), Katanga (DR Congo), Biafra (Nigeria), Taiwan (China), Tibet (China) and Western Sahara (Morocco) are good examples of how centers of powers can make even a peaceful quest for independence, even on sound grounds, bloody and terrifying.

A Chance for Reflection?

But the proposal can have a silver lining: A chance for a deeper reflective, reflexive process.  Why? People who want to protect the status quo usually treat revolutionary ideas with disdain. Trying to understand either the revolutionary proposal or the reason for which such proposals are suggested in the first place serves no purpose for them. Instant disdain and categorical rejections of such proposals are the first and only responses. Rationalizing or analyzing to find out their possible usefulness to them is a waste of time. Preposterous!

But why?

If the power structure benefits the powers that be as it is, they see no reason to change it.  “If it ain’t broke, why fix it,” as the Americans would say. That new ideas should be considered rationally and factually without being discarded a priori is still foreign to us. It should not be.

But in South Sudan, it is not only those in power who dismiss revolutionary ideas before they are considered thoroughly. Even those who have been left utterly destitute and despondent by a broken, rotten system in South Sudan still protect it, astonishingly. These are the people unashamedly calling Deng Bol names.

What we have failed to learn, and I am not sure why some of us learn it and others have not, is that you don’t have to accept a given proposal for you to treat it with the respect it deserves. Before one dismisses and administrative or political proposal, it is prudent, even professional, to consider its merits and flaws before rejecting it.

Considering the merits and flaws of any revolutionary (read bizarre) does not make you beholden to its acceptance. It only shows that your leadership is mature, sophisticated and resistant to superficialities.

Calling Deng Bol names or considering his mobility issues pre-conditions for national leadership only reflects the depravity of our society. We can reject Deng’s proposal without descending into needless emotional paroxysm draped in ableist nonsense. We can rubbish his ideas (not him ad hominem) by asking him to provide political, economic and social justification for his proposal, brazen as it appears to many of us.

Rejecting the Proposal

I reject Deng’s proposal for the same reason I reject ethnic federalism. That Bahr El Ghazal is the problem is either a wilful disinformation, because I do not think Deng Bol can be misinformed about the suffering in Bahr El Ghazal, or he is using it as a negotiation instrument not for himself but to force President Kiir and members of his court (in a European medieval sense) to pay attention: That the country may disintegrate.

For all the king’s courtiers to stick their heads in the mud thinking that everything is business as usual would have to be abandoned. If they realize Deng’s proposal is only a tip of a gigantic socio-political ice-berg, that is.

There is a Movement in the Equatorias for secession. There is also a campaign by some Nuer for independence of Nuer Nation (Rol Naath). The presence of administrative areas such as Ruweng and Pibor is symptomatic of secessionist sentiments writ small. These are all about discontent with someone or with some maladministration of some authority.

Before once dismisses Deng’s proposal mindlessly, one needs to ask oneself: What has motivated Deng to propose such a radical idea? The “why?” matters more than what happened or what is proposed. We also need to remember that “normal” ideas have never brought any change. Radical ideas, which become “normal” with time, bring about change. Think about all revolutionaries! How normal were their ideas?

But Deng knows very well that Upper Nile, Bahr El Ghazal and Equatoria have their internal problems. The moment the scapegoat has escaped, the internal scapegoat is created. While I agree the departure of President Kiir and some of the men around him may usher in a possible change in our political culture, I think secession breeds other problems. Some of the people destroying South Sudan around President Kiir are from Upper Nile. What would we do with them once we secede?

There is therefore no guarantee that Upper Nile as a sovereign state would be any peaceful and developed. What has sons and daughters of Upper Nile done so far in their own states, counties and bomas? Do they have existing social, political and economic practices that can be considered prototypes of a prosperous sovereign state writ small? No! Is it coincidental that all administrative areas are in Upper Nile? No! Internal discontent!

Is Dr. Deng showing promising signs of what Gregory Burns calls a transformative, moral leadership? No! Is there transparency in Deng’s initiative? No! In fact, Deng has already started to use “decrees”, a bad sign from the beginning for democracy.

But as much as I think Deng Bol’s proposal is wrong-headed, I also believe Deng is making us rethink some of the issues we take for granted. That is the silver lining. People should not belong to the same country just because we think it is right, normative. They should belong in the same country because all the elements that make one feel like what Philosopher Robert Paul Wolff calls “a full citizen” exist.

What does this mean then?

Let us learn the art of entertaining ideas we don’t like before we reject them. Ideas are not wrong because we don’t like them or because they come from people we don’t like.

The Message

Here is my main message. As a country of diverse ethnic groups and political opinions, let’s get used to the idea that citizens can table proposals, any bizarre or ridiculous ideas, regarding how the country should be governed. We don’t have to accept them. But we must consider them as ideas coming from fellow citizens.

Dismissing ideas a priori is a luxury of petulant children or those who status quo is profitable. As Machiavelli has argued in The Prince, those who are used to immoral governance methods that benefit them see no reason for change

Taken with a more philosophical and political grain of salt, Deng’s proposal is neither bad nor is it good. Its results, positive or negative, depends on who operationalizes it.

We can reject it but still use it to reflect deeply on the state of affair. Or we can use it to think about alternative forms of government. Hasn’t federalism, or decentralization as some politely call it, been the popular demands of the people of South Sudan since the 1950s? Wasn’t confederation one of John Garang’s administrative proposals?

Who governs us is irrelevant. How they govern is all that matters.

______________________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of the TPR. 

Youth Marginality and Marginalization: A conversation on the Crisis facing South Sudanese youth in Australia

Kuir  ë Garang (Editor)

 

Photo: Refugeeresearchonline.org

September 20, 2025

The following quotes are from my conversation with Dr. William Abur and Dr. Santino A. Deng. 

"You know, there's no any child that can be born as a bad child, for example. No, a child can be a difficult child...based on where the child is raised, based on the environment, based on the family situation, based on the school, based on the community, what the children do. So now with this current climate of the technology, some of the parents don't even know what the kids are doing as Dr. Santino mentioned it before. They can be in a room and the parents are happy. saying, well, my children are inside, they are not out. But they don't know what they are doing, who are the people that they are engaged with. And that is a bigger issue within a number of families. The conversations also don't break through. You know, the relationship between the young person and the parent, when that relationship is broken, it is hard for the parent to be able to play their role.

 The other burden that the parent are facing, most of the parent are struggling with work and the life generally. So they don't have enough time where they can be able to engage with their kid and especially with a teenager to be able to find out how they are going, you know, what is happening. Because it is important, we human being, need check-in. We need check-in to be...

 For example, children, those teenagers or younger children, they need check-in, you know, someone to come and have a conversation with them and say, hey, how did you go at school? How was the day? How did you go at work? How was your day? Those kind of check-in are very important. Psychologically, they are very useful. And this is where you find out that, okay, the person may be open up to talk about, you know, there was incident that happened at school.

 Or there was this that happened that made me upset. That is lacking that conversation. The basic check in. I would say the parent need to step up to be able to do just a simple check in a simple evaluation to check in your kit. Even though they are inside, you need to be able to knock knock at the door and come in and say hey, how is your day? How are you going?"  ~ Dr. William Abur.

 

~ Dr. William Abur.

"I think when we talk of parents, there are a lot that they can do and I am mindful and I understand that some parents might be struggling with other things, language barriers among others and the web, juggling web and so on. And sometimes being maybe some single mothers is really struggling with, you know, with the primary parenting support and trying to put the put on the table as well. But there are a lot that they can do. I have done some work a few years ago, maybe about seven years ago here in one of the school. And I was asked to do some work with a kind of the children that go to school, young people themselves and teachers in school so that I can get their perspective.

 It was one of the schools that was getting overwhelmed and have never been exposed into diversity before. And what came out of that report that I did was a lot of young people were saying, some of the things that I was mentioning earlier, saying that most of the time when they have issues at a school, they report to the teachers, most of the time they're getting ignored, even sometimes.

they get blamed for being the victim. so what happens sometimes they may end up fighting, taking law into their own hand because nobody is actually responding to their complaint and they become more victim and get expelled. Sometimes they get discouraged and told, you can't do this subject. Actually, William know very well that they work in some school here, maybe told that, this is too hard for you, you can't do it.

 Some parents proved some of their teachers wrong and said, I have to do it or go into another school and actually succeed. Some young people, may give in, but support become very crucial. I came across some example where young people were supported by their parents and some relatives and they actually succeed in so many ways. So what they told me was young people in particular."  ~ Dr. Santino A. Deng

                                                          ~ Dr. Santino A. Deng

 

Most immigrant communities face a host of challenges when they settle in a new countries. This is a historical problem. Meaning South Sudanese in Australia are not the only immigrant and refugee group to be in such a situation. South Sudanese in Canada have faced, and continue to experience,  similar problems among the youth. 

These problems, which Dr. William and Dr. Santino have addressed, include the following: 

1. Being neglected by teachers and school administrators
2. Being faulted when they are not at fault
3. Stereotypes and prejudgments
4. Racist treatment by the police
5. Overrepresentation in the criminal justice system
6. Cultural disconnect between home culture and host culture
7. Lack of appropriate, community role models
8. Lack of parental attention due to pressure from work and life
9. Misconstrual of what it means to be an Australia, Canadian or American
10. Incentivization from gangs and criminal to run criminal errands

Youth workers and scholars who study youth issues are familiar with these issues. They are characterized by overt and subtle issues of social marginalization and institutional neglect. 

On Sunday, I had a conversation with two South Sudanese Australian researchers as the beginning of what I think will be a protracted conversation. 

I wanted to unpack these problems from the perspective of researchers and from the Australian context. These researchers are Dr. William Abur, a lecturer at the University of Melbourne and Dr. Santino A. Deng, a researcher working for the government of Victoria, Australia. 

I asked them to lay out the issues within the Australian context, and to propose possible expert solutions. 

The following is our conversation.

________________

Kuir  ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR. Follow me on X: @kuirthiy Instagram: @Kuirthiy

Are we just savages driving escalades and BMWs in our so-called real world?

Destruction in Gaza, Palestine. Photo: Euromedmonitor.org

 

"For Sowell, therefore, you must take cues from history. If you cannot find a historical precedent, then stop looking for that kind of a world."

The west's fervent and uncritical support of Israel even when Israel commits a genocide makes me think about human equality.

Is equality a mirage?

Given the persecution of the Jewish people in Europe in the last 2000 years, I feel saddened by the fact that those who know what means to be hated and persecuted by simply being who they are, now premise peace and co-existence on bombs.

I teach young people. I do research on young people. In these activities, my aim is to work toward a better world, a world in which everyone would feel respected, a world in which what fails you is your inability.

That is the world I want to leave behind for my children and the youth I teach. This world is yet to be realized.

But there are conservative thinkers like Thomas Sowell (see: Social Justice Fallacies, Intellectuals and Society, Intellectuals and Race), John McWhorter (Woke Racism) and Coleman Hughes (End of Race Politics) who think differently.

They either say such a world is already here, or they believe it is an impossible world. A utopia of Saint Thomas More variety. Meaning a search for a just and equal world is fantastical, a childish wish. They want us to live according to what the world throws at us. In other words, we must live in the real world and accept things as they are.

Violence. Military brutality. Military invasion. Genocides. Murders of civilians. Wars. Economic equality.

Photo: Palestinian Return Centre

Within this framework, Israel is said to be adapting to a world it cannot change. Israeli genocidal destruction of Gaza is, by this account, a response to a real world Israel did not create.

This is a world in which equality is a pipe dream.

For instance, equality is a natural impossibility for Thomas Sowell. We shouldn't dream of a world that is not and has never been. Pssst: Sowell uses history to make his point. He makes this point in Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Conquest and Culture.

For Sowell, therefore, you must take cues from history. If you cannot find a historical precedent, then stop looking for that kind of a world.

As such, for the Sowells, the Hughes, and the McWhorters of the world, racism is, largely, a passé.

To be realistic, they are right or wrong based on one's ideological camp. You will find their supporters and haters in boat loads. Sowell puts this well in Intellectuals and Society:

“The coincidence of real world challenge and intellectual challenge, which [H. G] Wells and others have tended to treat as almost axiomatic, depends on the initial assumptions of one’s social vision.”

To Sowell, the left forces their vision (as the anointed – McWhorter would call them “The Elect” and Hughes would call them “Neo-racist”) on the rest of us. Conservative intellectuals, according to Sowells, remain faithful to the facts of the real world.

But here is where they seem naive. They think their assessments are simply objective. That they write about facts, common sense, and the real world.

Here is Sowell again:

Is Stephen Par Kuol writing his political obituary?

From left: Mr. Stephen Par Kuol, Dr. Riek Machar & President Salva Kiir

I like Stephen Par Kuol. Not doubt. I have watched him over the years as minister in Jonglei State, as a member of SPLM-in-Opposition, and as a minister responsible for peace in the central government. His interviews about leadership and the prospects for peace in South Sudan were level-headed. 

Today, however, I think Par is on the wrong side of history. But this is not because he's replaced Dr. Riek Machar (provisionally he says). That's not it. He's wrong, I believe, because he's committing the same historical-political sins Dr. Riek Machar has committed.

Even when Riek Machar knew President despises him with a visceral intensity, he still believed, somehow, that Kiir will implement the peace agreement with him. 

Like Riek, Par believes he's doing the right. Dr. Riek has consistently believed he was doing the right thing in the manner he dealt with President Kiir as a reluctant peace partner. We know what it has got him into. 

Par is unwittingly playing into President Kiir's agenda to dismantle SPLM-IO, the only formidable political opposition to his SPLM. in South Sudan.

He's also playing into the hands of Nuer elite inside and outside SPLM, who feel overshadowed by Riek Machar for more than three decades. They want out of Riek's shadows. Nuer leadership in South Sudan has become synonymous with Riek Machar. These Nuer elite resent that. 

For these Nuer elite discrediting Dr. Riek Machar is welcome news. It provides anyone of them a fruitful opportunity to rise above the crown as the political voice of the Nuer nation. 

For President Kiir, the emergence of Par provides him with political arsenals to make Riek Machar completely irrelevant on the South Sudan's political scene. 

Kiir has resisted Dr. Riek Machar's reintegration into the SPLM since 2003. But political consensus in the SPLM and the wise counsel drowned out his opposition. Kiir also tried from as early as 2008 to remove Dr. Riek Macahr from the SPLM. He failed. 

He tried in 2013 and 2016 to get rid of Riek either from the face of the earth or at least from South Sudan's political scene. Again, he failed. 

From February 2025, the White Army unwittingly came to President Kiir's rescue. They played into Kiir's plans. The attack on SSPDF in Nasir by the White Army, whose instigation we still don't know, provided President Kiir with a golden opportunity to banish Riek Machar from politics in South Sudan once and for all.

So, Stephen Par Kuol is the unwitting ally in the conspiratorial detention of Dr. Riek Machar. Unless of course Par is part of the conspiracy. After all, he may become the SPLM-IO chairperson and the First Vice President of South Sudan. Until elections of course. After that, Par's SPLM-IO becomes irrelevant as a political tool.

While Par may bask in the spotlight now as the recognized leader of the SPLM-IO, he fails to see that President Kiir is not only trying to destroy Dr. Riek Machar politically. He is also trying to destroy SPLM-IO. Why does Par think Kiir would support a party that will compete with him in an election? Kiir is only supporting Par because of Dr. Riek Machar. Once Dr. Riek is gone from the political scene, something we know will be next to impossible, President Kiir and his SPLM will come after the remaining vestiges of SPLM-IO. 

Kiir's problem is not Riek Machar per se. No. Not really! Kiir's resentment comes from the political threat Riek causes to the political dynastic Kiir and Jieeng elite want to establish. Par should therefore watch out. 

Meaning Stephen Par risks writing his own political obituary. Kiir's SPLM will not want to create a strong rival opposition. They have already closed down SPLM-IO offices in some states. 

Riek's support base will never forgive Par. Nuer who feel let down or targeted by the government of South Sudan will always regard Par as a quisling, a turncoat. 

Now, what is Par's end game? Turning against other members of SPLM-IO, like Nathaniel Oyet, does not make for a strong, united party? It fractures and weakens the party. If he's saying he is an interim chairperson until Dr. Riek is released, then he is not acting like it. Cozying up to President Kiir who arrested his boss does not show Par is interested in having Dr. Riek released. 

If he is planning to be the SPLM-IO flag-bearer in December next year, then he'll have started his political life with a deception SPLM-IO base will resent. 

It is time for Mr. Stephen Par Kuol to be explicit and stop obfuscating political actions. He cannot say he's interested in having Dr. Riek Machar released and then cozy up to those who have his boss under detention. 

__

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR. 

Donald Trump is the west looking at itself in the mirror

Kuir ë Garang, PhD*

When the South Sudanese embassy officials in Washington, D.C. made an honest mistake in April and accepted a Congolese national, who was deported with South Sudanese deportees to Juba, officials in Juba corrected the mistake. They refused the Congolese entry to South Sudan after doing more background checks than was possible in Washington. 

The Trump administration responded with threats. Bullying. Infantilization.  Their argument was that Juba did not accept the deportees in a "timely manner." 

The Trump administration, through Marco Rubio, did not care that South Sudanese officials were not rejecting South Sudanese deportees. They were only rejecting a Congolese who was masquerading as South Sudanese. 

Even when South Sudan accepted its citizens, the Trump administration revoked visas and threatened to withhold pending visa applications for South Sudanese nationals. 

It was bullying! No room for negotiations and reason.

Accept what we say we, the mighty US say, or we punish you. South Sudan had to cave in. What else could South Sudan do? Nothing! They accepted the Congolese, a non-national. 

The Congolese is a fellow African so the issue was not really about rejecting a fellow African. It was about protocols, diplomatic protocols and respect, and the fact that Congo (Democratic Republic) exists.

But why negotiate with people you can easily bully into submission? As American lawyer, Leon Fresco, told Aljazeera on April 6, the Trump administration was using South Sudan as an example to send a message to the rest of the world. It is a colonial attitude. 

Now, South Sudan seems to have become a dumping ground for American deportees for the Trump administration. 

****

Many western leaders seem horrified by what Trump is doing to United States institutions and society and to the global order. Trump's actions are not really unprecedented. Yes, they are devious, self-serving, at times immoral, and more so, destabilizing. 

But should we be surprised. No. Not really! The rest, non-westerners, or those who know a bit of the history of the west, know that Trump is a western man (with a capital 'M') through and through. He is treating the west and his own fellow citizens in the same way the west has been treating the rest of the world for the last five centuries.

We are not surprised. Westerners have been feeling superior and entitled as, somehow, super-humans, whether overtly or covertly. 

Before the collapse of the racist and eugenicist regime in the 1960s, westerners' opinion of the rest of the world was overt. It was taught openly and proudly in university lecture halls and auditoriums, preached at the pulpits, acted out on theatre stages, joked about at dinner tables...etc.

After the above regimes collapsed, the attitude did not disappear. It morphed into new forms through which it manifested without betraying the fact that these regimes only collapsed in forms only but not function. 

Meaning western colonial bullying went underground. It became formal in monetary policies, fiscal policies, international trade laws, terms of borrowing through International Monetary Funds and the World Bank...etc. It was a clever obfuscation.  I

In these new social forms, Africans were still considered inferior. But African inferiority was not spoken out loudly by the sane majority. It was whispered or joked about in racially exclusive country clubs or book clubs. 

When Trump called African countries 'shitholes' and supported policies that appeared callous or behaving as if Africa is inhabited by beings no one should care about, he was not inventing a social consciousness. He was joining an established tradition. 

To westerners, Africa is always that place where resources are exploited and the people forced to remain painfully silent.

What is different now in Trumpism is that Trump has become explicit and overt in his denigration regime. Denigration is now shamelessly aimed openly', not through inadvertent 'hot mics' moments or in recordings not meant for public consumption. 

Meaning President Trump was joining the likes of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who have insulted African.

Post-World War Two changes were forced on the west by geopolitical conditions. Westerners resented those changes. 'The good old days!' we hear regularly from the social and political right are part of that resentment.

But westerners seem surprised by Trump's actions? Why are westerners surprised? 

We shouldn't be surprised that the west is surprised. The attitude Trump has turned against the west has never been historically aimed at the west in the way Trump is doing. 

Hitler was considered an outlier when his gleefully genocidal attitude toward Jews was first considered a socio-political fad. It turned out Hitler meant business. The Hitler we now know was not considered a possibility for a westerner, a German. Yet there was World War One from which the west could learn. No learning. 

So there was Hitler and World War Two from which the west could learn.

By the 1970s, the west had already forgotten the war and Hitler. (Laws against Neo-Nazis are either weak or Neo-Nazi hate is trivialized or moralized as free speech).

Franco Spain was local. Fascist Italy was also local. So Trump seems like a tragic novelty. But history shows he is not.

While some people in the west see Trumpism as something new, those who have borne the brunt of similar attitudes and actions over the years would tell the west, 'Welcome to feeling human!' 

Europeans on the continent and in the diaspora have always ignored how the rest the world feel. They didn't feel inferiorized, infantilized, belittled or bullied. They considered genuine experiences moral panic, moral pedestal or a needless cry for attention when all we should do is to toughen it up in the real world.  

Trump belittling of Americans and westerners, his dictatorial actions, and his solipsistic projections, are westerners looking themselves in the mirror. Trump is a western product. He is an embodiment of the western Man, the Nietzschean Übermensch, the westerns 'supermanism' the western male has considered himself to be or becoming.

It's time for Europeans, continental or diasporic, to be humble and ask those of us the question renown African-American sociologist and historian, W.E.B Du Bois, encountered in Jim Crow America as he related it in The Souls of Black Folk: 'How does it feel to be a problem?'

Today, Trump is asking everyone the same question: 'How does it feel to be a problem?' Europe now knows what it feels to be considered a ‘problem’ when one is not; how to feel belittled unnecessarily.

___

*Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. 

Why I’m not enthused by the election of Mark Carney...yet

Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney,

waving at supporters after his election victory.

Photo: Financial Times

Mark Carney is a protest candidate. He was not elected for his policies, necessarily. He was elected for likeability as a contrast to Trudeau (who he advised informally). He was also elected for demeanor as a contrast to Pierre Poilievre, the 'Canadian Trump', who has, for the good of Canada, lost his seat. Good riddance!

Poilievre talked of change but he's been holding the same parliamentary seat since 2004. The people of Ottawa-Carleton and Bruce Fanjoy said, 'yes, change indeed!' And change they engendered!

Carney, for better or for worse, symbolizes calm, order and the status quo Trudeau had apparently compromised. Trudeau had made Canada 'unfamiliar.' On principle, status quo scares the hell out of me. But given Trump's menace, I'll give Carney the benefit of the doubt! After all, he talks like that smooth-talking uncle whose words make issues less painful!

But I'm not celebrating...yet. I'm not dismissing him either.

For those of us living at the margin and studying those who live at the margin, Carney's victory is something to approach cautiously. He is a man who has never done groceries. He has no clue how the average Canadian lives. He is now elected to learn what it means to be Canadian. The man had three passports. A true globalist.

He was recently called out about lying about his first call with Trump. He had said Trump 'respects Canada's sovereignty'. That was a lie. He failed to tell Canadians that Trump repeated the call for Canada to become the 51st state in their first phone call. Why lie to Canadians about such a fundamental issues?

Recently, he first stood by liberal candidate, Paul Chiang, who had called for a conservative candidate to be abducted and taken to the Chinese consulate for a bounty. Really? Chang would later resign as a candidate even after Carney stood by him!

I'm glad Carney won. No doubt. But I'm not enthused by his taking over in Ottawa...yet. He is too close to the centre that he risks becoming centre right. Poilievre even complained that Carney has copied his platform. Carney wants to be different from Trudeau so bad that he will risk pandering to the conservative, old guards within the liberal party. Yet, he was Trudeau's informal advisor. There are conservatives who find it 'respectable' to be called 'liberal.' Carney was once asked by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a conservative that molded Poilievre, to be finance minister.

Celebrate. But celebrate with caution. Carney is a neoliberal, a neocon of Obama variety! I'll wait to be impressed! I work with children and youth and my daughter plans to attend university in Canada. I'm yet to see a policy on Carney's platform that would give them something about which to smile.

___

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR. 

Dr. Jok Madut and Dr. Aldo Ajou say Bol Mel is not President Kiir’s heir apparent

 

Dr. Jok Madut (left), Dr. Bol Mel (middle) and Dr. Aldo Ajou Deng (right)

The social media statements by Dr. Jok Madut and Dr. Uncle Aldo Ajou are confusing. I think they will have to explain the following to South Sudanese.

Dr. Jok said that what is being discussed about Bol Mel is based on assumptions and hatred of the man. He also said that Bol Mel has not expressed any desire to replace Kiir. And that Kiir has not said he's preparing Bol Mel to replace him. I will give Dr. Jok the benefit of the doubt because he shared these views on social media where most of us are not always serious and measured when sharing our views.  

I have come to know Dr. Jok as far more sophisticated and self-aware than the status being referenced reveals.

Here is my dilemma. I’m not sure if Jok is saying that for us to accept the argument that Bol Mel regards himself as the heir apparent to President Kiir then he must say explicitly, "I want to replace President Kiir!"?

I will wait for Dr. Jok to explain himself. Bol Mel will have to be a complete dodo to say publicly he will replace President Kiir!

No!

Bol Mel has shown a meticulous ruthlessness, a systematicity of a miskiin sekin! The English calls such a person a silent killer.

Also, there is never a case where politicians are clear about their intentions. Facts and politicians are like Trump and Truth, water and oil!

Since Bol Mel was decreed in, he's been like Kiir's right-hand man. He stood beside President Kiir when the man from Kampala came to South Sudan. He was the one sent to Ethiopia to smooth things over with the New Flower [Addis Ababa] after J1 prioritized the man from Kampala over Dr. Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia.

When he was appointed VP, Bol verbally, explicitly targeted Riek Machar, a member of the presidency. He also asked Madam Nyandeeng not to abandon Kiir! I'm not sure what he meant by that! He also mentioned that he would get involved in security issues. We must ask ourselves why?

Now, Riek is in detention and Upper Nile and Jonglei are conflagrations. That Bol Mel may be Kiir's successor is more of a presumption than an assumption. Enter Bol Mel as VP and boom! there is money for salary! This is what late Steve Jobs called connecting "the dots moving backwards."

How about Uncle Dr. Aldo?

He said Kiir cannot just make Bol Mel his successor, arguing that SPLM has succession structures. He's kidding, right?

Is it not the same Kiir who embarrassed Kuol Manyang, imposed Peter Lam Both and then tossed him, demoted Wani Igga to Secretary General and then made Bol Mel one of the deputy chairs of the SPLM? Did anyone in the SPLM make a whimpering sound?

Note this. If the president goes abroad for state visits, article 1.6 section 1.6.4 of the Revitalized Peace Agreement says that the first vice president becomes the acting president on a temporary basis. When both the president and the first vice president are absent, the president appoint one of the four vice presidents as acting president.  

Since Riek is now in detention, let’s see who President Kiir would appoint as acting president. Vice President Nyandeeng? Vice President Josephine Lagu? Vice president Taban Deng Gai?

We will see…

Note that section 1.6.5 says that if the president is mentally or physically incapacitated then the next president will be selected by the party of the president. Dr. Riek cannot become president through the revitalized agreement of 2018. Perhaps Uncle Doctor has a point here. If SPLM leaders are no longer afraid of Kiir then they may ignore his wishes and pretend SPLM has structures to respect.

But Kiir is, we are told, not physically and mentally incapacitated now. When it comes to succession, please don’t try Kiir! Try Kiir...just try...!

So Uncle Aldo is saying Kiir will, somehow, respect rules, laws and regulations when it comes to who is to succeed him? Come on Uncle Doctor! Has anyone ever defied Kiir? Pagan, Nyandeeng and Riek did! Where are they now? Madam Nyandeeng is protected by the ghost and the liberation aura of John Garang. She became VP through G [X] not through Kiir’s SPLM.

Uncle Doctor also said that we cannot blame Bol Mel for the corruption inherent in awarding contracts. Bol Mel is just a businessman, he said. Is this an implicit endorsement of corruption?

So Bol Mel is our VP but we should not hold him legally and morally accountable? Is that what we are now supposed to expect from our public officials? "Blame the government! I knew there was corruption but what did you expect me to do?"

Folks, Bol Mel is a public figure, for better or for worse. Allow us to unpack his public life! He comes with violence and money…and the slick, efficient smoothness of a high-end gigolo!


____________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee (TPR). 

A tribe called SPLA masquerading as South Sudanese

First Vice President Riek Machar and President Salva Kiir Mayardit

____

I know President Kiir, most of the time, says the RIGHT thing but does the WRONG thing. While he can incite tribalism sometimes, he tends to sound like a leader once in a while. Check his Independence Day speech. At times he says the right thing to the people of South Sudan.

His actions, however, are most of the time contrary to what could be called leadership.

But credit where due. His call for calm is the right thing at the moment. I have been saying this over the last two decades: that President Kiir should always come out and address the country anytime there is a national tragedy and speak to the people of South Sudan.

There is something calming about words from the head of state. Leadership is a psycho-social reality.

Honorable Michael Makuei, the Minister of Information and the government spokesperson, calms no one down. Well, maybe a few South Sudanese find his condescending press statements calming. South Sudan is a country bereft of leadership. 

He talks with a princely I-will-say-what-I-want-so-what-the-hell-will-you-do-about-it attitude.

On the other hand, folks from Sudan People Liberation Movement In Opposition (SPLM-IO), that is, their spokespeople, talk like there is a gun to their heads. But they have this impotent, annoying, self-righteous attitude like they own THE truth. Like Truth=IO! They make me want to...forget it!

What South Sudanese do not have are leaders who speak on their behalf, leaders who care about South Sudan and her peoples.

But note that Uncle Makuei is neither Jieeng (Dinka) nor is he South Sudanese. He is from a tribe called the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). This tribe has different clans. The largest two clans are "In-Government" and "In-Opposition."  Bɛny (1) Kiir are Kuär (2) Riek are their tribal chiefs, respectively. 

SPLA is a tribe that lives in the past. The future scares it. It is a tribe that does not apologize. It considers humility a defeat. It does not entertain criticism. Criticism is disrespectful to this tribe. It considers itself infallible. These people do not take responsibility for their actions.

They only like to point their crooked fingers.

But it is a tribe that is internally divided. SPLA as tribal people have used division to recruit two clueless colonies: Jieeng and Nuer. SPLA has so mentally colonized these two nations that they believe that members of SPLA are their fellow tribesfolk.

But President Kiir, once in a while, acts like a true South Sudanese, not a colonialist. He abandons the egregious, insidious values of his SPLA tribefolk every now and then.

Today, he acted like members of his colony: South Sudanese. But you can see in the same speech that his SPLA tribal attitude jumps out of him once in a while: He points fingers at "enemy of peace", who are, strangely, his SPLA folks and the folks SPLA has mentally colonized.

____

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. 

______

Notes

1. Bɛny is a Jieeng word for a leader

2. Kuär is a Nuer word for a leaders.