Princeton Lyman and Andrew Natsios distorting some facts about South Sudan

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.

Policy-Making, Governance and Fanatical Tribonationalism

There are two things that should make us gravely concerned. When this crisis is all over, we’ll still be governed (ruled actually) by the same leaders, who brought us into the heat of this crisis. And the gravest of all worries for South Sudan is that the young generation has taken after the old tribal dirt. (Watch my Video message to young people in Diaspora)

If young and educated people, 15 – 40, rally around their tribal, conceptual supremacy and only talk about atrocities committed against their kinsfolks, then you know South Sudan present state has been destroyed and its future is a destruction waiting to happen.

Something has to seriously change!

Sadly, at the end of this crisis, South Sudan will remain the way it was before the war started. Some optimistic South Sudanese would say that this crisis will change South Sudan forever, for better.

We have to remember that South Sudanese only got what I can call a conceptual independence. The substance of independence and liberation fruits were only restricted to politicians, their relatives, friends and foreigners. Average South Sudanese were left in the cold and even treated like dirt (second class citizens) in their own country. There were reports of Ethiopian, Kenyan, Somali and Indian businesses employing their fellow nationals as South Sudanese youth remained unemployed.

So how can we get out of this crisis? Not an easy question to answer and not an easy process when the crisis is all over.

Ministry of Tribal Affairs or Directorate of Tribal affairs

South Sudan is a country of tribal nationalities. This is a basic and bitter reality we have to deal with. For centuries, this has been the case and will continue to be so. We can’t change tribal realities but we can change tribal mindsets. No South Sudanese leader has ever tried to make sure involuntary inter and intra-tribal exchange of ideas, traditional politics, norms and traditions are given greater emphasis and resources allocation.

Chiefs should be given structured, funded Tribal accountability Models (TAM) within that ministry (see South Sudan Ideologically). The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports has a superficial role that only helps to foster individual tribal traditions and cultures, however, it doesn’t actually make prominent, the interaction between and among tribes.

This calls for a Ministry of Tribal Affairs to play a greater role in making sure South Sudan understands itself, tribally. The pros and cons of tribal practices could be discussed openly.

TAM should be strengthened and clear modalities put in place to make sure different tribes learn from each other on regular basis. Tribes in South Sudan don’t know that some of them have similar norms, traditions and ethnographic origins.

This would give tribes power over leaders; making it hard for power-hungry leaders to take advantage of tribal differences.

Proper Education and Investment in Nationalistic Attitude of Young People