Joint Administration and UN Trusteeship Insulting but not Outlandish – Revisited*

"To say that these are universal problems is to assume that we are solving Africa's problems. No! This should be about our concern for South Sudan as South Sudanese. We are not Somalians or Congolese."

We are Still in a Labyrinth

In 2014, following SPLM’s leadership political indecisiveness and power struggle that’d plunge South Sudan into both political and military confrontation, the talk on UN Trusteeship or Joint Administration gained traction. But like any sociopolitical phenomenon, the idea was received with mixed reactions by South Sudanese intellectuals, political elites and policy institutes. Obviously, the reason for this mixed reaction seemed facts-based; but it’s rather a question of our general understanding of patriotism.

On March 27, 2014, I wrote an article in response to one of Sudd Institute’s ‘weekly policy briefs’ of March 11, 2014 by Nhial Tiitmamer and Abraham Awolich. And on April 11 the mentioned authors responded to my article by clarifying some of their postulates and the reason why the ‘brief’ didn’t contain thorough and comprehensive policy analysis and alternative proposals.

It’s been more than two years since then; but given the despondent state of things now in South Sudan, it’s prudent that we re-start the debate in order to remind the South Sudanese leadership of their role and the wretchedness (inadvertent or purposed) that’s become South Sudan. It’s our role as ‘learned’ and ‘informed’ South Sudanese to speak for the voiceless. It is, unequivocally, our duty to remind South Sudanese intelligentsia that criticism and the analysis of what’s wrong with the political class and the general ideological leaning, is the heart of patriotism; the pivotal center around which national well-being revolves.

While I am not going to respond to Nhial’s and Awolich’s article word by word, I am going to answer some of the questions they raised; or some of the issues they believed I didn’t address. Since this is about policy recommendations and our aspirations for South Sudan’s sociopolitical future, it’s crucial that we honestly debate the fate of the country in an exhaustively informed manner. Besides, unfortunately, the very conditions that necessitated the debate on Joint Administration and Trusteeship are exactly the same way we first debated them two years earlier or even worse. And even worse, the prospects of any better future are even beleaguer.

Insulting but not Outlandish

The authors charged that “While saying that a UN trusteeship or joint administration is insulting but not outlandish as we stated, Mr. Kuir fails to state why it is insulting.”

I used the word ‘insulting’ to underscore the fact that having our country taken over and ruled (even for a short time) by a committee of both foreigners and South Sudanese obviously gives an impression to the outside world that we are an incapable lot.  Admittedly, it’s a state of affair which, in all honesty, insults people’s sociocultural realities, their sociopolitical creative capacities, and their intellects. However, I said the two proposals aren’t ‘outlandish’ because there’s nothing strange, bizarre or peculiar about South Sudan being taken over by a different administrative body given our existing, hopeless realities. And these realities are hampering any formidable developmental path towards the South Sudan we had all hoped for. Fortunately, the authors realized that their usage of the term ‘outlandish’ was in fact inappropriate. “Perhaps it is a mistake on our side to have chosen such a word without explanation or definition. We think the two proposals are not insulting. They have been proposed out of context,” they wrote. Inappropriate or inapplicable, should have been the terms used instead of outlandish.

Falling Short of Recommending the Proposals

The other question the authors raised was the reason why I shied away from recommending the two proposals, writing that “Mr. Kuir also fails to state why he declines to recommend the two proposals.”

I see myself as a reasonable South Sudanese so I didn’t recommend the proposals by then because I believed South Sudan still had the capacity to remedy the situation and change the course of things towards the future we crave. Essentially, things don’t have to be perfect for one to believe that socioeconomic and sociopolitical situations would improve. What’s important are the indications that such a case is a possibility. With peace negotiation on-going then, I assumed a signed agreement after the military crisis would change our mindset; and that a brighter future was a possibility. We can all attest to the fact that that’s not a possibility anytime soon. That, I assume, is clear.

*The ‘Objective’ Intellectual…Whatever That Is!

"Unlike Socrates, I’m not going to be super-modest as to say that ‘I know nothing’; however, I see myself as knowing less than I’m supposed to know."

Photo: University of N. Hamshire

Editorial* - I will pretentiously posit this: the ‘objective’ intellectual isn’t some weird animal. S/he is someone who values ‘what is said’ not ‘who said it.’ What matters to the objective intellectual is that X is good and X has been uttered, performed or procured.

The saddest case for any ‘learning’ individual is to say that X is true or acceptable only if uttered by B. And if the same X is uttered by A then we’ll reject it with all our politico-intellectual and socio-intellectual might.

I don’t see myself as an intellectual; I see myself as a student. Unlike Socrates, I’m not going to be super-modest as to say that ‘I know nothing’; however, I see myself as knowing less than I’m supposed to know. That’s my general truth! And this ‘knowing’ comes from people of all works of life. Indeed, learning doesn’t come only from comfortable endeavors but also from things that make us sad or mad.

 Essentially, I see myself not only as a student with epistemic enterprise and pursuit but as a student of life. ‘Knowing’ things can be called my obsession. I always want to ‘know’ even when I might not manage to ‘know’ what I wanted to ‘know’ all the time. And Lao Tzu is right to call knowing of one own self enlightenment. It takes great initiative and self-preservation to know oneself.

As human beings, we were created as beings with ‘scientific’, rational minds. We always want to know the ‘why’ of everything. Some of us settle for less than the reason ‘why’ things actually happen. However, some of us aren’t satisfied by face-value impression of things; these are the people who make sure that ‘whys’ of things are better explained.

In South Sudan, this ‘satisfied-with-first-impression’ is exacerbated by the assumption that what my uncle said or has done is an exceptionalist truth. And anyone who tries to question my uncle’s truth is branded or hated. But this twisted state of mind comes from ‘learned’ minds who ‘know’ the affairs of the world. How can this ‘learned’ people not know that disagreements are normal? How can these learned heart not know that our uncles can be wrong, or even stupid?

If you hate someone because of his considered opinion, then you are either pretending to be learned or you need emotive intervention. You can't just unleash your negative, vengeful ‘intellective power’ on someone just because they disagree with you. On what planet are we all expected to agree all the time?

Like Zarathustra, the Objective Intellectual is calling on all learned hearts to value what is said not just the very people who say them. How many of us quote Mahatma Gandhi all the time but he’s the very man who looked down on Africans in South Africa by calling them ‘kaffirs and inferiors’? 

If X is good, it shouldn’t matter who did or uttered it! But No! Our young ‘intellectuals’ think this: Agree with me and my uncle, or you go to hell! We learn by contradictions and we learn when our ideas are subjected to scrutiny! Why should there be an exception?

So who’s the ‘Objective Intellectual?’ I don’t know! It could be me or you! However, we can only be the Objective Intellectual if we value deeds and not merely the people who utter them.

If a man/woman’s opinion makes you mad, then check yourself…you’re wasting time learning or being in school. School and life should teach you how to dismiss people's ‘wrong’ ideas without being abusive or vilely dismissive!

We might not be the Objective Intellectual, but we sure need her/him in this world and more so, in South Sudan. 

____________________________
*The Philosophical Refugee