ARE THEY IDIOTS OR THEY DON'T CARE?

Photo: PressTV

South Sudan is unequivocally a failed state. There are of course people in South Sudan who will dispute this reality for obvious reasons. But this is not about what I think or what anyone who disputes this 'failed state' reality about South Sudan thinks; it's about the concrete reality our people face in South Sudan and the nature of the leadership we have. Undoubtedly, this failure stems from the inability of South Sudanese leaders to act and also from their detrimental official actions. 

The nature and the number of detrimental actions by the government of South Sudan and the terrorist national security agents are dishearteningly alarming? How can you expect citizens to be a mere sheepish crowd of 'oyees' and 'vivas'? How can you prevent people from having different political opinions and reject the charge of dictatorship? Perhaps these leaders don't care or they are too idiotic to see that. In what world do you expect human beings to have a single opinion on everything? South Sudan is a failed state, hands down. Leaders are only restricted to the capital city where unknown gunmen reign supreme and a section of society lives in squalid conditions in internally displaced sites. What a horrid state of affairs!

While we all agree that the leadership in the country has failed, it's still, sometimes, hard to understand some of the really idiotic things they constantly do. National security has become the terroristic arm of government but our leaders see their terroristic actions as patriotic rather than a terrorism. The people of South Sudan have been branded by the government as the enemy. They aren't allowed to voice their opinions and the government sees it fit to ignore the fact that they are answerable to the people. It's either that these leaders are stupid or they don't care about the average South Sudanese. 

But what does it matter anyway, you may say? We've been writing about these failures for years and none of the leaders cares about what we think. So why write about it when one knows very well that it'll be ignored? Why waste one's time? Anyone with this attitude misses the point.

It's the duty of conscientious South Sudanese citizens to speak up even when they feel no one is listening in South Sudan. South Sudanese posterity will be asking us: "What stand did you take then as a South Sudanese?" "Did you excuse the actions of these South Sudanese leaders to continue to kill civilians?" "Were you quiet because you benefited?"

How can a South Sudan national afford to be silent when the voice of the people, the media, is being eliminated by South Sudanese national security terrorists? How can one afford to keep quiet when South Sudanese live in a police state? How can one afford to be silent when the president only cares about his life and not the lives of thousands of South Sudanese we've lost and the ones who continue to die? My conscience urges me to keep on speaking up even when they don't want to listen. South Sudan has failed because we've become silent. If you are safe enough to speak up then do so. Remain silent only if speaking up endangers your life and your family.

Any reasonable government knows that shutting down radio stations and newspapers is either an idiotic fancy or the government just doesn't care a whip about anything and anyone in South Sudan. The recent closure of Eye Radio is a simple political idiocy. Why do something that is only known to be dictators' modus operandi while denying being dictatorial? 

Instead of embarking on helpful development projects, the South Sudanese government continues to improve its campaign against the national conscience. People are too afraid to speak and the government regards that as a triumph of leadership. Really? How is silencing your citizens a triumph of leadership? 

Now tribes have turned against one another in an unprecedented manner and the United Nations (UN) has warned of risks of genocide. Will there even be a turning point in South Sudan? Will we just wait and hope for the best? This is disheartening my South Sudanese people...really disheartening? 

Many nations in Africa have problems; however, there is always one thing that gives people a glimmer of home. In South Sudan, things continue to go downhill and our leaders are either too callous to care or are too idiotic to see it.

Is President (elect) Donald Trump Good for South Sudan?

There is this general feeling in South Sudan that the Republican Party is the party whose policies are good for South Sudan. This is not a general, historical trend of course. It's merely a feeling of, perhaps, desperation. The only Republican president, who had a significant influence in the materialization of Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which saw South Sudan becoming an independent state, was George W. Bush. But Bush's influence was merely an accident of history given the fact that Clinton had already started to assist SPLA given the importance of Sudan in war on terror after Osama Bin Laden lived in Khartoum for a while. Late Dr. Hassan El Turabi had made Khartoum a center of Islamic fundamentalism.

Until the late 1990s, when global terrorism focused the spotlight on Sudan, the western world didn't care much about the South Sudanese problems. With Osama resident in Sudan under the auspices of National Islamic Front (NIF), an Islamic fundamentalist movement, Khartoum entered into the bad side of the American foreign policy. With the increasing bombing of churches in  the late 1990s and the branding of Sudan as one of the sponsors of 'international terrorism', Sudan was booked.

As a result, President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order in February of 1997 that severed economic ties between US and Sudan. That new reality was exploited by SPLA and Dr. John Garang, who presented themselves as an alternative to Khartoum. They were supposedly a partner America could work with. Besides, Garang unleashed his propaganda machinery by exploiting the persecution of Christians in Sudan. No doubt, this helped rally the Christian fundamentalists in America by reflecting the war in Sudan as the persecution of 'Christian brothers and sisters' by Muslims. These polico-religious Christian rallies would later become instrumental during Bush's administration. Bush, a pious Christian, would eat up SPLA propaganda.

However, history Junkies know that Roland Reagan and George H. Bush (both republicans) didn't do anything for South Sudan. In fact, Reagan supported President Nimeri against SPLA. While the historical place President Bush (junior) played in the peace process in South Sudan is undeniable, there is no ground to conclude that republicans are the ones better suited to solve the problems in South Sudan. CPA was rather successfully signed because of the strength of the relationship and the in-depth understanding of the national problems by the principal negotiators. So there's nothing that suggests, besides Bush's incidental help, that Republicans are good for South Sudan.

So why do some South Sudanese think that the newly elected President, Donald Trump, is good news for South Sudan? It’s hard to understand! I don’t know how the just-shoot-them war philosophy Trump has been singing can help end the South Sudanese war?

To conclude that a group of people is good given the historical accident of one leader or administration, is naiveté of the first order. I admit, Trump might be good for South Sudan given the fact that we don’t know any of his policies yet; however, given the isolationist and protectionist tendencies of President (elect) Trump, it's highly unlikely that South Sudan would be one of his top priorities. Trump's focus is America, America and America! Any significant countries Trump would deal with are states that have significant socioeconomic and sociopolitical benefits to America.

It's even important to note that Trump has no clear policies in any of his promises leave alone any foreign policy agenda. Isolationism dictates not being involved in wars. There's nothing in his policies (if he has any), which indicates a positive shift in American policies towards South Sudan.

Trump isn't a career politician so it'll take time for him to know the workings of both the American governance system and the operation of the foreign policy. There are a number of things he has to learn before he fixes his priorities regarding foreign policy. It'll be years before Trump thinks about states like South Sudan. Given the racist nature of Trump's win, fixing South Sudan will the least of Trump issues.  His nationalist leaning and the fervor with which his supporters took issue with American diversity and global outlook, will be an impediment to Trump foreign policy in Africa.

While it's possible that Washington's relations with Juba might change, any euphoric celebration of Trump's victory is misplaced. I’m still open, however, to the idea that I could be wrong, however remote.