Pass this resolution and impose sanctions

The United States delegation at the United Nations circulated a draft resolution this week to work out a possible, targeted sanctions against South Sudanese personalities seen to be impeding the peace process being mediated by IGAD in Ethiopia.

This is a good step since previous warnings were mere lips-service meant to show us that something would be done. We still know that countries like China and Russia will oppose any possible sanctions against South Sudan given the way they present themselves as natural opponents of US’s indiscriminate wielding of power. While this resolution has a long way to go, it’s a needed step in the right direction because South Sudanese leaders have shown during this 10-month long war that they only care about power.

However, the most appalling thing is South Sudanese government’s response to the threats of sanctions. Dr. Marial Benjamin, the foreign affairs minister, argues that any sanctions would negatively affect the peace talks. What these leaders need to understand is that these sanctions aren’t going to be aimed at the whole nation to cripple whatever economic breathing space is left. These sanctions are merely targeted sanctions aimed at forcing naughty officials, both in the government and in opposition, to get their heads straight and start thinking about their people.

No right-minded leader in any part of the world would impose economic sanctions on a country that’s teetering at the edge of famine. The sanctions will only be aimed at obstructers of the peace and at a possible ‘Arms Embargo’ in order to prevent the continued on-and-off war in the country.

I don’t know how the minister thinks these targeted sanctions would negatively affect the peace process. If the parties renege on their promises or refuse to negotiate because some of their officials have been sanctioned then such action would actually give impetus and authentic ground for the imposition of sanctions. These sanctions would not be imposed because United Nations Security Council fancies sanctions. The sanctions are a function of the intransient and insensitive attitude of South Sudanese leaders; leaders who see little rationale in alleviating the suffering of their own people.

Unless the minister believes the government is obstructing the peace process, I believe there’s nothing he should be worried about. The government made very reasonable concessions, however, it’s the final result that counts. If these concessions don’t bring peace to ease the suffering in the country then a lot needs to be done.

It’s common knowledge that the rebels want to indirectly negotiate their way to power. That’s a reasonable concern; however, the two parties are locked in a meaningless power quest that leaves none of the parties blameless. Even more painful concessions need to be made to avoid the imposition of these sanctions.

President Kiir, being the head of the government, needs to take charge of the talks and stop giving us an impression that he’s incapable of bringing peace to South Sudan. In his recent interview with Qatar-based Aljazeera TV, the president sounded very pessimistic, helpless and unpresidential. He sounded like a clueless fellow just handed power and has no idea what to do with it.

The president should be the voice of the people. He should be positive and come up with innovative strategies to bring peace to the country. The pessimism the president portrayed reflects so much  what’s wrong with South Sudan. He should stop asking people to go an ask Riek Machar about the peace talks. Riek isn’t the president of South Sudan. We’d expect more from the president of the country.

I therefore believe that these sanctions are warranted to accelerate the signing of the peace agreement. If South Sudanese leaders don’t want sanctions then peace is the only way out.

 

South Sudanese ‘Peace Talks’: what we need to know

In my last appearance on Lagos based TVC news, I sounded a little more optimistic regarding the prospect for ‘peace’ in South Sudan, a position that’d sound naïve to anyone who’s familiar with the intransience and job-focused nature of politicking in South Sudan. Anyone, who takes what South Sudanese politicians say literally, risks falling into the unforgiving side of history. That is a good thing to remember when it comes to South Sudanese political mechanics. However, that shouldn’t mean a good step taken shouldn’t be acknowledged despise the constellation of obstacles facing the peace process.

The Obstacle: Jobbization of National Agenda

The talks in Ethiopia are indeed about the future of South Sudan. However, they are by no means tailored towards the future of the average South Sudanese.  The talks, mostly about jobs and not peace, are purely about personal ambitions and political positions. What Dr. John Garang De Mabior saw as jobbism disguised as patriotism among the Anya Anya II leaders is what’s characterizing the current conflict. Almost everyone in the SPLM in opposition has grievances about a job lost or a job one didn’t get. On the government side, it’s about protecting one’s job not necessarily about standing up for the people of South Sudan. This is a great obstacle for peace in South Sudan. As long as both parties don’t see something written down, something that guarantees them government jobs and ensure job security and longevity, we wouldn’t see the peace signed soon.

The Obstacle:  IGAD, Medley of Incompetence and Dictatorship

Inter-Government Agency on Development (IGAD) is credited as having successfully mediated the peace process that culminated in Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005; and eventually ended with the peaceful secession of South Sudan from Sudan. However, a number of things have to be considered before that assumption takes hold in history as having a definitive Truth Value.

CPA was realized because of a number of factors we don’t see now in Ethiopia (Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar).

-          The documents aren’t drafted by the very people who know why the war started in the first place. The warring parties just receive IGAD drafted documents.

-          IGAD isn’t mediating but dictating the terms. A credible mediator doesn’t threaten but convinces the warring parties. The fact that IGAD threatens the warring parties is a clear indication of mediation and mediators’ failure.

-          The key players in Sudanese war took charge of the peace negotiations in Naivasha and no great consultations were required outside the peace venue.

-          When Dr. John and Taha took charge of the talks, the world knew that the ideologues behind the Sudanese religio-military, socio-economic and politico-racial dimensions were at the table and could adequately reconcile the war paradigms and dimensions.

-          Taha and Garang struck a cordial working relationship that, to everyone, indicated that the language of peace was here and that ‘peace was coming.’ We don’t see that now in Ethiopia.

-          CPA wasn’t about who gets what job-wise, but the security of the agreement, fail-safe mechanisms for referendum, resources sharing and everything that was in the interest of the people of South Sudan. Now, in Ethiopia, it’s all about JOBS.

IGAD has proven itself to be an utter failure. Garang and Taha were the ones who brought the CPA. The leadership, moral courage and patriotism shown by Garang and Taha have been replaced by self-interest driven talks meant to secure one’s political survival. Mediators should create an enabling atmosphere for peace to blossom. Instead, IGAD has created a poisonous atmosphere where the warring parties don’t trust it. How can an organization mediate between two parties that don’t trust it? This is a fallacy IGAD isn’t ashamed to maintain.

EAST AFRICAN SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AND UNCALLED FOR POLEMICAL RESPONSE

We all agree, even with some staunch government supporters in South Sudan, that the September 12, 2014 circular (No. 007 /2014) signed by the minister of  Labour, Public Service and Human Resource Development, Hon. Ngor Kolong Ngor, was ill-conceived and dangerous for South Sudan. And it’s with that understanding that the government, a few days later, released a press statement (RSS/MOLPS&HRD/J/33) on September 17, 2014 ‘clarifying’ what was written in No. 007/2014.

The September 17, 2014 PR was dubbed a ‘clarification’ but it was rather a ‘correction’ because what was written in the circular was crystal clear and dangerous :(...all aliens…in all positions…) If South Sudan was a ‘normal’ country in peacetime; the minister should have resigned immediately because his action was actually a national security disaster on many levels. It endangered the lives of South Sudanese in other African countries, jeopardized our economic and diplomatic interests and reflected South Sudan as a nation of leaders who act first and think later.

The parliament, useless as it is, should have summoned the minister to explain himself. What do we know? It’s South Sudan anyways!

However, the point of this article isn’t so much about the gross error of judgement by the government of South Sudan because the government has admitted the error and corrected it.

This article addresses the unrealistic, childish and uncalled for response our East African brothers and sisters meted on South Sudanese nationals as a function of that infamous circular.

With no doubt, the government of South Sudan made a gross mistake; however, I don’t understand why Ugandans and Kenyans were gravely harsh to South Sudanese nationals even after the government corrected the error! And why react with such negative air to a blunder, first of its kind in South Sudan? Is that the essence of brotherhood and sisterhood our East African brothers have for us? Couldn’t our East African brothers wait for clarification before reacting? Would one consider that reaction as a sign of maturity?

However, the most disappointing part of this isn't the reaction by the average citizen of the two countries and some mindless musicians like Bebe Cool! It’s the reaction of the leadership! There’s no doubt that South Sudan has benefited from the generosity of our East African brothers and sisters; however, it’s ridiculous to rub it on our faces ALL THE TIME. Even the Kenyan chief diplomat, Kenyan foreign secretary, Amina Mohammed, reminded us of the help Kenya has given South Sudan.

Such generosities should be uttered in a way for others to just imply them. But for a seasoned diplomat to remind South Sudanese of the help Kenya has extended to South Sudan in the media in a condescending tone leaves a lot to be desired. It made me question whether Ms. Mohammed has any genuine regard for South Sudanese!

For those of us who did our High School education in Kenya, we know how ‘brotherly and sisterly’ Kenyans can be. And those who’ve been to Uganda know how they treated and still treat South Sudanese. I have had money extorted from me in both Nairobi and Kampala! And I was told to ‘go back to your country’ many times!

Kenyan and Ugandan police extorted money from us, jailed us, beat us up and treated us like dirt. That was such a sign of brotherhood, right? However, we couldn't do anything about it for we had no choice and we also saw other trade-offs such as allowing us refuge in their countries!

For those of us who were in refugee camps, we know Kenyans and Ugandans found employment through various NGOs working in South Sudan and with their headquarters in Nairobi and Kampala! In Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenyans were paid almost 5-10 times what we were paid and some Kenyans went to schools in Kakuma Refugee camps for free. There were many Kenyans employed in various South Sudanese offices in Nairobi. I know of a number employed by my aunt and uncle in their offices in Nairobi. Kenyans and Ugandans benefited economically too from expensive houses rented by South Sudanese commanders and civilian workers.

LET'S BLAME OURSELVES BEFORE WE BLAME EAST AFRICANS!!!

Those of us who lived in Kenya know very well how Kenyans and Ugandans treated us during the years of our liberation struggle: Bad and Good!  But before we rush to blame them regarding their negative reaction to that 'unpatriotic circular', we need to be humble enough and accept what is our fault and what we have the right to say and do as South Sudanese regardless of how others take it.

First of all, South Sudan has every right to make sure that employment of nationals takes priority unless there are no qualified South Sudanese. In every country in the world, including Canada where I live, citizens and permanent residents are considered first before foreigners. No argument there! I addressed this in October of 2012 in an article: "The Parliament: Presidential Approval Machine or the Voice of the People?"

However, in the case of the circular released by the Ministry of Public Service, we have to admit: it was an ill-conceived and insensitively written circular which is against our national security interest and the economic interest of South Sudan. Saying that "all the aliens working ... in all the positions" is both irresponsible and destructive for South Sudan. Why do we blame Kenyans and Ugandan for the very words we wrote?

Some of us have been so blinded by our support for the  government that we can't even correct the government against dangers that might destroy the very government we purport to support. When we are wrong we are wrong!!

The message should have been thoroughly reviewed before being released. That circular is a national security threat and people who wrote it should be disciplined.

Mawien of foreign affairs has done a good job rationalizing the incident, however, the damage has already been done because the statement was a WRITTEN OFFICIAL CIRCULAR.

It's  the duty of the citizens to tell the government where it goes wrong! I guess South Sudanese see that as bad, even the educated!

EDITORIAL: Media Censorship in South Sudan is Irresponsible!

The saddest thing about the crisis in South Sudan isn't merely the case that the average person is suffering. The saddest thing is that the South Sudanese government has adopted the very same oppressive instruments the SPLM & SPLA leadership fought against for over 20 years.

 And these maladies include... -

- Censoring News institutions
 - Cracking down on anti-government opinions
 - Dividing the country along ethnic lines while denying it
- Grotesque level of corruption and stunted development
 - Extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests without trials.
- Selective development programs

From being the voice of the people of South Sudan, Juba has taken the persona Khartoum has been using against the peoples of South Sudan for decades. However, the officials don't see anything wrong with that. This gives one an impression that the official believe that such ills are bad only if done by others and good if done by South Sudanese.

The voice of the people has become the oppressive metals against the very people the voice fought to seemingly liberate.

The constant intimidation of media personalities, and recent claims by the South Sudanese minister of information, Hon. Michael Makuei Lueth, that journalists shouldn't air rebels' interviews in South Sudan, are deeply worrying!

This erroneous claim assumes a lot of things. It assumes that interviewing rebels translates to supporting them. It also assumes that letting South Sudanese know the rebels' side of the story is to support their claims. This is to destroy journalistic impartiality and ethics.

While the government has every right to make sure that people in government controlled areas don't air their own personal views in support of rebels and against the government, it's sure madness to say that airing rebels views in South Sudan is subversive. Subversive activities are activities supporting the sentiments that'd lead to the fall of the government. However, letting the public know what the rebels claim is is for the benefit of the nation. It allows South Sudanese to know first-hand the truth and fallacies of the rebels.

The government shouldn't discourage opposing views. It should counter them with data-based, well-articulated positions. To discourage other opinions is to present yourself as fearful and suspiciously dishonest about something.

The rebels are South Sudanese and will one day come back to South Sudan. We shouldn't treat them as if they'll create their own country. Mindless amplification of ENMITY is irresponsible! Instead of the government enticing people by initiating conducive reforms, it's actually making things worse by acting draconian.

When the information minister tells John Tanza of Voice of America that journalists should exercise freedom of speech within the 'LAW'  the minister knows very well that it's the same 'LAW' that guarantees freedom of speech!

No to Ethnic Federalism in South Sudan

Federalism is not a bad governance system if those leading it have the interest of the country at heart, and if the mindset leading it is selflessly conducive for development programs.

My only concern, and the suggestion that I have regularly passed to fanatical proponents of federalism, is that ‘Federal System’ in-itself would not change things unless our inter-tribal relations, inter-personal relations and our understanding of leadership and government change.

People’s attitudes and ideologies toward established systems inform the system not the other way around.

While I welcome the Federal System of governance in South Sudan as long as it is conscientiously structured, I am gravely opposed to any form of ‘Ethnic Federalism’ … like the ones in Ethiopia and Nigeria. We can now see what it has done in Ethiopia.

Many misguided South Sudanese believe that the South Sudanese Federal system can be modelled after the ones in Nigeria and Ethiopia. While there are presumptions and face-value indications that some people love the system in Ethiopia, one cannot be certain that it is an advisable, exemplary system of governance.

In a world that is increasingly moving towards the acceptance of diversity, it would be a bad precedent to move South Sudan towards a statehood that exist as pockets of tribal homogeneity. We cannot unite a country by compartmentalizing it into pockets of tribal exclusivity. While it is a feel-good proposal for some people, “Ethnic Federalism’ is, in praxis, a willing destruction of the country based on parochial presumption of ‘We-ness.’ We, the Nuer! We, the Jieeng! We, the Bari! We, the Kachipo! We….We…We….

Even as many Ethiopians were arguably happy with Meles Zenawi’s idea of Ethnic Federalism in order to get rid of the Amharic face of the country in what some Ethiopians have described as the ‘De-Amharization of Ethiopia’, one can clearly see that the example of Ethiopia is a stone-age example South Sudan should not copy!

The Nigerian example is badly self-explanatory that one cannot even think of it. It is a disaster!

Although this might sound very ambitious, it is in the best interest of South Sudanese to work toward the creation of a ministry (Tribal Affairs) that should work out long-term models of inter-tribal understanding in South Sudan. Making tribal leaders, elders and the grassroots part of the governance system in which each and every tribe feels included and heard is better than the ethnic fragmentation of the country into self-interested pockets of mutually exclusive ethnic enclaves.

Institutionalizing the frameworks necessary to combat ethnic differences would help the people to understand the role of government in their lives. In the long run, it would bring the government closer to the people with deeper appreciation of their local leaders, thereby making it hard for greedy politicians to mislead them.

Some tribes in South Sudan do not fight because they want to. They fight because they feel marginalized and insignificant in local and federal affairs. Besides, some fight on behalf of leaders from their own tribe because they do not understand what ‘government’ means. In South Sudan, as it is in other African countries, we don’t just have ‘individuals’ but ‘individuals from a given tribe.’ This is an existential truth none of us should downplay.

 Practical Federalism, not Paper Visual Federalism, can bring people closer to those who govern them; however, we must resist attempts to ethnicize South Sudan any further. To further tribalize a new nation with no sense of unique, clear and understandable sense of ‘NATIONHOOD’ is to be hellishly irresponsible.

We must first create and concretize an understandable “National Identity” before we gladly or mischievously disperse into our tribal enclaves in the name of ‘Ethnic Federalism’ or more appropriately, ‘National Destruction!’ (See Birth of a State for a critical discussion of “national identity’)

We have been divided fatally enough by the imperial Britain (1899-1956) and the Arabo-Islamic elites (1956-2011) so let us unite while accepting our differences!

 ______________________________________________________________

Note: This article was first published in 2014 and revised on February 17, 2022.

Recommended Readings

Federalism In Africa: The Case Of Ethnic-Based Federalism In Ethiopia

Federalism, Federations And Ethnic Conflicts: Concepts And Theories

 

Lul Koang and Philip Aguer: two symbols of lies and greed for power

South Sudanese can sometimes be excused in many things because the country is new and its institutional strength is weak. However, it’s good to note that human beings are rational entities and being credibly logical is expected of everyone. Being rational doesn’t require a country to have been independent, or to have been a democracy, for centuries.

It has become apparent that neither the government of South Sudan nor the rebels under Riek Machar can be trusted. They all lie with a flamboyant blitz!

While the voices and faces that’re made to convey the messages in both camps are, to a given extent, mere vessels of the forces behind them, it’s good to note that spokespersons are not mere automatons. They are humans. They have to know that they are the conveyers and custodians of the horrors Dr. Riek Machar and President Kiir have brought to this young nation.

Philip Aguer Panyaang, the SPLA spokesperson and Lul Ruai Koang, the rebels’ spokesperson, act as protectors of President Kiir’s desire to remain in power as long as he wants and of Riek’s desire to ascend to power by ‘all means necessary!’

Colonel Philip Aguer Panyaang lies for the government in a very illogical and consistent manner. Brigadier General Lul Ruai Koang has a very imaginative lies processing capacity. All just for Riek Machar to get what he wants.

And to top it up with their don’t-care attitude, President Kiir and Dr. Machar don’t give a rat’s foot about the civilians. They can only sign the peace agreement if only they get what they WANT: POWER!

After getting what he wanted in the would-be peace agreement in Addis Ababa, President Kiir signed both the Cease Fire Agreement implementation matrix and the Agreement leading to formation of Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU). However, Riek refused to sign the agreement papers because the agreement put him on the receiving end. Machar only opted to sign the Cease Fire agreement implementation matrix.

President Kiir loses nothing in this agreement. His door is open to take part in the next general elections; he keeps puppet, Wani Igga as his Vice President and also has an authority as to who is selected as the Prime Minister by SPLM-in-Opposition.