South Sudan News Agency

Wednesday, Oct 22nd, 2014

Last update05:39:49 AM GMT

You are here: Opinion Articles

Why the current conflict is a catalyst for positive change in South Sudan

By Tut Pal Ding

October 15, 2014 (SSNA) -- It is regrettable that events such as the Juba massacres that triggered the current civil war in South Sudan are at what it takes to end an autocratic regime like that of Salva Kiir. But as the saying goes, ‘freedom is not free”. Looking beyond the battle lines and the trenches of the two SPLAs, South Sudan future is not so much doom and gloom. After all, the milieu and the context in which the current game of play is taking place have the hallmark of a nation in transition from one form of rule to another.

South Sudan, observers agreed, has had a bad start. After a hard won independence, the national leadership failed to translate that price into freedom for citizens, the sole rationale on which previous wars were fought. Politics turned tribal, leadership positions became tokens for favours or for return of favours. Only very few hardcore regime insiders, individuals or groups have access to economic resources, jobs, contracts, scholarships, land and investments opportunities. Most of these privileges and who accesses them are often based on unofficial links to the politico-military leadership of the SPLM/A. The country is divided in all conceivable senses. Ordinary citizens are either rich or poor, no middle class. Every political/social science student will tell you this is a formula for oppression. It was a short ugly leadership overture in the SPLM/A that could only change through an uprising.

Sadly, the change had to happen this way. The regime concluded it would not tolerate diverging views. Those who dare speak do so at their own peril. Alternative media is restricted and civil society groups are harassed and threatened with persecutions, or worst. Even the Courts and the Parliaments have not been spared from this thuggish assault on the right of people. The leadership had grown intransigent at the expense of the citizens. There simply is no space for a meaningful debate to contribute or challenge the regime’s public policies. But thanks to the regime’s own miscalculation, in lights of all that is happening now, they have got the message that they will not in their own right stay in power for far longer.

Even as difficult as it is predicting political events in South Sudan, it is clear the stage is set for a change. There is a strong civil population actively behind the opposition, including its armed wings. More than 4 million people, nearly half the country’s population, are sincerely tired of Kiir’s repressive government. They have been forced to make it clear they are not willing to accept oppression from a government they elected. The same way they stood against previous vindictive authorities, they are determined to stand against this one and reject its injustices. It would be implausible to think there could be a military victory against this population.

There has been a vacuum of a credible opposition for the last eight years, and the regime probably thought they were untouchable. So far that void has since been filled by the SPLM/A outside government. However, it usually needs more than just an opposition to remove a bad dictator from power. By luck and sheer naivety, the regime has created its own alternative. The SPLM/A leaders including, those now in armed opposition led by former Vice-President Dr Riek Machar, wanted democracy installed. It is a group of elites and intellectuals; some with distinguished military careers, that are bound by democratic principles. Salva Kirr is probably surprised these individuals have successfully managed to remain united under one position, calling for an overhaul of the governance system in the country.

Here is why the regime will crumble soon due to its own making, and a better South Sudan will emerge from these ashes. The status quo started to shift with split within the regime’s own armed forces. This was rapidly followed by loss of a significant public support that degenerated into civil violence, engulfing most parts of the country. There is looming economic collapse, aggravated by international community threatening to consider broader sanctions. Moreover, the strained relations with the Sudan threatens the national sovereignty. Sudan had in the past threatened to block the oil flow through its territory, and the regime knew well the economic consequences. Salva Kiir’s regime is cornered and soon will find that there just isn’t any other way rather than to work with the opposition and help construct a new state based on universal suffrage.

The division in the military has dealt a blow to the regime’s military’s support base. Those who orchestrated the Juba massacres would have hoped the army stuck together, silence the opposition and quell, or at least contain squabbles like they did to Yau Yau, Gatluak Gai, George Athor and Olony. Unfortunately, this time the regime has lost a significant portion of its organised forces to the SPLA in opposition. The government’s reliance on foreign militaries and on a loosely knit militia groups is deemed not indefinite. And, it’s going to get more difficult for the government as the opposition forces appear to grow stronger, more organised and continue to acquire a sustainable supply of military hardware. The military threats are genuine and observers predict the regime will be weakened to the point its war capabilities will be limited to only defending their own garrisons.  

The troubled relationship with The Sudan is not helping Kiir’s tyranny. From day one, this has been a clear threat to the national sovereignty, and it is far more serious than the regime would like to admit. Only last year 2013, before the current civil war, the regime went silent on Abyei issue. They budged and refused to recognise the results of Abyei plebiscite which was granted in the CPA. Unfortunately, sticking one’s head in the sand doesn’t make issues go away. Abyei still presents an antagonistic predicament for the two countries. It currently seemed to have been ushered underground while each of the two countries deal with immediate threats posed by their own internal rebellions. But it’s only a matter of time before it erupts and ignite the unwanted confrontation that South Sudan will find hard to deal with, especially if the leaders continue to render a confused strategy on this important region.

Worst still, there are far more disturbing ideas floating around about Sudan-South Sudan relations. For example, Eric Reeve, a Sudan Scholar wondered what those of the Greater Upper Nile might do if Juba regime refuses to heed to federalism and democratisation demanded by the opposition groups. The result could be catastrophic. South Sudan could, God forbid, disintegrate into smaller independent regions, or lose its territories to Sudan, and possibly to Ethiopia and Uganda.

By all indications, the young nation is in grave danger of economic collapse. More than 98% of the government revenues come from two oil-producing regions. One of oil the fields in Bentiu, due to the current conflict, has been shutdown and deemed inoperable for a foreseeable period. The second and the only remaining lifeline to the government’s purse is under a credible threat from the opposition forces. If they (opposition) succeed in shutting down Paloch Oil Fields, an economic disintegration would be eminent and the government’s war effort will be seriously undermined. Therefore, fully aware that Paloch faces real threat as it is, it’s then only a matter of common sense that the regime recognise that they have no options but to negotiate a transition and immediately agree to form the proposed Transitional Federal Government of National Unity (TFGNU). This will not only save them an embarrassing military defeat but will save the lives of ordinary citizens and their properties.

The stakes are high. As the foundation of this young nation remained unsteady, one wonders what chances the country has in overcoming these myriads of problems. History and theoretical narratives provide a glimpse of hope. Building democracies is neither quick nor easy and certain conditions have to be in place to undertow that process. The current conflict has created those conditions outlined above; suggesting South Sudan has in deed began a transition to a better society based on fairness, justice and equality.

The threats are real and the consequences will be far reaching. The opposition groups, other South Sudanese stakeholders, analysts and international community hope the regime recognise the reality that the country is at a serious risk of total breakdown and act while there is still a chance. Rationality would suggests the government will see this coming and join the opposition towards transformation and South Sudan will be a free nation characterised by rights, justice and equality. As the “fighting season” approaches, and while the regime still calculates its next move while stalling the talks in Bahir Dar, Ethiopai, all of us will know very soon what the next South Sudan will look like.

The author is the Chairperson of SPLM Chapter Victoria in Australia. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . The views expressed here are those of the writer’s personal opinion and are not endorsed by the SPLM.

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

By Kuir ë Garang

October 12, 2014 (SSNA) -- 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.

But what did we expect from the likes of Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame, Omer Al-Beshir, Ismael Guelleh, Isaias Aferweki, Haile Mariah Desalegn …among others? These are leaders with sorry-state human rights records. How can we possibly expect them to care about South Sudanese if they don’t even care about their own citizens? Anyone who checks the human rights records of these leaders and their political control mechanisms would just feel sorry for the people of South Sudan.  How can these leaders give South Sudanese something they don’t have in their own countries?

Why would they allow President Kiir to stop what they actually cherish: Absolute Totalitarianism and Unquestionable Leadership for Life?

Lack of Accountability

South Sudanese leaders aren’t accountable to anyone. With no doubt they can do what they want and when they want. It’s regrettable that they have extended this state of mind to regional and world leaders. They duped South Sudanese, plunged them into perpetual misery and poverty, and proved to the world that civilians don’t mean anything. The Cessation of Hostilities agreement was signed on January 23 and Cease Fire agreement signed on May 9 by the two Principals, all of wish were violated with no consequences. The leaders recommitted themselves in June to sign the agreement and end the war by August 10. That day came and went. Then recently the leaders of IGAD (naively, I think) conditioned the two Principals to sign the agreement in 60 days. This day came and went on October 9.

Despite the threats of sanctions and the threats of famine on the people of South Sudan, the two warring parties refused to sign the agreement. And they have done so without any consequences.

One is left to ask: Why would these people sign any agreement if they face no consequences. They treat the people of South Sudan like dirt and insects and get away with it. And they are doing the same thing with world leaders. Like South Sudanese, the world and regional leaders are just as helpless.

Why would the regional and world leaders expect leaders to comply when they aren’t accountable to anyone but themselves?

Glimmer of Hope

Despite all the dishonesty and lack of concern, South Sudanese leaders seem to have taken a small step towards peace and that is something worth noting. Federalism and creation of the position of Prime Minister were dismissed outright by the South Sudanese government side. Accepting these controversial issues is a step in the right direction.

I have come to realize that South Sudanese leaders say a lot of things they don’t mean and even things they wouldn’t do. Michael Makuei Lueth, the South Sudanese minister of information and the current spokesperson of the government, talks in a manner that makes it hard for people to believe him. I have ceased to take him seriously. A man with no sense of courtesy towards others, doesn’t care about the consequences of what he says, is not someone you can take seriously.

He says a lot of things that are not only detrimental to the government but to South Sudan as a whole. However, I’ve come to realize that it’s what is signed in Addis that matters rather than what the perpetually disgruntled Makuei says.

And in an equally annoying manner, Mabior Garang De Mabior, the opposition PR person, says a lot of things that are dangerous for peace in the country. Mabior has great potential to positively contribute towards socio-economic development in South Sudan; however, the young man is filled with mysterious bitterness and anger that undermines the supposedly national interest he’s fighting for.

I have therefore started to see these two men as talkers rather than men whose ‘settling of scores’ statements mean anything. My glimmer of hope therefore rests with the papers signed rather than what these two men say. They are meant to talk and propagandize ad infinitum and so far their talks mean nothing.

And US’s Stephen Rapp beautifully summarises, while speaking in Juba recently, the risks of focusing on the elite power-sharing while excluding the needs of the average South Sudanese due to lack of accountability.

“But the point is if this conflict will end just with some kind of deal between elites, or some kind of power sharing, that will not bring peace to this country. It will indicate that in the future, acts of violence could be rewarded. And so genuine peace requires that accountability element...”

There are indeed on-and-of talks in Ethiopia; but they aren’t necessarily talks about peace or the well-being of South Sudanese but jobs, simple callous quest for jobs.

Kuir ë Garang is a South Sudanese writer and author living in Canada. For contact, visit

The construction of future conflict in South Sudan

By Elhag Paul

October 11, 2014 (SSNA) -- It is over 9 months since President Salva Kiir unleashed his dogs of war the ‘Dootku Beny’ on the Nuer and the people of South Sudan killing tens of thousands and destabilising the country. President Kiir, Michael Makuie, General Wani Igga, Dr Martin Elia, Ateny Wek Ateny and their blind supporters are still in place engaged in violence and disinformation blitz to entrench Dinkocracy.

Defensively and in a persistent manner they bark loudly hoping to dupe the international community.  “This government was democratically elected by the people of this country and the time for elections has not yet come”, “Any moves to replace an elected government by force was unconstitutional and unacceptable.”

Obviously, these Dinkocrates have conveniently forgotten that they usurped power on the eve of independence on 9th July 2011. The democratic mandate they received in April 2010 expired with the break up of the then Sudan into two countries. As everyone knows, elections have not been held in the new state of South Sudan. So what are they talking about?

Listening to and observing these Dinkocrates misbehave conjures up images of people who are out of touch with the reality.   They speak with confidence while blocking their ears tothe truth being told to them. To the world they are deaf and yet they want the world to listen and believe their side of the story which is completely false. These Dinkocrates seem to believe in what they say to be the ultimate truth, even when the average person in the streets of South Sudan does not perceive it so. They have irreasonably convinced themselves that they are democratically elected and they must not be asked to cede power.

Whether it is President Kiir or his deputy General Wani Igga or Majok on the street, the vigour, fervour and the conviction with which they spread their lies is just the same. As social theory postulates – when something or a lie is repeatedly said, it gradually becomes a reality to the preacher with the bombarded listener turning into a believer. In the process the preacher and those being preached to lose touch with reality. In a sense they become mentally corrupted. Could this be the thing that is affecting the Dinkocrates? Could it be the same thing that sunk IGAD? Or was it IGAD’s partiality? Or is it a combination of both?

Whichever, IGAD is doomed to failure mostly due to its partiality. The songs of “democratically elected” only became sweeteners to solidify their biasness. IGAD does not offer any hope. It prescribes more of the same (SPLM misrule). This is not peacemaking but rather the construction of future chaos and instability.  Where then is the peaceful future that IGAD’s mediation promised? Who in South Sudan wants more of the same? Who wants the continuation of the current tribalism, thuggery, and the Jieng engineered ethnic cleansings? In a nutshell IGAD’s mediation represents doom and gloom for South Sudan.

IGAD is not working for peace. It is working first for the interest of its heads of states and secondly for an entrenched instability in South Sudan. So, in order to address the problem of South Sudan it requires focusing on the real root causes of the current problem namely: SPLM’s resistance to democratisation and diversification of power; the creation of private tribal armies like Dootku Beny; vicious Jieng tribalism; lawlessness and the ethnic cleansing of the Nuer.

These are the critical issues that must be addressed by all South Sudanese stakeholders if a lasting peace is to be achieved in South Sudan. What does IGAD then do? It embarks on one plan to patch the SPLM as a solution without plan “B”: In the last 9 months it has done everything to realise this objective knowing very well that SPLM is the real problem. It is the cancer destroying South Sudan. SPLM in reality is a Jieng machine through which Jieng tribalism is detrimentally implemented in the country. Disappointingly and unethically, IGAD has consistently worked with President Kiir frustrating the participation of the stakeholders to the extent that now the only parties left in Addis Ababa are the SPLM factions responsible for the chaos. 

Interestingly, IGAD now shouts that peace is within reach. Do you see the hypocrisy of this club of dictators? What hope is there for South Sudan under the mediation of this hypocritical body? Sweeping the real issues that plunged the country into chaos under the carpet and rewarding the very party responsible for it is not going to help in the healing process and the stabilisation of the country. These issues will not go away, they will not disappear but they will fester and grow until they explode with devastating consequences. What IGAD is doing now in Addis Ababa is the deliberate construction of a future conflict.

So whatever deal they sign now will only afford South Sudanese a temporary respite. More over this deal would only be between Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile only.  President Kiir and the SPLM-IG represent the former and Dr Machar and SPLM-IO represent the latter. Equatoria which would have been represented by the other political parties has been frozen out. So Equatoria is already marginalised and its horrific experiences under the SPLM murder machine have been dismissed. Howcan the exclusion of Equatoria which comprise a third of the country lead to a lasting peace? I leave that to you to think about it.

Could IGAD’s behaviour not be seen as sending messages to Equatorians to follow in the footsteps of those who have plunged the country into chaos should they want to be counted, listened to and taken seriously? How responsible is IGAD when it becomes part of the problem by marginalising a third of the country?

IGAD is messing South Sudan and creating for itself two serious problems that will come to bite its members. First, the manner in which IGAD has failed to fairly mediate the South Sudan conflict has displayed to the world its weakness. In addition to losing credibility in the world, new non state actors emerging in the region in future will not take it seriously and it may not be accepted to play any role. 

Secondly, the South Sudan conflict has shown that IGAD has no fangs. It is all talk and threats without any power to enforce it. Take for example, it declares targets with datelines and nothing happens when these datelines are breached. Its target of 60 days issued in June 2014 to achieve peace agreement in South Sudan expired in August 2014 without any outcome. Again in August 2014 it issued another target of 45 days for same purpose and it is about to expire within this week without any ray of hope in sight. These targets have been blatantly breached without any consequences. The question is: why does IGAD bother to set these deadlines if they are unable to see them through?

South Sudan will continue to remain in problems not because South Sudanese are trouble makers, but because IGAD makes choices that prolong instability as if it has rights in doing so. 

It is the South Sudanese people’s failure to make use of their sovereignty that has led IGAD to assume the right of a decision making in the country’s affairs in support of a criminal party (SPLM). The responsibility of this failure falls squarely on the SPLM. To break it down, it is President Kiir’s idiotic government; Dr Riek Machar’s inability to have a foresight and vision and the well proven incompetence of the SPLM G-10. Who is IGAD to dictate terms and decide for a sovereign people? If this situation was reversed to the IGAD member states, would they accept it?

IGAD is only a mediator. Its role is to assist in bringing peace between the warring parties. It is not an arbiter or a judge to dictate or bully left and right. It does not have that mandate to impose decisions on South Sudanese people. South Sudanese must realise that without a genuine lasting peace there will not be any security in the country. Thus leaving the country in the hands of a hopeless organisation (SPLM) and incompetent “leaders” who do not know the rights of a sovereign state invites abusive treatment of South Sudan as is played out in Addis Ababa by IGAD. 

The state of South Sudan did not come to life without huge sacrifices. Millions have paid for it with their blood and the people endured decades of painful oppression. For SPLM to allow the state of South Sudan to be played with by IGAD is tantamount to gross negligence. The IGAD process glaringly reveals the ignorance of the SPLM and all the supposed leaders of the various SPLM factions as people who have no idea about what a sovereign state is.

Inward looking, corrupt to the bone, and short sighted they connive with IGAD to make all the wrong decisions about fate of millions of South Sudanese people. Remember, the Troika correctly named the problem in South Sudan as “man made”. Who are the men who made this catastrophe? Is it not President Kiir and the entire SPLM machine? Think about this. This catastrophe is made out of a mixture of personal ambitions, tribal interest and abuse of state machinery. Was it really necessary to go to war just to settle a disagreement within the SPLM party? As it may well be obvious to everybody at this point it is clear that this war is a result of power struggle within the SPLM and the irresponsible short sightedness of the supposed Jieng elites. If they only listened to the American friends of South Sudan in early July 2013 this tragedy would have been averted.  Please access this link to see it:

SPLM is making all the wrong decisions for South Sudan and this is why the country is collapsing. South Sudan can only pull itself out of this mess if it is represented by caring, responsible, and knowledgeable people who make right decisions about its well being and welfare. Daran Acemoglu and Jones Robinson in their book ‘Why Nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty’ convincingly point out that, “poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.” This finding is highly pertinent in the case of South Sudan and it actually illuminates the bleak situation facing the country.

In spite of all the resources South Sudan is endowed with, the people are likely to perpetually remain poor because of the obvious wrong decisions made by the SPLM leaders described by Gerard Prunier as “idiots......rotten to the core” in their various shapes and forms. The evidence is already clear. Since 2005 all the decisions made by the SPLM leaders stunted the country socially and economically. First they started by entrenching tribalism. Both President Kiir and Dr Machar ensured their tribes controlled the security sector. They then distributed over 80 percent of the government positions to their tribesmen without any merits. After this they encouraged an alliance of convenience between the Nuer White army and the Jieng of Bor against the Murle people at the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012. All these were done while they were busy raiding the coffers of the state mercilessly.   As if this was not enough they triggered a war with the Sudan over Panthou (a legitimately South Sudanese area) which they negligently left to Sudan to occupy and claim ownership. So right from the start the catalogues of poor and wrong decisions have ceaselessly continued up till December 2013 when it took a deadly turn.

Due to his limited capacity and with the influence of the Jieng cartels President Kiir deliberately ignited the current crisis in the country and encouraged ethnic cleansing in the believe that this would make him and the Jieng powerful, feared and a superior tribe. This delusion of grandeur as a result has seen the country fall apart. The Jieng need to understand that they can not construct a tribal superiority by crude barbarism. They can not be what they dream on the back of other people blood. Conventional wisdom tells us that such delusions will be resisted and eventually crashed at a certain point and that point for South Sudan is fast approaching whether they like it or not. The jieng have the key to halt the gathering Tsunami of South Sudanese anger. The Jieng should not deceive themselves that the support the regime is receiving from IGAD will save the status quo.

The idea of a superior tribe milking everyone else as in Juba now frankly speaking is fatuous. It is unsustainable in this modern world. While the Jieng may control the army, security, police and the economy, that is not enough in itself to ensure their safety and eternal survival. Some tribes like the Gaddadfa of Libya and the Boers of South Africa tried it but it ended in tears. 

South Sudan as a country is a socio-political system. All the component parts of the country work smoothly when the system is in equilibrium. What this means is that if all the people of South Sudan are happy the country becomes stable and development takes off. But if some people or tribe are unhappy the country loses stability. 

Therefore, the currently destabilised socio-political system in South Sudan can not be repaired or cured by keeping it under the management of the very people and party (SPLM) responsible for its political malaise which is exactly what the IGAD mediation is doing. The system is broken because one of its components (Jieng tribe) has embarked on a puerile project of superiority. The Jieng have become infected with tribalism and grown too big in the social arrangement that kept the system in equilibrium pre 1983.

IGAD by destroying the initially agreed principle and arrangement of bringing all the people (stakeholders) together to deliberate on a way out has just done a huge damage to the stabilisation of South Sudan. The SPLM factions and IGAD can strike their own peace agreement without the stakeholders but they must know that their peace product is the seed for future conflict.

Therefore, the people of South Sudan need to fight back to stop this construction of future conflict by:

- Petitioning the UN and Troika about IGAD biasness and demand transfer of the talks to a neutral mediator.

- Highlight the fact that SPLM is the problem of South Sudan and it can not be handed power again after it has destroyed the country. The Interim Government should be lead by people with integrity.

- The SPLM should be held accountable for the destruction of the country and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent South Sudanese people. Principally president Kiir must account for the lawlessness and the ethnic cleansing in South Sudan.

- Highlighting the reasons for IGAD’s failure: a) its open biasness; b) narrowing and restricting the talks to SPLM factions only thus disenfranchising the people of South Sudan; c) rewarding failure and criminality in South Sudan; d) promoting interest of IGAD member states at the expense of the people of South Sudan; e) promoting instability in South Sudan and potentially in the region.

[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

The author lives in the Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

More Articles...

Page 1 of 266

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Our Mission Statement

To bring the latest, most relevant news and opinions on issues relating to the South Sudan and surrounding regions.

To provide key information to those interested in the South Sudan and its people.