South Sudan News Agency

By Deng Elijah

April 16, 2012 (SSNA) -- South Sudan just gained independent, and it’s still the youngest, the poorest and most vulnerable state. If South Sudan can’t adjust within the current socio-politico-economics constraints, if the international community can’t nurture a nine-month-old infant, if the fellow African Union can’t cope with South Sudanese trauma, If South Sudan is not listened to, then the only hopes for South Sudanese will be establishing a new “planet”. Or perhaps, help Nigeria establish Nigeria-South Sudan continent. But that would be efficient if and only if the new continent would invite Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps pioneer the once proposed “Gold-currency” to cut off the current politico-economic headache with the rest of the continents. Well, that was just a slip of a tongue!!

Alternatively, it would be unfair, or some may even conclude that the father of a prodigal son would be psychopathic, if instead he fined his youngest, lost son when he returned. Or perhaps his judgments were extraordinary, but it is also true that our judgments depend on our perceptions, experiences and prior knowledge. Possibly, South Sudanese have their own context on this situation that they are competitively resolving with many other concern groups. However, the concern groups were somehow hasty to have imposed sanctions on the aid that they endow. How would you sanction a nation that feeds on less than 2% of her economy, aid and debts? Seriously, South Sudan deserves a planet!

Maybe the truth remains that you never argue with a fool because they would drag you to their level then beat you with experience. Controversially, the Bashir dragged us to his level, but surprisingly, he must confess that he entered the wrong ring.

Nevertheless, we would be biased to predict South Sudanese’s long run victory based on either Heglig or on ground tactics alone. Or else Sudanese would be the only outstanding African champions, having been in war for over 5 decades.

It’s grievous indeed that many South Sudan allies are currently “aligning” behind the ICC indicted, and one of the world’s most wanted criminals. Bashir must celebrate his short term winning of empathy from international community, if South Sudan refuses to withdraw; however, he remains the criminal who is accountable for over 4millions lives in Sudan. Bashiir must face ICC or South Sudan tribunal. Needless to say, South Sudan must pursuit the criminal, however, they have to keep an eye on their advocators. Else, they may have to instantiate better platforms, find amicable solutions or else re-launch a seizure!

As noted in Khartoum, Sudanese pound (one of the world’s strongest currencies) is drastically depreciating. It is currently traded at SD 6 per dollar in Khartoum.

Despite that, there could be ban on trade, possibly on armaments, or other essentials commodities if South Sudan never obeys the international call of withdrawal from Panthou (Heglig). Yet, South Sudan’s image is being distorted in favor of the blighted Khartoum regimes.

It would also be consequential for South Sudanese to remember that the same convict was and is still a king in Arab world despite his atrocities. Bashir had prominent support from big powers like Russia, China, Turkey etcetera. He had support from within AU, and African countries. If not, Bashir would have been prosecuted before South Sudan got independent, in July 2011. In other words, Bashir was mindful of whom he was trading with and how he plays his games. So, can South Sudanese really conclude Bashir’s cowardice at this point? Or could he possibly be trying to fit South Sudan in his shoes, and beat them with experience? Either way, South Sudan should keep an eye on the enemy without neglecting her allies!

Heglig

Heglig was originally and currently (as of mid- April) a South Sudan territory, which is undeniable. However, for some explainable reasons Heglig is being shown on the map as a Sudanese region. This is what the international community seems to base their warning of withdrawal on. However, for South Sudanese, this scenario should not be surprising as it is one of the major disputes in many parts of South Sudan including Juba. Thus, could South Sudanese apply the same principles they used in solving land disputes in Juba and other disputed areas?

Of course, withdrawal would be viable if Khartoum government withdraw from Abyei, and accept peaceful negotiations to resolve all these disputes. Also, the UN, AU and EU would have to deploy their forces in the disputed areas including Panthou.

Apparently, South Sudan would have to reconsider their decision on their next options; either advancing to Abyei and other contested regions on a full-scale war or unconditionally withdraw from Panthou, regardless. That means, adhesiveness to only panthou is never a solution since South Sudan will only be entertaining Khartoum’s accusations and yet the international community won’t implement any traded accusations.

South Sudanese has to commit to either full-scale war or no war. In either case, their decision has to be quick, efficient and achievable within a given time.

On the other hand, withdrawal from Panthou (Heglig) would be a win for South Sudanese in the long run. If the South peacefully withdraws, they would be able to work out their current misconceptions with UN, US, AU, Egypt, EU and others. They would be able to bale out economic sanctions and further depreciation of their currency. South Sudan would retain their status quos that the Khartoum regime has witnessed their inflated biceps, which would be a bail for reaching agreements on the remaining issues. Moreover, Sudan would also stop their “undercover” bombardments of innocent civilians in Unity states and any other areas along the border. Both parties may postpone a full-scale war, which could be more advantageous to the South since their economy may boom when the North would be barely surviving.

In other words, there would be no point clinging to the same straw with a dying man or else we would both be willing recruits of a never ending streams of tribal, religious, social and political curse. Try to analyze this report!!

Consequences:

“The recent violence threatens to return both countries to full-scale war and the period of tragic loss of life and suffering, destroyed infrastructure, and economic devastation, which they have worked so hard and long to overcome”, the Council said in a statement delivered by Susan Rice of the United States.

After the oil shutdown in January, South Sudanese economy has been struggling, and now it would be Sudanese pound and development in both countries.

If the bombardment continues in Unity state, Bentiu, then it would be hard for investors to invest in South Sudan oil, and the country will remain as it has been for the last centuries. Similarly, the agriculture and any other industries that would have been established will be affected due to lack of services, war and its aftermath. Well, because South Sudanese know these consequences, then there would be no need to polarize them!

South Sudan is just a toddler but with great potentials. As estimated in 2009 census, South Sudan is only 8millions in population compared to 32 millions (well, including their rebels) in the North. However, as South Sudanese say “it’s not the flesh that goes to war, but the mentality”. Therefore, just as they captured Panthou, they would also capture Khartoum depending on South Sudanese definition of “mentality”. This may be right, as it was Biblically the case between David and Goliath. However, if Goliath also had a sling or perhaps the “blessings” that David had, then it would have been by chance that David would gather his courage.

Postponing war

Many South Sudanese had no intentions of returning to a “meaningless war” as president Salva Kiir repeatedly announces in his speeches. Therefore, ignoring the chances of a full-scale war, let’s first brainstorm on how far we would reach before taking this upper hand of “teaching Bashir a lesson”.

As it is the case today, chances of delaying a war have to come at a cost. It would be asymptotically bounded to how much we give up today for tomorrow. And since we can’t sacrifice without our consciences, let’s take a few second to reevaluate any possibility:  is South Sudan willing to constraint within the fundamentally acceptable self-defense? That is would South Sudan abide to international community’s definition of “self-defense”? Could South Sudan only vindicate by presenting any necessary proofs to Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) instead of exchanging accusations with Khartoum government? After all, the satellite recordings may prove any traceable proof, if need be.  Can South Sudan afford to delay a full-scale war? And if so, do South Sudanese have cause(s) of this mini-war?

It’s possible that South Sudanese have most answers to their questions that would prevent the conflicts today, if they need to. My naïve instincts believe the main reasons that forced Khartoum to start bombing South Sudan, Unity State were due to oil shutdown, intentions to disestablish the South and perhaps due to mere Jealousy of South Sudan sovereignty. But South can solve only the oil shutdown since defending South Sudan territory is a natural right, and yet the cure for jealousy is already known.  As a Kenya suggested “mwenye” wivu ajinyonge” meaning let’s the jealous ones hung themselves, South shouldn’t be bothered of Bashir’s jealousy.

Moreover, Khartoum’s intention on South Sudan’s oil is clear. They budgeted what they are currently demanding. Demanding $36 dollars per barrel, just for transit, was a sign of aggression. And where on Earth would the international community “back up” such a huge demand? Or is it a myth that such pipes would only transport dust if the South decides to shut off on oil issues with the North? Fortunately, it would be South Sudan demanding 28% of Heglig’s oil production very soon (well, assume you haven’t heard that).

This price is negotiable, and hoping that this delegates used door-in-the-face technique, which South Sudan delegate appropriately encountered with a foot-in-the-door.  70 cent per barrel was unbearable but it may be valuable in the upcoming agreements. However, South Sudan may sympathize and offer a little bit more.

Why postponing war!

The relationship between the two Sudans may resemble the Koreans’. It’s very hard to predict when the two countries may return to a full-scale war, but it’s very likely. Chances are, the two sides may amend an ideal CPA to finalize the remaining deals.

However, South Sudan may sign an expensive deal on oil transit with Khartoum, in order to buy time, which is hurtful. But better half bread than none. It is very important that South Sudan would complete her current projects with Eastern Africa and within the young nation. Besides, South Sudan would be able to obtain equipment and trainings at better prices. South would be able to train air forces (maybe marine and navy too, if need be), and they may decide to demarcate whatever they would afford to, if war were unrestrainable.

South Sudan army would be well equipped both on ground and in air. Her development and economy would also get a chance to catch up with other regions. And if the third civil war between Sudan nations is inevitable, say in four years from now, then South Sudan army would not only target to recapture Heglig in a short time, but the entire 1956 border. That would be effective and efficient compared to the today’s undecided war. Or if the contract ends, and the border have not been demarcated, then the South might only request the international community to wish them luck at the border(take that for a joke). Just in case!!

In sum, “People don’t plan to fail they just fail to plan” Alan Lakin.

Deng Elijah is a South Sudanese who lives in British Columbia, Canada. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

March 2, 2012 (SSNA) -- In blatant contravention of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Government of Sudan (GoS) has carried out a brutal assault for the past eight months against the people of the Nuba Mountains. Due to abject fear, an estimated 200,000 people have sought sanctuary in mountain caves where they are attempting to eke out an existence without food. Many are already suffering from malnutrition.

As the GoS indiscriminately bombs farms, villages, churches, and schools, it disingenuously claims that it is solely targeting members of the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement/Army-North, the latter of which is intent on freeing the Nuba Mountains from the iron fist of Khartoum. The fact of the lie is seen in the stony eyes of the dead -- babies, children, women and the elderly -- in the gory photos now coming out of the Nuba Mountains.

Equally grave is the fact that the GoS has prevented the international community from providing humanitarian aid to those in dire need of food in the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile State. The ongoing attacks in the Nuba Mountains have prevented many farmers from planting seasonal crops, thus disrupting the agricultural cycle and leaving many people without adequate sources of food. Food insecurity has been exacerbated by restrictions on access to markets and the destruction of food stores.

This is not the first time that the GoS has resorted to starving the Nuba people; it did so in the late 1980s and 1990s. The people were so desperate they “ate” leaves, grass, and roots. The international community did virtually nothing to address the mass starvation, and as a result an untold number of people died miserable deaths in a classic case of genocide by attrition. Such inattention and lack of action must not be repeated.

Only once in the past eight months (August 30th) has the GoS authorized any outside agencies (in this case, UNICEF) to offload emergency health supplies, vaccines, and nutrition assistance into the Nuba Mountains. International humanitarian actors continue to advocate strongly for access to conflict-affected populations in both Government- and SPLM-N controlled areas, but the GoS continues to deny them permission to do so.

Over a month ago, on January 21st, your administration suggested that it was considering the possibility of opening up a humanitarian corridor in South Kordofan in order to provide desperately needed aid. To date, your administration has not acted and neither has the United Nations. It seems as if you and your fellow world leaders do not understand that each and every day that goes by, an ever-increasing number of people are bound to face malnutrition and its ill effects, including death by starvation. The time to act is now, not a month or two from now when lives will have already been lost to abject hunger. As U.S. Permanent Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice recently noted: “If there is not a substantial new inflow of aid by March,” the situation in Southern Kordofan will be “one step short of full-scale famine.”

While we understand that at this point in time neither the U.S. government nor the U.N. are willing to intervene militarily to protect civilians in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile, as they did in Libya, we believe that it is imperative that action be taken immediately to provide food to the region. Indeed, we beseech you and your administration to place pressure on the United Nations to act now to open a humanitarian corridor in order to provide humanitarian aid to those in the Nuba Mountains who have faced horrific and ongoing atrocities and a near-famine at the hands of a murderous regime whose president (Omar al Bashir) is already wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for the atrocities perpetrated in Darfur.

As a presidential candidate, you promised you would be proactive, versus reactive, in addressing potential and actual genocide. It is time to honor that commitment and press the international community to open a humanitarian corridor. If the U.S. and the rest of the international community continue to dither there is a very real possibility that many of the 200,000 people may end up victims of genocide by attrition.

At the least, the international community should honor its commitment to the “Responsibility to Protect,” and demand an immediate end to the violence in Sudan and unimpeded access to civilian populations by human rights monitors and humanitarian aid personnel. If the United Nations fails in this responsibility, then we urge you, President Obama, to accept the moral responsibility and to act now, along with the European Union and our African allies, to avert mass starvation in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile regions.

Sincerely,

and

and

Samuel Totten, a genocide scholar at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, has conducted research in the Nuba Mountains. His latest book, Genocide by Attrition: The Nuba Mountains, Sudan is due out in 2012 (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers).

Hannibal Travis is a professor at Florida Atlantic University Law School. His most recent book is Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq and Sudan.

John Weiss is a professor of history at Cornell University.

ADDITIONAL SIGNEES

By Maurice R. (Papa Maury) Clark

February 23, 2012 (SSNA) -- To a disaster weary world, the litany of death and destruction emanating from South Sudan becomes hard to bear. With so much of the western world being called to account for its own economic missteps, and political failures, the agonizing struggles of a remote new nation become easy to ignore. We do so at our peril!

Comparing the current world economic and political realities to the 1930's and the risk of world conflagration is no stretch. The economic excesses of the 1920s versus those of the late 1990s   through the first few years of the new century differ mostly by orders of magnitude. And falling from a greater economic height will likely make the ultimate landing even more difficult to bear. Meanwhile, lesser tyrants recognize weakness and exploit that weakness for territorial gain and profit.

To a very large extent, Adolph Hitler was the creation of a Germany overwhelmed by the burden of debt resulting from World War l. While the rest of the world rejoiced in libertine excess during the '20s, the German Weimar Republic endured hyperinflation and privation brought on by the bills for WW I, and the Treaty of Versailles' demands for reparations. With the onset of world-wide depression in the 1930s, the world was far too consumed by its own problems to pay attention to a petty tyrant in a defeated country.

Adolph Hitler played to his nation, the siren song of racial purity and layed blame on a minority to ease the reality of national responsibility. So, much like the Jews were to Hitler, the black tribes of South Sudan have become to Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

Let's examine some parallels between that earlier era, and what is occurring now in Africa. Both Weimar Germany then, and Sudan now, were defeated nations held to account for the costs of war. The little industrial capacity that remained in Germany was dedicated to war reparations dictated by the Treaty of Versailles. Similarly, Sudan’s vastly diminished resources provide little hope for revenue. Khartoum controls only the world’s largest supply of sand, not exactly a high-demand resource. Meanwhile, South Sudan, incredibly rich in undeveloped natural resources, and land so fertile that a steel post would sprout when put in the ground tantalizingly lies just over the mountains.

Oh, and did I mention OIL? Virtually all of that known resource is now the property of the Republic of South Sudan. Oil is the most immediate need for Khartoum because without it, there is no export revenue to pay the bills. And while we are at it, ask yourself why Khartoum, with so much sand, is so interested in the semi-desert state of Darfur? I can assure you that the interest lies not in the desert, but what lies beneath it.

By 1935, Adolph Hitler’s leadership was undisputed, and in 1938 he made his next move: the Anschluss! The overnight annexation by Germany of Austria differed from Bashirs armed descent upon Unity State, Jonglei, Abyei, Blue Nile, and others including his own South Kordofan. While Austria proved to be a willing annexation, joyfully welcoming German troops, the citizens in Sudan/South Sudan are being slaughtered by Khartoum.

While the world stood to one side, wringing its hands, 1939 saw Hitlers Germany overrun and capture Poland in less than five weeks! In between those two assaults on the free world, we heard Britain’s Neville Chamberlain declare “--Peace in our time” and World War ll was on.

There is another comparison worth drawing. A German ally or, at a minimum, a non-combatant now forgotten by much of the younger generation was solidly in the background- Soviet Russia. The Soviets unquestionably saw a German - Western Europe war as advantageous to their own ambitions, until the German warhorse eventually turned on the Soviet Bear.

Khartoum’s ally is also a world giant: China. During the past two decades China bankrolled, and engineered the refineries, pipelines, and the Port Sudan oil tanker facilities. It developed the oilfields in Southern Sudan. In return, Khartoum was the beneficiary of billions in foreign revenue and financial support. Look carefully at China and its vast need for petroleum supplies to maintain its markets. Ask yourself this: since China has been the willing supplier of war materials to Sudan: the bombs, the guns, the delivery systems, is it rational to expect them to peacefully walk away from their investment AND their largest petroleum supplier- Khartoum?

Meanwhile to the north and east of Africa, the Arab, oil-producing, states are aflame in the “Arab Spring”. The rest of Africa from the west coast countries of Senegal, Liberia, and the two Congo’s continuing through to Uganda and Kenya to the east are under assault by the Lords Resistance Army or internal strife. The horn of Africa, and the pirates of Somalia are not exactly situations that can be ignored either.

In my opinion, it is time to re-examine history, and be very, very concerned about the lessons we should have learned, and the parallels to the risks facing our world today.

Sudan’s president Bashir does not stand in isolation. Does anyone else smell smoke?

Maury Clark is a retired investment banker/broker, as well as a Called and Commissioned Deacon in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Northwest Washington Synod. He served under Bishops Appointment as pastor of Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church in Maple Valley, Washington in 1990 and 1991, and also served four years on the Synod Council. He has been deeply involved with the people of Southern Sudan since 1996, and is an advisor to the Government of Southern Sudan. He is also the adoptive father of seven Dinka, the youngest of whom is fourteen years old. Maury and his family reside in Hobart, Washington.

By Samuel Totten and Hannibal Travis

February 21, 2012 (SSNA) -- This past summer, the Government of Sudan (GoS) attacked and destroyed a slew of villages in South Kordofan, the home of the Nuba Mountains, and the Blue Nile. Some 200,000 civilians in the Nuba Mountains, alone, disproportionately non-Arab and Christian, fled bombings, shelling, and house-to-house searches, and sought refuge in the caves of the mountain range rising above their villages. Still others fled across the border to the new state of South Sudan, where they settled in makeshift and roughshod refugee camps. By now, it is no secret that the people of the Nuba Mountains are facing potential starvation as they continue to hide in the aforementioned caves.

The adamantly refused to allow humanitarian aid into the Nuba Mountains, and continues to bomb the area at will. Just this past Thursday, four planes dropped bombs on, and destroyed, a bible school in the village of Heiban.

Last week, U.S. officials suggested that if the GoS continued to refuse to allow humanitarian aid to reach the people of the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile then it might unilaterally, and without permission from the GoS, open a corridor along which aid could be delivered. The officials stated that they were waiting on making a definitive decision until the conclusion of the latest African Union summit. The summit has concluded, the AU has not reported on whether it even discussed the matter, but the U.S., for some reason, continues to bide its time in regard making a decision.

Delay in providing aid is costing lives. The 200,000 internally displaced persons have seen their food supplies dwindle as they seek continue to seek sanctuary in the mountains from aerial and ground attacks. As a result, each and every day Sudan’s non-Arab peoples face rising malnutrition, and in some cases, death, as a result of a lack of enough food (and this is especially true in the case of infants and the elderly).

While we understand that at this point in time neither the United Nations nor the U.S. government are willing to intervene militarily to protect civilians in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile, as they did in the relatively recent past in northern Iraq, Libya, and Somalia, we believe that it is imperative that action be taken immediately to begin to provide food to the region in order to avoid an all out famine and mass starvation. As U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice noted last week: “If there is not a substantial new inflow of aid by March,” the situation in Southern Kordofan will be “one step short of full-scale famine.”

In light of the urgency of the situation, we cannot understand why neither the U.N. Security-Council nor U.S. officials have acted to restore the flow of aid to Sudan, as they did at the outset of last year’s rebellion in Libya. More specifically, on February 26, 2011, the Security Council issued its first resolution on Libya, not authorizing intervention to protect civilians, but urging Libya to allow safe passage of aid and supplies, the safety of foreign nationals working there, and their buildings, immediately lifting censorship so the truth could get out, and calling upon all member states to "support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance.”

The least the international community could do to honor its ostensible commitment to the “Responsibility to Protect,” is, to demand an immediate end to the violence in Sudan and insist that the GoS ensure immediate access to civilian populations by human rights monitors and humanitarian aid personnel. Finally, the United Nations should insist that Sudan lift restrictions on all forms of media.

We urge all others who are concerned with human rights in Sudan to urgently press President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress to apply unceasing pressure on the United Nations to act now. If the United Nations fails in this responsibility, then the United States, the European Union and their African allies must act now to avert mass starvation in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile regions.

Sincerely,

Dr. Samuel Totten, a genocide scholar at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, has conducted research in the Nuba Mountains. His latest book, Genocide by Attrition: The Nuba Mountains, Sudan is due out in 2012 (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers).

Hannibal Travis is an Associate Professor of Law at the Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Florida.  He teaches and conducts research in the fields of international law and Internet law, and wrote the first comprehensive legal and political history of genocide in the Middle East and North Africa, entitled Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan (Carolina Academic, 2010).

“FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, FREE AT LAST!” M. L. King, Jr.

By Maurice (Maury) Clark

Maury Clark is a retired investment banker/broker, as well as a Called and Commissioned Deacon in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Northwest Washington Synod. He served under Bishops Appointment as pastor of Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church in Maple Valley, Washington in 1990 and 1991, and also served four years on the Synod Council. He has been deeply involved with the people of Southern Sudan since 1996, and is an advisor to the Government of Southern Sudan.. He is also the adoptive father of seven Dinka, the youngest of whom is fourteen years old. Maury and his family reside in Hobart, Washington.

This article first appeared in Lutheran Soundings and is reprinted with the author’s permission.

February 21, 2012 (SSNA) -- Hundreds of thousands sought refuge from the longest civil war in African history. The conflict in Southern Sudan lasted more than 21 years, and by some measures, all the way back to the end of British colonialism in 1956. Nearly half of the entire population were either killed or had fled in terror to hastily established refugee camps in Kenya, Egypt, and Ethiopia. More than two million people simply ceased to exist- an entire generation of young men and boys- along with another million persons displaced around the world. The “LOST BOYS OF SUDAN” came to represent the tragedy of ethnic annihilation.

The war finally ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. Colin Powell represented the United States, and was largely the architect of the final resolution. The CPA mandated a referendum for unity or independence, and the vote was scheduled for January, 2011.

January, 2011 came with this question: “How can a people consisting of many tribes, decimated by war and starvation, be certain that the referendum would be representative and incorruptable?” The Southern Sudanese Referendum Commission (SSRC) was created by the CPA, and it then contracted with the International Organization on Migration (IOM) to create an infrastructure that would be credible world-wide. Maurice (Maury) Clark was nominated by Bishop W. Chris Boerger, ELCA and appointed by the SSRC as “Diplomatic Out of Country Observer”. The referendum was actually happening.

And the people came! Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, Kuku, Acholli, and members of all of the great tribes of Southern Sudan. The staff at the Referendum Center in Seattle, and their counterparties around the world, experienced the joyful cry of “Southern Sudan OYEE!” Freedom won by an overwhelming majority exceeding 98%, and the new nation of South Sudan became a reality, created out of a free election after decades of struggle, war, and privation.

On July 9, 2011, my South Sudanese children and I, along with about two hundred of the People will travel from the United States and Canada to Juba, the new capitol of this great new nation to participate in the birth of South Sudan. OYEEEEEE!

By Hannibal Travis and Samuel Totten

January 27, 2012 (SSNA) -- This week, President Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, Princeton Lyman, warned reporters in South Africa that half a million people risk famine on the border between Sudan and newly-independent South Sudan.  An anonymous State Department official told Canada’s The National that the United States would not watch passively while “100,000 people starve to death.”

After fleeing their homes and villages due to an all-out aerial and ground assault by the Government of Sudan this summer and early fall, approximately 200,000 people in the Nuba Mountains region of Sudan are without adequate food. Starvation is setting in and claiming innocent lives.

The attacks against the Nuba Mountains have wrought extraordinary destruction and hardship on the civilian population, including routine aerial bombing and many executions without trials.  It appears that the government’s intention is to starve civilians to death by denying them food.

Humanitarian officials in the Aida Refugee Camp in South Sudan, which contains some 23,000 people who have fled from the Nuba Mountains, report that 12 percent of the refugees straggling in are suffering from malnutrition. The percentage of malnutrition will only increase as the people of the Nuba Mountains are forced to remain without food.

The people of the Nuba Mountains, disproportionately non-Arabs and Christians in a country insistent on Arabization, were the victims of forced starvation (genocide by attrition) in the early 1990s at the hands of the very same regime in Khartoum that is making them suffer once again, headed by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. President al-Bashir, in fact, is already wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for the atrocities perpetrated in Darfur, again largely against non-Arabs and “infidels.”

Just as the international community knows that the people of the Nuba Mountains have little to no food reserves, it knows that Khartoum is deliberately preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the Nuba Mountains. And yet, it has done little to ameliorate the situation.

As the people of the Nuba Mountains are forcibly excluded from their lowland villages and farms, their crops are wilting and dying. Even if the people of the Nuba Mountains venture out of the mountains at a later date, they will continue to face life without adequate amounts of food.

Khartoum’s relatively recent attack on the Blue Nile region has resulted in another 100,000 refugees. Those civilians are also facing dire straits. 

Unlike other demands being made by activist organizations, we are not calling on the international community to establish a no -zone at this point; rather, we are advocating a humanitarian mission to prevent the starvation of hundreds of thousands in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile region -- nothing more and nothing less.

The obstruction of humanitarian aid to extremely impoverished and dying civilians is a grave violation of international human rights and humanitarian law.  The international community must not accept such violations.

Given the extraordinary risk to such a vast and vulnerable population, we urge all governments in Africa, as well as the continent's non-governmental organizations, to put more pressure the Government of Sudan to protect the lives of its own citizens.  The African Union, as well as the United States, the European Union, , and the United Nations, should demand that full and unimpeded humanitarian access be granted to civilians in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State.  To this end, the U.N. Security Council should pass a resolution invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter to authorize a United Nations mission to protect UN personnel and humanitarian workers, including in particular the 13 organizations banned from much of Sudan in March 2009, such as Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam GB, CARE, Mercy Corps, and the International Rescue Committee.

Sincerely,

Hannibal Travis, Florida International University College of Law And Samuel Totten, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Hannibal Travis is an Associate Professor of Law at the Florida International University College of Law in Miami, Florida.  He teaches and conducts research in the fields of international law and Internet law, and wrote the first comprehensive legal and political history of genocide in the Middle East and North Africa, entitled Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan (Carolina Academic, 2010).

Samuel Totten, a genocide scholar at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, has conducted research in the Nuba Mountains. His latest book, Genocide by Attrition: The Nuba Mountains, Sudan is due out in 2012 (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers).

The substance of this op-ed has been endorsed by numerous scholars of genocide studies, including: Dr. John Hubbel Weiss, Department of History, Cornell University; Professor Linda Melvern. University of Aberystwyth,Wales; Dr. Dominik J. Schaller, Research Fellow, Karman Centre for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Bern, Switzerland; Dr. Herb Hirsch, Department of Political Science, Virginia Commonwealth University;Dr. Roger W. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Government, College of William and Mary; Dr. Ervin Staub, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Hon. David Kilgour, Former Canadian Minister of State for Africa; Dr. Edward Kissi, Department of Africana Studies, University of South Florida; Dr. Michiel Leezenberg, Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam; Dr. Israel W. Charny, Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Israel; Dr.Colin Tatz, Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;

Dr. Issam Mohamed, Professor of Economics (retired), Alneelain University, Khartoum,Sudan; Paul Slovic, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon; Aram Suren Hamparian, Executive Director, Armenian National Committee of America; Rebecca Tinsley, Chair, Waging Peace, London, England; Dr. Greg Stanton, Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University; and Dr. Selma Leydesdorff,  Faculty of Humanities, Department of Arts, Religion and Cultural Sciences, University of Amsterdam; Henry Theriault, Department of Philosophy, Worcester State College, Worcester, MA; Matthias Bjornlund, Historian, Danish Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark;  and Irving Louis Horowitz, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University;

Contact information:

By: Justin Ambago Ramba

January 8, 2012 (SSNA) -- This 2011/2012 is going to go down in books as the worst Christmas & New Year ever to be celebrated in the history of South Sudanese as an independent people since it was marred by the inter-tribal massacre in Lokwangole and the Pibor counties of Jonglei State.

For all practical purposes whether we are Christians or believers of indigenous African religions, as a people of one country we are expected to denounce violence , theft and above all the wide-spread killings of women, children, the disabled and the elderly as it repeatedly keeps happening in our beautiful state of Jonglei.

It is true that most of the communities in South Sudan have stocked up too much hatred for one another over the years as successive governments fail in their duties to establish the rule of law, justice and providence of services [employment opportunities, hospital, schools, clean drinking water, veterinary clinics, management of the limited pastures, roads…..etc]. And where illiteracy, poverty and ignorance are prevalent, vices like discrimination, hatred, greed, jealousy, envy are equally prevalent.

Eventually it is no surprise to see worst vices as theft, rape, adultery, fornication, murder, deceit, dishonesty, become the order of the day in the community. Thus it never came as a surprise when the UN secretary General Ban Ki Moon in his address to the government of South Sudan (GoSS), he stressed that the GoSS should engage itself in addressing the root causes to the perpetual violence, killings and retaliatory killings that has engulfed many parts of the country, but mostly in Warrap, Unity, Upper Nile and the Jonglei states, and I couldn’t agree more with him.

The so-called White Army formed predominantly by Youth from the Lou-Nuer ethnic group, but of course subsidised in the recent attacks by the Youth from the Twic section of Bor Dinka, the Jikang Nuer and the Gawaar Nuer [paanluelwel2011.wordpress.com/tag/white-army/ ]and their counter parts from the Murle tribe who attacked Uror in mid 2011 are both forces to be reckoned with, as they represent the Youth of these communities and thus ultimately their future leaders.

They have proved that they are indeed a killing machine depending whose behalf they operate, however they should better revise their positions when they put their very lives and those of their loves ones on the line in what is likely to continue on for yet another century to come in the absence of any re-consideration.

Since ignorance and illiteracy are both central to the long standing inter-tribal violence in Jonglei state and elsewhere in South Sudan, it is only logical to consider all involved as victims of the system including the perpetrators, as too often they themselves might have been on the receiving end or will soon be. Only if these grossly disadvantaged youth who aimless roam the vast land of South Sudan understand that they have the right to a good central and state governments which in turn is supposed to address the root causes of their problems, then they are more than capable of bringing about the much needed change in the status quo, instead of killing one another when everyone of them is in reality a victim in their own rights.

Our youth cannot miss to see that the more they raid one another to kill loot and rape the more they destroy the relationships between communities. By engaging in raiding you obviously lose people and you want to replace them by abducting women, girls and children to make up for the loss, while stealing cattle as well. Since this seems to work for you, it can also work against you when your rivals adopt the same behaviours. Then when will you be all settled my dear people?

It is sad to hear that you call one another names e.g. thieves and trade all kinds of accusations amongst yourselves, and you think that there is enough reason to go out there and kill some people for having stolen your cattle or children. But haven’t you heard about the ‘Big Thieves’, in Juba or those close to you in the state capital of Bor? To remind you my fellow countrymen, it has already been established beyond any reasonable doubt that only ‘Thirteen Big Thieves’ have pocketed most of the money that would have otherwise paid for the schools, the hospitals, the water, the vet services, the roads, the police forces and logistics that are needed to rid your state of the current cycle of inter-community killings.

The true thieves are in Juba and Bor. Going to Uror, Fanjak, Duk, Pibor, Lokwangole , Akobo, or P’ochalla is in fact one victim victimising the other. Learn to embrace democratic values and through civic and political organisations can you direct your angers towards the real exploiters and in only so doing can you can then see the changes that you as a disadvantaged group collectively yearn for so badly, with services delivered by none but yourselves.

Dear compatriots in Jonglei and the whole of South Sudan, you don’t really need to suffer nor are you supposed to be killing one another over vital resources like water, pasture, or service delivery……. for God who created us as South Sudanese have taken care of all these needs by generously providing us with an abundant fertile land for agriculture, the water of the Nile, fish, but above all He gave us abundant reserves of crude Oil. Our oil industry has generated much money in billions and billions of dollars over the last seven years since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [CPA] on the 9th of January 2005, more than enough to address the root causes of unrest the countrywide. But what has gone wrong is already everyone’s common knowledge.

The first anniversary of the CPA in the post independence South Sudan has unfortunately found our country far from being a peaceful place.

That is a shame. However the chances are still there for us and especially our youth – to get the balance right. You cannot build a modern state by endlessly engaging in tribal wars, nor are our many warlords anymore relevant to this stage of our common history and destiny. What you need is a reorganisation across tribal lines in order to bring a change in government well armed with a grass roots program to realise a South Sudan for all.

On the other hand whether you are a Murle, a Dinka or much more, a Nuer or any other community in South Sudan, you need to understand that the rate of killing women and children whenever an inter-tribal fight breaks out, has become exceptional very high signifying that they in fact represent the most targeted group in what is a purely ‘Men’ perpetuated violence, which on the other hand suggests that the communities don’t question the gross insensitivity as demonstrated by those psychopaths who continue to pose as youth leaders a.k.a warlords. Remember that it is only ‘sick and wicked’ men who rejoice at the massacre of innocent women and helpless children. It is true that all have been let down by all levels of our government, but then how much more are we doing by taking the law in our own hands?

The UN Mission in South Sudan [UNIMISS], the GoSS and the country’s national army the Sudan People’s Liberation Army [SPLA] all categorically are guilty conscious of the fact that the joint Luo-Jikang - Gawaar Nuer & the Twic Dinka ‘White Army’ actually succeeded in intimidating them by its sheer number of more than 6,000 strong men. And they only did the about turn when they realised that the Murle Youth were nowhere to confront as the latter since long have all tactically fled their territories into refuge in the neighbouring Ethiopia. Whatever is now being trumpeted by the GoSS or the UNIMISS is more to do with keeping up appearances. Those who think that they can challenge this statement will only find it unchallengeable when it comes to the disarmament of the Jonglei communities especially so those under the ‘White Army’.

In a nutshell, South Sudan can easily become ungovernable should the Jonglei experience go unchecked and unchallenged for too long by GoSS,
thus allowing it to be reproduced in the other nine states where tribal groups form their Red, Green, Blue, Black, Yellow Armies or that of any other colours as allowed for by the country’s national flag with the sole goal of winning back to the tribe what it sees as justice denied by the state or the national government.

The author: Dr. Justin Ambago Ramba. He can be reached at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Mr. President,

December 9, 2011 (SSNA) -- Observing the sequence of the current unwholesome political developments in my country of South Sudan, I feel inclined to offer a contemplative comment which may assist in addressing the quandary afflicting the Republic of South Sudan. With this humble preamble stated, I would very much like to solemnly and honestly cogitate on the matters below:

1. National Defence

The ability of the government of the Republic of South Sudan to steadfastly defend and sustain the country’s sovereignty, its territorial integrity, citizens and the broad array of national interests that includes practical attempts at deracinating the flourishing venality (corruption), as well as inventing pacific methods of resolving the rolling internal armed conflicts in the country would definitely be appreciated and should thus crest the official business agenda of your government.

One would intuitively presume that the government of South Sudan would swiftly embark on the defence of its citizens as a matter of exigency, a move which would have seen an instant halt to Khartoum’s incessant military forays and aerial attacks in the border areas of the new Country. Regrettably, the government of South Sudan has chosen to progressively remain passive and evidently feeble, in the face of Khartoum’s aggressive posture, and deplorably, saddling South Sudanese population with yet another stint of excruciating humiliations, after they (people) have endured nearly half a century of Khartoum’s, horrific brutality, maiming, rape and wanton killings in South Sudan. It is an utter shock to all to realize that the government of South Sudan is either incapable or lacks the willpower to defend its citizens from external aggression, contrary to the most rudimentary construct and phraseology in the country’s Constitution that calls for the defence of South Sudan’s sovereignty and its people. Needless to state here that under section 51 of the United Nations Charter, the country possesses the inherent right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence from external aggression. Alas, it is the unfathomable morass and lack of visible and viable acuity that have permeated the new country’s national strategic thinking which in turn has expounded Khartoum’s belligerent and arrogant attitude towards the new country.

Mr. President,

Your leadership has repeatedly on a number of occasions stated that South Sudan would never ever go to war despite Sudan’s relentless military aggression against South Sudan’s citizens. One is doubtful as to whether letting Khartoum aware of your government’s limitations in terms of military capabilities in defending the new country is the right thing to do. Disclosing to Khartoum that you will not respond to aggression from Sudan’s military does certainly embolden the NCP government to increase its assaults on the people of South Sudan believing that Khartoum would always get away with such criminal habits and practices, furthermore Khartoum finds it quite an effective stratagem and leverage to exert excessive military pressure on the Republic of South Sudan as a method of gaining maximum concessions at the current post-secession talks with your government.

This is not tantamount to declaring that South Sudan should adopt a confrontational resonance and stance towards its knotty northern neighbour, but your government should physically demonstrate to all and principally reassure the citizens of the new country that South Sudan would no longer tolerate brazen bellicosity and is set to repulse any incursions into its territory at all cost in order to shield its citizens from harm. It is discernably credulous and rather pathetic for your government to dwell on trumpeting distress signals to the international community for assistance without first taking an initiative, whilst it is abundantly clear that the new country possesses what it takes to militarily protect its citizens. The persistent raids along the South-North border areas have lamentably become moreover familiar phenomena to the extent that it’s now creating widespread sense of despair, anxiety and despondency among the citizens. While Juba strictly instructs its soldiers in those areas to absolutely do nothing that might provoke Sudan’s army into further action, Khartoum sends its air force to lay havoc mostly on civilian targets in South Sudan. Admittedly, you can’t unilaterally succeed in preserving peace if the antagonistic party doesn’t subscribe to it, and turning the other cheek with the intention of lessening the trouble does not actually work, it is futile and definitely counterproductive.

It would have worked out well without major protracted military engagements if the South Sudan border guards had immediately launched a counter attack on the intruders and driven them out of Abyei. The concerns being widely articulated in the highest echelon of government in Juba at the time  that Khartoum was prepared to thwart the independence of South Sudan was incontestably ill-conceived or rather gullible to state the least. An insightful leader constantly surrounded by a retinue of aides and supposedly erudite advisors would almost certainly discover that the intention of the attack on Abyei was purely a combined canvass of sabre-rattling and brinkmanship, solely designed for the purpose of extracting excessive concessions in future negotiations with the Republic of South Sudan, rather than a masked format of starting up a war. Al Bashir had already accepted the invitation to attend and give a speech at the South Sudan’s independence celebration, it is inconceivable that he could inanely turn around to spoil the show and risk the wrath of all those countries that had agreed to send delegations or representatives to attend the independence ceremony in Juba. A plan of that sort could possibly have worked much earlier, probably during the Referendum voting period or during the counting of the votes, but not when the representatives of the world’s sole superpower were preparing to attend the celebrations. Furthermore, Sudan wouldn’t start another war against South Sudan while it is fatigued or exhausted from battling the various mushrooming rebel groups in its territory. Sudan’s economy was and still in a shamblesshape internal opposition to the regime is rife, a ticklish setting that could spark off another Arab Spring revolution in the Sudan at any slightest provocation. Not even China which is Sudan’s military guarantor would advise Omar Al Bashir to cuddle such imprudent and perilous spoor, as Beijing is more concerned with sustaining its economically rewarding dual-pronged policy of striving to maintain and palliate the two incompatible neighbouring countries in order to retain the flow of the oil to the insatiable Asian giant.

2. Post-Secession talks

i. Abyei

Mr. President,

It’s quite hard to envisage the pattern and progression of South Sudan’s overall policy towards the Republic of Sudan with regard to the post-secession negotiations. This is where there has disappointingly been a muddle or lack of pellucid direction. The government of South Sudan is continually shifting positions, thus undermining the quality of its argument. The Abyei Boundary Commission’s report (ABC) drawn up by the team of experts, and largely known as the ABC Report, did state that Abyei territory belonged to the Nine Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms as of 1905, albeit Khartoum had long maintained that the ABC panel of experts had ‘exceeded their mandate’, the Arbitral Tribunal at The Hague thought otherwise, affirming that the ABC did not exceed its mandate and that Abyei area belonged to the Nine Ngok Dinka Chiefdoms. It is therefore hard to understand why the government of South Sudan is now talking of ‘comprehensive package’ that is considerable fortune that could be offered to the government of Sudan in exchange for the later to relinquish control of Abyei. South Sudan won’t offer financial or monetary inducements for its borderline to get demarcated by Sudan. Bribing Khartoum to demarcate the North-South border signifies a fundamental shift from conventional logic to the realm of senselessness, The fully mandated negotiating team and the President must understand that the return of Abyei to the fold is not via soothing or mollifying the government of Sudan through offer of “financial packages”, it is through liberation struggle, as we are not engaging in a lucrative business of mortgaging our territory; Abyei is an integral part of South Sudan and must be united with the new country whether sooner or later. The argument of the SPLM that any Referendum vote in the enclave must be exercised only by the people of the Nine Ngok is perceptively valid, and this should be the stance of the government of the Republic of South Sudan, no swinging of position. Hence, any repudiation of or withdrawal from this is sound stand point is synonymous with betraying the people of Abyei. Furthermore, the government of South Sudan should never rely on the United Nations organization, believing that the world body would intervene on its side in any eventuality involving war with Khartoum. It is worth noting that this is the very organization with battered reputation and pervaded with series of dramatic failures in its 66 years of existence. While the Hutus slaughtered hundreds of thousands Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in 1984, the UN which had more than 25,000 soldiers in the country at the time had merely stood by in eerie watching the carnage unfolding as if it was a Hollywood movie. Identical gruesome scenarios occurred in Malakal in 2006 and Abyei in 2009 in which UN troops stood helplessly while Khartoum’s forces massacred and maimed hundreds of civilians. It has never been the tradition of the UN to engage militarily in conflicts. The government of South Sudan must defend its own citizens, territorial integrity as well as political independence.

ii. Sudan Demands $15 billion US dollars to fix fiscal gap

South Sudan’s designated chief negotiator with the government of Sudan and South Sudan’s conscientious official, had recently before departing for Addis Ababa to attend the latest round of talks with Khartoum, did indicate willingness to consider Sudan’s demand of $15 billion on condition that Sudan accepted a ‘comprehensive agreement’ on the outstanding issues, and he had boldly made the following statement: “South Sudan is ready to help the Republic of Sudan financially in order to fill its financial gaps.” Alike, the African Union did propose a modest sum to the tune of $5.4 billion to be paid to Khartoum by the Republic of South Sudan, for the so called fixing of Sudan’s fiscal gap. Arguably, there is hardly any single justifiable reason for the Republic of South Sudan to offer the government of Sudan such substantial sums of money. Such a capitulatory view won’t abet South Sudan, but spawns shattering outcome for the new country.  The people of South Sudan do not need to pay for seceding from the Republic of Sudan or for liberating themselves from Sudan’s horrendous misrule. The secession of South Sudan emanated from long years of sacrifices and bloodletting as underscored by Ms. Susan Rice, the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations who represented her country at South Sudan’s independence official ceremony on 9^th July 2011, she noted that the independence of South Sudan was not a gift, but won through struggle. It’s thus tricky to twig the wisdom of placating the NCP rulers through awarding of princely financial compensation in order for Sudan to facilitate and accelerate the demarcation of the South-North borderline, or soften NCP’s stance in order for Khartoum to relinquish the control and handover the jurisdiction of Abyei to the Republic of South Sudan.

Presumably, Sudan has devised a perspicacious strategy of involving South Sudan to pay off part of the former’s foreign debts of 38 billion dollars. If that is the case, then South Sudan is at full liberty to demur contributing to Sudan’s debt repayments as it is an odious debt, that is, the debt was secured or incurred without the consent of the people of South Sudan and not for their benefit. The prodigal government of President Al Bashir had massively invested in procurements of advanced military equipment to vigorously pursue the war in South Sudan, killing and maiming millions. South Sudan which was an integral part of the Republic of Sudan was left in absolute ruins. The demand for the $15 billion made by Khartoum and seemingly accepted by the government of South Sudan represents nothing less than an act of downright profligacy and credulity on the part of the policy makers in Juba. Conversely, the government of South Sudan is not paying war reparation to Sudan to cover damage or injury, to the contrary, Khartoum should be declared the guilty party by the UN and the government of Sudan should be required to pay for the extensive destruction in South Sudan including the maiming and killings of millions by its unrestrained feral forces. At the Treaty of Versailles in July 1919, after the conclusion of the First World War, Germany was forced to pay war reparations for being the guilt party, but does South Sudan need to pay compensation for the triumphant manumission of its people?

iii. Oil sharing/rental or transit fees

Little wonder that, as a commodity of increasingly strategic prominence in our time, petroleum has for a long time been an object of geopolitical wrangling as well as squall of confrontation in a number of areas around the world. Irrefutably, oil plays a central role in shaping global politics. It was used as a leverage tool in the 1973 oil embargo by mainly the Arab members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to craft and influence a political outcome in their favour.

In the case of the Republic of South Sudan, it is seemingly a lugubrious scenario as Khartoum confidently wields a huge clout over the oil industry at the moment. Sudan’s control of South Sudan’s oil was confirmed by Ali Ahmed Osman, the Sudanese state minister of oil who recently made the following bold press statements: “We are not going to shut the pipeline, we’re not going to shut any well, we are not going to stop any company, because we have an agreement with the companies”. “The share of the companies will be exported,” (Sudan tribune: Sunday 29 November 2011).

From the preceding conceited remarks of Sudan’s oil minister, it is amply plain that Khartoum exercises boundless control over South Sudan oil which constitutes the mainstay of the latter’s economy. The government of Sudan also maintains separate packages of oil agreements with various external parties on the oil resource of a supposedly independent country. If Sudan could freely shut down the oil wells in the Republic of South Sudan, does it any longer make sense to refer to South Sudan as an independent sovereign country? How would the new country survive, let alone develop itself, given the current poignant entanglements and perplexities of the country’s leadership? How far do South Sudanese have to travel along that tragic trajectory? South Sudanese shouldn’t be dragged on to share in moments of utter disgrace and silent embarrassment. The current ambiance of indecision that oscillates between whether to rent Sudan’s oil facilities or share oil revenue with Khartoum makes a great deal of mockery of the quality and orientation of thinking in Juba. This is because those wielding power are more often inclined to exercising arbitrary decisions, and consequently ampler consultations are hardly made in tackling matters of vital importance. A case in point was the undemocratic and controversial Resolution of the Council of Ministers that unilaterally decided for the relocation of the capital city of the country from Juba to Ramchiel without involving the National Parliament. This move by the Council of Ministers is neither a healthy proposition to pursue nor the correct thing to do at the moment. If we are settling in for a genuine democracy, then let’s do it decorously right from the start and not otherwise. Certainly, moving the capital city at this moment when the country has the most pressing priorities unattended to makes an amusing anecdote.

As oil features saliently in South Sudan’s economy and as a resource of critical importance to the oil-reliant country it follows that decisions vis-à-vis the oil resource should be handled judiciously and I must state here that direct and effective control of the oil through a South Sudan’s state oil company should be established and if realized, this would largely be seen as a prerequisite for asserting the country’s sovereignty. The country’s authorities should streamline a sensible and sustainable policy for dealing with the resource, in order that its citizens benefit from it.

The Secretary General of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the Republic of South Sudan is on record for asserting that the rental fees for Sudan’s oil facilities must be fixed in conformity with international practices. Propitiously, South Sudan’s leaders on this point are on the right track and the same page, this time, unanimously arguing and advocating for “rental fees” as opposed to” sharing”. It would be utterly incredible and quite absurd that any individual, group or organization would contemplate a split of South Sudan’s oil resource between the two neighbouring countries. The African Union and a number of countries outside the continent have more often made cryptic references to oil sharing rather than rental fees. Such unhealthy and unfair submissions should be dismissed by the people of South Sudan with scarcely any misgivings. South Sudanese must resolve their own problem and never ever think that someone somewhere would step in to present magic solutions to their problems. The African Union (AU) akin to its predecessor the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has always been of insignificant value to the continent’s population. Darfur is one of the lingering testimonies of AU’s chronicles of failures in Africa. It is morally incorrect for the AU to suggest that the government of South Sudan paid the sum of $5.4 billion dollars to Sudan to mend up the latter’s abysmal economy, while ignoring the bestial and inexcusable conduct and paroxysms of Sudan military in unleashing extensive and systematic murder, looting including a scheme of the deliberate spreading of HIV Aids through rape spree in South Sudan. It is the citizens of the new country that justly deserve the right to compensation or war reparation from the government of Sudan, and not the other way round. The next round of talks must seriously tackle South Sudan’s genuine concerns, not on the reading of the AU, UN or any other organization or country.

1. Control of the oil wells of South Sudan

Mr. President,

It makes minimal or no sense at all for the continued occupation of South Sudan oil production regions and oil wells by the Sudan government’s forces It is equally an unpardonable blunder on the part of the government of South Sudan to be reclusive while Khartoum liberally steals the oil. The statement made by Khartoum that it will deduct 23 percent of the oil to cover for the costs of the use of its oil facilities is nothing but a revelation of state-sponsored grand theft in its classical sense, and this state of affair has been going on since Khartoum began exporting the first oil consignment to the international market more than 15 years ago. I have gathered from a trustworthy source that Khartoum has been pumping over 1,000,000 bpd of the oil over the years, contrary to the 500,000 bpd declaration. The government of Sudan has probably colluded with Chinese engineers and oil officials to report figures which are far below the actual production level figures, in order to defraud the people and government of South Sudan and derive handsome gains. Juba appears to be utterly in the dark about the scale of the oil theft. I would suggest that the government of South Sudan takes the first step of informing the UN Security Council of the development and formally request the government of Sudan to withdraw its forces controlling the oil wells. It is absolutely absurd to argue that Khartoum’s forces are there to safeguard the oil wells. How much do we pay them for doing that sort of work in our territory? Unless the government of South Sudan deploys its own troops on the ground to secure the oil wells, and Juba takes up the real supervisory and administrative work on the ground Khartoum will continue with its robbing splurge, until the oil wells run dry.

2. Stymieing Politics and the Alternatively Pipeline

Recent media reports have surfaced with incredible stories suggesting that the oil of South Sudan would not justify a construction of pipelines to alternative seaport of a another country other than Port Sudan, and the flimsy excuse offered is that the oil reserves are dwindling fast and would not be of a commercial quantity. It would be worthwhile for the government of South Sudan to solicit the assistance of independent experts to conduct an assessment and determine whether or not these stories carry any credible weight. A cursory look appears that both Khartoum and Beijing are behind those uncorroborated fables and anecdotes, While Sudan would like to keep on stealing South Sudan’s oil that flows through its pipelines, China prays that there are no modifications to its current scheme of things that might turn out to be unpleasant to Beijing rulers. So such a strategy might involve officials from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to disclose to the world media of the depletion of the oil reserves of South Sudan. Such a story would persuade the government of South Sudan to abandon or suspend the pipeline project, making Khartoum the winner, which would further bilk South Sudanese and purloin their oil. The construction of the pipelines should be prioritized and built by a foreign company in collaboration with the government of South Sudan. Three to five years’ time could witness the end of our country using the extortionate or usurious facilities of the government of Sudan. It is up to the government of the Republic of South Sudan whether to pursue the right course by advancing on to initiate the alternative pipeline project to Kenya and instantly dismiss what appears to be a coordinated scheme of deception and dupe or continue with the status quo and risk the outcome.

3. End the sporadic rebellion peacefully

If the government of South Sudan invests substantially on pursuing some pacific methods to prevent the escalation of the undulating internal armed conflicts in the country; it would immensely contribute to serenity and long lasting stability that comes with all the consequential spin-offs of a stable country. Seemingly, it is hard to do so at the moment as Khartoum embarks on a grand scheme of recruiting, training and arming some sections of the South Sudanese community with the aim of creating instability in the breakaway part of the former Sudan, while Sudan army annexes the oil-rich border regions, and declaring those areas as defining the January 1, 1956 colonial configuration. The government of Sudan being the main player has always sought to control the resources of South Sudan. Oil which has become the citadel of Sudan’s economy is at the centre of the conflict. The claims made about the causes of the rebellion, cannot be substantiated, because the various rebels groups have become militia forces aligned to Sudan military, launching joint operations with Khartoum’s forces of doom. As an exercise of national duty, the government of South Sudan should always drive back any incursions from across the border while concurrently engaging some of the rebels in peace talks. The prevalent assumption that driving back any invaders from across the border would result in war between South Sudan and Sudan is visibly flawed. The amnesty granted to the rebel leaders by your government is quite commendable. Engaging the rebels in peace talks could deprive them from their local supporters who swell the ranks of those rebel groups, thus benefiting and bolstering the efforts of the Sudan armed forces.

Conclusion

In view of the aforesaid matters, the government of South Sudan either proceeds on swiftly to stand on the cusp of making one of the most sanguine decisions ever made that could shape the destiny of the citizens of the new country for the better, or else risk an unpalatable sequel. However, it might be a lot safer and worthwhile to ruminate on the following counsels:

(A)   Defending the country, its citizens and territorial integrity is the rudimentary duty and responsibility of the government of South Sudan. To progressively remain docile and militarily drained in the face of Khartoum’s aggressive practices demonstrates futility and an utter lack of responsibility. Sudan is applying both brinkmanship and sabre-rattling game to extract maximum gains from South Sudan at the negotiating table. Furthermore, it would be better for the authorities in the country to refrain from telling Khartoum that South Sudan would never go to war with the north whatever the level of provocations, this is quite awful and is definitely playing into the hands of the enemy. It is better to say “we are capable of defending ourselves” and truly mean it than to say “ we are not going to war”

(B)   South Sudan should streamline its overall policy towards the Republic of Sudan with regard to the post-secession negotiations. The issue of Abyei enclave was decided by the Hague-based Arbitration Court. What remains to be executed is the border demarcation, while the question of voting at the Referendum in the area remains the sole prerogative of the Dinka Ngonk People. The government of South Sudan should ensure that this solid stance is maintained. Offering Khartoum substantial sums of money to relinquish control of Abyei and hand it over to the government of South Sudan is manifestly an absolute failure of the authorities in Juba.

(C)   The government of South Sudan being misled by the African Union has shown willingness to offer $15 billion to Khartoum for what commonly known as the “fixing of fiscal gap”. If this grand fantasy is realised, it would constitute the worst letdown and a catastrophic financial mistake in Africa’s contemporary record. Khartoum does not deserve any compensation, equally Juba does not need to compensate the Jallaba for destroying and enslaving South Sudanese, to the contrary Sudan should pay war reparations to the government and people of the Republic of South Sudan.

(D)   No sharing of oil revenues between Juba and Khartoum, but negotiations on oil facility rental and transit fees are the issue to discuss. The transit fees, as stated by the South Sudan’s SPLM General Secretary must be in harmony with universal practice as opposed to Khartoum’s oafish and stroppy demand. The government of the Republic of South Sudan should immediately initiate the processes of constructing oil pipelines to a Kenyan seaport for the export of South Sudan’s crude oil. Sudan and probably other parties might have been responsible for the falsehood and story that South Sudan’s oil is depleting fast and would not warrant a construction of pipelines any longer. This action is to prevent South Sudan from independently controlling its oil resource and make Port Sudan the only possibility that South Sudan would rely on for oil exports. Khartoum must not be allowed to steal South Sudan’s oil by deducting the 23 percent that the NCP leaders have agreed upon. The legal action to be taken by the government of South Sudan will certainly not work. The single most effective solution lies in the removal of Sudan’s army that controls the oil wells and to be followed by the deployment of South Sudan army contingents so as to guard the oil wells, thus making it practically impossible for the Jallaba to steal the oil. Absence of such a stern measure will categorically be a complete fiasco. The Abyei Court verdict should feature as a reminder.

(E)    There is no alternative to talking to the various rebel groups’ leaders, more fighting will only engender brutality and counter brutality. The NCP leaders must be made to understand that it doesn’t pay to continue sponsoring rebellion in South Sudan as they too have a soft belly to explore.

Thank You Mr. President