page heard: response to mamdani's article

I too have a lot of respect for Prof Mamdani, and the work he has done counter-acting the sensationalism of the Enough Project over the Darfur Crisis. Especially in illustrating the fact that the issue not as simplistic as a black and arab crisis or genocide, but that there is a political and ecological issues that also explain the conflict. I wish that he had taken the less simplistic argument for the crisis in South Sudan as well.

This article though, really pissed me off…and I would like to address some of the key issues with the article;

“The immediate background to the current crisis is the declining support for Kiir, ….. Before Kiir dismissed them from their respective leadership positions, at least three in the party leadership had publicly declared their intention to run against him in the coming elections. One was Machar, second in the state-party leadership, the second person was the secretary-general of the party, Pagan Anum. And the third was Rebecca Garang, the widow of the late SPLA leader. “

This statement has to be qualified…declining support from whom? While it is true that Kiir’s popularity and support within the SPLM is not what it used to be, it is not clear that any one side holds a majority. The SPLM party structures allow for the removal of the chairman by 2/3 vote by members of the National Liberation Council and they can call for an extraordinary meeting to do so.

“The Chairperson may be removed by the NC in an extraordinary session convened on the request of at least two thirds (2/3) of members of the NLC for violation of this Constitution or gross misconduct provided that the resolution for the removal of the Chairperson shall be carried by three quarters (¾) of all members of the National Convention.” SPLM manifesto, 2008

This has not happened to date and the December meeting of the NLC, in fact confirmed Pagan’s removal from position of SeCy.  This shows that there is no ‘majority’ support for Machar or his agenda. This was also clearly illustrated during his removal as VP. Most of us in South Sudan feared a return to conflict but there has always been a veneer of mistrust over Machar, given his history in SPLM and there was unrest or people calling for his reinstatement. Most people I know feel that Wanni Igga (the current VP) should have been the VP from the very beginning, given his history within the SPLM.  If there was majority support for Machar and his agenda, we should have seen this at during time the national reconciliation committee that he led was cancelled, when the executive powers granted him by Kiir were removed, and later during his firing as VP.

I am assuming Mamdani is talking about declining support from the party. Because I would hesistate to say that any of the three named figures have ‘widespread’ support of the general public. Nyandeng’s legacy as minister of roads and transport was one of self-enrichment and was rife with lack of accountability. Pagan is currently under investigation for corruption, and while I do believe he is being scape-goated because of his stated intention to run at the 2015 election –it is difficult to determine if he even has enough support within SPLM for this to happen- there are elements of truth in these charges.  I am saying he is being scapegoated because he is not the only corrupt official who should to be facing charges.

“With the majority in the party against him, Kiir decided to use the structures of the state to dismantle whatever still remained of the organs of the party. The occasion for this came when his opponents demanded that he disband the Presidential Unit that he had set up, which he placed not only outside regular army structures but also, more or less, under his own control. According to those opposed to Kiir, though he agreed to do so, he began by disarming only Nuer soldiers in the unit. When they resisted, he claimed it was an attempted coup.”

Alas, again, the word, majority. This explanation of the events of Dec 15^th seem to be from Dr. Adwok Nyaba’s ‘root causes’ article which is questionable. There are many versions of what inspired the events that have led us here and at this point, e.g just this one article has more than one version…

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49383

Anyone who’s lived in Juba knows how quickly rumours spread and barring a full investigation; it is difficult to ascertain what actually happened. I think it is unfortunate to peddle one version of events in the meantime. Mamdani does not mention when this disarming of Nuer soldiers happened- was it immediately after the walkout at the NLC meeting? Did it happen during? Did it spontaneously occur during the night? What is the ethnic identity of who shot first?  At this point it is irresponsible to make this a DInka-Nuer issue. The composition of the Presidential Guard is both Nuer and DInka- whether or not the guards are under the direct control of the president is irrelevant – unless Mamdani wants to claim that it was a force bigger than the regular army, and therefore a threat to the entire country.

When Kiir unilateraly dismissed both the vice chair and the secretary-general of the party, along with other senior officials, from leadership positions, the move did away with structures of accountability in both the party and the state. It also destroyed whatever conflict resolution machinery existed at both levels.

This makes no sense at all. Kiir dismissed Machar in his position as Vice-President.  The vice-president serves at the discretion of the president- according to the 2011 constitution of South Sudan. As do the Ministers. The NLC convention was held to vote for key documents, which uphold the structures of splm, including the manifesto. How does the dismissal of these two persons destroy conflict resolution mechanisms? SPLM is composed of more than the 3 – the Political Bureau, the National Convention and the NLC are all existing ‘conflict resolution’ structures. I believe these rebels should have been responsible enough to use the party structures to resolve any issues within the SPLM, up to drumming up enough support to dismiss the chairperson, if they deemed this necessary.

“This, then, is neither an attempted coup nor a rebel attempt to take over government. It is, rather, an attempt by the top leader of the government to forestall a vote of no confidence in his leadership, by dismantling all structures of accountability in a bid to usurp power.”

While it is questionable that this started as a coup, the fact that Machar has stated that his aims and the rebels aims are to overthrow the current government, and has threatened to overrun the capital means that this is now essentially a coup. His speaking about diverting oil revenues from Juba and directly negotiating with Khartoum brings to memory 1991- and again, given that people have lost lives, and fled their homes, really makes us wonder where his priorities lie. It is a bit dismissive of the rebels stated aims to discount that their stated intentions have been to overthrow the government of south sudan is contradictory.

“Internally, to call for power sharing in South Sudan is to ignore a central fact: rather than a conflict between two powers, this conflict resulted from a split in the power. So the problem is how to reconstitute that power.”

I agree with this. The events of the past few weeks are about political ambitions and a fight to gain power and illustrate internal splits within the SPLM- and in my opinion a lack of vision/ leadership within the party. This was accelerated because neither group has garnered the necessary majority to overthrow the other group through existing mechanism- either by pushing through a no confidence vote at the NLC meeting or through parliament. That one group then chose to use alternate means to gain power or credibility- using the excuse that a war will result in a more democratic South Sudan – is a pity- and should be excoriated.

The elections are/were to be held in 2015. South Sudan desperately needs an opposition/ alternative party to the SPLM. Most of us would have preferred to see a viable alternative come from the disgruntled elements. South Sudan does not need an ethnic-based fight for power because of the ambitions of a few individuals. Neither does South Sudan need the irresponsible reporting by the international media that has made this into a Dinka-led government and a Nuer-led insurgency, at the expense of the political divisions that have resulted in this crisis.

And this is not a widespread endorsement of the presidency of Salva Kiir- there have been numerous disappointments. However, I include this group of rebels as being part of the problem and not a solution. Machar as VP has overseen the widespread corruption that has been endemic in South Sudan he cannot divorce himself from this and lay all the blame on Kiir.  All these parties have been sleeping in the same bed.

The way forward right now is for all parties to lay down arms. While they are busy playing political chess games at the Sheraton in Addis, thousands have died, hundreds of thousands have fled their homes, and are living in dire straits in IDP camps, and widespread fear is a reality for the majority of Junubin.  An investigation into the events of Dec 15^th, and subsequent events –including any human rights violations- and following judicial due process is necessary for accountability. South Sudan is a republic. The Government of South Sudan, regardless of whatever issues with the direction taken, is still a democratically elected government. Let us follow due process of the law. If the majority of us are unhappy with the government or presidency- we should be talking about impeachment- not civil war.

Here are additional viewpoints:

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49471

http://www.suddinstitute.org/assets/Publications/Violence-in-South-SudanJok2014.pdf

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49453

http://sudanreeves.org/2013/12/28/riek-machars-end-game-what-is-it/

*I need to write about media coverage of events. Al Jazeera has been completely irresponsible- no wonder their correspondent was expelled from Juba. They are not the only ones. It feels like the media has been wishing for a genocide to happen. Reporting has been wishful thinking, at best.

Paging akon

So like everyone else I've been watching the events in S.Sudan unfold.I don't want to post on it just yet for a few reasons.Mainly akon has a much clearer perspective on this issue than mine as well as a deeper understanding of the politically situation on the ground.{I would like to use this forum to harrass my coauthor into blogging more on the situation}I feel at some point I'll blog about the effect of this conflict not just on S.Sudan but the reverbations felt even in the far North.

 Mahmood Mamdani is a scholar I tend to respect and his views on both Sudan's are generally balanced.

I'll just leave this article here;


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/way-forward-south-sudan-20141565251473808.html

interesting article

http://sudanreeves.org/2013/12/28/riek-machars-end-game-what-is-it/

South Sudan Crisis and Responsible Reporting

please sign the petition
against this report: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/south-sudan-state-that-fell-apart-in-a-week

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/south-sudan-crisis-and-responsible-reporting?share_id=KzTerrWTSl&utm_campaign=share_button_mobile&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition#share

Dear Mr Rusbridger,   We are deeply concerned and dismayed at the coverage from South Sudan ("South Sudan: the state that fell apart in a week"), and the header used describing its author as the "first western journalist into" the country.   We are aware of the difficulties in gathering information from outside of Juba, the capital city.  However, we are extremely concerned about the risks in reporting exclusively anti-Nuer violence in one location.  We are aware that international media plays a strong role in fuelling retaliation elsewhere in the country, and we believe that your report contributes to this threat.   South Sudanese people are trying to fight the language of tribalism, hate and fear-mongering.  Now - more than ever - there is a real need for unbiased, balanced and informed reporting.  By concentrating on 'ethnic violence', particularly against the Nuer in Juba, your coverage is deeply flawed and at risk of being used as propaganda.   We also take issue with the description of the author of the article, Daniel Howden, as the "first western journalist into South Sudan."  This claim is untrue, misleading and offensive to all the African journalists, both South Sudanese and foreign nationals, who have been steadily covering the events since their very beginning, in Juba, Bor, Bentiu, Malakal, and all over South Sudan, often at great risk to their lives.  Two African journalists were detained for two nights at the beginning of the crisis, and many others are working under death threats.  They are producing clear, grounded data and informed analysis.   Being "western" is not a distinction worth mentioning - and there are many South Sudanese, African, and "western" journalists who have been working from South Sudan for some time, many of whom are still present across the country today.  We are also offended by the implication that "western" coverage may be less biased or better informed than local African media.  In many respects, the complexity of South Sudan demands experienced local coverage rather than regionally-based external journalism.   We kindly request you therefore, as the Editor in Chief of The Guardian, to issue appropriate corrections and strive to provide balanced, sensitive and nuanced coverage of a country on the brink of civil war.  We urge you to maintain the newspaper’s high standards by striving to provide a truly unbiased coverage of the devastating events unfolding in South Sudan.   Sincerely yours,   Gabriela Jacomella, freelance reporter and media trainer Aguil Lual Blunt, development professional Nicki Kindersley, researcher

international media (and irresponsible journalism)

this is: jok madut jok

What exactly is the point of journalistic reports about any incident of violence or political wrangling? Their point in my view is to first of all inform, alert the world community about what has happened. secondly, it is to try to explain the situation in such a way that the incident can be stopped so more death can be prevented. If i am right in summarizing what i believe is the moral duty of journalism, then i am not sure what has been reported in the last few days by many international journalists does any of that. We are a community here, we have many ways to resolve our own conflicts, and the context is complex. Yes, people have died in Juba at the hands of the Dinka and scores have died in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity, including my own immediate cousin, at the hands of Nuer. All of that killing is a few individuals for reason known to them only who are doing this. so what does it help for BBC or Hannah MacNeish to say that the Dinka-led government in Juba ordered the killing? What does purpose does it serve in view of the ethics of journalism does it serve for any one to say that these people died in the name of "tribe.?" How does that help us here as a community to stem the tide of these killings, if we keep telling South Sudanese that "oh, your kin were just murdered in cold blood by Nuer in Bentiu or in Juba by Dinka?" all without verification of the complex ethnic, historical and political issues involved? One journalist please tell me how your reporting has helped stem the violence?

---

Please do realize that i am not saying that horrific things did not happen. you will also realize that i was one of the first to describe in my two previous reports in this space about what i witnessed against Nuer in Juba. What i am now saying is that journalists, one of whom claimed today to be the first "Western Journalist" to witness the situation in South Sudan, are framing the issues in a way that does not help. I will be the last to to try to hide the truth, gun to my head or not. What i am saying that you can't go into the UN camp in Juba as a journalist and claim that you have seen or heard the whole truth. There is far more to it than just hearing one distraught Nuer or Dinka and believe them face value that what they are saying without cross-checking that against other sources. I have driven through some of these neighborhoods but the journalists are talking about "eye witness accounts" in a country where the situation is so politicized that one's opinion is not just a reflection of what has happened to them, but a commentary on what they think is the general situation. My work on social cohesion and ethnic harmony will speak for itself, instead of me defending myself. I am a person who has continuously call for South Sudanese ordinary people to forge our own way forward, away from those leaders who are trying to get to public office at our own expense. But the way the current situation is being reported as a Nuer-Dinka fight is what i object to, based on what i have seen first hand, and not from "eye-witness account."

-----

International media, BBC, Hannah McNeish, please stop spreading these lies and making the situation in my country worse. I am not saying that ethnic clashes are caused by them, but they are not helping the situation by the kind of ghastly reporting that has happened over the past two nights. please, please stop hearing from one Nuer or Dinka person about their ordeal and then making the scale of it many times than it actually is. please be careful, otherwise, you are making it far worse, and i believe that is not really what you want.

------------------------

events in juba

It’s a little bit difficult to explain the past few days’ events in South Sudan. It’s gone from incredulous to wtf? It’s easier to become emotional and talk about;

Anger. Disappointment. Confusion. Surprise. Resentment.  Fear.

First I was angry that a group of people would take for granted our hard-won nationhood and attempt a coup. Whenever people I know would talk about the possibility of a coup, I was always in the group of the naysayers. Nah, we are too proud of being a republic to risk that. Or nah. We might have our differences but really? A coup? SPLM would not dare take us back to war. We’ve waited too long to have a country to return to.

Then I was disappointed. At Kiir when it felt like the events had been overplayed- what had actually been a skirmish among the presidential guards had escalated into a night of gunfire in Juba. That was that. He need not have shown up in full military regalia to display his military credentials/ intimidate the rest of us. This was not actually an organized attempt at overthrowing his government and his reaction displayed a sort of panic.  Besides, Machar came out and said he had nothing to do with a coup.

Now im just confused. We have moved from, ‘coup? What coup? No im not organizing a coup. The old man is confused.’

To ‘I control 20% of South Sudan, and my forces continue to gain ground. I will shut off all the oil revenue flowing to Juba and will deal directly with Sudan'

So now that this is apparently a coup against a president that has become dictatorial and sat under a corrupt regime (although Machar seems to have forgotten that during the entire time he is complaining about he was a vice-presidential with some executive powers – therefore he is as culpable).  The question now being- so how is overthrowing a democratically elected government – regardless of the shortcomings – in view of the fact that elections are to be held in 2015- going to make us more democratic?  How will a military regime, serving a hostile tribally motivated and resentful population, ensure peace and stability – and no vengeance – while at the same time establishing democratic principles that they say have been over-ridden?

The worst of this is it has fueled the most irresponsible reporting ever by the international media. sensationalis, to say the least

its as though they are clamouring for an ethnic cleansing so as to have a news cycle.

i fear that this crying wolf will result in exactly what they are predicting for south sudan.

what has started as political wrangling of the worst sort (machar must be having de ja vu's of 1991) is being reported as a purely dinka-nuer thing. its disgusting. 

people out in the states probably do not have access to viable reports/ information and are listening to disinformation. This is the kind of fear that could have severe repercussions.  its already bad enough that things escalate very quickly in south sudan.

i hope the media wont be culpable in this

Homesickness

I write this having been on a job hunt outside of Sudan for a month or so.
Economic hardship and a bleak looking future has forced myself and many many young{and not so young} people to leave their homes and search for better opportunities.
Keeping up with local Sudanese news has become a hardship.Every idiotic statement from an official's mouth,every story of hardship from friends and family{bread queue's being the latest},cuts deep.
No wonder so many youth are disenchanted with not only politics but the idea of Sudan itself.To care is to hurt.
I've come to the conclusion that it is much easier for me personally to criticize and lament our situation than provide answers/solutions/alternatives.
So I now want to look for solutions.
It can't be the only way to bring change is through a bullet{the ballot has failed us}.