Sudan Bhar el Ghazal’s Intellectuals slam attempt to pressurize GoSS Chief

– An Open Letter to Lt. General Salva Kiir Mayardit,
– First Vice President of the Republic of
– Sudan, President of the Government
– of South Sudan, Juba, South Sudan

From: Loyal sons of South Sudan from BEG: Dr. Kuel Maluil Jok; Dr. Makur Matur Kariom; Mr. Martin Mapuor John Majak; Mr. Mou Mou Athian; Dr. Mawien Mawien Akot; Mr. Moses Makur Deng; Mr. Sabrino Majok Majok; and twenty others (see the list below). Contact [email protected] for comments.

March 29, 2007 — Subject: Comments on the letter written, signed and presented to your Excellency, the president of South Sudan, by Mr. Bona Malwal and his group calling itself BEG citizens.

Your Excellency, we are pleased to write to your Excellency on three very important counts. First, to express our concerns over the concerns expressed in a letter written, signed and presented to your Excellency a few weeks ago by Mr. Bona Malwal Madut Ring and his group calling itself Bahr El Ghazal citizens. Second, is to disassociate ourselves from some irrational views forged and smuggled into the letter in the name of the people of Bahr El Ghazal by the said group. We take issue with their claim, direct or indirect, that their concerns and views are shared with our beloved region.

We doubt if such a claim has any grain of truth as is clearly evidenced by our letter which is opposed to some of their views. We have no objection if they are writing as individuals and acting on their own individual or public interest. That the group should even pretend to be defenders of “interests and rights of Bahr El Ghazal” , swearing not to tolerate alleged ills against Bahr El Ghazal during and after the war is mind boggling. Third, to put our case against the group’s universal claim that wants us from Bahr el Ghazal to go petty on regional lines and their sinister assault on the SPLM and the GOSS.

These are some of the things that have prompted us to step out and meet the group half way before damage is done to our integrity as a region. On each points raised by them and with which we disagree; we wish to put our case to your excellency as a southern compatriot and nationalist leader of the beloved SPLM and the President of GOSS. We see your being the ‘son of our province’ as irrelevant. You are still a ‘son of our province’ whether you are with us or against us. We reject the group’s regional and tribal password which is being rammed into our throats including yours.

Moving from a purely nationalistic point of view, we have serious and several concerns about these BEG citizens’ letter. Although their past is not our immediate concern, we would appreciate your vigilance in keeping with one universal and fateful fact about the group. This is a group which doesn’t move unless some betraying or destruction is in the making. Nevertheless, our points of disagreement with them may not necessarily disregard some positive aspects of their letter. We will give to Caesar what is Caesar’s

Your Excellency, we do not necessarily disagree with the group’s general observation about the alleged inefficiency in some institutions of the government of South Sudan (GOSS) though we do when it is aimed at the overall performance of the GOSS. We know that pointing out irregularities in any system is a normal and acceptable practice even though it may not necessarily be the case. Yet, the critics should have realized that there is always such a thing as inefficiency in any system manned and run by humans. For instance, despite long years of national governance in Sudan, inefficiency still exists within the established system of Sudan. There is nothing peculiar about its existence in the nascent and transitional system of governance in the South. With learning, coaching and practice, whatever inefficiency there is will be liquidated with time. It is important to talk about these things but, not necessarily in the way this group did it. So, what is it we disagree with in BEG citizens’ letter? There are several or more points of strong disagreement.

In short, we may summarize our concerns in eight points or under eight headings. Each point is followed by an observation or some few comments for purposes of clarification.

1. The charge that the whole GOSS is administratively inefficient.

2. The insinuation if not accusation that your administration may have failed or tolerated, in some way, the alleged administrative malaise.

3. An attempt to discourage investigation into charges of corruption against ‘sons of our province’.

4. An attempt to drive a wedge between members of the same party—i.e. Mr. Arthur and you, the President, is unacceptable.

5. Relegation of BEG to the footnote of history as helpless of the helpless and an unpatriotic lot.

6. Belittlement and delimitation of contributions made by all the Southern and marginalized people irrespective of their places of origin.

7. Disguised and shameless demand for sympathies and compensation from the GOSS for playing our legitimate role in the struggle and in the name of our suffering.

8. Undermining our own history local history as Bahr el Ghazalians.

Let’s now tackle each point in turn.

1. The charge that the whole government is administratively inefficient.

The group expressed concern over the way your government is being run. They see such a way as undesirable and therefore demand discussing some tangible examples in case you are interested. They suggested that something was done to end what they called “the total administrative malaise now going on in the South”. These are good points and it would appear strange for any to cast doubt on them. Yet, that’s exactly what we going to do. We see it differently. We see that there is a serious element of accusation and doubt pertaining to your government interest to discuss such issues. In addition, there is clear insinuation and charge stemming not only from your alleged lack of interest to talk about these things, but also from your presumed failure to see the malaise besides doing nothing about it. Perhaps, the group is suggesting that you are tolerating it which is another word for green light. Further, the group wants something done urgently about this but they failed to say what this something is all about. They also failed to put forward suggestions as to how such a crisis may be resolved. This doesn’t seem to be healthy, in our opinion.

2. The insinuation if not accusation that your administration may have failed or tolerated, in some way, the said administrative malaise.

We disagree with the strong charge that the whole GOSS is inefficient. Such a public campaign-and-manipulative-like method is uncalled for. To claim that there exists an administrative malaise tends to betray the group’s pledged good intention. It is a criticism of you and the system you head. Yes, we do not object to such criticism if honestly and openly expressed. What we object to is disguising and presenting such concerns in pretentious manner and in the name of BEG. Inefficiency and pointing it out is one thing. Dramatizing it in campaign-like manner as came in the group’s letter is another. Frighteningly, many may see this to be the core spirit of the letter. If it is, then it is wrong. Inefficiency is not a disability nor is it incorrigibility. It can be addressed administratively via training courses and good example from those who claim to have skills. This does not need to be presented in an ultimatum-like manner.

Moreover, the SPLM’S inefficiency should not be seen in the details but, in the overall catch, from the struggle and the institutions of governance which we now enjoy. We do not deny weaknesses that exist. They do as is the case with all human institutions. We can address the alleged weaknesses or inefficiencies in much better ways. Ganging up in the name of regions and pressurizing people’s leader to go regional and do it our way isn’t the way to do it. This style is unnecessary and wrong. If the issue were really about inefficiency, why not just make straight forward suggestions pertaining to a way out? Why use Bahr El Ghazal for an issue which is universal and has nothing to do with Bahr El Ghazal alone as a region or as a people?

3. An attempt to discourage investigation into charges of corruption against ‘sons of our province’.

The group also expressed concerns over the fact that “matters of corruption are not handled quietly in an administrative and legal manner”. According to them, ‘some very senior authority members of President’s government make them part of media campaign”. This is another of their concerns because they argue that such “matters are not only carried in news media but deliberately intended to cause you personal embarrassment as head of that system”. Moreover, they argued that they were concerned with the fact that “a few members of the community of Greater BEG in your government were targeted and tormented with corruption charges”. The group also argued that they were only concerned with ”unproven fabrications against BEG” (and not others). They expressed the desire that all charges of corruption be ”properly investigated and based on established accurate facts”. They argued that once such a correct procedure is followed, their attitude to public corruption by any member of our BEG community is zero tolerance. Those responsible for corruption, according to the group, must be punished without regard to where they come from. Again these are good points, well said and intended. We commend the group on these noble points.

But, is this the end of the story? Does the group really take this as a universal and guiding principle, applicable to all? Not really. There is much sinister in this sugarcoated presentation. This sugarcoating is laced with an accusation that such charges are not being investigated. In fact, the group is accusing you for being uninterested to do so since the alleged fabricators are from your party. This is clear from their statement that “Some senior leaders in President’s party and administration(not Akuien’s party) have targeted him (Mr. Arthur) as corrupt–converting public funds into his private use”. There is no doubt that there is also resistance from the group to allow investigation into charges of corruption against “sons of our province as exemplified by Mr. Arthur” though the group faithfully recommended it. This is a contradiction in the superlative degree.

4. An attempt to drive a wedge between members of the same party such as between Mr. Arthur and you, the President, is unacceptable.

In their defence of Mr. Arthur, the group revealed some surprising and interesting facts. Claiming that they objected to attempts by people they failed to identify to blackmail and “force the President into removing and replacing Mr. Arthur”, they uncovered two things. They charged that you might be misled into replacing Mr. Arthur with someone in your party and Government. Our question to group is, isn’t Akuien from President’s party?. Second, the group says that you might choose someone who is opposed to the interest of BEG. We do not really know what these assertions really mean. Again, isn’t Arthur from the SPLM and in the GOSS? Otherwise, the group should tell us Arthur’s party! Other questions to be asked are: What is the interest of BEG and why must Arthur’s replacement be in favour or opposed to the interest of BEG? Is the group saying that BEG interest is in holding the Ministry of Finance and making sure it stays there until thy Kingdom come? If yes, would it be okay to remove Mr. Arthur for one who is in favour of BEG interest irrespective of where he comes from? We wonder why the group should present such an individual point of view as if it has something to do with BEG! Have the group forgotten that you are also from BEG or are you being accused of being indifferent and negligent of BEG?

This is where we have our doubts, Mr. President. Claiming that Mr. Arthur Akuien Chol is not from the SPLM is a serious claim. Arguing that you want to replace Mr. Arthur with someone from your party doesn’t seem relevant since we know Arthur to be one of the leaders of the SPLM. If this is not true, why must you keep someone who is not loyal to you, to your party and your government? Isn’t it reason enough to remove him? If wrong, isn’t this a deliberate concoction to drive a wedge between two of you? If right, how supportive and committed can the group claim to be as carried in the introduction and conclusion of their letter?

In brief, we object to a disguised attempt to discourage investigation into all allegations of corruption in the name of BEG. This approach begs the question and we disagree with NIF-like witch-hunt tactics of divide and kill.

Your Excellency, the group also raised another concern relating to what they call “the deliberate tarnishing, corruption campaign unleashed against Mr. Arthur Akuien Chol.” They object to such fabrications, but do not object to Arthur’s being investigated for charges of corruption nor his being punished if found guilty on corruption charges. We agree. We also agree with the group’s acknowledgement that it was your entitlement to appoint and reshuffle people of your choice and offices. That they said they were not asking you to keep or remove x or y citizens from BEG is welcome. This view of things is what BEG would happily associate with.

The group’s weak points, in our view, include failure to just give a brotherly advice by word of mouth. Some of these ideas are not controversial. These could have been communicated in face to face meeting with you. We have no reason to believe that you would not show interest. Such insinuation seems loaded. It smells propagandistic. Moreover, the way the arguments have been presented leaves much to be desired. It poses like it is a defence of only BEG and those who hail from there. It also looks as if corruption is exclusively practiced by Bahr el Ghazalians rather than being a southern problem. This may turn out to be a disguised campaign and challenge against you, the president. Besides, there is nothing you can benefit from a demand that wants Mr. Arthur not to let go the Ministry of Finance. The impression the group created is unmistakable. The Ministry of Finance is BEG’s by birth right which BEG must cling to by hook and crook! Wrong. We object to lame excuses and using Arthur to advance a much sinister case. Our conviction is that corruption and favoritism are unpardonable crimes. There is no way BEG can claim to be against these things to a point of ganging up to resist mere allegations of corruption against one or more of those who hail from there. If corruption is not investigated in Greater BEG, why must it be investigated in Equatoria, Upper Nile, Blue Nile or Nuba Mountains?

5. Relegation of BEG to the footnote of history as mere lamenters, helpless and unpatriotic lot.

A fifth point we strongly object to is the attempt by the group to place GBEG to the footnote of history as helpless of the helpless and an unpatriotic lot. No one forced people of BEG to join the Movement. They did so, on their own volition and conviction. The group’s lamentations and calls for sympathies as well as disguised demands for some compensation for playing our part as free citizens in a liberation struggle are abominable. On that the group has no right to speak for us in BEG. We cannot regret our own free will and right choices. This is what the group wants from you, Mr. President, a son of BEG. It must not be granted because it is immoral and wrong. Shockingly enough, the group took pains to highlight what they erroneously call ‘ political victimization of BEG’. The group backed down from saying by whom, why and how such victimization would be effected. Such suspense is deliberately created to keep us guessing. This also seems to be call on you to victimize others and in collaboration with people of Bahr el Ghazal.

6. Belittlement and delimitation of contributions made by all the Southern and marginalized people irrespective of their places of origin.

A sixth point we do not take lightly is the claim by the group that BEG had “borne the greatest burden of the war and paid dearly with material wealth and very dear human lives of our sons and daughters”. This may not be wholly mistaken if it taken for a mere statement of fact. This is not the case when you use it for comparative reasons. Doing so ignores our collective suffering, role and contributions as Southern communities and as marginalized regions of Sudan. Such callous disregard to contributions by our other brethren is sickening, wrong and unacceptable. Regretfully, this view is uncharacteristic of Great Bahr El Ghazal and must be trashed.

Your Excellency, we reject any trend that relegates to secondary position the role and suffering of our brethren from other regions through group’s insinuation that it is only BEG that had suffered more than them (others). Suffering is suffering irrespective of whether one life, property or many lives and property are involved. All are equal in relation to harm suffered irrespective of numbers involved.

7. Disguised and shameless demand for sympathies and compensation from the GOSS for playing our legitimate role in the struggle in the name of our suffering.

There is nothing wrong in stating statistics of our struggle. We would have nothing against such trend. Our suffering is not out of our choice. It is simply dictated by our geographical positioning which places us in proximity with the enemy. In this sense, whatever suffering we may have encountered in the course of our struggle doesn’t make us nor does it qualify us for a winner-take all or a sufferer-eat-all, according to the group. We reject such nonsense flat. Another horrifying aspect of this assertion is the group’s insinuation that we have suffered long enough to deserve compensation from the GOSS. What a world!

Well, if compensation is a must, isn’t freedom already here? What else can be better compensation for our suffering than our freedom? Do we need to hold to Finance Ministries in order to rob as much as we can to satisfy our suffering? We disagree with this claim and call for some compensation on grounds that BEG has suffered more than others. We see such a call as irresponsible. It is also wrong because we did not suffer in the hands of GOSS but in the hands of northern-controlled unpatriotic governments. Any claims of compensation should be submitted to NIF, not to GOSS. Since many of the members of this group are NIFers, they may hit the Jackpot from their mentors, leaving GOSS and BEG alone.

8. Betraying and undermining our own local history as Bahr El Ghazalians.

Advancing individual motivations in the name of BEG undermines and negates our history of recorded patriotism and nationalism. No time in history have we ever been nor even appeared to be exclusive. Our culture and upbringing have always been and still are all-inclusive. We are complete and cannot be complete if our politics and our nationalism are not universal and all-inclusive. No regionalism and no base deeds that come with corruption are acceptable. Deficiency on these things as is apparent from the group’s claims is condemnable if not punishable.

Our struggle and commitment to Southern overall interest and way of life are well-recorded. Together as Southern people, we resisted the British, the unpatriotic national governments (military and civilian dictatorships), regionalism and all forms of localism including factionalization of the struggle and the group’s desires surrender to NIF. And together, we will continue to resist such regional trends in line with the SPLM-A universal vision and out of respect for our history and honour of those who laid down their lives for our sake.

Evidenced by our historical role along side their brethren from other regions, our grandfathers fought with and died in honor in defence of our own way of life. For instance, though ill-equipped and bare-handed for modern warfare, Mayen Mathiang from Dinka Agar section gave no way to the British. He mobilized his people and confronted the British. He died in struggle and in the front line in 1902. Awuou Kon from Atuot Dinka section of Yirol stood firm in the front line against the enemy and in defence of our culture, pride and dignity until he died in 1907. The struggles of these heroes were soon reinforced by the emergence of Dhieu Allam, also from Dinka Atuot section who carried forward the struggle until he was shot dead in 1912. Bol Yol of Dinka Malwal section (Aweil) and known by his spiritual name Ariathdit rallied his kith and kin from Rek and Twic and Malwal, Jur-chol sections of Tonj, Gogrial, Wau and Aweil against the British. He fought and fought with honor until he died in honor.

This background makes it abundantly clear that BEG has all there is to be proud of. We have history of our own make. We are our own people, with all there is to brag about. We are not made by others nor is there anyone who makes history for us. We do that by ourselves. Based on these concrete examples, BEG rejects the weak and wicked position we are being placed in by this group. They claim we are marginalized by someone or something they could not mention. Their assertion is presented in the passive and without showing an agent, the doer of the action. In our opinion, that is a mere nonsense. There is no evidence that GBEG is marginalized nor will it ever be marginalized. No one is there to do what the group antagonistically claimed to be the case.

On the contrary, the authors support what they pretentiously claim to be against. They are asking you and people from Bahr el Ghazal to marginalize non-Bahr El Ghazalians. This is not difficult to discern from their writing. First, they do not want Arthur to be investigated nor removed because he is from BEG. Second, they do not want you to replace Arthur with someone from your party and government. This betrays Arthur as being not a member of the SPLM. If not, and we repeat, which party does he belong? Third, they infer to accept Arthur’s replacement provided the replacement is from GBEG and from a different party which is not yours. Hence, the reference to you as the ‘son of our province’ is nothing other than a bribe and code name designed to lure you into corruption. This bribery is followed up by the accusation that you don’t know the interest of BEG. Mr. President, you are certainly being blackmailed in order to manipulation and/or face threat of excommunicated from BEG if you fail to break the code as expected by the group. No. We are not persuaded and we have no reason to assume that BEG may be persuaded on these misleading and wolfish tactics. Charges of corruption must be investigated. On this, here must be no untouchables. Being investigated for charges against corruption does not necessarily mean one is corrupt nor is it an indictment. On the contrary, investigation facilitates one’s credibility once cleared of such charges. Mr. Arthur Akuien himself is said not be worried about calls pertaining to investigation into such charges. Why are these guys worried on his behalf and on behalf of BEG? Isn’t this a case of letting the cat out of the bag?

We believe that lamentation and manipulation on regional lines are unpatriotic. There is no incentive for you, the president of GOSS, to yield to regional lobby, acting on greed and nepotism. The call on your excellency to veto BEG corruption is misleading as it is immoral and wrong. These guys cannot be taken at their word on corruption. Many of them have been in and out of all systems known to excel for nothing but corruption. Their treacherous innings and outings made no difference in the lives of the ‘sons of our province’. There is nothing to tell us that they can be different this time.

For example, after lodging their campaign-like letter, the group now pretends to demand a face to face meeting with your Excellency to present their case. This is exactly what they should have done from the beginning than writing and forging signatures in the name of BEG. Interestingly, the group declared what their assignment would be during the post-war period. According to them the war is over and people must have all the right to be engaged in open politics (not close as in the bush). Vowing not to accept any longer what they call “more targeting and victimization in silence of BEG as was the case during the civil war”, the group asserted they would fight for their rights since BEG, like the rest of south Sudan, is also entitled to community rights. On that they argued that they intended “to speak up for these rights” which by insinuation were neglected then and are being neglected now. The group threatened they expected no less than your support to “ensure we got all our rights”.

We need to take a long pause on these ideas. Victimization of BEG is the group’s core theme. It is repeated again and again. Why is it so? Not easy to tell. We believe, this is clearly a carried forward grudge from the days of the war. The same group is known to have always agitated against the movement’s leadership on the same allegation of victimization of BEG. You were projected as being soft on BEG interest and Bahr El Ghazalisation of the struggle. It is unquestionable that many from among the group members still hold the same grudge against you for allegedly standing against the so-called repeated victimization of BEG after the war. According to them, all the ills against BEG were endured in silence if not cowardice during the war. And so they do not want the same victimization continued nor do they want to endure it in silence after the war. The message to you is that you must line up or faith wrath.

Your Excellency, these claims and fabrications are not careless statements. The group’s letter is intended to antagonize, agitate and mislead people of BEG to abandon nationalism and bow to divisive regionalism, sectionalism and clanism. This is why the group concentrated on minor inadequacies which could be tackled on a local level. The inefficiency bragged about by the group does not exclude you since your administration is being accused of doing nothing if not abating it. The group’s tranquilizer and tone used in pledging respect, commitment and total support for your leadership are empty slogans and cannot be trusted. We urge care if not caution because the group is determined to go regional and wants to recruit you and people of BEG to do their divisive, lethal work.

9. Conclusion.

We are confident you know your way, Mr. President. These ideas are being voluntarily presented to you to see the other side of the coin. The claims by the group that signed the letter do not represent us in BEG. We do not also accept mocking a national leader on petty issues. The regions have their governments. They are there to take care of regional interests. With the regional governments and Parliaments in place all over Southern Sudan, any talk of marginalization is an unnecessary assault on the center. Moreover, many of the signatories of GBEG citizens’ letter are either advisers, MPs, Ministers or Chiefs. None of them is marginalized. Marginalization will have no meaning if these guys are marginalized.

Your Excellency, we support you in your nationalistic effort to develop us, keep us united and strong as a family and as a nation. Accept no regionalism, no sectionalism, no tribalism and any -ism that localizes and divides us.

Accept our sincere assurances.

From loyal sons of South Sudan from BEG:

– 1. Dr. Kuel Mauil Jok, Helsinki, Finland, [email protected]
– 2. Dr. Makur Matur Kariom, United Kingdom.
– 3. Mr. Martin Mapuor John Majak, Jonkoping, Sweden.
– 4. Mr. Mou Mou Athian, Trondheim, Norway.
– 5. Dr. Mawein Mawien Akot, Regina, Canada.
– 6. Mr. Moses Makur Deng, Bradford, United Kingdom.
– 7.Mr. Sabrino Majok Majok, Edmonton, Canada.
– 8. Mr. Deng Barac Atem, Amsterdam, Holland.
– 9. Ustaz James Kur Muorwel Gum, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
– 10. Mr. Marko Deng Dot, Vaasa, Finland.
– 11. Hon. Malong Majok Yor, Khartoum, Sudan
– 12. Hon. Engineer Bol Ring Mourwel, Khartoum, Sudan.
– 13. Hon. Agok Makur Koor, Khartoum, Sudan.
– 14. Hon. Garang Kuot Anei, Khartoum, Sudan.
– 15. Dr. Pacfic Gabriel Apai, Khartoum, Sudan.
– 16. Engineer Deng Lual Wol, Juba, Sudan
– 17. Engineer Hamdi Sebit, Wau, Sudan
– 18. Mr. Ngong Akok Madingdit, Juba, Sudan
– 19. Mr. Denato Dimo Wol, Aweil, Sudan.
– 20. Hon. Anguei Diing Deng, Khartoum, Sudan.
– 21. Mr. Kuac Akecak Jok, Edmonton, Canada.
– 22. Hon. Majang Ngor Kuany, Aweil, Sudan.
– 23. Mr. Acuoth Makuac Riak, Edmonton, Canada.
– 24.Mr. Anyuon Deng Kuol, Mikkeli, Finland.
– 25. Mr. Deng Akol Leng, Edmonton, Canada
– 26. Hon. Mayen Dut, Khartoum, Sudan
– 27. Hon. Apollo Ayuel Serrano, Khartoum, Sudan