Thursday, December 19, 2024

Sudan Tribune

Plural news and views on Sudan

Potential politicization of SPLA

By Joseph de Tuombuk

October 25, 2009 — One of the best indicators of stability in any country is the ability of its armed forces to stay out of politics at any cost. In United States, there is a respected chain of command in which civilian leadership controls how the military operates. This has been one of the greatest sources of stability in the U.S and other advanced democracies. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) was reputed to be one of the best rebel forces in the world. At the height of its power, it could engage and humiliate Sudan Armed Forces in engagement after engagement. In 1991, it was poised to capture Juba – a feat that would have ushered in peace 14 years earlier. However, with encouragement from Lam Akol and the British wife, Riek Machar and others decided the time was right to split. It was one the greatest strategic blunders in the history of South’s struggle because it gave North the breathing room it needed to plan a better counteroffensive against SPLA.

Among other grievances, their main reason was lack of democracy within the SPLM hierarchy and perceived dictatorial tendencies of the late Dr. John Garang. In any rebel Movement, democracy tends to be last item on the list of objectives. The more pressing issues were to execute a war and worry later about the finer details of democracy. Even with major setbacks emanating from the split, the SPLA was still able to maintain its internal cohesiveness and scored major victories from mid-1990s. The reason for SPLA successful prosecution of war was its ability to remain disciplined rebel force that resisted attempts by political leadership to influence its ranks. There were isolated cases in which some zonal commanders tried to use SPLA forces for their own political survival but these attempts did not present a threat to the integrity of the SPLA. For instance, Arok Thon tried to use this strategy but it failed miserably. Today, however, there is a concerted effort by highly placed political leaders to use SPLA officers from their own tribes as a vanguard to political power.

This is a dangerous precedent that will hamper the ability of the SPLA to carry out its mission of protecting the peace. SPLA is no longer the pure military force that it used to be prior to the integration of other armed groups (OAGs). These soldiers joined SPLA with a totally different mentality and orientation; they were recruited ostensibly to protect tribal warlords. This has not change and can be seen today with behavior of Gen. Paulino Matip’s personal guards (read: army). Gen. Matip is the second in command of all the SPLA land forces in the South. He was given this post on the believe that doing so would bring him into the SPLA’s fold and mitigate the need of an all-out war against SSDF forces. SPLA would have easily taken on the SSDF militia but the cost would have been prohibitively high. Today, however, there is a concerted effort by Riek Machar to manipulate Gen. Matip into unholy alliance as he continues to blatantly pursue his cold-war strategy in an effort to take over the SPLM chairmanship by extension, GoSS presidency.

Riek Machar has not learned from the mistakes of the 1991 split. That split resulted in Bor Massacre in which tens of thousands – perhaps over hundred thousand – innocent women, children and the elderly were murdered in cold blood just for being from the same tribe as Dr. Garang. Like Charles Taylor, Riek Machar should have been indicted to The Hague for his crimes because he was the declared leader of SPLA-Nassir forces. Gordon Kong was one of his henchmen who were directly responsible for murder of prominent Bor Dinka intellectuals in Nassir. In all power struggles between Nuer leaders and the SPLM, Bor Dinka have been the one to pay the unbearable price. There has been no effort on the part of Nuer leaders to sell their alternative policies to all tribes in a peaceful and strategic way. In fact, had they done their homework, they would have found many disaffected Bor intellectuals receptive to their ideas. Many were offended by the arbitrary detention of Maulana Martin Majier Gai and his subsequent assassination. Nuer leaders opted to attack Bor and have never made effort to be remorseful for the Bor Massacre, nor have they made any reconciliation effort. Instead, they are setting in a motion a series of events that are laying the ground work for second Bor Massacre.

We are now seeing exactly the same strategy playing out in Jonglei state. The inter-tribal conflict between Duk of Dinka and Lou’s Nuer is not an isolated case prompted by power struggle in Bor. It is part of a wider strategy to create an environment of fear as the elections approach. With a tacit approval from Riek or his close advisors, a number of Nuer operatives are exploiting Dinka-Nuer historical animosity to create insecurity across the state in an effort to discredit the effectiveness of Jonglei state government and GoSS. When these two governments are considered ineffective, Riek Machar is likely to point this out and say “Kiir has been a failure and now someone else must take over”. Riek allies are also pushing for the removable of Unity state governor, Taban Deng Gai, and replacing him with one of his own allies. What is happening in Unity is more about the lucrative 2% oil revenues than anything else. It is also a clear indication of how Riek is willing to go to undermine Kiir’s appointees.

What is now more worrying is the use of Gen. Matip forces in this scheme. It has been indicated that the security atmosphere in Juba among the top leadership is that of paranoia. No one trusts anyone. This has been demonstrated by the security entourage that accompanies Matip, Riek, or Salva Kiir when they travel outside Juba. Even their respective residences are guarded by menacing-looking tribal forces armed to the teeth. Is this the legacy of hard-won peace? This level of mistrust can be reduced if Riek acts responsibly and stop undermining Kiir at every turn. He needs to back down and wait for his turn. He can challenge Kiir at the ballot box for the chairmanship of the SPLM without resorting to exploiting of Dinka-Nuer uneasy relationship for his political ascendency. What Riek Machar is doing now is going to lead to second Bor Massacre. The only difference is that Bor people are not prepared this time round to be passive victims of Riek’s ambition. There will be a bloodbath on both sides and Riek will have to answer for his crimes.

For South to experience peace and progress on the development front, Riek and others need to act responsively and put their ambition behind that of the country. Riek has to learn from past mistakes and make changes to his approach. He must convince people to see that he is a capable leader and not a tribal chieftain. He needs to come clean on the Bor Massacre and reconcile with Bor people for what untrained white army militia did under his leadership. The SPLA is the force responsible for protecting South. His attempt to use SPLA officers like Gen. Matip will not go unnoticed. What would prevent Matip from overthrowing Riek once he has succeeds in dislodging Kiir from the office? It was Matip who, with help from Sudanese intelligence, undermined and frustrated Riek when he joined NIF government in 1997. These are the things that Riek must think of before deploying such an ill-conceived strategy. If Riek has any agenda that he believe the people of South will embrace, he need to run against Kiir and may the best man win. It is that simple. That is how things should be handled in South. Recruiting SPLA officers from your tribe to champion your politics and provide muscle is a dangerous precedent and will set the country in a dangerous direction. This is what Riek must avoid, even at the expense of his political ambition because the country will be better off in the short and long run.

The author is pursuing graduate work in Geodetic Engineering in US, he can be reached at [email protected]

41 Comments

  • Dinka Boy
    Dinka Boy

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Great article Mr Joseph Tuombuk.
    SPLM to make good strategy on many segments of Forces especially the forces of Matip Nhial.
    These Militias in the South will make the Governmnet of South suspicious. We all knows that Riek Machar has militia mentality too because he works with Matip and many others Nuer.
    Thanks

    Reply
  • Mr Famous Big_Logic_Boy
    Mr Famous Big_Logic_Boy

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Dinkas Bull or dinkas boy leave Riek alone, taking us back to history will not solve any problems rather focus on the future demand. If your ugly dinkas were dehorn in 90s it is because of their madness not to be blame on innocent leader like Riek. Keep crying if you deserver another lession to be inflicted on your people. It is not far just wait for 2011 to pass and you will lick Nuer and Equatorians feets.

    Reply
  • Awumtiai
    Awumtiai

    Potential politicization of SPLA

    That’s exactly right Tuombuk. But look, given this Nuer tribe being blindfolded by their tribal hatred to other tribe they will right away condemn you and your article to death because of pointing out the truth.They do not like truth being told.

    In essence, this SPLA government has been very fair in dealing with this tribe that have history of traitorous in history of our South Liberation than the rest of tribe. If you look closely on how they are given positions in the South Government now you will proof beyond doubt what I am talking about here.

    Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin seemed to be blamed by Dinka Bor and other nationalist tribe in the South that he Master-minded the 1991 defection from SPLA that might be right but huge blame is on the shoulder of this Riek Machar. Our people did not participate in killing Bor’s people and SPLA soldiers. We have never killed even one person from Bor. Therefore, if charges are going to be laid later on the leaders of Nasir Defection about the Bor Massacre, then Riek and Gordon Kong will be both answerable.

    Just to mention few among others, Gordon Kong ordered his men to Kill Hakim Aluong the most respected soldier in the dead of night and the rest only and only they were from Bor. Akol Ajawin and his tribe men did not do that. We have stood with the rest of other tribes in South in fighting our common enemy (Jellaba)

    Awumtiaidit.

    Reply
  • Gatwech
    Gatwech

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Dear readers,

    This tribal hatred against Dr. Riek Machar should stop.

    Mr. Joseph or whatever your true name is,

    I warn you people not to preach tribal wars that can harm you more than the Nuer. You are in leadership, if you have realized that you have failed, don’t blame it on the Nuer through such baseless propaganda and scapegoating. You may lose the leadership before the elections day in April next year. Don’t ask for it. I know you are somebody near Salva Kiir masquerrading in the name of living abroad. You are simply an imposter. I hope other runaway refugees from your Dinka tribe will advise you to stop this. Why can somebody incite tribal war in which he cannot personally participate but just watch it on CNN or hear it through Voice of America or BBC? Your article is in bad faith!

    I will not talk much on your inherited lies that tends to distort history. You said Juba was to be captured in 1991 if Dr. Riek Machar and Lam Akol did not split in 1991. What prevented it from being captured from 1983 to 1990 before the split? Trying to connect irrelevant issues with the aim to mislead the public is a crime.

    The split was about self-determination, democratization of the movement and respect for human rights. You shamelessly with your inferiority complex said it was Dr. Riek Machar’s late wife, the British humanitarian worker, Emma Machar, who told Lam and Riek to go for self-determination. Well, may be it was Dr. Mansour Khalid who told late John Garang to go for secular united new Sudan. But the difference is that Emma Machar was not a politician and did not know any thing about self-determination. She was just a humanitarian girl, 23 years old, who was naive about politics. How could she tell very highly educated men with doctorates of philosophy how to do politics? What about the issue of separation that late Colonel Samuel Gai Tut was talking about since 1983 that caused the split with John Garang? Was Emma there?

    I could see that you are equally naive in politics. You said there is no democracy in any rebel movement. You are wrong. This shows that you did not even know what you were writing about. The issue of democratization of the movement was not about the fighting force that held guns, but the political wing of it, the SPLM. John Garang made a very, very big double mistake by mixing up SPLA/SPLM in what he called Political-Military High Command and also put semi-illiterate figures to head these two separate but important mixed up wings. Those illiterate figures included Cdr. Kerubino Kwanyin Bol, Cdr. William Nyuon Bany, and Cdr.Salva Kiir Mayardit. All of them rarely completed secondary education or participated in any politics before 1983. These guys interestingly concentrated on military issues, which they understood most, and left the political wing to die.

    Look at this mistake, Garang had a huge agenda of politically transforming the whole Sudan as his objective during the war, but he did not prepare the political ground ahead of time. He would have done it by grooming the SPLM to immediately transform the country once the war is won. What he should have done is organize separately the SPLM wing, recruit intellectuals and educated class to mobilize political cadres and get prepared for the huge task ahead. This failed. He only woke up in Chukudum in 1994, 3 years after 1991 eye-opening move, but still he did not practically organize it. This is why today the SPLM has a problem of transformation. Pagan Amum has failed in the true sense of transformation simply because he was not prepared for it.

    Most of the current SPLM cadres are just a bunch of either refugee camp residents or officers who were holding guns. They have no idea of what democracy is and how it can be applied to transform the country. But had the movement listened to Riek Machar and Lam Akol seriously, the SPLM would have gone far in the bush in its preparations for the task. The gun holders would have fought the war in the killing field while the political wing would have prepared the ground for democratic transformation.

    I feel your pain whenever you hear of Dr. Riek Machar scoring achievements one after another. This is why even the SPLM is divided on the referendum issue because the debate has been taken tribal. There are some who say that Riek Machar will get double credit for championing self-determination in 1991 and successfully negotiating referendum bill in 2009. They want to look for any means to fail the referendum bill. They are being joined by the minority unionists within the SPLM who are looking for any means to fail the referendum that would make the South Sudan separation fail. They hate the achievement on 51% simple majority. They also believe that even 90% of Southerners will come out of their houses to vote on the three voting days, let alone the less number of 66%. They believe the South will successfully separate. They are joined by Salva Kiir’s tribal group to go around the bill and cause some kind of crisis with the NCP so that the bill is withdrawn, delayed and to fail to be presented to the parliament for endorsement. They know the parliament has only one month to go for permanent recession until the elected new parliament in April next year. These are the evil tactics ployed by the joint unionist and tribal SPLM groups in the name of denying credit to Dr. Riek Machar. Will South Sudanese forgive them for playing around with their destiny?

    Well, guys you will be losers. Whatever propaganda you make is like asking for your doomsday. You are potential losers. Whether democratically or violently you will be losers. You are already screwed up, and living in a day dream. Stop insulting Riek Machar for tribal reasons. And don’t ask for unleashing his wrath on you. I beg you, don’t ask for it to happen.

    You talk of politicization of the SPLA army. You don’t know what you are talking about. SPLA has already been politicized by the SPLM since 1983. They think they belong to the political party called SPLM. Instead political leadfers from other parties are now trying to make them understand that they are a national army not belonging to any political party. So what is your incompetent article talking about?

    Reply
  • Oracle
    Oracle

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    The SPLA is already politicized. In addition, the SPLM are trying to do their expected job but due to the leadership divisions along tribal lines, it is obvious that the army would fall in line with their political counterparts in their respective factions. This is only endangering the whole South Sudan, who as days go by seems to be edging closer to civil strife. The SPLM have a massive task which thay have done well on some things like the referendum but have failed in the prosecution of noted misapropriation of public funds. We Southern Sudanese should start questioning the authority of what they are doing to calm tribal tensions and other factors affecting us such as rampant corruption that leaves most civilians without basic needs. One thing getting clearer is that the leadership need to be cohesive and start working for the people and not theirselves, because their failure shall mean new doom for South Sudan.

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Gatwech:

    In 1995, Dr. Riek Machar was the leader of a virtual movement, lacking any real substance or coherence. Gatwech, you should THANK Dr. John Garang for permitting Riek Machar’s return.

    Where would Riek Machar be, had it not been for Dr. John Garang’s grace? Nowhere! And you all know it.

    Let’s go back in time, shall we.

    Dr. Riek Machar formally signed a peace charter with President Bashir in Khartoum- the charter re-affirmed the unity of Sudan within its known boundaries, the federal system of the NIF (with its twenty-six states), and Sharia as the source of legislation.

    Against this was a promise at the end of an unspecified period for a “referendum” for Southerners to “determine their political aspirations”.
    The central paradox of Dr. Riek Machar and Nasir, was its military alliance with the government- it was a paradox that ultimately cost its leaders their political credibility and destroyed their wretched movement; Dr. Riek Machar served the NIF’s long-term objectives- to entrench the Islamic State in the North- but they did NOT have the power to extract further concessions for themselves. Dr. Riek Machar relied on the Northern government for his continuation.
    Collaboration between the Nasir faction and Khartoum was publicly formalised with the agreement between Dr. Lam Akol and Ali al-Hajj Muhammed at Frankfurt in January 1992. The two page document, which was released, made NO mention of independence, containing only a vague reference to deciding the special political and Constitutional status for the South in a future Referendum. Nevertheless, Dr. Riek Machar presented the agreement as a commitment to Self-Determination.

    That the government did not intend this “referendum” to go so far was later made clear by Ali al-Hajj, when he declared that the Frankfurt agreement provided only for a “referendum” on the degree of decentralization in the South and did NOT compromise the unity of the country.

    The Fashoda agreement was also pathetic!
    Control of the armed forces and national security was reserved for the Federal government, the states being allowed some control over economic development, but only in accordance with federal planning.

    The President of the Republic was to appoint the President of the Coordinating Council of Southern states who would nominate his cabinet and the governors of the Southern states for final appointment by the President of the Republic.

    The version passed by the National Assembly in July gave the President of the Southern states Coordinating Council the right to nominate state governors to an Islamic Consultative Council, controlled by the speaker of the Assembly (Turabi), and the President of the Republic; they were thus answerable to their assemblies and the central government, rather than to the Coordinating Council, of which they became members.

    Like the Frankfurt Agreement, the wording of the 1997 Agreement was subject entirely to the interpretation imposed on it by the government.

    It shared many of the same weaknesses as the Addis Ababa Agreement, in that its provisions were worded in such a way as to be open, and the powers devolved to the Southern states were highly qualified by Federal control. The Fashoda agreement incorporated the general principles of the peace charter(including the unity of Sudan).

    It would be a joke to relinquish the VICTORIES and achievements of the victor, to the vanquished!

    You may consider your revisionist ideology officially exposed, deconstructed and obliterated.

    You’re welcome

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Gatwech:

    Your post is an apotheosis of a priori thinking and is a common fallacy, in which you assume your own conclusion instead of proving it. As juxtaposed with the puerile and ethnocentric pseudo-scholarship that cripples and moots each post from you.

    The SPLA’s manpower (from its very inception) came from the Dinka tribe, specifically from greater Bahr el Ghazal.

    You actually deny this – but based on no data. You have no data, no information….NOTHNG.

    Can you provide evidence for your assertion, that most combatants on the siege of Juba came from the Nuer tribe?

    Prove me wrong and answer the question.

    Or, prove me right and respond with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.

    Nothing you wrote lends support to your conjecture.
    If you were honest, you would admit to that.

    After all, this thread isn’t just about politics, it is about your pitiful failure to produce anything noteworthy by way of evidence for you eccentric claims.

    Every single prominent individual in our current government (including the now deceased Dr. John Garang), has commited Human rights abuses.. this ridiculous article advocates for the selective application of justice. Dr. John Garang killed our Nuer elders, women and children in Ethiopia- this pathetic article fails to acknowledge that.

    Dr. Riek Machar did not adhere to the spirit of human rights, as you so deceptively assert. Dr.Riek Machar has commited numerous Human rights abuses, in which 5000 civilians were butchered and thousands more of starvation.

    In which case your claim is falsified, is it not?

    It is that convoluted and seemingly contradictory theme of your post, as cited above, which made it necessary to provide examples of Riek’s Human rights abuses.

    It’s impossible to make an intelligent argument from a false premise, or to debunk a false argument by accepting its root premises.

    You have to destroy the root premises, so as to stop the poison that eschews from it.

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Dr. Riek Machar has the right to participate within the political environment, without being berated by these hypocritical articles- all our political representatives have been involved in Human rights abuses.. to imply that Dr. Riek Machar is alone in Human rights abuses and that he should apologize for such trangressions, is to imply that our entire government should apologize for their Human rights abuses- starting with Salva Kirr.

    To the Twic-east and Bor-Dinka on this site.. STOP your childish infatuation with Dr. Riek Machar!- a selective application of justice (which some of you advocate), is entirely unwholesome- incessantly peddling your past grievances makes little to NO sense.

    Let’s move on.

    Reply
  • Time1
    Time1

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    SPLA is a neutral non partisan army made out of all nationalities in Sudan and south Sudan, SPLA army is more neutral and well balanced in its ethnic make up if you compare it with other tribal army in the region like the Ugandan UPDF and Norths SAF which are dominated from top to lower levels by one tribe of the president.SPLA is undergoing transformation because most of current structure was inherited from the days of the liberation but now it is undergoing a modern balanced and advance transformation as south Sudan army.

    Reply
  • thieleling
    thieleling

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Dear Gatwech,

    Salva Kiir is the caused of the proliferation of violence in South Sudan!!
    Dinkas are the military enemies of south sudanese now because the people killing south sudanese in Bentiu, malakal, Juba, Nimule, Teregeka, Uror, etc are Dinkas. John Garang’s political acendency was through violence killing Samuel Gai Tut besides subsequently killing Martin Majier Gai, Bol Akok, uncle Uduo, and so many others. Kiir is doing the same thing now, violently killing innocent south sudanese civilians for his own political ascendency.

    High-five to you brother Gatwech!! You truly live to your great name. Your supreme logic and superior reasonings humiliated so-called intelligent Dinkas who tried to gang up on you on their responses to this article. The truth is Salva Kiir and the Dinkas are seriously paralyzed by fear now in Juba. This is the basis of this author’s article. Its reasonings are based on fear begging Dr. Riek Machar to forgive the current Dinkas messes in south sudan. But Salva Kiir’s political dilemmas in Juba is threatened by Kiir’s own anti-democratic tendency, not Dr. Riek Machar.

    Kiir hijacked democratic transformation because he let the politics get in the way. Democratic transformation can only be carried out wisely and effectively when politicizing military(SPLA) does not get on the way. Kiir chosed to bring military into politics in south sudan as Garang did earlier. It is politically hard to reach consensus on how to proceed peacefully during the crisis and threat caused by the Dinkas in Juba. Kiir is finished politically whether through election or violence (if he chooses) comes April 2010. Kiir’s die-hards, few blinded Dinkas loyalists are wasting their time over spilled milk. TRUST ME!! Kiir is finished! Any slight military miscalculations on his side & advisers in Juba, Kiir will be desposed by military might before 2010!! Kiir’s incompetent, tribal tactics overkilled the situation or peace in south sudan. No More b—s!!
    You People will be violently defeated when this military showdown break loose soon in Juba.

    Therefore, I urge Dr. Riek, Matip and others to rethink their politcal and military strategy given the military & politically intense environment in Juba. I believe south sudanese are on the verge of a military showdown in Juba. It could happen any moment. There is nothing to backdown from since this would be a great let down of south sudanese. Salva Kiir’s undemocratic tendency is responsible for the proliferation of violence among south sudanese. Kiir will be blamed for any political violence in Juba.

    As for Mr. so-called Jesoph de Tuombuk, you are simply being bombastic and downright boorish on your crackled of hatred toward Dr. Machar and the Greater Nuers. Trying to bolster your cowardic, lack of confidence bedizened with bellicose expression only betrayed your low-down aspersions. Your antipathy toward Dr. Riek & the Nuers is based on tribalism. Nothing more!!

    There would NEVER be reconciliation between the Greater Nuers and Dinka-Bor. Not with Dinka-Bor credentials that is based on born to lie attitude, it will be pretty hard to do. Dinka-Bor as a constituency is useless in south sudan. Who would want to waste his/her time with Dinka-Bors whose lives not only based on lies, but also who only cover small piece of political geography in south sudan? Stop lying to south sudanese that no democracy in rebel movement!! Any government leads by a Dinka will always be dictatorship. Dinkas are not democratic!! The Dinka-led gov’t would never give political equality or equality of opportunity or rights, period!! Dinkas led an undemocratic rebel movement. The same Dinkas are leading undemocratic established gov’t, which is not rebel gov’t now in Juba. Why are they undemocratic now? Dinkas are simply challenged by democracy, period. Stop the lies!! The Dinkas would be undemocratic even if they lead a gov’t in America or Europe. It is in their nature, not the movement or the gov’t they lead. Dinkas don’t know what political equality means!! That is why they like to rule through terror!!

    Talking about “the greatest sources of stability in the U.S and other advanced democracies”. They are only stable because the gov’t respect the rule of law by respecting the constitutional rights of the citizens.

    For example, the Amendment II in the U.S Constitution says, “A well- regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Another Amendment III says, “No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of owner, nor in time of war, but in the manner to be prescribed by law”.

    The advanced democracies respect the rights of their citizens and the U.S specifically respects its constitutional amendments on behalf of its citizens. The Dinka-led SPLA/GOSS does not respects the rights of its citizens. Instead, it violates their rights and even takeover their lands, besides killing them, especially in Equatoria. Your unreasonable, poor comparison and analysis is an insult to true advanced democracies. Their military understands the balanced of powers and the constitutional rights of their citizens.

    Reply
  • thieleling
    thieleling

    Potential politicization of SPLA

    Dear Gatwech,

    Salva Kiir is the caused of the proliferation of violence in South Sudan!! Dinkas are the military enemies of south sudanese now because the people killing south sudanese in Bentiu, malakal, Juba, Nimule, Teregeka, Uror, etc are Dinkas. John Garang’s political acendency was through violence killing Samuel Gai Tut besides subsequently killing Martin Majier Gai, Bol Akok, uncle Uduo, and so many others. Kiir is doing the same thing now, violently killing innocent south sudanese civilians for his own political ascendency.

    High-five to you brother Gatwech!! You truly live to your great name. Your supreme logic and superior reasonings humiliated so-called intelligent Dinkas who tried to gang up on you on their responses to this article. The truth is Salva Kiir and the Dinkas are seriously paralyzed by fear now in Juba. This is the basis of this author’s article. Its reasonings are based on fear begging Dr. Riek Machar to forgive the current Dinkas messes in south sudan. But Salva Kiir’s political dilemmas in Juba is threatened by Kiir’s own anti-democratic tendency, not Dr. Riek Machar.

    Kiir hijacked democratic transformation because he let the politics get in the way. Democratic transformation can only be carried out wisely and effectively when politicizing military(SPLA) does not get on the way. Kiir chosed to bring military into politics in south sudan as Garang did earlier. It is politically hard to reach consensus on how to proceed peacefully during the crisis and threat caused by the Dinkas in Juba. Kiir is finished politically whether through election or violence (if he chooses) comes April 2010. Kiir’s die-hards, few blinded Dinkas loyalists are wasting their time over spilled milk. TRUST ME!! Kiir is finished! Any slight military miscalculations on his side & advisers in Juba, Kiir will be desposed by military might before 2010!! Kiir’s incompetent, tribal tactics overkilled the situation or peace in south sudan. No More b—s!! You People will be violently defeated when this military showdown break loose soon in Juba.

    Therefore, I urge Dr. Riek, Matip and others to rethink their politcal and military strategy given the military & politically intense environment in Juba. I believe south sudanese are on the verge of a military showdown in Juba. It could happen any moment. There is nothing to backdown from since this would be a great let down of south sudanese. Salva Kiir’s undemocratic tendency is responsible for the proliferation of violence among south sudanese. Kiir will be blamed for any political violence in Juba.

    As for Mr. so-called Jesoph de Tuombuk, you are simply being bombastic and downright boorish on your crackled of hatred toward Dr. Machar and the Greater Nuers. Trying to bolster your cowardic, lack of confidence bedizened with bellicose expression only betrayed your low-down aspersions. Your antipathy toward Dr. Riek & the Nuers is based on tribalism. Nothing more!!

    There would NEVER be reconciliation between the Greater Nuers and Dinka-Bor. Not with Dinka-Bor credentials that is based on born to lie attitude, it will be pretty hard to do. Dinka-Bor as a constituency is useless in south sudan. Who would want to waste his/her time with Dinka-Bors whose lives not only based on lies, but also who only cover small piece of political geography in south sudan? Stop lying to south sudanese that no democracy in rebel movement!! Any government leads by a Dinka will always be dictatorship. Dinkas are not democratic!! The Dinka-led gov’t would never give political equality or equality of opportunity or rights, period!! Dinkas led an undemocratic rebel movement. The same Dinkas are leading undemocratic established gov’t, which is not rebel gov’t now in Juba. Why are they undemocratic now? Dinkas are simply challenged by democracy, period. Stop the lies!! The Dinkas would be undemocratic even if they lead a gov’t in America or Europe. It is in their nature, not the movement or the gov’t they lead. Dinkas don’t know what political equality means!! That is why they like to rule through terror!!

    Talking about “the greatest sources of stability in the U.S and other advanced democracies”. They are only stable because the gov’t respect the rule of law by respecting the constitutional rights of the citizens.

    For example, the Amendment II in the U.S Constitution says, “A well- regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Another Amendment III says, “No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of owner, nor in time of war, but in the manner to be prescribed by law”.

    The advanced democracies respect the rights of their citizens and the U.S specifically respects its constitutional amendments on behalf of its citizens. The Dinka-led SPLA/GOSS does not respects the rights of its citizens. Instead, it violates their rights and even takeover their lands, besides killing them, especially in Equatoria. Your unreasonable, poor comparison and analysis is an insult to true advanced democracies. Their military understands the balanced of powers and the constitutional rights of their citizens.

    Reply
  • J.James
    J.James

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Hi guys

    The funny thing is that, I discovered Dinkas are the only ones who support Mr. Kiir to stay in power and the all southerners based on all those comments support Dr. Riek for president. What does that mean for Kiir and his colleaques?

    That is only what worries me guys to deat because President must get support nationally not tribally.

    God bless

    The writer watches closely.

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Gatwech:

    It is clear that your post is hot air due to a penchant for wishful thinking.

    The SPLA has always been primarily constituted by the Dinka tribe- Lual Ding (alone) led a force of over 10, 000 recruits from Aweil on their way to Ethiopia. I say, that blows your 2000 figure out of the water, does it not?

    Please provide evidence regarding the SPLA’s manpower.

    Personally I don’t think you can. Even if you were not a self-righteous tribal-minded individual and a liar.

    But I offer you here a fair challenge and an opportunity to prove me wrong.

    You didn’t answer – so am I to assume that you are your own source for your claims?

    If so, then present your evidence. Otherwise present your source.

    If you have no evidence and no source, then….

    Why are we having this conversation?

    You make utterly ridiculous statements rooted in complete ignorance and devoid of even the most elementary logic, which should be within the grasp of even a small child’s mind.

    Unsubstantiated anecdotes should not be confused for evidence.It’s an interesting example of how you lie -to yourself- in order to sustain your delusions.

    You protest out of one side of your mouth, that tribalism and Human rights abuses are deplorable, and out of the other – you actually seem to condone such abuses.

    You sordidly justify attacks on Dinka civilians, on the basis that Nuer officers were murdered. Attacks on civilians cannot be justified, regardless of whether or not one’s officers were murdered.

    If attacks on one’s soldiers and officers confer license and legitimacy to kill civilians… the attacks on the Gajack Nuer civilians must have been entirely legitimate, no?

    That appears to be what you’re implying.

    How does that help you, unless your goal is to further your own humiliation?

    Let us know when you’re ready to stop playing games and start being honest.

    You are being defensive and hypocritical, in tolerating tribal attacks when it serves your agenda.

    You’re guilty of engaging in the very actions that you are attempting to accuse others of in this website.

    Ps: You are delusional if you think that facts are up for compromise.

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    Gatwech:

    Let’s be honest. Many Nuer who rallied to the Nasir commanders did so because they thought, that now the Nuer would rule, as the Dinka were accused of ruling before.

    Attacks by Nuer on Dinka cattle camps in eastern Bahr el Ghazal, near the border with Upper Nile, only confirmed early suspicions that the real motives of Nasir faction were tribal, whatever their public professions.

    The disintegration of Nasir faction was precipitated by the desertions of its representatives and men, en masse. All cited serious shortcomings in the “movement” in their reasons for leaving: the concentration of power in the hands of Riek, the lack of democratic institutions, and the rising level of violence against civilians. By mid-1994 Riek and the Nasir faction had failed to live up to its earlier humanitarian and democratic rhetoric.

    It had been responsible for human rights abuses and had allowed the perpetrators of abuses to go unpunished. It had NOT introduced greater democracy in its own institutions, and had made little to NO progress in the creation of administrative institutions, beyond the appointment of a short-lived appointment cabinet of ministers.

    Attempts by some commanders to create their own power bases within the faction had led to fighting between the two largest Nuer groups.

    Dr. John Garang was a hero; he re-captured the vast majority of our territory, and subsequently expanded the theatre of war to the Nuba Mountains, southern Blue Nile, Ignessa Hills and eastern Sudan.

    He also brought us the CPA-eclipsing the achievements of any other politician within the political environment; comparing the unwavering Dr. John Garang to the capricious Riek Machar (a man who received weapons and ammunition from the enemy)… is a great insult to our fallen hero.

    Ascribing anything of consequence to a man, who only regained relevance by the virtue of Dr. John Garang’s grace, victory and forgiveness… is to disregard historical truths, for ahistorical fantasies.

    It would be a joke to relinquish the VICTORIES and achievements of the victor, to the vanquished!

    The impact of the long-term reconciliation between Riek and Garang in January 2002, was muted by the fact that Riek had very few troops to bring with him. Dr. John Garang did not need Riek Machar, as you so foolishly believe.

    Riek’s lasting legacy is the fomenting of civil war among the Nuer, and handling the oil-fields over to the government.

    Reply
  • Khent
    Khent

    Potential politicization of SPLA
    thieleling:

    Do you recall (in 1999) when 80, 000 Nuer civilians were forcibaly removed from the oil-fields by Paulino Matip Nhial, in which they fled to Bahr el Ghazel?

    Do you remember that? Do you remember the humanity and generosity the Dinka displayed?

    The point is not necessarily to convince a person such as yourself, in denial, to see objective material presented, but for the understanding of the perceptive.

    It’s amazing to witness the human mind in the process of confusing itself over something simple, via self inflicted misdirection, convolution and irrational hogwash.

    I implore you to educate yourself in order to think critically, so that you can distinguish fact from fiction, and theory from lunacy.

    The very act of continuing your futile plea only demonstrates that there is NO ESCAPE for you.

    Reply
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *