Why reports on alleged atrocities are flawed

By Joseph de Tuombuk*

The recently-released Human Rights Watch and UNMISS reports on alleged atrocities committed by SPLA forces, are seriously flawed and could not withstand any challenge in court. The HRW report was basically an outsourced version of UNMISS report. The alleged atrocities are horrible and hard to believe. It is alleged that the SPLA and allied forces have raped women in front of their children and burned girls alive. It is alleged that government forces crushed victims with tanks. The reports alleged that government forces carried out a scorch-earth campaign to destroy insurgency’s base of support. The reports are based on interviews with victims and eye-witness accounts. The HRW report recommended that the SPLA chief of general staff, Gen. Malong Awan, and Maj. Gen. Matthew Puljang Top, be investigated as having played a role in the alleged atrocities. Before taking these flawed reports to court as ironclad evidence and recommending indictments, we have to pause and objectively analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘evidence.’ No grand jury will issue indictments based on mere allegations. The HRW has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The primary sources for the serious allegations are interviews with the very people who are indeed motivated to lie because they have an open allegiance to Riek’s insurgency. Those ‘interviewed’ are not considered credible witnesses and any prosecutor would have difficulty relying on ‘witnesses’ that are clearly impartial. The SPLA has raised these concerns to UNMISS when they released their report but it fell on deaf ears. In Western jurisprudence, the accuser has a higher burden of proof threshold than the accused. All the accused has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of jury and that is enough to poke holes in the prosecution case.

There are clearly problems with relying on survivors that are impartial. Those interviewed alleged that the government was committing unimaginable things against their relatives and yet they managed to traverse government-held areas to reach PoC site in Bentiu. If the government and allied forces committed these crimes, would they have allowed any witnesses to escape and alert the world about it? It is hard to reconcile the fact that those committing these bad things, would stand idly while their victims make it to the PoC where it’s certain they will be interviewed by UNMISS human rights division. The only logical explanation is that the interviewees were coached by SPLM-IO operatives inside PoC to concoct some really crazy stories. It’s also unfair to dismiss victim’s stories as false testimonies. Is it possible that some elements within the government and allied forces went off the written script and exacted extra-judicial killings or sexual violence? Yes it is possible, and the SPLA is seriously looking into whether some members of its force violated rules of engagement.

In a fog of war, things don’t always go according to plan and commanders tend to deviate from operational plans and adapt to new conditions. SPLA would not be the first case where some elements may do terrible things when faced with unexpected losses. In Vietnam, U.S. soldiers committed a massacre in My Lai village. No one recommended investigating Gen. Westmoreland. The U.S. army carried out its investigation and prosecuted officers that violated its rules of engagement. The fact that the HRW is quick to call for investigating senior army officers without knowing full involvement is another indication that the HRW and UNMISS have their own agenda beyond needs for justice and accountability.

The reports also calls into question UNMISS and HRW motives. It is a known fact that the UNMISS and organizations like HRW are not as independent and nonpartisan as they lead everyone to believe. These organizations are controlled, funded, and supported by the West. Whoever control the purse strings holds sway over activities and goals of these organizations. In South Sudan’s conflict, the West has its own agenda. That agenda is a South Sudan without President Kiir as the leader. In addition, West has provided political and moral support to the insurgency because it represent their best chance of instituting their own agenda. This due to the fact that the West is seduced by Riek’s ideas of ‘reform and good governance’ – essentially the key phrases that the West like to hear. By releasing such a one-sided report and presenting it as evidence, the UNMISS and HRW are serving the end goal of the West. With the UNMISS and HRW credibility shaky, it raises some concerns whether their reports can be seen as truly serving the cause of justice and accountability.

Furthermore, the reports recklessly accused Bul Nuer who have stood on the side of government as having played a role in the alleged atrocities. This is the height of irresponsibility on the part of HRW. By prominently accusing a section of Nuer, the HRW has basically painted a target on the back of an entire community, paving the way for retaliation against an entire section of Nuer. All the insurgents do is wait for an opportunity to exact revenge for alleged ‘atrocities’ against their supporters. All the while, the HRW report authors will be in NYC enjoying peace and quiet gleefully unaware of how their report has exacerbated already-fragile ethnic relations. Again, this should not be seen in isolation but as a part of wider effort by West to create problems in pursuit of their own agenda. There is absolutely no evidence that Bul-Nuer have committed atrocities against their neighbors. If anything, they have suffered silently in the hands of insurgents without UNMISS or HRW releasing report about their suffering. The Bul-Nuer have paid a high price for standing by government and believing in proper means of power transference.

While the HRW and UNMISS reports suggest that the SPLA forces are committing war crimes. The report is highly speculative and based on faulty testimonies. An objective and serious investigation would have produced physical evidence that is clearly show the SPLA has a goal and motive to commit the alleged atrocities. What is the motive in killing a woman who is not presenting a threat to operational objectives? And why would the SPLA forces allow eye witnesses to safely make it to PoC where they could reveal the alleged atrocities? Where is the paper trail where the SPLA command issued orders to carry out atrocities and scorched-earth campaign against insurgents? The goal of the April-May operation was to simply cut insurgency’s supply line and remove threat to Bentiu and other critical areas in Unity state, and thereby protecting civilians and their properties. There is no evidence that the government forces went out to murder helpless civilian just because they don’t support government.

*The author is a South Sudanese commentator and analyst. He can be reached at [email protected].