By Luk Kuth Dak – USA

September 7, 2010 (SSNA) -- Some of the Nuer’s most valuable treasures: culture, values, character, reputation and norms, are recently under an eminent danger of dissipation!

I remember I was really young when I heard that the Nuer construction workers in Khartoum were feared the most by the Arabs. For instance, if a fight breaks out between any black man and an Arab, the Nuer would almost, always join the fight against the Arab without asking the question: who was right or wrong as long as the other party is black.

As a young reporter and an anchorman at Juba Radio, I was also privileged enough to be exposed and to hang around some patriotic Nuer leaders of the caliber of Mr. Peter Gatkouth Gual, Ustaz Joshua Dei Wal, Ustaz Thomas Khuma Kan, Drs. Michael and Julia Duany, Col. Samuel Gai Tut, Mr. Daniel Gatwech Kan, Mr. Pal Gai Lam, Brig. William Abdallah Chol, Commander William Nyuon, Ustaz Pal Riek, Bakoak Gatluak Faguir, John Dak Puok, Jacob Downg Wan and Ustaz Gadeet thon wakuo, to name very few.

But here’s the key question: Why are David De Chand, Riek Gai Kok, Rev. Michael Chot Lol, Kuot Martin, Dak Duop Bishok, and the rest of the National Congress Party’s Nuer golden boys, allowed by the Nuer majority, to literally alter, change, and destroy everything and anything the Nuer people hold dear, believe in and stand for? As a result, the Nuer that were once the guardians of other black people used to run for rescue in times of crisis and hardship, are now the ones to run away from!!

“A lie cannot live forever.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The most brazen example of the Nuer name being tucked in the mud, is the statement recently made in Kampala, Uganda by the purported professor, and one of the most congenital human liars I have ever seen, David De Chand. “ South Sudan is not yet ready for secession; we will not allow ourselves to be cut off from the mother Sudan (North),” he said.

Not only that, but in an e-mail message he sent to me, he categorically, stupidly, belligerently and personally blasted the Dinka people, as the reasons why he is collaborating with the party of the most wanted criminal on the list of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on war crimes and genocide, fugitive Omer Al Basher.

“Mr. Luk, guess what, you have been insulting me. I will not forgive you for this and the Nuer community will judge you on it. I am a leader, civil, responsible and above educated person and a bona fide scholar. I do not insult but I do reason with who could reason. You have an attitude, pal, and you’ve got to change or you will go down the tube with it.”

“ I did not intend to write you. I wanted you to tell me your comments on what Dr. Lual Deng said about unity. I could not agree more with him, because as intellectuals and men like minds, we are on the right track. I am firmed on what I said in Kampala, Uganda, that South Sudan is not capable of governing itself. The South is in a hell of a mess and I wish you come and see what am trying to tell the world. Surely, Dinka could not lead because they are naturally failures in the art of leadership in the South: Abel, Garang, and salva Kiir, all have proven to the world that they – Dinka leader could not lead at all. Their major problem is that they do not know democracy, compared to Nuer. The world knows today that Dinka leaders are a bunch of extraordinary thieves, thugs and hooligans,” he wrote.

Obviously, De Chand has a personal dislike for the Dinka, as a people.

Now, we all agree on the fact that there have been some difficulties with the government of South Sudan, in delivering some of the most essential services to the most needy in our society. But I am not here to defend the government of South Sudan, but rather to challenge David and the likes, to tell us all of any government that is exempted from shortfalls.

Yet, I was In fact, among some of the writers who have addressed that issue of corruption and tribalism in South Sudan. But still, under no circumstances, no fair-minded person who should just simply put the largest tribe in South Sudan into a one box, and hold it responsible for all of the shortfalls of the Government of South Sudan.

That’s as ludicrous as it gets!

Let’s keep it real! The truth of the matter is: the Nuer are extremely represented in all aspects of the government in South Sudan. They are equally responsible for the successes and failures of the government of South Sudan, (GoSS). Unless, of course, the congenital liar, David De Chand, is essentially suggesting that the number two most powerful man in South Sudan, Dr. Riek Machar, Justice John Luk Jok, 1^st Lt. Gen James Hoth Mai, 1^{st Lt}. Gen. Paulino Matip, Ustaz Gabriel Changson Chany, Ustaz Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth, Governors, Brig. Taban Deng, Ustaz Simon Kun Pouch Mar, and Ustaz Hussein Mar, to name a few, are not Nuer!!

But there are still some questions that remained unanswered. Here are some of them: Why is it that De Chand, Rev. Michael Chot Lul, Pharmacist Riek Gai Kok and the rest of the “Jallaba” Nuer boys are willing to forgive their masters in the National Congress Party, (NCP/NIF), for all of the atrocities and chilling murder of over two million innocents Southerners and millions more Westerners and Easterners, but they cannot forgive a Dinka of an unfounded alleged mismanagement and corruption?

Does it make sense? You be the judge.

In any event, it all boils down to the fact that all of us, who proudly identify ourselves as Nuer, but kept silent for so long, to reclaim our self worth, dignity and reputation, there are being thrown in the mud by some selfish few, who are obviously would do anything and everything for a “Dirty” cash from the satanic regime of Omar Al Basher.

Last, but not least, David De Chand birth name is Puok Chang and his PhD title is David De Chand! 

I rest my case!

The author is a Sudanese journalist/ writer and former anchorman at Juba Radio. He could be reached at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

By Gordon Buay*

September 7, 2010 (SSNA) -- Anybody who read Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba’s book, “The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan: An insider View” would admire his intellect, clarity and openness. Dr. Adwok is known to some as an outspoken intellectual who cannot tolerate injustice or mistreatment of anybody. There are individuals from his generation who envy his radicalism and truth telling. However, the South Sudan younger generation always looks for people like him to quench their thirst for justice.

As somebody from younger generation who is always thirsty for justice and respect for constitutional rights of individuals, I was disturbed few months ago to see somebody in a caliber of Uncle Adwok Nyaba supporting injustice. In his response to Dr. Peter Adwok Otto, Uncle Adwok Nyaba concluded his article stating that “the SPLM-DC is undergoing de-legitimization and may soon be outlawed in Southern Sudan”. As somebody from Upper Nile State who is familiar with his political stances, I thought he was joking when I read his article arguing that SPLM-DC, a party that is legally registered, would be “soon outlawed”. I expected Uncle Adwok to intellectually defend such a statement because de-legitimizing a legally registered party requires adherence to rule of law.

The fundamental argument of Uncle Adwok Nyaba in his response entitled “Response to Dr. Peter Adwok Otto’s Scourge earth war on Chollo people” is that the SPLM-DC is not any longer a legitimate political organization. He supported his argument alleging that SPLM-DC has a militia army in Chollo Kingdom that is engaged in fighting the SPLA army and the GOSS. He further alleged in his response that the militias were fighting the SPLA because Dr. Lam Akol lost April election and were determined to punish the Chollo. Uncle Adwok wrote: “If the SPLM-DC decided to declare war on the Government of Southern Sudan because its Chairperson was defeated in the presidential race then it is up to the Chollo intellectuals, who are now very vocal about what is going on, and civil population make a clear cut decision whether or not the SPLM-DC war is a cause worth dying for”.

Uncle Adwok posed a question, “What bad thing did the Chollo people do to Dr. Lam to deserve such treatment?”   It could be inferred from this question that Uncle Adwok believes that the ongoing conflict in Chollo Kingdom is a work of Lam Akol to punish the Chollo people. If such a questioned is analyzed objectively, one may wonder how Lam Akol would punish a community that elected members of SPLM-DC in the last April election. All Chollo Kindom seats to South Sudan parliament, Upper Nile State parliament and National Assembly in Khartoum were taken by the candidates of SPLM-DC. Common sense has it that Lam Akol cannot punish a community that brought honor to a party he leads. The parliamentarians who represent Lam Akol’s party in South Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) are from Chollo Kingdom.

The political enmity between Uncle Adwok and Dr. Lam Akol is something that dated back to 1990s and does not need anyone to revisit it because it has become chronic that any South Sudanese can detect it without much mental work. One may not be surprised if both elders are seen in public accusing themselves. However, what disturbed me in particular is the opinion Uncle Adwok Nyaba put forth that the SPLM-DC is “undergoing de-legitimization and may soon be outlawed in Southern Sudan”. I was expecting gunmen like Col. Malaak Ayuen and Lt. Gen. Kuol Deim Kuol to say that because they have no experience in upholding democratic principles. I couldn’t believe that an intellectual in the caliber of Uncle Adwok would come up with such an opinion. Somebody who read “The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan: An insider View” would have difficulty concluding that it was indeed Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba who came up with that opinion. One thing is that Uncle Adwok Nyaba argued in the book that lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law were reasons for the 1991 split and moral bankruptcy of SPLM/A in the 1980s.

One of the arguments Uncle Adwok put forth in his response to Dr. Peter Adwok Otto is that a political organization could be outlawed even if registered on the ground that it formed a militia group fighting a legitimate government. Anybody familiar with theories of state-making and state-building knows that it is only the state that should have monopoly over the use of force. There is no disagreement that a political party can be de-legitimized if it acted outside the law. However, there are prerequisite legal conditions that have to be met to justify de-legitimization of a political party legally registered.

The question to be posed is whether the SPLM-DC formed a militia group fighting the SPLA in Upper Nile State. The answer to this question is legally pertinent because Uncle Adwok did not tell his readers whether a constitutional right of a political party can be taken away arbitrarily or via legal process that has to prove the crime committed by the party beyond reasonable doubt. If a registered political party can be de-legitimized without due process as required by legal principles, common sense has it that such a de-legitimation would violate core principles of the Interim Constitution of Sudan. I don’t need to quote provisions of the Constitution here because people with average education should be expected to read the constitution and know the constitutional principles giving political parties the right to exist. An intellectual like Uncle Adwok could be expected to know that if constitutional rights are to be denied, the de-legitimization has to be justified based on the principles of the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the GOSS attempted de-legitimization a kin to Dr. Adwok’s opinion without adhering to the rule of law when the former Minister of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development advised the Speaker of South Sudan Legislative Assembly to lift the immunity of the members of SPLM-DC in the SSLA. The letter of H.E. Michael Makuei Lueth addressed to the Speaker of the Assembly stated that he acted on the request of the Minister of Interior and Internal Affairs of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) in relation to the case of the slain Paramount Chief of Panyikang on the 22nd of May. The people of South Sudan were concerned how H.E. Michael Makuei would accept the request of Lt. Gen. Gier Chuang Aluong without proper legal scrutiny.

I want to clarify to the readers that I don’t have evidence to prove that Dr. Adwok Nyaba directly advised either the Minister of Interior or the Minister of Legal Affairs to lift the immunity of four SPLM-DC members of SSLA. But the actions of both ministers are reminiscent of Uncle Adwok’s opinion of de-legitimization of SPLM-DC. First, the lifting of immunity was politically motivated because both the Speaker of Parliament and H.E. Michael Makuei Lueth paid no regard to due process. From legal point of view, four members of parliament, who came from different counties of Chollo Kingdom, could not be generalized as suspects without evidentiary establishment that they were the persons who killed Chief Oyath. Second, there was neither eye witness nor suspect who identified the four parliamentarians let alone the fact that at the time of the murder they were in Juba. After they were detained, there were no legal charges brought against them because there was no real evidence linking them to the killing.

During the process of attempted de-legitimization, the Speaker, Wani Igga, said that a judge in Upper Nile State wrote a letter requesting the immunity to be lifted. However, his statement was later found to be untrue. The Upper Nile State Judiciary refused backing up false charges that were politically motivated. The investigation collapsed with lack of evidence and the four MPs were later released by the order of a new Minister of Legal Affairs, H.E. John Luk Joak. People are wondering how the Minister of Interior and the former Minister of legal affairs would request the lifting of immunity without proper evidence. The only explanation is that they were politically motivated to further the aim of de-legitimization of the SPLM-DC. It is rumored that Hon. Michael Makuei Lueth has intense dislike of Lam Akol that could override his adherence to due process. In regard to Wani Igga’s unfounded statement that a judge in Upper Nile State wrote a letter, the Speaker could have been impeached for lying had the SSLA been composed of ethical members who take morality seriously.

It is now clear that the rule of law has defeated opinions calling for de-legitimization after the four SPLM-DC members of parliament were reinstated and resumed their duties as legitimate members of parliament. The people of South Sudan should thank H.E. John Luk Joak who rose above political differences to protect the rule of law and democracy. The importance of democracy is expressed by nobody other than Hon. Onyoti Adigo Nyikwec, a member of SPLM-DC in the SSLA who happily said that “it is the first time in the history of southern Sudan to have the leader of the opposition in the parliament”.

In contrast to Uncle Adwok’s opinion, the SPLM-DC is now regarded by the SPLM party as a legitimate opposition party. The dream of de-legitimization Uncle Adwok Nyaba alluded to is now treated as power struggle among Chollo politicians. The April election has brought a new dispensation in Upper Nile State politics that even those who originally assumed to be popular have realized their unpopularity among the current generation that yearns for justice and democracy.

If Uncle Adwok Nyaba knows that “democracy as a system of governance is built by the political forces in a particular country” as he stated in his article, “Democracy, multi-party democracy and the debate”, one may wonder how he came up with an idea of de-legitimization of SPLM-DC without due process. Multiparty system, as experience attests, cannot augur well with de-legitimization policy that was carried out by Lt. Gen. Gier Chuang Aluong and Hon. Michael Makuei Lueth. For multiparty democracy to flourish, experience advises that democratization does require a mechanism of the rule of law that should govern the interaction between political forces. The existence of the rule of law framework is the one to create the basic conditions in which different political parties should peacefully compete for the control of the state. If the ruling party could de-legitimize opposition parties without due process, it is irrational to justify de-legitimization policy in the name of restoring law and order.

In conclusion, the people of South Sudan should emulate H.E. John Luk Joak to guard the constitutional order that permits multiparty system in South Sudan. The politics of de-legitimization can be supported by people whose objective is to establish dictatorship. Democratic principles require the government to adhere to due process to de-legitimize any political party. De-legitimizing a party because of hatred or political differences violates constitutional principles that permit multiparty democracy. The people of South Sudan should pray that Uncle Adwok’s adherence to democratic principles would override his personal dislike of Lam Akol so that the people of South Sudan will outlaw de-legitimization policy to build a prosperous and democratic state after 2011 referendum vote.

* The author is a former Secretary General of South Sudan Democratic Front (SSDF) and a signatory of Washington Declaration between the SPLM and SSDF in 2008.

Simon Tisdall , guardian.co.uk,

 

Its biggest investor takes a pragmatic approach to Sudan's affairs – and is keen that the independence vote runs smoothly.

The National

 

Khartoum is preparing to lose most of its state revenue if Sudan’s restive south votes to secede in an independence referendum early next year, taking with it most of the country’s oil resources.

“Frankly … we don’t know if Sudan is going to be split or united,” Abdel al Jailani, the Sudanese minerals minister, told Reuters. “If the south does secede – you know 60 per cent of our budget comes from [oil] – we have to sit and think of another alternative.”

John Duku, the former Sudanese mission chief to Kenya, said a secession was likely after the referendum, which is scheduled for January 9.

“The unity between north and south Sudan has died,” Mr Duku said last week in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya. “There is no more unity.”

If the referendum were delayed, southern Sudan’s parliament would vote to secede because “key parts” of a 2005 peace deal between the north and south had been “violated”, he added.

Mr Duku, who is working on the referendum campaign but does not represent the southern Sudanese government, said Khartoum had reneged on an agreement not to apply Islamic law in the Sudanese capital.

Unlike the northerners, most southern Sudanese are not Muslim, counting themselves either Christian or animist.

Cirino Ofuho, the southern Sudanese minister of presidential affairs, said Mr Duku’s views did not represent those of his government. Officials were not supposed to comment on the referendum, Mr Ofuho said.  Sudan, which produces about 490,000 barrels per day of crude from 6.7 billion barrels of proved reserves, mostly located in its south, is sub-Saharan Africa’s third-biggest oil producer after the OPEC members Nigeria and Angola.

Mr al Jailani said Khartoum planned to expand gold production from the north of the country to make up for lost oil-export revenue.
 

By Joel Brinkley - GlobalPost

PALO ALTO, Calif. — Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama named a host of special envoys to regions, organizations and trouble spots around the world.

Some were of the appointments were high-profile, like former Sen. George Mitchell, who is now special envoy to the Middle East. Others were practically invisible, like Rashad Hussain, now special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

But as tenuous Middle East peace talks begin in Washington, and as the situation in Afghanistan, the province of special envoy Richard Holbrooke, plummets from bad to worse, now is a good time to ask: Are these special envoys doing much good?

The evidence suggests that many are causing more problems than they are solving.

Holbrooke, a former senior State Department official, has a long, laudable history as a diplomat. But it’s hard to see what he has accomplished in the Afghan cauldron. The truth is, he is best known for getting in the way. Afghanistan already has two high-profile representatives of Washington, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander. 

Holbrooke stops by now and then, demanding attention — and leaving Afghan officials totally confused about who really speaks for the president. Show me the benefit in that.

Mitchell performed yeoman’s work shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah, moderating the indirect, so-called proximity talks since last May. But by all accounts, he made little if any progress. A problem this large, this old, requires the attention of the president, or at least the secretary of state. That’s what is underway now.

Stephen Bosworth, special envoy for North Korea, has presided over a second nuclear weapons test, the sinking of a South Korean warship and continued threats and bluster from Pyongyang. Mr. Bosworth, tell me what you have accomplished?

Part of the problem is that every one of these countries already has an American ambassador, or at least a charges d’affaires. Aren’t they supposed to be the ones who work with government leaders? Who, exactly, is speaking for Washington — the ambassador who lives there, or the special envoy who makes irregular visits? For the leader of any government, all of that is bound to be confusing.

All of these problems come together in Sudan, where special envoy Scott Gration is quite obviously making things worse. He’s the one who declared in July that the International Criminal Court’s genocide indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir “will make my mission more difficult.”

Oh, I’m so sorry, Mr. Gration, that the indictment of a man with the blood of 2.3 million people on his hands has inconvenienced you. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, rebuked Gration the next day.

“The United States stands firmly behind justice and accountability for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, in Darfur and elsewhere,” she said.

Gration is a villain in the eyes of many non-governmental organizations and others. On Sept. 1, the Sudan Tribune newspaper called him “disastrously incompetent.”

The genocide indictment upset him because he successfully pushed the idea that the best way to solve the manifold human-rights problems in Sudan is to work with Bashir and his government. He convinced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of this — against the adamant opposition of Rice, whose knowledge of Sudan far surpasses Gration’s or Clinton’s.

Its biggest investor takes a pragmatic approach to Sudan's affairs – and is keen that the independence vote runs smoothlyChina has more to lose than most if things fall apart in Sudan this winter, where a potentially explosive national referendum on southern independence is due in January. Beijing is the country's biggest investor while for its part, Sudan is a significant oil supplier. Renewed instability could also adversely affect China's expanding interests in neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, Chad, Libya and Egypt.Mindful perhaps that the stakes are high, Liu Guijin, China's special representative for Africa and Beijing's point man on Darfur, is pushing hard to ensure the vote happens peacefully and on time. Speaking in London at the end of a European tour, Liu said Sudan was fast approaching an important crossroads and urged the international community to do all it could to avoid a pile-up. "If the situation in southern Sudan gets out of control, it will affect the peace and stability of the whole region," he warned.Liu said the referendum, widely expected to result in southern secession and the creation of a new sovereign state, was crucial to full implementation of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) that ended decades of north-south conflict. While China would be happy to see the country's unity maintained, it would respect the outcome of a "transparent and credible" vote. But like the UN and some western powers, he said Beijing was worried that key agreements were not yet in place."Time is the pressing issue," he said. "The international community must make an effort on two tracks. One is to ensure the referendum takes place on time, that there is the needed infrastructure, for instance there are enough ballot papers printed. It also needs to push the two sides [the ruling parties in Khartoum and Juba] to resolve their differences." Outstanding issues included demarcation of the north-south border, wealth sharing, and the status of each other's nationals should the south secede.Western officials have also expressed concern at the slow pace of preparations for the referendum, amid suspicions that the ruling National Congress party of President Omar al-Bashir is deliberately dragging its feet. In a report published this week, the independent International Crisis Group urged a swift settlement of the boundary issue "to avoid future complications, including a return to conflict ... As the country's oil resources are concentrated in these areas, the political and economic implications of border demarcation have been amplified, and some border areas remain dangerously militarised".China's political and commercial embrace of Bashir's national unity government has been much criticised in the west. Khartoum is accused by American pressure groups and Christian organisations of causing tens of thousands of deaths in Darfur, where rebel groups and tribal militias have fought government forces and their janjaweed proxies since 2003 – though the figures are much disputed. External pressure has increased since the international criminal court (ICC) charged Bashir with genocide and war crimes.Liu rejected such criticism, saying China had contributed millions of dollars to alleviate suffering in Darfur and fully supported the UN and African Union-sponsored peace talks. The importance of the talks has been underscored in recent days by an upsurge in fighting in west Darfur state's Hamidiya camp. But Liu said their potential to bring peace to Darfur was undermined by the continuing boycott exercised by two of the main rebel factions, which he said should end immediately.More controversially, Liu argued the referendum and Darfur must take precedence over attempts by the ICC and its supporters to arrest Bashir. "The international community has to be pragmatic ... We understand the importance of the immunity issue ... It is not ignored. But the priority is a holistic solution of Darfur and the CPA." Bashir's arrest would make solving these problems "more difficult" and on that, he said, there was "a kind of consensus" between China and the US (both non-ICC signatories) and countries that backed the court, such as Britain and France.Liu said China supported statements by the African Union and the Arab League urging members not to co-operate with ICC attempts to arrest Bashir. ICC signatory Kenya was reported to the UN security council for hosting Bashir in Nairobi last month, a move the EU decried as "totally unacceptable". But Liu said he agreed with African leaders who accuse the court of operating "double standards" when it comes to Africa, compared to its approach to western actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.China strongly supported the sovereign right of all African nations to run their affairs without outside interference, he said – a principal reason why overall China-Africa trade plus bilateral investment and resource-backed development loans in numerous countries in addition to Sudan were booming.It was not a case of China propping up dictators, Liu said. It was a case of helping Africans to make their own way. As for Bashir, he added, his fate was primarily a matter for the Sudanese themselves: "No one has the right to take away the immunity of a head of state, not even the UN security council."ChinaSudanMiddle EastSimon Tisdallguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More FeedsAuthors: Simon Tisdall

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/07/china-sudan-independence-vote