Riek Machar eventually succumbed to the pressure represented in the article titled “IGAD, Troika insist Machar return by Saturday” (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/igad-troika-insist-machar-return-saturday) and returned to a still heavily militarized Juba in April 2016. However, to the mortification of his supporters and well-wishers, their blazing allegations of collusion between the government of South Sudan and the guarantors of the purported Comprehensive Peace Agreement and witnesses have come to pass as outlined in a news headline that screamed “Independence day horror: 146 confirmed killed in Friday Juba clashes”. It was a caption accompanying an article informing the world about the death and destruction that had occurred at the Presidential Palace in Juba, South Sudan, a day before the fifth anniversary of South Sudan's much anticipated Independence from a predominantly Arab and Muslim Northern Sudan on July 9, 2011. Instead of a celebration, July 9, 2016 became a day of mourning for unarmed civilians and soldiers who were killed protecting their leaders in the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLM/SPLA). Following this predictable event, another unprecedented massacre ensued in South Sudan (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/independence-day-horror-146-confirmed-killed-friday-juba-clashes). Details of the reprehensible attack on July 9, 2016 would soon emerge putting the blame squarely on Salva Kiir Mayardit and his cohorts.
South Sudan’s top leadership ordered recent fighting in Juba: UN report
UN panel blames Kiir and Malong for Juba violence
After violently ejecting Riek Machar from South Sudan, Salva Kiir issued a number of oxymorons. For example, he gave Machar an ultimatum to return to Juba or he would be replaced. Needless to say, Machar stayed away because he was fully cognisant of the fact that if he returned to Juba after being unsuccessfully hunted down by Kiir and his cohorts, he would be returning to certain death under Kiir's terms. Consequently, Kiir replaced him with Taban Deng Gai. He also levied accusations that Machar has declared a war which Machar denied. t wasn't rocket science to expect that Salva Kiir Mayardit and his cohorts would attempt to assassinate Riek Machar "by any means necessary" which is why whispers and unconcealed allegations of collusion with the government of South Sudan to kill Riek Machar continue unabated. In other words, the laissez-faire attitude displayed by IGAD-Plus including the United Nations as a reputable world body entrusted with protecting human rights and the United States of America as a country that assumed the leading role in ensuring that the SPLM/SPLA got what it purported to fight for raises more questions than answers. It was common-sense to deduce that Salva Kiir and his cohorts could not be trusted to protect Riek Machar and they wanted him dead which gives credence to accusations that IGAD Plus which includes the guarantors and the witnesses to the phoney “AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” knew or ought to have known that Riek Machar would be killed upon landing in Juba and they were grossly negligent at best (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negligence+(law)). The deafening silence following the events reported in the news headline captioned “Independence day horror: 146 killed in Friday Juba clashes” which included another unprecedented massacre of the southerners the SPLM/SPLA purported to be fighting to free from oppression by Northern Sudanese especially helpless southern Sudanese women, children, elderly people and unarmed civilians along with persistent lawlessness appears to have rested the critics case alleging collusion. (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/independence-day-horror-146-confirmed-killed-friday-juba-clashes). These critics continue to insist that bullying Riek Machar into going to a militarized Juba and then staying silent after he was almost assassinated by Salva Kiir Mayardit and his cohorts is condonation and participation in a crime by omission. Some observers have made scathing suggestions that the united front dubbed IGAD-Plus set Riek Machar up to be killed in the same manner Angola's Jonas Savimbi was. Others have equated the almost successful assassination attempt to circumstances surrounding Congo's Patrice Lumumba. They contend that there is no other explanation because despite the unconcealed violations by Salva Kiir Mayardit, IGAD-Plus jumped onto the dysfunctional bandwagon, rallied behind the unconventional “agreement” and insisted that Riek Machar should return to a fully militarized Juba. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
THE SPLA'S REVERSION TO A HORRIFIC CIVIL WAR AFTER SOUTH SUDAN'S INDEPENDENCE
A mere two years after South Sudan's independence from Sudan, the destructive path taken by the government of the new country culminated in genocide against citizens from the Nuer tribe of South Sudan which is the second largest tribe in the country after the Dinka tribe from which Salva Kiir Mayardit hails, beginning on December 15, 2013. Tribal Politics which characterizes most of the African political landscape reared its ugly head in the new country with horrendous consequences. Following the genocide, the SPLM/SPLA reverted back to civil war with two main factions taking up arms against each other namely the SPLM/SPLA in government and the SPLM/SPLA in opposition. A war raged on in South Sudan beginning on that gloomy day, leading to more genocide, mass murder, the displacement of millions of innocent civilians, the most abhorrent forms of human rights violations including the castration of male children, the gang rape of women and other forms of reprehensible lawlessness!! It is a war that may go down in history as the most brutal war of all times as partially documented in a report commissioned by the African Union titled AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON SOUTH SUDAN and elsewhere (http://www.peaceau.org/uploads/auciss.final.report.pdf). PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTHERN SUDAN
After Lieutenant General Salva Kiir Mayardit took the oath of office, he and President Bashir worked out the coalition Government of National Unity in Khartoum and the Government of southern Sudan was also formed. However, bad governance, continuing rampant human rights violations as the habitual character of many members of the now ruling SPLM/SPLA, institutionalized corruption, tribalism, nepotism, dictatorship, illegal and forceful land seizure from citizens became the norm, just to mention a few. Wanton killings and abhorrent forms of human rights violations meted by SPLA forces on children, women and unarmed civilians continued unabated. Tribal and sectional skirmishes among different communities where thousands of civilians have been killed or displaced from their settlements have been the status quo and method of operation of the SPLA since it was constituted in 1983. These horrendous occurrences continued after the formation of the Government of South Sudan in 2005 when the SPLM/SPLA imposed itself on the people of South Sudan. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR WAGED BY THE SPLA
The war waged in full by the SPLM/SPLA is commonly referred to as the second Sudanese war. More vicious than the first Sudanese war, this war cost over 3 million lives and produced millions of internally displaced people. Using contradictory messages in all its external relations and engaging in a seemingly endless “principle-shopping” business, the SPLM/SPLA was very successful in amassing powerful weapons they turned on the southerners they purported to be fighting to free from oppression by Northern Sudanese. In other words, the first victims of the SPLM/SPLA were helpless southern Sudanese women, children, elderly people and unarmed civilians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War). To the Arab world, the SPLM/SPLA gave the impression that their movement’s objective was to preserve the unity of Sudan under a secular system, a unity based on equality and justice for all Sudanese regardless of their color of skin or religious beliefs. For the black African states, the SPLM/SPLA informed them that it was fighting against Arab expansion toward the south of the Sahara and it therefore served as a useful human shield worth supporting against Arab/Islamic expansion. To the Western countries, the SPLM/SPLA postulated that it was fighting against forced Islamization and Arabization of black African Christians in the southern part of the country. Having wilfully exaggerated one of its contradictory messages respecting fighting a predominantly Arab and Muslim Northern Sudan to free Black African south Sudanese from forced Islamization, Americans especially Christians and African Americans rallied behind the SPLM/SPLA in full pursuit of an agenda that would turn out to be an unholy one. Christians all over the world also rallied behind the SPLM/SPLA and inadvertently aided the organization's fiendish agenda and fraudulence. Operating under the radar, members of the SPLM/SPLA raped, murdered and looted at will. They committed the most abhorrent forms of human rights violations against children, women, the elderly and unarmed civilians in total contradiction of the core teachings of Christianity namely love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. In other words, members of the duplicitous organization duped Christians all over the world into believing that they were supporting fellow Christians in southern Sudan to win non-negotiable rights to worship the God of the Bible without the reproval of Sharia Law when nothing could be further from the truth. The falsity of the SPLM/SPLA would eventually manifest openly and set off the most horrific catastrophe of all time. Believing it was supporting a noble cause, the United States of America assumed the leading role in ensuring that the SPLM/SPLA got what it purported to fight for – freeing southern Sudanese from forced Islamization and Arabization of black African Christians in the southern part of the country.PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
THE AUGUST 2015 “AGREEMENT” ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)
Following 21 months of bloodshed and alleged backroom deals and underhanded manoeuvres, a purported “agreement” called the COMPROMISE PEACE AGREEMENT was forced on the belligerent parties in August 2015 (http://igad.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1193:agreement-on-the-resolution-of-the-conflict-in-the-republic-of-south-sudan&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=125). The people of South Sudan were not involved in the negotiation of this so-called “agreement” in a significant way in spite of the fact that they are the ones who have the legal authority to decide what should happen in the country, having been the ones that determined the fate of South Sudan during the Referendum for Independence from mainland Sudan as required by law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Referendum). The bohemian “agreement” dubbed “THE AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” was purportedly guaranteed by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU). However, the fore mentioned establishments along with the witnesses who were made up of the People’s Republic of China, the Kingdom of Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the United Nations, the European Union and the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF) knew or ought to have known that the so-called “agreement” was bogus because it contravened all the basic fundamental principles of legally binding agreements in their entirety. While the SPLM/SPLA in opposition signed the purported “agreement” without reservations on August 17, 2015 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia the venue for the signing, it took the SPLM/SPLA in government another week to sign it on August 26, 2015 in Juba, South Sudan but with reservations. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
On July 9, 2011, South Sudan was declared an independent and sovereign state and the pronouncement was accompanied by jubilation in South Sudan and around the world. A Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 was drafted by a southern Sudan Constitutional Drafting Committee and it came into force on the day of the independence of South Sudan on July 9, 2011 after being signed by the president of the new republic Salva Kiir Mayardit. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
IN 1821, Mohammed Ali Pasha, the ruler of Egypt conquered the northern part of the Sudan and ushered in the Turko-Egyptian period in the country (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad-Ali-pasha-and-viceroy-of-Egypt). IN 1839 he opened up regular trade routes to Southern Sudan in search of ivory and slaves which accelerated the movement and entry of Northern Sudanese Arabs into Southern Sudan as soldiers and slave traders DURING THE 1840S. At later stages Egypt involved the British who were seeking an economic foothold in Central Africa as partners in administering the Sudan. FROM 1863 TO 1879 Britain’s colonial strategy in Egypt was to encourage British mercenaries to serve under Egypt’s ruler. The Turko-Egyptian colonial period in the Sudan was followed by the Mahdia period, during which Muslims and Northern Arab Sudanese, particularly the Mahdist Ansars, strongly opposed the British-Egyptian influence in the Sudan because the British pursued a policy of separating the Sudan from Egypt with the possibility of transferring the administration of southern Sudan to the British East Africa Federation (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/British_East_Africa_(Twilight_of_a_New_Era)). The plan failed to take off, but it provoked the Mahdists to stage an uprising in Khartoum against the British-Egyptian rule in the Sudan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_(Sudan). Following the uprising, Mohammed Ahmed the Mahdi, which literally means “savior” in Arabic, proceeded to establish a theocratic Islamic state that lasted for thirteen years. He advocated an Islamic state based on the Koran and proclaimed jihad (holy war) in defense of Islam in the Sudan. Throughout their thirteen-year reign in northern Sudan, the Ansars terrorized northern Sudan and took to raiding southern Sudanese communities for slaves and livestock despite the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807). While the Mahdist state was still flourishing in northern Sudan under Mohammed Ahmed, who continued as the Mahdi of the time, French and Belgian troops had already penetrated deeply into the Sudan through the provinces of Equatoria and the Upper Nile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatoria). Their objective was to divide the administration of southern Sudan among themselves. ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1898, at a battle dubbed the Battle of Omdurman, the Anglo-Egyptian troops defeated the Mahdists. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
As the side that was given the short end of the stick in the legal incongruity dubbed “AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” which would never withstand the ultimate test of a legally binding agreement in a proper court of law (not the kangaroo court used to arrive at the distorted “Agreement”), statements issued by Riek Machar's side of the SPLM/SPLA shed enormous light on the facts and ongoing allegations respecting underhanded manoeuvres and back room deals that preceded the wholesale abuse of the people of South Sudan the questionable “Agreement” called “AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)”. Let Providence and history be the judge of this callousness to harm a people.
A SAMPLE ONLY OF STATEMENTS AND ARTICLES BY MACHAR'S SIDE OF THE CONFLICT.
MACHAR: Presidential Palace Fight was to Kill Me
SPLM-IO blames international community for allowing peace violations
SPLM/A-IO Has Not Declared war
The self-styled Agreement named “AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” sets aside powers assumed by the declared president of the country Salva Kiir Mayardit and vetoes any decrees initiated by him yet he continues to act as he pleases under the watch of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union, the United States of America as a country that assumed the leading role in ensuring that the SPLM/SPLA got what it purported to fight for namely freeing southern Sudanese from forced Islamization and Arabization of black African Christians in the southern part of the country and the United Nations as a world body entrusted with protecting human rights. Most notably, Salva Kiir Mayardit refused to implement security arrangements stipulated in the Compromise Peace Agreement after violating one ceasefire after another. These security arrangements entailed strict observance of stipulations that would have curtailed the rampant violations of human rights and lack of respect for life that places South Sudan in a category of its own.
http://igad.int/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1193:agreement-on-the-resolution-of-the-conflict-in-the-republic-of-south-sudan&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=125. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
Critics have unflinchingly alleged that the collection of purported guarantors and witnesses of the legal incongruity dubbed “AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” feigned ignorance of the strict legal requirements respecting binding agreements by contrive. Many cite a number of articles including an article titled “IGAD, Troika insist Machar return by Saturday” as conclusive evidence that the foregoing parties conspired with the lawless government of South Sudan under the dictation of Salva Kiir Mayardit to assassinate Riek Machar (https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/igad-troika-insist-machar-return-saturday). They argue that the agglomerate was well aware that Juba was still fully militarized by the SPLM/SPLA in government, in flagrant contravention of the sham agreement because it was vociferously obvious. They also contend that the building block knew in no uncertain terms that Salva Kiir Mayardit wanted Riek Machar dead by hooks and by crooks and Machar would be walking into a booby trap yet the assemblage bullied him into going to Juba like a sacrificial lamb being led to the slaughter. The critics postulate that all the foregoing is ample evidence that the group also wanted Riek Machar dead as Kiir and his cohorts did. Notwithstanding the foregoing highly charged allegations, the apparent unfair treatment and intimidation of Riek Machar to return to a fully militarized Juba with no proper security arrangements or an army to restrain Kiir's lawless army raised many eye brows because it was cooperatively visited by reputable establishments and countries from which the world expects inculpable and ethical conduct. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
The war waged by the SPLM/SPLA which is commonly referred to as the second North-South Sudanese war lasted for over two decades. After a lot of lobbying and pressure, it ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army on January 9, 2005 in the Kenyan capital Nairobi (http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Documents/General/cpa-en.pdf). Following the signing of the CPA on January 9, 2005, Dr. John Garang the incumbent leader of the SPLM/SPLA served briefly as First Vice President of Sudan from July 9, 2005 until July 30, 2005 when he was killed in a helicopter crash after spending only 21 days in office. Following his death, the SPLM Leadership Council nominated and confirmed Dr. Garang’s deputy Lieutenant General Salva Kiir Mayardit as his successor and Dr. Riek Machar became his deputy. It was agreed that Sudan would remain united under President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and South Sudan would be ruled by the Government of South Sudan under the leadership of Salva Kiir Mayardit who would also assume the position of First Vice President of the Republic of Sudan. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
A TRUNCATED WORKING CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE
Compiled by Margaret Akulia, Author/Co-Author/Editor of numerous Unique True Life Stories and Unique Legal Stories
TO BE ELABORATED UPON AND EXPANDED
By Margaret Akulia, Author/Co-Author/Editor of numerous Unique True Life Stories and Unique Legal Stories
SUDAN'S INDEPENDENCE AND THE FIRST WAR
ON JANUARY 1, 1956 Sudan declared its independence, ending fifty-six years of Anglo-Egyptian rule in the Sudan. However, in spite of this independence, hostility from southern Sudanese toward predominantly Arab northern Sudanese had already emerged forcefully when southern Sudanese army units mutinied in Torit on AUGUST 18, 1955. In other words, southern dissent continued because southern Sudanese begrudged the replacement of British administrators in southern Sudan with northern Sudanese instead of southern Sudanese. Furthermore, although Sudanese nationalism had developed by the time Sudan attained independence, it was an Arab and Muslim phenomenon with minimal to no involvement by southern Sudanese. Consequently, such nationalism had its support base in northern Sudan and not the whole country. The Torit Mutiny would eventually lead to the formation of the Anya Nya Freedom Movement which waged a 17 year war to win freedom for the people of southern Sudan with the ultimate goal being independence from Northern Sudan. This war is often referred to as the First Sudanese War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sudanese_Civil_War). The war waged by the Anya Nya Freedom Fighters was to protest continuing human rights violations by successive governments in the Sudan. For example, a Military chief General named Ibrahim Abboud who staged a military coup on NOVEMBER 17, 1958 and ruled Sudan until a popular uprising in 1964 waged a holy war (jihad) against persistent Anya Nya Freedom Fighters. General Abboud’s policy was to forcibly establish Islamic institutions in southern Sudan in direct opposition to the original plan by the British during the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, to divide the Sudan into two countries with southern Sudan to be preponderantly Christian. In the process of General Abboud’s determination to wage a holy Muslim war against predominantly Christian southern Sudanese, his regime committed enormous human rights abuses in southern Sudan. The Christian Sunday worship was banned throughout southern Sudan and Friday was declared a holiday for both Muslims and Christians in the whole country. Security organs in southern Sudan were instructed to round up and force all male adults in the different towns of southern Sudan to attend Friday worship in mosques. Islamization and Arabization were strongly imposed on all non-Muslims, especially Christians. All the schools in southern Sudan were either closed down or moved to northern Sudan. All the mission schools were nationalized or closed down. The missionaries who worked in southern Sudan were expelled and denied entry visas into Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were restricted to concentration camps and southern Sudan experienced a rigorous and repressive army occupation leading to intensified insurgency by the Anya Nya revolutionary movement which waged a 17 year war that ended with the signing of the Addis Ababa Agreement also known as the Addis Ababa Accord on FEBRUARY 27, 1972. The agreement was facilitated by the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie.
The 17 year war waged by the Anya Nya Freedom Fighters ended with the signing of the FEBRUARY 27, 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement which granted southern Sudan local autonomy within the framework of a United Sudan. Although this agreement was a concession, there was relative peace despite the formation of the Anya Nya II Movement in 1974 by southern elements that refused the 1972 Addis Ababa Accord. Officers among these disgruntled elements formed the Anya Nya Patriotic Front (APF) in AUGUST 1974. This renewed movement became known as Anya Nya II named after the first movement known as Anya Nya I. It was a regrouping of Anya Nya I by disgruntled Freedom Fighters from the first insurgency launched in 1963 following the August 18, 1955 mutiny led by members of the British-administered Sudan Defence Force Equatorial Corps. This second liberation movement was formed in August 1974, but it was not formally launched until 1975. Born amid ideological uncertainties, Anya Nya II was launched with a mutiny in the military garrison of Akobo. In 1975, three years after the Addis Ababa Agreement of February 1972, a group of Anya Nya Fighters who were absorbed into the Sudanese National Armed Forces stationed in Akobo district pursuant to the February 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement staged a mutiny upon receiving orders of a transfer to northern Sudan. The mutineers of Akobo decided to return to the bush and continue the struggle against the Khartoum regime with the ultimate goal of liberating southern Sudan as an independent country this time. They crossed the border into Ethiopia and joined the other southern Sudanese refugees who refused to support the Addis Ababa Accord in 1972. Following in the footsteps of the 1975 mutineers of Akobo, the ex-Anya Nya soldiers in the government garrisons of Juba and Wau also staged mutinies the following year 1976. After recruiting and training fighters, the Anya Nya II Freedom Fighters began military campaigns in 1979 by disrupting communication links in eastern and western Upper Nile province as well as northern Bahr El Ghazal province, with the purpose of paralysing state economic power. They used mostly guerrilla tactics—hit and run methods and managed to overrun the government garrisons of Kutkea in 1979 and the government garrison of Akoka in June 1982. DURING THE SAME YEAR, 1982, a large group of university and high school students escaped from Malakal the capital of Upper Nile and joined the Anya Nya II rank and file at a place named Bilpam in Ethiopia. IN MAY 1983, another mutiny by a group of Southern Sudanese in the Sudan Armed Forces ignited the second war between southern Sudan and Northern Sudan in full. This second war led to the formation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLM/SPLA) in JULY 1983 which was eventually led by Dr. John Garang de Mabior. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF SOUTH SUDAN
After the end of the interim period instituted with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, an internationally supervised referendum was to be held to resolve whether South Sudan should opt to become an independent state or remain part of Sudan (http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Documents/General/cpa-en.pdf). The referendum took place from January 9, 2011 to January 15, 2011 and the majority wish for South Sudan to attain independence from Northern Sudan prevailed. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
PLEASE STAY TUNED FOR MORE OF THE SOUTH SUDAN STORY.
UNCEASING VIOLATIONS OF THE PURPORTED “AGREEMENT” ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS) BY THE SPLM/SPLA IN GOVERNMENT
Despite its defects, the purported August 2015 Compromise Peace Agreement attained the effect of an overriding law and effectively nullified “The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011”. However, Salva Kiir Mayardit the Presidential officeholder refused to abide by its purpose. As stated in a previous section captioned “SOUTH SUDAN AFTER INDEPENDENCE ON JULY 9, 2011” the Transitional Constitution vested all powers on one man namely the President. In other words, it gave Salva Kiir Mayardit boundless powers by intent. Consequently, dictatorship had been fully entrenched in South Sudan by the time of the mock “agreement” as feared by sharp observers. Bad governance, human rights violations, rampant institutionalized corruption, lawlessness, tribalism, nepotism, dictatorship, forceful land seizures, wanton killings of children, women, the elderly and unarmed civilians by the SPLA forces, inter and intra tribal and sectional skirmishes among different communities had continued unabated after the independence of South Sudan, having already besieged the new nation and set it on a destructive path immediately following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on January 9, 2005. Notwithstanding the fact that the defective purported agreement was the only document that gives him a semblance of legitimacy after his term of office expired, Salva Kiir Mayardit ignored the Compromise Peace Agreement and continued to use a now invalid “Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011”. He issued one invalid decree after another with the most notable decree being the one that divides South Sudan into 28 miniature states. The proclamation allegedly allots chunks of those miniature states to his Dinka Tribe in conspicuous violation of citizens' rights which is a new low in Africa's ill-famed tribal politics. Salva Kiir Mayardit issued the 28 state decree despite the fact that the Compromise Peace Agreement which has nullified his free reign and “The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011” is based on 10 states. The 28 State Decree has bred mistrust throughout South Sudan and it threatens to incite an all out war because it mimics the exact same injustice that caused the two wars between Southern Sudan and Northern Sudan namely the First Sudanese War and the Second Sudanese War. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
SOUTH SUDAN AFTER INDEPENDENCE ON JULY 9, 2011
After overwhelmingly voting for independence, the people of South Sudan had exceedingly high hopes for a just and resource rich country of their own enjoyed by all the citizens at last. However, unbeknown to most of the nationals of the newly independent country, the Transitional Constitution vested all powers on one man namely the President and it replaced the existing 2005 Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan. Many people foresaw that this obvious fact would certainly entrench dictatorship in the promising young country. However, before the people of South Sudan could rectify that oversight through the proper legal channels, institutionalized corruption and lawlessness intensified having already besieged the new nation and set it on a destructive path immediately following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on January 9, 2005 (http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Documents/General/cpa-en.pdf). Bad governance, human rights violations, rampant corruption, tribalism, nepotism, dictatorship, forceful land seizures, wanton killings of children, women, the elderly and unarmed civilians by SPLA forces, inter and intra tribal and sectional skirmishes among different communities continued intensely. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.
The government of South Sudan continues to amass powerful weapons and use them on helpless women, children, the elderly and unarmed civilians, creating the biggest humanitarian catastrophe of all time. It is now pursuing and executing a diabolical plot openly and yet regional and international players who include the United States of America appear to be “sleeping with the enemy” despite their own citizens and Diplomats being assaulted by the government of South Sudan. This begs very many questions including what the reasons are for the unprecedented contradictions? As the debauchery and conspicuous contradictions respecting the young country of South Sudan continue and South Sudanese come to the sombre but full realization that no one has their best interests at heart, they must now look to themselves and themselves alone to dig their beloved country from under a catastrophic man made rubble. A number of questions continue to emerge, most notably why the United States of America which played a leading role in the Independence of South Sudan has consistently displayed an arguably callous and lackadaisical attitude. Why hasn't the United Nations intervened more effectively as a world body charged with the responsibility to protect humanity? With lawlessness continuing to run amok, ethnic divisions at their worst level and trust badly corroded amongst its citizens, we may have a Rwanda in the making in South Sudan which must be stopped for the sake of our world. Like Rwanda, the South Sudan problem has been poorly handled but it is not too late to prevent a genocide of calamitous proportions. It has now become apparent that the answers to South Sudan lie in confronting the causes of the man made calamity and factors prolonging it head on. A conclusive fact is that South Sudanese know what is needed to save their country from total collapse and being preyed. Consequently, the people can and will overcome their glum predicament. As the side that was given the short end of the stick in the legal incongruity dubbed “AUGUST 2015 AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)” which would never withstand the ultimate test of a legally binding agreement in a proper court of law (not the kangaroo court used to arrive at the distorted “Agreement”), statements issued by Riek Machar's side of the SPLM/SPLA shed enormous light on the facts and ongoing allegations respecting underhanded manoeuvres and back room deals that preceded the wholesale abuse of the people of South Sudan the questionable “Agreement” called “AGREEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN (ARCISS)”. Let Providence and history be the judge of this callousness to harm a people.
IN 1899, to prevent France and Belgium from making possible claims to the Sudan as they had already encroached into southern Sudan, the British signed the Condominium Agreement with Egypt (http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/condominium-agreement-1899). This agreement accorded Britain political domination over Sudan. Hence began the history of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which lasted until 1955. The Condominium Agreement restored Egyptian rule over Sudan but the rule was part of a joint authority exercised by both Britain and Egypt. At the onset, nearly all administrative personnel were British Army officers affiliated with the Egyptian army. However, in 1901 civilian administrators started arriving in Sudan from Britain and formed the core of the Sudan Political Service. Egyptians filled middle-level posts while Sudanese acquired lower-level positions in small stages. The early years of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium rule in Sudan were marked by the return of missionaries to southern Sudan. Roman Catholics entered the Shilluk areas in 1901, American Presbyterians went to the Sobat River in 1902 and Nasir in 1904 and the Church Missionary Society (CMS) went to Malek, Bor District, in 1905. British policy in the Sudan in 1910 was to cut off southern Sudan from northern Sudanese influence. To accomplish that, Britain encouraged Christian missionaries to work in southern Sudan. They discouraged Arab traders from trading in southern Sudan and withdrew northern Sudanese Arab troops from southern Sudan. This plan was aimed at dividing the Sudan into two countries: the southern part was to be incorporated into a Federation of East Africa States as a buffer zone against the spread of Islam (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/British_East_Africa_(Twilight_of_a_New_Era). Although it was the richest part of the Sudan, southern Sudan was virtually neglected economically from developmental benefits. Meanwhile, northern Sudan enjoyed all the benefits meant for the whole country. The south relied educationally on the literacy system of missionaries aimed at teaching pupils to read the Bible. The colonial administration discouraged the spread of Islam, the practice of Arab customs and the wearing of Arab dress and at that time, the British made efforts to revitalize the African customs and tribal life that the slave trade in southern Sudan had disrupted. IN JUNE 1947 at a conference christened the Juba Conference, British authorities forced the unification of southern and northern Sudan. The southern conferees at the Juba Conference were informed about the new decision to hand over the administration of southern Sudan to the new rulers, the Arabs in northern Sudan. A Sudan Legislative Assembly was formed by the British administration which handpicked thirteen delegates from southern Sudan to represent southern Sudan in that assembly. This was the start of the self-determination process for Sudan’s independence but the southern Sudanese were effectively excluded from the decision-making process. Consequently, the fate of the southern Sudanese people was effectively handed to the northern Sudanese. Following A JULY 1952 REVOLUTION IN EGYPT, the British expedited the northern Sudanese demand for the country’s independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_1952). Accordingly, they drafted plans with the Umma Party of the Ansars for the formation of a transitional government. ON FEBRUARY 12, 1953, the Egyptian government and the northern Sudanese sectarian political parties met without the southern Sudanese political groups and made the Cairo Agreement, which initiated the process of independence for Sudan (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/feb/12/sudan-anglo-egyptian-agreement). IN 1954, on the eve of independence—which occurred two years later on January 1, 1956—there were over eight hundred positions that the British colonial administration left for Sudanese to occupy. However, only four junior posts were allocated to southern Sudanese. The southern Sudanese people were dissatisfied with such an unfair allocation of positions and they sensed this exercise as another type of discrimination and colonization of southern Sudan by northern Sudanese Arabs. ON AUGUST 18, 1955, a liberation struggle was ignited in southern Sudan through a mutiny popularly known as the Torit Mutiny. Led by members of the British-administered Sudan Defence Force Equatorial Corps, the Torit Mutiny was the culmination of dissent that had been building in southern Sudan for over a century because of perceived exploitation by a predominantly Arab Northern Sudan throughout a number of colonial periods. It occurred a few months before Sudan declared its independence from Great Britain (http://www.nam.ac.uk/online-collection/detail.php?acc=1980-10-25-1). The British colonial authority wanted the whole country to remain under northern Sudan Arab rule but the notion of forced unity between the two parts of Sudan was totally rejected by all southern Sudanese who viewed this imposed unity with great suspicion due to past human rights violations meted on southern Sudanese by a predominantly Arab Northern Sudan. PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO CONTINUE READING.