NADAFA condemns continuing R-TGONU atrocities against civilians and NAS in Equatoria

                                                                        May 4^th, 2020, United Kingdom

The National Alliance for Democracy And Freedom Action (South Sudan NADAFA) unreservedly condemns in no uncertain terms the continuing R-TGONU atrocities against the civilians in Central Equatoria. The latest UN Panel of Experts Report of the 28^th April 2020 to the President of Security Council gave account of new weapons supplies from Sudan to Salva Kiir’s National Security Service amid intensified and renewed SSPDF’s onslaught on civilians in Yei, Central Equatoria, pillaging and committing fresh atrocities, and forcibly disrupted the civilians to flee their villages and homes which the regime forces, the SSPDF, reportedly looted and burned down property. These acts are committed in flagrant violation of the CoHA of 2017 and of the Rome Declaration with the non-signatory SSOMA parties.

In the wake of continuing non-observance of the UNSEC imposed arms embargo on South Sudan by both Sudan and Uganda, South Sudan NADAFA condemns the combined SSPDF and SPLM-IO forces uncalled for attack on the National Salvation Front (NAS) defensive positions in Central Equatoria, and calls on the UN, EU, and AU to unreservedly condemn this grossly flagrant violation of agreements and declarations the R-TGONU are a party to.

The attack on NAS constituted a threat and a rejection to the EU’s Declaration of 30^th April 2020 – (7575/20) on South Sudan and intended to undermine the EU’s Council support for the peace process facilitated by the Community of Saint’Egidio to foster an inclusive dialogue with the non-signatories of R-ARCSS 2018.

South Sudan NADAFA recognizes the flawed provisions and stipulations of[1]R-ARCSS’s for power sharing between largely two ethnic communities in South Sudan, which excludes the interest of Equatoria and its more than 2.6 million people from effective participation in peace-making and political decisions in the country. There are ethnic domination and hegemonic drivers underlying the silent declaration of war on Equatoria by SSPDF and SPLM-IO forces, who are bent on forcing sole political control of the country under the failed SPLM hegemonic and corrupt leadership in the country.

There is unlikely to be peaceful resolution of the conflict in South Sudan without territorial power sharing between the People’s of greater Upper Nile, Equatoria, and Bahr al Ghazal regions of South Sudan, at a minimum in a Federal Transitional Government to lead a People’s Constitutional Convention process to realize a constitution of our new social and political covenant for peaceful co-existence.

The Alliance, NADAFA calls upon the regional and international community to stand with the people of South Sudan in their quest for a democratic and transparent Constitution-Making process that is people-driven and which puts the people first, not the R-TGONU Executive appointees of SPLM to lead the constitution making process.  The currently proposed TNLA will comprise SPLM appointees of the parties to the R-ARCSS (SPLM IG 330MPs, and 134 SPLM-IO MPs) who are not elected representatives of the people of South Sudan with a mandate to pass a new constitution for the country on the basis of which general election would be conducted to elect a new Government at end of the Transitional period.

South Sudan NADAFA reiterates its calls on the EU and its member states to stand with the people of South Sudan and support them facilitate People’s Constitutional Conventions in Upper Nile, Equatoria and Bahr al Ghazal regions (as came in our Blueprint) in which the people would select their representatives to a Constituent Assembly in a bid to guarantee and ensure that constitution-making is people-driven and not SPLM-driven in South Sudan.

Done on this …4^th day of …MAY…2020

Signatures:

                      Dr. Hakim Dario, Chair, South Sudan NADAFA – press@pdm-rss.org

[1] Revitalized – Agreement on Resolution of Conflict In South Sudan 2018

 Security arrangements, what is it?

By Dr. Laura Nunu Numirano (MD/MPH)

After five decades of war, suffering and instability, South Sudan seceded from Sudan on July 9, 2011. But only after two years of independence, it was embroiled in war with itself with the most brutal genocide and human rights atrocity the world had seen.”Since the conflict started in December 2013, more than 4 million people have fled their homes, with 2.47 million taking refuge in neighboring countries. Close to 200,000 people are living in six UN “protection of civilians” sites across the country. Seven million people need humanitarian assistance, most of whom faced acute food shortages.(South Sudan, human right watch2019)”

As the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity(RTGoNU) is being formed, some of the most important questions the people of South Sudan must ask in regards to the security arrangements are: when and how can we finally go back home to rebuild our life again? Where is our security? What are the necessary measures put in place for ending this cycle of war? How can we avoid this in future? Who are responsible for this war and how can we hold them accountable?

To answer these questions, we must not only understand the root causes of insecruty of our country(1) but also equally understand the dynamic of the forces that let to the root causes of insecurity of our country(2). This is very important if we are aiming at creating an approach that will holistically address the issues of security arrangement and implement it satisfactorilly in letter and spirit.

From the Law of Unity In Diversity (3)which says that as humans, we are global diversity of unity in our humanity because in Sense and Essence we are all one whole family of human beings created in the image of God. And each single one of us is a unique entity of that One Human Family. As a result, irrespective of all the variables that makes us specifically unique, in Essence and Sense, we are really ONE. How, because 99% of everything that make us human are the same. It is only in the 1% variables of differences that we are uniquely different, as such, we feel different. This means, we are not just random collection of dust. We exist because we have the rights to existence, occupying space in the universe, in a specific form, time and place, otherwise, we won’t exist. Which equally means, we are alive because we have the rights to life, otherwise, we won’t be alive. As you can see, this is not different from the universal human rights values and principles of human/people rights. However, the Law of Unity In Diversity goes further into explaining why, how and from where do these rights come to exist.

As explained above, this literally means, no-one has the right to deliberately take any human life, including their own, because life and death is sacred to the creator who gave it to us. It is a mystery we still can’t comprehend fully. Irrespective of our advancement in science and technology today, we still cannot predict fully when one is born before they exist or when and how they can die after they exist. As such, killing is a crime and specially taking innocent lives is a crime that should not be tolerated by any human family, period. This explains why the responsibility to protect found expression and scope in the work of a body like the UN.

What does this mean to the security arrangement in our country?

What the Law of Unity In Diversity brings on board is, the insights into the dymamics of forces that led to insecurity in our country. Following the facts of events that led to war, two elements of insecurity can be identified, mainly, the cause and the effect systems of insecurity. The cause system can be mainly attributed to the tribal politics based on power struggle that is feuled by culture of revenge war(4). And the effect system is the defense war system of the caused war. These includes but not limited to the revolutionary movements and their millitary wings. However, these are not the only causes of insecurity of our country. Another part of our insecurity comes from the war beneficiaries system and their partners. Those who use the status quo for their own benefits. And on the other side of this spectrum of the beneficaries system are the real victims of this war. As you can see, everything is interconnected and related creating complexity. But with the above identifications and understanding, clearity is possible. As a result, for the issues of insecurity to be addressed satisfactorilly, a wider scope of local, regional and global arrangements are required. This is because the insecurity in our country is far beyond the insecurity of the elites; which seems to dominate the arrangement of security in the (RTGoNU).

This defineltly shows that, indeed, we are not an entity of our own as some would like us to believe. We belong to the global family of politics. So, for us to stick our heads in the sand and act like chickens without heads is not just being naive, but even worse, being not in touch with the reality of the world we live in today.Therefore, if there is any attempt to institute security arrangement, all these various elements of insecurity must be dealt with and considered.

So, who, what, why, where, when and how?

The questions that beg answers are: why do we need security arrangments? For who is the security arrangements of paramount importantance? How can we bring it about and  what roles do the so called leaders play in championing it? Ironically, whether we are part of the cause, effect or beneficiary systems of this insecurity, we all claim we are doing it for the sake of the people of South Sudan who are the real victims of this war, right? Now, as the Revatalized Transitional Government of National Unity(RTGoNU) is being formed, where are the security arrangements that specifically addresed the issues of the ordinary citizens of South Sudan? I mean, the real victims, especially those who are fenced up in PoCs around the country and those in the middle of the capital city, Juba? Not forgetting those in the IDPs and refugee camps, the diaspora and all the citizens who are in constant fear for their lives and property in the villages and towns of South Sudan. Including those residing in the capital city, Juba who are under constant threats and fear for their lives due to unknown gunmen, heavy militarization and state of emergency?

We, in South Sudan NADAFA for an alternative government are saying that, if there is any arrangement for security, our people from our ancestral regions of Upper Nile, Equatoria and Bahar Al Gazal must be at the center of it. And the security arrangments that will bring sustainable peace and stability to our country must be that which is mainly aimed at creating condusive environment in which our people can return home to rebuild their lives and participate fully in the nation building process. Therefore, the real question as asked by Dr. Dario Hakim is: how can we make this peace process inclusive and better for everyone?

Since this war started as power struggles between the elites (mainly tribal elites), is it really a surprise to see them still struggling in their appointment of positions for power? What is obvious though, it seems we have just come a full circle without learning lessons that much in the course of our struggle. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity I guess, or is it not?

May God bless you and bless South Sudan, Amen!

References:

1) The root causes of war in South Sudan, where are our votes?

2) The Bitter Truth about South Sudan war: Power, Money and Land!

3) Unity In Diversity, what is it?

4) South Sudan, a country at cross-road.

NADAFA
يرحب بتوجيه إيغاد بشأن عدد الولايات في جنوب السودان

للنشر الفوري 16 فبراير 2020

يرحب التحالف الوطني من أجل الديمقراطية والحرية (جنوب السودان NADAFA) بتوجيه إيغاد لإعادة جنوب السودان إلى نظامه الدستوري السابق بموجب الدستور الانتقالي لجمهورية جنوب السودان (TCRSS 211) كخطوة أقرب إلى استعادة السلام في بلدنا .

يلاحظ NADAFA جنوب السودان باهتمام الاجتماعات التشاورية الأخيرة في أديس أبابا ، إثيوبيا ، بين الموقعين على R-ARCSS 2018 و IGAD والاتحاد الأفريقي والأمم المتحدة و Troika ، ويحث الأطراف على اعتماد توصيات IGAD بشأن عدد الدول ، واختيار 10 أو 23 ولاية بحلول 15 فبراير 2020 قبل إنشاء R-TGONU بموجب شروط R-ARCSS.

في ضوء ما تقدم ، اتخذت حكومة جوبا الحالية ، وهي طرف في R-ARCSS 2018 برئاسة الرئيس سالفا كير ، قرارًا في 15 فبراير 2020 ، والذي لم يرق إلى حد ما من حيث المبدأ لإعادة البلاد إلى نظامها الدستوري السابق المؤلف من عشرة (10) حالات بموجب TCRSS2011 وفقًا لتوصيات IGAD بشأن اختيار 10 أو 23 ولاية.

جنوب السودان: تقف "ندفة" مع إقامة العدل تحت حكم سيادة القانون وأحكام الدستور الانتقالي (TCSS2011) التي حددت عدد وحدود الولايات في جنوب السودان دون غموض ، ولا مع وجود مجال للتفسير غير القانوني أو تعديلاته دون مبرر. معالجة. لذلك ، تقدم NADAFA دعمها لتوصية IGAD بإعادة بلدنا إلى نظامه الدستوري السابق مع 10 (10) ولايات كموقف وشرط لعملية سلام مستدامة شاملة تتقدم لتحقيق الاستقرار في البلاد وبدء عملية صنع دستور يحركها الشعب بشكل جدي

ومع ذلك ، فإن جنوب السودان NADAFA تحث الهيئة الحكومية الدولية المعنية بالتنمية ، والاتحاد الأفريقي ، والترويكا وجميع الأطراف والأصدقاء في جنوب السودان على دعم إعادة النظر في R-ARCSS 2018 لجعلها شاملة لمطالب جميع الأطراف غير الموقعة على الأسباب الجذرية للنزاع ؛ وبغية اعتماد:

• تقاسم السلطة على قدم المساواة على أساس الثلث بين شعوب الأقاليم الثلاثة ؛ الاستوائية ، أعالي النيل ، وبحر الغزال في الأجهزة التنفيذية والتشريعية على المستوى الوطني بدلاً من قصرها على الأعمار غير العادلة التي تمنحها الاتفاقية في ضربة القلم لأحزاب سياسية النخبة (IG ، IO ، SSOA ، إلخ. ) مع تمثيل أكثر من منطقة أو منطقتين في جنوب السودان في جميع الهيئات والمؤسسات الوطنية أو التنفيذية أو التشريعية
• إنشاء عشر (10) حكومات ولاية اتحادية هزيلة خلال الفترة الانتقالية بموجب TCRSS2011 المعدل
• إنشاء حكومة اتحادية انتقالية هزيلة لجنوب السودان (TFGOSS) كمطلب شعبي من الناس وتقاسم السلطة بالتساوي بين مناطق الاستوائية وأعالي النيل وبحر الغزال على جميع المستويات الحكومية ، بموجب TCRSS2011 المعدل
• مشاركة الناس في صنع القرار من خلال اتفاقيات الدولة والإقليمية في أعالي النيل ، الاستوائية ، بحر الغزال لاختيار ممثليهم في الدولة والأجهزة التنفيذية أو التشريعية الاتحادية للفترة الانتقالية ، بموجب R-ARCSS 2018 المعدل.

جنوب السودان تأخذ "ندفة" هذا التوجه من "الهيئة الحكومية الدولية المعنية بالتنمية" (IGAD) بشأن عدد الدول المنكوبة ، كفرصة لاتفاق جميع الأطراف في النزاع ، بما في ذلك الحكومة الحالية ، على إعادة البلاد إلى حكم القانون والنظام بموجب الدستور الانتقالي لجمهورية الجنوب السودان 2011 (TCRSS2011) ، والذي يخدم الأهداف التالية:

• يجب أن تكون العودة إلى عشرة (10) ولايات سياسية بموجب TCRSS2011 ، بمثابة نقطة اتفاق لإعادة تشكيل قيادة البلاد وهياكل الرقابة الحاكمة في نموذج اتحادي للحكومة.

• من شأن الخبرة والمكاسب التي يمكن اكتسابها من اتحاد الدول من جانب الشعب وجميع أطراف النزاع خلال الفترة الانتقالية في الفترة التي سبقت عملية وضع الدستور ، أن تعزز إصلاح النسيج الاجتماعي في بلدنا الذي دمرته النزاعات.

يمثل اتحاد عشر (10) ولايات خلال الفترة الانتقالية فرصة لوضع الشعب ومطالبهم الشعبية أولاً ، وليس النخب أولاً ، وبالتالي تحويل R-ARCSSS وجعلها عملية سلام مستدامة تتمحور حول الشعب.


 
د. حكيم داريو ،
التحالف الوطني من أجل الديمقراطية والحرية - جنوب السودان
press@pdm-rss.o

The Narrative of Liberation in Southern Sudan

© 2000 Southern Sudan Review

It was once said of the English language that:

 “English was born in England, grew in America and died in Africa.”

I do not know where this saying originated from, how it first appeared in popular satire in my generation remains a great mystery. When I first heard it, I wasn’t offended but I couldn’t at the same time, resist being entertained by the humor of it all, the suggestion that English died in Africa. Who ever said it and made that statement must have had some good-natured critical message to convey.

On a more serious note, however, one might be tempted to suggest that the statement could have been the conclusion of a researcher, typically a linguistics specialist, possibly of the Anglo-Saxon cultural descent, naturally studying the adaptation and evolution of the English language species in modern Africa.

Tracing the origins of the language in England, in all probability, our friend could have found that English had developed over time to become, like many other great languages (not to mention Arabic, French, Latin), both the repository and mediator of modern human culture, its civilization, knowledge and technology as is in living memory.

In that trace, our friend could, for instance see, the literary endeavors of Shakespeare, the political narratives of Hobbes and Locke in the ‘possible state’, the utilitarian economic, social, political and moral propositions of Bentham and Mill, the print and intellectual heritage that followed, in volume as in breadth and rich diversity of content. The continuum thus far depicted, could be seen even better replicated further afield, in the so called New World of America. Here the English language appears to have found home again, and picked up not just an accent, but great power and dominance unmatched in history. This could have only been made possible by the cultural proximity of the people in question to the English heritage in particular, or to the Western cultural and intellectual traditions in general. Hence, the many additions, not excepting subtractions, to and from the English language (or perhaps mindset) in the New World, where it grew up as the saying contends.

Why then, was English deemed to have died in Africa and not in Asia or China, one might ask. The answer is simple. Africa spoke many different languages and English had yet to compete and find a space to occupy. In addition, as critics contend, English heritage, intellectual or scientific and so forth, had not become the only measure of human progress, given that its borrowing from French, German, Russian, Latin (competing alternatives), and other Western traditions, even Arabic, had gone on for centuries on end.

Africa now speaks French, English, and other languages, which is why English must compete to stay alive and not die in a multi-lingual Africa. In order to survive though, better use and utility for it must be found. Perhaps, the analogy of the African writer would illustrate the point better. In the case of English, nearly half of the continent has some connection with it, often as a language of business, arts, culture, education and communication, not just at home, but equally at the regional and international forums.

The critics, also insist however that, neither English nor French nor Arabic was suited to or of Africa, that no amount of language borrowing per se, would advance Africa’s cause in the modern world. Borrowing needed to span, in the critics view, not just the dollar, but also some of the mindset, the institutions, and traditions of the West that have made their states and societies so productive, efficient, and relatively stable economies. That Africa doesn’t have that insurance as yet of the institutions and robust civil society structures to permit stability and the rule of law. There is some truth in that. Africa, was not alone in embracing the models of the modern world, and in so doing, it has a long way to go as it tries to adapt and match to its borrowed models as best as she can.

Take the case of Nigeria, home to Chinuwa Achebe and his celebrated narrative Things Fall Apart, or the burgeoning poetry and satire of Africa’s greatest literary critic Wole Soyinka, or the statement, indeed the scripts of Ogoni’s Ken Saro-wiwa’s life. The story of the English language that unfolded in Nigeria defies imagination, a country of great ethnic and linguistic variety, which nonetheless, found some utility there for the English tongue. Nigeria’s writers representation of the continent’s potential aside, their endeavors in arts and literature however modest, as in politics, has no doubt proven to be a liberating experience, at least for the authors of that experience if not to the entire people and nation of that country. Achebe, Soyinka, perhaps Lo Liong too of Southern Sudan, had shown themselves to be the leaders of the African peoples liberation movement, each in his own way. The liberating feeling engendered by the achievements of these literary figures interests SSREVIEW[1], as much as it raises great expectations of the infinite possibilities that exist and remained untapped, even in Southern Sudan. Again, the scripts and methods of their liberation process beg to be harvested, even to be copied where it’s needed elsewhere in the continent.

Here at home, at our own door-step, the script too appear somewhat familiar, the ambition of liberation, the proposition of the ‘New Sudan’, viewed not just as a political process but as a great social force for change, both in physical space and time, to a better future in the country. As Garang’s own and perhaps SPLM’s grand-narrative has shown, from inception to date, its part-time rehearsal by the few revealed only a modicum of its best intentions. Lo Liong, for instance well placed in space, also in time (as an observant and natural critic), has voluntarily done very little or no justice at all to SPLM[2]’s grand-narrative over the years. For many long years, Adwok Nyaba, Garang de Mabior, Wani Iga, Bona Malwal, (or even Kuol Manyang!) to mention only a few, could be excused for being far too hands-on, too attentive to the small detail and the challenge on hand, to have had time to posit with great force, certainty and conviction, the ‘New Sudan’ cultural, literary, moral or political propositions at home, and elsewhere in Africa. A task they did not attempt to do well and give their best.

Nyaba’s Insider’s view[3] and critique of the grand-narrative in recent years, displayed some leadership and courage, long forgotten as a great tradition of liberation. Admittedly though, the critique was the product of part-time effort on his own initiative, but sadly, not on the independent prompt of SPLM institution own call, nor was it a conscious attempt at a critical appraisal of its achievements and failures by that institution. The signs and writing on the wall were all too familiar, and served but a sad reminder indeed, that the ambition of true liberation was being frowned at and not celebrated as it should or ought to be. The great ambition of true liberation to which the people aspired (not to forget the younger generations) in the grand-narrative of ‘New Sudan’ has yet to be seen to be credible in its various facets and evolutionary course. Nearly approaching half a century since its inception, the narrative of liberation in Southern Sudan remains as yet to be told and celebrated by the younger generations as well.

To date, however, the challenge and critique of the narrative of liberation in Southern Sudan, proactively by this generation’s own initiative and leadership, has not began to stretch and exercise their mind, their humanity and imagination as it should be. Indeed, as compelling a bid as it can be and should be; in so far as knowledge and better understanding of Southern Sudan demands it, where it stands today, and what it is that it stands for. In so far too, as where it is heading to, and how to get there.

SSREVIEW will, in time, endeavor to share in that narrative, document it, disseminate it, critique and celebrate it. And do so in the best tradition of Soyinka’s satire, as in tribute to the compelling symbolism of  Nigeria’s Saro-wiwa, and as in Adwok’s ambition; in a fitting tribute to his inspiring endeavors and compelling account to attempt to reverse ‘failed expectations’ in the Politics of Liberation, and perhaps in the arts of liberation as well. SSREVIEW sincerely hopes that many of you, the younger generations, will share the optimism, share and celebrate it with great fervor and conviction.

Hakim D Nyangamoi, PhD

Editor,

Southern Sudan Review

13 October, 2000

[1] Southern Sudan Review

[2] Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement

[3] Politics of Liberation in Southern Sudan: An Insider’s View