From Good to Ugly: US Foreign Policy on South Sudan Deteriorates with Time (1-2)
5 min readBy Simon Yel Yel, Juba, South Sudan
“We are not anybody’s burden; we are masters in our own house, we are confident in ourselves and of the future. There are those who might entertain the false belief that we can’t gov’t ourselves, we should not and cannot let their thought pattern influence us” says late Dr. John Garang.
April 24, 2015 (SSB) — South Sudan, the country which had lost more than a million lives was created to be an independent country with determination that we” south Sudanese” can govern ourselves and determine our destiny alone without interference from any country who had supported us or “midwifed” us as the US claims, but out of the blue, some countries begin to undermine south Sudan with their diplomacy of imperialism.
The US foreign policy on south Sudan during the presidency of George Bush was so fascinating. President Bush was open and attentive to address south Sudan issues unlike Barrack Hussein Obama who is becoming apparently ambivalence with neo-imperialism foreign policy on south Sudan.
When the CPA was signed that lead to the formation of the government of southern Sudan in 2005, it was then the beginning of Bush’s second term and US diplomatic relations with South Sudan were excellence “One thing that Bush did do is he kept up the personal diplomacy. He would make a lot of phone calls,” says Hudson, who also served as director for African affairs on the staff of the National Security Council from 2005 to 2009 and worked on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Kiir “would always get a meeting with Bush. He probably had four Oval Office meetings with the president in the second term, which is a hell of a lot. It’s a hell of a lot for any leader, let alone the leader of not even a country.”
When Obama was elected in 2008, there was a high hope among south Sudanese that Obama will pay more attention to issues like Bush. But he the worst president then the white ones in the US history. The foreign policy of Obama on south Sudan become more neo-imperial and colonial every year. The good US foreign policy on south Sudan during the time of Bush started to become UGLY immediately when Kerry was appointed and deteriorates with time especially after the failed coup attempt.
I think many countries will limit their foreign relations to the Republican Party only. This is what the Israelis Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Nyatenyahu is considering now. The foreign policy of the Democrat party becomes UGLY and many countries would soon prefer working with the Republican Party.
It was March this year when the US neo-imperial foreign policy on south Sudan started to become more colonial and imperial; three things had happened concurrently in March this year.
The first one is the draft of psychosomatic sanction by US ambassador to the UN Mrs. Power which the UNSC passed with a hope that if south Sudan is sanctioned, then the rebels will topple the government because sanctions will affect the economy and anger the public to demonstrate against the government or join the rebellion.
The second one is, the colonial and regal statement released by US secretary of the state Mr. John Kerry “legitimacy is not a presumed right of any government. It is conferred by the people, it is sustained only by the demonstrating leadership to protect and serve all citizens- responsibilities the government has neglected”
It is really impromptu and unfortunate for John Kerry for failing to know that the current leadership is protecting and serving all south Sudanese. This statement may clearly predict what his boss” Obama” may say later on south Sudan government. It reminds me of the statement the president Obama made in 2011 against the government of late Gadaffi “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now”. I wonder how our western partners especially US understands ” legitimacy”?
I can’t figure out how Kerry understands these two words in American English “protect and serve”. Am afraid that they might have different meanings in American English. But what I know is that, the British and American English differs only in pronunciations not the meaning of the words, and if this is true, then Kerry may be trying to invent his own “ Kerry English” that we are yet to learn. It is incongruous and rib-tickling for Kerry to try his new invented words on south Sudan. Sorry, you have misplaced your new words sir!
If the meaning of “PROTECT” is to shield from danger, injury, destruction or damage in both American and British English not “Kerry English”, then I may say the demonstrating leadership (current gov’t) is 100% protecting the citizens from Riek not to kill or injure them, destruct or damage their properties. If the meaning of “SERVING” is an act to fulfil a purpose, role or function, then our inventor Mr. Kerry got it wrong again. The legitimate gov’t of president Kiir is fully serving the citizens of south Sudan. We conferred the legitimacy to the current gov’t during 2010 elections not a presumed right as you think and we didn’t complain and shall never complain of its legitimacy.
Who told you that the current leadership has presumed LEGITIMACY and neglected the responsibilities of protecting and serving all citizens? You are biased with your imperial foreign policy that aims specifically on regime change but will never succeed. You ought to shut up and let’s be masters in our own house, we have confident in ourselves and of the future.
To be continued ………….
You reached be at simonyel55@yahoo.com
–
About Post Author
