By Morris Mabior Awikjokdit

rssin mess

To the modern citizen of the West, peace is an ideal and war is a tragedy. Depending on his or her political orientation, war may even be considered inexcusable under any circumstances. At the heart of this dogma is the idea that war is a disruption of a state of peace, brought on by greedy warmongers like Riek Nyadak, Mabior Nyandeng Chol and so forth, the military industrial complex or some modern day variation on the old 21st century labels. But what if rather than being a disruptive force, war is actually the father of peace.

To pretend that peace is more natural state for humanity than war is to exercise a great deal of denial regarding human nature. We are no more creatures of peace in South Sudan and the entire world, than any member of the animal kingdom. The difference is that we have a greater capacity for choice, to be moral protectors and defenders, rather than predators. But that is a choice that some may make, and others will not. And for as long as men will remain men, there will be men who prey on others for unity peace, prosperity, and stability of the young nation, and men who must study the arts of war and killing in order to resist them.

Peace is not a higher moral state, or even the absence of war, it is the product of wars and conflicts that have been successfully won. Or it is the product of the threat of violence and war. Whether it is the police station a few blocks over, where well armed men sit guarding other more dangerous men, the army base a few miles over or a few states, counties headquarters and Bomas over the peace we have is the product of violence and force. And anyone who pretends otherwise is lying to himself and to us.

To perpetuate peace requires more than mutual understanding, tolerance and a willingness to join hands and dance in a circle with a rainbow of colors regardless of races, ethnics’ background and region. Those things can only come about after a great deal of violence, and also often represent a society that is no longer in touch with the realities of the world and its own need for survival. Because as long as violence remains within human nature, and as long as it represents an effective tool for conquest, dominance and acquisition, we must not only know war instead of peace loving country men and women, but be the best at it that we can be.

There cannot be peace without war, because war is a necessary prerequisite to peace

There cannot be peace without war, because war is a necessary prerequisite to peace. To have peace, one must created a society, a nation and a political space in which domestic and foreign violence is checked. Otherwise the society becomes nothing more than the Riek attitudes of misleading Nguendeng prophetization. And uncomprehending they let it happen, because the Eloi allowed themselves to become sheep, and where there are sheep without sheepdogs, there will soon be shepherds to rule them or wolves to prey on them. With the EU and AU growing fixed interests on one side, and rising immigrant related violence on the other the West looks to be gaining both.

The de-legitimization of war in the West came about for one primary reason, because war no longer seemed like a useful tool for obtaining peace. As the weapons of war became more destructive, war came to seem less like a protective force, and more like an apocalyptic force. With WW1’s generations lost, gas masks and battlefield trenches, war appeared to have become a senseless thing. A revolted under age youth proceeded to embrace decadence, chaos and anarchy, best exemplified by Dadaism. WW2 appeared to restore something of a moral order, but the rise of nuclear war and MAD, took the apocalyptic warfare of WW1 to an entirely new level, with weapons of mass destruction that threatened to destroy everything in sight.

This sort of bleakness caused even otherwise sensible men to put their faith in international orders and organizations, such as the UN, and the growing enlightenment of humanity, believing that with enough education, a form of reciprocal pacifism could be achieved in which no one would find any purpose in harming anyone, thus ending any need for violence or war. As absurd as such a premise may be, variants of it continue to command the philosophies of foreign affairs on both sides of the warring parties.

Diplomacy is considered supreme, tolerance is the watchword, and national defense takes a back seat to both. Even war itself has been transformed into “Nation destruction”, (instead of nation building of South Sudan) becoming a tool for this global educational project of reciprocal pacifism, the thinking being that if we can remove the democratic elected government by force, what will International community and UN gain? We will not give their peoples a chance to assert that just like us they don’t want to fight anymore.

Having learned nothing from WW2 about the causes of war, the illusion of a world of reciprocal pacifism dominates the dialogue and educational processes of four generations of children with the result that the children of the West become Eloi-like, more and more so in every generation. And the Morlocks are sharpening their teeth and becoming more plentiful.

There are no happy endings anywhere in sight, because as it turns out the reasons underlying many wars are not as simple as the proverbial evil tyrant living in his castle and oppressing his people. Yes many of our enemies do have an evil tyrant over them, but the dirty little secret of human nature is that few tyrants would endure if the majority of their people did not support them on at least some level.

The task of the West is to make war meaningless again in South Sudan for their selfish gains. The bleakness of modern war, whether it is gazing at counters that will launch ICBM missiles that will turn the world into a single great sheet of glass, or maintaining endless patrols against insurgents, has a way of making it seem meaningless, a useless tool of stalemate, and an endless waiting game without conclusion or greater meaning.

The fundamental meaning of war is that it is a tool that protects, defends and enables peace. To enable that peace, war must have a definitive purpose and a definitive conclusion. Endless watches on the sand dunes waiting for a possible insurgent attack, negotiating with tribal warlords whose loyalties switch every season and adapting to the local culture is not war, but colonialism or nation building. Such conflicts have conclusions and goals that cannot be achieved by military means, only enabled or protected by the military, and only serve to render armed force into a body guarding role.

To make war meaningful, it must have a true target and goal that can be achieved by military means. “Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden”, is a military goal. “Teach administrative management to four nephews of the local warlord so he can reform local government”, is not. You can use the military to try and reach such a goal, but you can also try to use a gun to turn a screw. It just isn’t the best match of the tool for the job. Turning the military into the Peace Corps is a mismatch of institutions that drains strength and purpose from the military, into a project inspired by neo-pacifist ideals.

There can be no peace without war, but peace is not a military project. Only clean wars that settle conflicts in enduring wars can bring peace. To try and blend the two is to create never-ending wars. Policymakers, who fear to use the military to destroy the enemy, instead draw out war into an endless exercise in bloodletting with no end in sight. And such wars quickly make the public lose faith in the whole idea of military solutions. They transform war into a meaningless hopeless farce, thus making pacifism and appeasement seem moral and plausible by comparison.

The moral way of war is to serve as a protective force for a vigorous and healthy society, to deter and destroy enemies, to protect, defend and maintain the conditions in which peace is possible. When war ceases to become a useful tool, the survival of the society itself becomes endangered. Just as the collapse of the human immune system foreshadows a serious infection, the collapse of faith in military solutions and the growth of anti-war sentiment, foreshadows a major conflict to come. There can be no true peace without war, only the peace of temporary appeasement, to be followed by subjugation and slavery.

The author is a freelance opinion writer and a professional teacher based in Warrap State- Kuajok. You can reached him by email:

Congrats to President-elect Jokowi of Indonesia, the world’s biggest Muslim-majority nation, and third biggest democracy. Amidst vicious wars involving radical Islamic outfits such as Hamas in Gaza, ISIS in Iraq/Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Janjaweed in the Sudan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al-Shabab in Somali/Kenya and the worldwide networks of Al-Qaeda Inc., Indonesians have shown that Islam is not synonymous with violence nor incompatible with democracy. Seen against the backdrop of the recent tragedy in Eastern Ukraine involving the downing of the Malaysian plane, the outcome of this “free and fair” election is a needed respite for the people of Southeast Asia, of which Indonesia is the regional leader.

By PaanLuel Wel, Juba.

By Kur Wel Kur
Mabioor de Garang, Deng Atem Wal and Riek Machar in Nasir

Mabioor de Garang, Deng Atem Wal (Jesus Deng Mading-Chuai) and Riek Machar in Nasir

Fake attributes and true attributes of any person part ways always. The engineers of wars explain the reasons for wars to the stakeholders in different manners, Adolf Hitler rallied Germans with lies to march into blazing fires.
However, at the end of the war (WWll), Hitler robbed his surviving citizens of their last right, an explanation, why they lost the war because he committed suicide. Riek equates to desperate opportunists who in the past, tried to propagate their hidden interest by using different strategies but they failed.
As time goes, S. Sudan’s war takes its rightful position like jigsaw puzzle pieces.  In this war, the truth evaporates unnoticed because no room for undecided and neutral supporters. George W. Bush’s phrase, “you either be with us or with them (no in between)” snares the true nature of this war.
This note will discuss the inconsistencies in the rebels’ “democracy” campaign: Gatdet’s terrible mistake and the latest humiliation of Mabior Dr. John!
Firstly, Gatdet unveiled the first inconsistency in Bentiu when he indiscriminately butchered Nuers (civilians) and Darfureans (traders). The act sent away many supporters of rebels including the super power, US. US bought the “democracy” campaign from Riek, however, after the slaughtering of Darfureans, US began having low opinions about Riek’s democracy.
The dumb-headed Gatdet should have known that US spent 1.28 billion dollars for Darfureans’ welfare since 2003 (October, 2003 to 2006), so killing them angered them (Americans) and cost Riek’s rebellion a fortune! With the killings of the civilians (unsupportive Nuers and Darfureans), US directed its full support towards peace negotiations and some support for Kiir’s government.
We witnessed US change of direction when the secretary of State, John Kerry jetted to Juba and uttered this statement, “there was no equivalency between president Kiir, an elected leader, and rebel leader.” This began the weaknesses of Riek’s campaign and a new dawn of Kiir’s defence. The rebels lost all the towns they occupied except Akobo; Riek has to care for his campaign, the less he loses direction for his war as in 1991.
Secondly, in the  murkiness of Juba’s politics, Riek preached his fake change of governance in S. Sudan so he won himself a few followers from others tribes, Mabior Garang included, and the majority of his tribe’s population, as usual, took everything by his(Riek’s) words but the sayings holds, all that glitters is not gold. With this truth, General Lul Ruai Koang surprised the many when a harsh statement oozed out of him towards Mabior Garang.
For those who read not, the statement goes,
“the days when one man, his wife and two  young sons would come, kill, hijack, own, deny, disregard, work tirelessly to distort or try to burry part of history made by fighters before him are long gone and consigned to history books.”
The statement shocked many because high profile functionaries (in the rebellion) the likes of General Ruai should understand fully the lifeline of their claims; they should know Mabior and Mama Nyandeng legitimise their (Riek and supporters) rebellion so they must treat them with a great care, otherwise, accusation that rebellion is one tribe owned holds. It shocked some of us who didn’t know the intention of Riek and his senior officers from his tribe when they stirred chaos in our country, until Mr. Ruai declared their intention.
They intended to rewrite the history written by a charisma and political ingenuity of a man whom the innocent world still mourns his death. A man whom his son joined those who wish to rewrite his (the man’s) history. Mabior sacrificed lots for backing Riek’s claims, so the best Riek and his supporters should offer him are respect and loyalty, but not backfiring him.
I sympathise with Mabior because I compare him to that submissive antelope that joined the hyenas thinking that befriending the enemy would secure his life, however, not! One day, hyenas and that antelope saw another antelope at the distance, the hyenas and the antelope (their friend) started chasing the antelope but it got away so the stupid, angry and hungry hyenas turned to their friend as their meal. Mabior must know as Kiir got away, these hyenas will turn to him. Some people lost their lives in the same instance.
In conclusion, at the end of everything when every lie dies, no more feelings for lies, and the truth radiates with life, we, the citizens will rally behind S. Sudan and not behind our tribesmen. However, our egos in which, we support our own kind, be it, in character, blood or friendship will bog us down for very long time.
With tribalism in our blood and characters, we edge away from nationalism and endorse tribalism, so persons from other tribe cannot speak their minds around us without us threatening them.

By Bol Khan

The frog represents the country, the Republic of South Sudan; while the crane represents the syndicates of corrupt barons fronted by those fictitious companies.

The frog represents the country, the Republic of South Sudan; while the crane represents the syndicates of corrupt barons in Juba and in the bush destroying the country.

Many if not all African Leaders have something in common. Once, one is elected into office or otherwise he/she subsequently chose to cling onto power for life and brutally abuse it. By rapidly enriching themselves, drawn governing styles based on ethnicity, nepotism with high degree of corruption. Which eventually would result in killing or assassinating potential figures who might raise up in the middle to install democratic and human rights rules. They do that on the pretext of dealing away with former colonials.

They would even order their security personnel to execute their disastrous directives. You can see them killing innocent people today and tomorrow swiftly begin to set up bogus investigation committees to investigate gross human right violations they committed. Thirty four (34) African countries out of Fifty-four (54) countries which signed Rome- Status agreement are now complaining.

That African Governments should form a continental court which will look into human rights abuses, in Africa. How come the same person who slayed people can again give himself/herself a chance to set up an investigation committee to investigate, the crimes he/she committed? No there is no logic at all in this kind of demand by African siting Leaders. The rumors, being that African leaders are now forging ahead with plans to set up their own regional court.  Such a notion is unacceptable.  It must be a sneaky way of giving themselves an obvious immunity in the process.

On the other hand, it would be an attempt to avoid the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC). And a clear indication that African Leaders want to distant themselves from natural and world justice. It must be rejected because they want to find saver way to kill people even much more than they had been doing or stay in offices without facing accountability.

A continental court, for instance, established in 1998 by 20 countries—none signature of Rome Agreement has so far did nothing to bring into book those African leaders who have been committing crimes. African Union, either, has becomes an Organization which offers nothing good to the continent’s innocent citizens. It sometimes involves in crimes investigations. Does AU’s deserve existence? I see no reason for an AU organization existence because it doesn’t solve Africans problems.

Those who lead the Union once became, Ministers, Diplomats and Presidents in their countries. Do we expect them to apply justice? No we don’t! They form Committees on Human Rights Abuses for investigations. From an investigation committee comprises of complicities: can victims expect fair investigation results?


In the case of South Sudan. An investigation committee is reportedly formed and investigating human rights abuses, committed following the aftermath of Dec 15 2013. Just over the last two weeks or so, Justice John Wuol Makec in his capacity as committee’s Chairperson has allegedly invited the 15 Dec in Juba, Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile states’ Survivors to go to the Committee’s respective offices in Juba and those states mentioned. That “ I the Chairperson of the Investigation Committee do hereby inform the public and IDPs inside and outside the UNMISS camps that the committee is ready to interview the survivors, families of victims, eye witnesses and relevant institutions to obtain information and evidence related to the killing of innocent persons.

The venues for investigations in Juba, he allegedly said, would be the Investigation Committee’s Office which is located at East of KCB Buluk Branch and South of Lokita Petrol Station along Street of the Ministries. And in respective Offices of the Committee in Jonglei (Bor), Upper Nile (Malakal), and Unity (Bentiu) states.

The fixed date for investigations in Juba was started on 1th-25th, July and on 10th-25th, July in those three states of Greater Upper Nile. So the question, here, is what do we expect from that investigation committee? I’m less interested in any investigation being done by indigenous. The committee’s investigations would have been appreciated and inclusive if those, Refugees in Unganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and IDPs in Wau and remote areas of Greater Upper Nile were to be involved. Will the Committee go to them there? Otherwise. What is the reason why IDPs are still living in the UNMISS’s bases in Juba, Wau, Malakal, Bor and Bentiu? What are they doing there? Are they in a hiding, for their lives?

There was a slight mistake. Even if we today decided to make a confirmation researches around the globe, I don’t think that survivors or victims are the one who go to investigation committee’s centers themselves. Rather they are the committee’s staffs or members who used to go and investigate the survivors/victims wherever they are/may be. Would they (survivors) really speak up their minds freely in those centers?

What if you go and recognized in the center the one who abused your rights. Would you be given a permission to tell he is the one? If IDPs can have such a freedom to move around up to the Committee’s centers, then I can say that those IDPs are there for nothing. They should instead return to their houses. Oh, are their houses safe and empty? This is another question which needs responsible answer. Investigation committees on Human right in less-developed world, Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and all International Organizations working on Human rights issues do not ask Survivors to go to their countries respective offices.

It would be good enough, if African Union (AU) can further wider its attention to problems facing ordinary Africans. Anyway, we can understand that the continent is working on Human Right Issues and how Justice can be achieve in Africa. Let us rest our case here. However, I, the author, strongly believe that corn won’t secure or expect fair justice from that court composes of chickens.

        Bol Khan is a concerned citizen, reach him on

By Kossmoss Gajang, Australia

The 21 federal states proposed by Riek Machar

The 21 federal states proposed by Riek Machar

Suppose there were no such widespread outcry about ‘some’ majority tribe(s) covering political and economic sky ‘at the expense’ of other smaller tribes, in South Sudan, it would have been a laughable proposal to claim a need for more federation, as opposed to more decentralization of governing powers and resources. In a country peopled by less than 15 million people, a federation of ten states is more than enough. Even Australia, a country more populated, at around 22 million people, has less than ten states.

But, then, Australia is a country that belongs to folk of common interest, irrespective of national origin of individuals therein. So, the fundamental problem in South Sudan’s governing system is not a lack of federalism per se but rather the supremacy of centralization, which confers enormous powers upon one individual, including a particular power of significant injustice, a power to sack a people-elected governor.

But perhaps it can safely be argued that it is not the mere presence of such powers that caused the ongoing civil war, there are many other factors, not limited to deliberate disloyalty and political sabotage among the leading class, for example.

Fantasy aside. South Sudan is a country of tribes, some, if not all of which, have more or less dealt with outside oppressive forces for more than one hundred years. As a result of such struggle, suspicion and prejudice have taken roots among some individual tribes toward each other. The policies of the ‘closed district’ doctrine, which sought to ban Arabs’ activities in the then southern Sudan, only made matters worse. Because according to that doctrine, the authenticity and distinctiveness of each tribe were to be kept unblemished by their neighbour’s cultural influence.

Therefore, though South Sudanese have shared the same outside enemies, they never endorsed unity of efforts to confront their common enemies, for the realization of common comfort and liberty. It can, however, be exaggerated that they did come together, toward the end of the last century, for a common goal, to be free and determine their destiny. In this determination of their destiny, they have called for many kinds of governing systems, including, importantly, the call for federalism.

It is imperatively important that this gale wind of more federation, in South Sudan, be widely discussed and analysed as much as possible- such that the masses understand the nature of the ‘beast’ they are about to hunt and kill. It is also particularly important that our people understand, once implemented, the reversal of such a system will dwell near the impossible. It is out of the necessity to participate that I intend to opine.

Until the so-called ‘Jieng Elders’ weighed in with their version, as to what form of federation should be inherently and uniformly just, I have thought all along that the case for the current federalism would win the favour of a bigger portion of South Sudan’s population. However, since the Jieng are the majority, while the incumbent president is also a Monyjang, it would have been, to Equatorians and Dr. Riek’s camp, an imposition, willy-nilly, on the ‘minorities’ a system in which the latter only perceive injustice- and the possibility of bullets being employed to achieve ‘victory’ where popular opinion fails would have not been mitigated.

So, it is only fair that the ‘Jieng Elders’ joined the march for the consensually perceived ‘fair’ system of governance- federalism. In principle, the proposed federation of 23 states, by the ‘Jieng Elders’, can still deliver just as equally a good as the current ten-states federation would have done, had there been productive efforts made to make it work.  Even more beneficial, some of the proposed 23 states are homogenous to a certain degree, which could compensate for miscomprehension (fuelled by illiteracy) that results from majority of our people being able to speak only their own tribal language, as opposed to Arabic or English or both. In the short run, enormous benefits could be reaped; whereas in the long run, most people would be positively affected by education and commerce, to either speak English or Arabic or both.

One other positive outcome of such federation is that those regions who possess technical knowledge with other natural resources would be able to grow without being accused, by their counterparts, of dominance at the expense of any tribe or state. However, there is also one inherent problem too: those regions that possess less technical knowledge and less natural resources will lag behind significantly; and such regions would form economically-low class.  In short, there are potential benefits and challenges in the proposed federal system.

The masses should understand that natural resources will no longer belong to the federal government, otherwise the creation of even more states would not make sense. For example, the majority tribes such as the Jieng and the Nuer would still wield political and economic domination- over smaller tribes- and the problem would have remained unresolved. Except for wildlife, Nile waters and the land’s surface, any resources underneath the surface of the land should belong to the state.

Meanwhile, I should reserve the right to opine, on the sharing of powers and distribution of natural resources between the federal government and states governments, for another occasion.



The African Union condemns the attack on Nasir town



Main Prison in Juba, South Sudan

It’s death row in a prison in South Sudan. Most of these people will die because of famine and illnesses. The rest will be executed.