Archive for June 7, 2014

Conversation between Salva Kiir and Yoweri Museveni

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary

By Deng Akok

SOLIDARITY: Museveni and Salva Kiir are close friends.

SOLIDARITY: Museveni and Salva Kiir are close friends.

Sometimes there are friends who always there for you even when you shoot yourself in the foot. Museveni of Uganda is one of those to Mr. President Salva Kiir Mayardiit. He has rescued Kiir from the jaws of the White Army and Riek Machar.

Regardless of what will going to happen next between them; Salva will always be thankful about aid Mr. Museveni has provided to him in his bleak days in the late 2013 to early 2014. I don’t know how they pat themselves on the back now. But I do assume that they joke and laugh about it. Here is how I think they joke about it.

Museveni: Mr Cowboy, they almost got you.

Kiir: yeah! they almost did. But thank you for coming to my rescue.

Museveni: yeah! yeah! that is what the friendship is about.

Kiir: I thought Kenya president was my friend as well. They only guy I didn’t trust is the current Ethiopian prime minister.

Museveni: Now you know who is your real friend. Don’t be naïve. If you  want to know who is your real friend…find yourself a trouble, and the circumstances you are in will expose them. If they are  your real friends…they have to rescue you first and later they  will tell you what you have done wrong. But well, at least you learn the lesson now. Anyway, welcome to the political jungle of East Africa. Only the fittest survive here. If you want to be long time ruler like me, Moi, Meles, Bashir and the rest in East Africa, you got to learn the rule of the jungle. No justice or remorse here, the name of the game is survival of the fittest. But anyway, welcome to the jungle.

Kiir: Thank Mr. Museveni for your help and advices. I now learn the lesson \ the hard way. Anyway, I got to keep my eye open on those president of Kenya , Sudan, Ethiopia prime and the rest.

Museveni: Always be alert…in this jungle, nobody is there for you. You are lucky that you got me in a crucial moment in your presidency. I may not be there next time. But don’t ever shoot  yourself in a foot again. This East Africa politic is not a naïve game…it is the game for the ruthless ones. Anyway, it  depend however you do it at least you are not the victim.

Kiir: Thank you president Museveni. I figure out now how it work. Your advices will be taken into action soon. Just keep your eye on me and always be there for me while I’m mustering the game.

Museveni: You are welcome. But keep in mind that you don’t have to trust nobody including me because this game is a game of  opportunists. Therefore, people always do what benefit them not what is righteous.

Kiir: Well, thank you again. I’m not going to trust anybody just like you said. See you later.

Museveni: well, see you then.

 

 

CURRENT CONFLICT IN SOUTH SUDAN: A FIGHT OVER A PLATE!

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary

By Atong Ayii

Sharing the plate: peacefully or violently is what is being decided in Addis Ababa

Sharing the plate: peacefully or violently is what is being decided in Addis Ababa

I strongly believe fighting in SS is a fighting over a plate!

My dear young S. Sudanese, We all know that it’s true our leaders, both the ones currently running the government back in SS, the former detainees which are currently renting in hotels or residing in Kenya, and those Heroes/Heroines that didn’t make it to present, had fought hard to deliver us from the hands of hungry Northerners.

And while it’s true that they have contributed to brought us CPA, and all the freedom we deserve in SS, let us please not forget the fact that our country south Sudan is like a giant saucepan full of delicious food, which is still cooking on the stove. It will be served to feed every one of us up to the generations to come.

Whether you are in Diaspora or in South Sudan we are all going to enjoy that delicious food in many ways. I believe this food is almost ready to be serve any time and what we should ask God is the right person to rightly serve it to satisfy all of us.

Dear young South Sudanese brothers and sisters, there’s something very important I want you to pay close attention here: our current leaders, either they government side, Neutral or rebels, have had their bite of this delicious food in a small plate which they all together put their fingers in it at the same time.

Dear SS brothers and sisters, can’t we really see how messy their mouths and fingers are now? What our current leaders, both rebels or neutrals and government side failed to see is: there is more bigger food still cooking in that bloody saucepan!

so they should have stopped fighting over one plate by now and turn toward the saucepan to protect it from outsiders keek achiwaethke!! and what worry me the most is that, I can see some of our youth and young educated SS have started to raise their skinny necks like snake and they want to put their fingers in that same plate. Please listen if you have ears.

There is more better food awaiting ahead, keep your head high! . Please stay away from that dirty plate!!! Thanks.


Microsoft Word – communique2014_1.docx

Kenyan MPs want G-11 leaders expel from Windsor Hotel in Nairobi

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Junub Sudan

A group of MPs have demanded the expulsion of South Sudanese leaders from the Windsor Hotel in Nairobi.President Uhuru Kenyatta looks on as John Luk, one of the detainees from South Sudan, addresses members of the press on January 29, 2014. A group of MPs have demanded the expulsion of South Sudanese leaders from the Windsor Hotel in Nairobi.

The Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights members said the 11 leaders who were detained and released by President Salva Kiir’s government were engaging in selfish political re-organisation and not helping in the peace efforts.

They want Cabinet Secretary Joseph ole Lenku, who is in charge of the national security docket, to expel the leaders and demand they seek asylum by following normal procedures.

“The said leaders were to help in the peace process and the negotiations taking place in Ethiopia, and not live in opulence at the expense of the Kenyan taxpayer. They are engaging in selfish political re-organising that does not help South Sudan,” the MPs said in a joint statement.

They included Kibra MP Ken Okoth, Wajir South MP Abdulahi Diriye, Ndhiwa MP Agostinho Neto, Matungulu MP Stephen Mule and Senator Daisy Kanaiza.

They also criticised the government for accommodating the leaders. “Kenya should not let its territory be used by rebels for political reorganisation in the name of the “Third Force” that is housed in Windsor and also by friends and relatives of Dr Riek Machar,” the group said.

“South Sudan still has a legitimate government headed by His Excellency Salva Kiir, his problems notwithstanding. Kenya should therefore be working with the elected leaders of South Sudan,” the MPs stated.

They said any talks held in Kenya should be attended by both President Kiir and Dr Machar to avoid creating suspicions. “It is bad that a rebel leader in the person of Dr Machar should be given red carpet reception in Nairobi as that might portray Kenya as a partial peace arbiter,” they stated.

The caucus also wants Igad to pass a resolution to transfer the peace negotiations to Nairobi, arguing that Kenya midwifed the initial process and the regional body is chaired by President Kenyatta. This is part of amendments the parliamentary caucus seeks to make on a motion already before Parliament.

The MPs also want Parliament to form an ad hoc committee on the South Sudan to team up with the South Sudan MPs.

“Should we do the above, Kenya will be fairly overseeing the implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement,” the MPs said.

They said President Kenyatta had failed as chairman of Igad by failing to ensure implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement.

 

Letter to SBS Radio

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Letters

Ajakguong Deng, I would like to know few things from your office about SBS Dinka Radio in Australia. To begin, was Sbs Dinka Radio formed only to interviews those corrupted government officials in South Sudan or was it formed to deal with Dinka and South Sudanese affairs in Australia?

Ajak Deng, was SBS Dinka radio formed to work only in Eastern states mostly Melbourne Victoria or was it formed to work across Australia at large? How would SBS Dinka Radio cover important occasions in all states in Australia? Do SBS Dinka radio have reporters, correspondents across all states in Australia?

I heard many people overseas have been interviewed mostly Dinkas, why do they mix Dinka with other languages? Was that the purpose of it to mix up with other languages or to deal with Dinka language only? I could understand only non Dinkas can use their suitable language. How would SBS Dinka Radio be expand to reach other enjoyable activities across all states in Australia?

SBS Dinka Radio is doing wonderful job overseas, I give you credit for that work. However, was that the only mission Australian government put SBS Dinka Radio in air? All in all, Ajak Deng you’re going incredible job but more needs to be done if you corporates.Thank

Bol Garang 
Perth, WA

President Kagame: Why has African Fallen so short to rise?

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Africa

Asian Interviewer: “Can you address their concerns Mr.Chang?”

MR. CHANG: “The concerns of Black people? Yes I can. The fact is, that we all live under a system of White Supremacy. We Asian people look back at our long history of conflict with the European. We observe their strategies and develop our own, in response and in kind. There is no need for loud mass movements on our part, because we intend to overtake them in time, through action and personal sacrifice”.

Asian INTERVIEWER: “And the Black man?”

MR. CHANG: “He does not count into our situation. He is simply here. We do not hate the Black man. We just love the Asian man most. Real love–not cliche. We want to see Asian man happy, so we employ him. We eat together. We spend time with each other. We want his kids to be educated, so we invest in our own schools that offer our children the technical abilities to change the world’s power structure in our favor. We want to see the Asian man safe, so we purchase and organize our own communities. We want him to remain Asian, so we reduce the outside influence of others ideologies and cultures. While he fought to sniff behind the White man, the Black man has had the opportunity and every right in the world to do the same, but he chooses to indict people like me for not hiring him over my own brothers. For me to do this would be foolish and that would not be Asian love. In contrast, the Black man will fight for the right to be up under everyone else other than other Black people who he should feel the most love for. If our indifference to their situation make us racist, then what would you call the Black man’s indifference to his own situation?” www.FarrahGray.com

———————

Africa has always had the attributes to rise, so why has it fallen short?

By Paul Kagame

—–

Further progress depends on Africa’s ability to work together and with other partners on meaningful mechanisms to resolve conflicts.

Without a doubt, Africa has made progress over the past half century.

For most of our countries, the road has been uneven so that we have sometimes stumbled or stalled. But we have forged ahead.

Across the continent, there is a renewed sense of optimism that gives meaning to the now familiar Africa Rising phrase.

Evidence points to sustained economic growth for the coming decades. This upward curve is the result of deliberate action by African countries.

Throughout the continent, we are starting to see the positive effects of improved governance and better integration into the global economy thanks to different technologies, among them ICT. We also have opportunities in a growing middle class and a youth bulge.

Africa is one of the few places in the world that has a lot of room to grow — more businesses are taking notice globally.

But Africa has always had the attributes necessary to rise. So why have we fallen short?

Long spells of instability in parts of Africa, high energy and transport costs, fragmented and non-integrated economies, and a high dependency on primary commodities are just some of the well-known obstacles.

Over the past two decades, many African countries have worked to resolve major problems and begun to lay the foundations for future prosperity.

Take the example of instability. A number of difficult situations around the continent today remind us that progress can always be reversed. We also have to be reminded that together we rise and together we may fall.

We are responsible for ourselves. But we are also, to some extent, responsible for each other.

Instability in any part of Africa affects us all. That is why we have seen increased engagement by African leaders, the African Union, and regional organisations in peace and security matters on the continent.

Further progress depends on Africa’s ability to work together and with other partners on meaningful mechanisms to resolve conflicts.

It also calls for continued strengthening of our respective internal systems to prevent conflicts in the first place.

We cannot afford to sit back and take the future of our continent for granted. Yes, Africa is rising. But it is not enough to exceed the low expectations that others have of us, and which we, at times, even came to have about ourselves.

To give citizens, especially young Africans, the lives they dream of, we have a lot farther to climb.

We know what needs to be done.

Our countries have smart policies that we have seen work elsewhere in the world. But the kind of rapid progress we all want will only be achieved by sound implementation.

In particular, taking Africa’s development to the next level will require a much bigger role for the private sector, which generates jobs and wealth.

As governments, it is crucial to consistently invest in and strengthen our efforts to create environments that nurture and promote innovation and entrepreneurship.

The first to take advantage of an improved business environment should be African companies. Since 2007, intra-African investment has grown at a rate of 32 per cent, more than double that of non-African emerging markets, and almost four times faster than FDI from developed markets.

There is still a lot of potential to be realised, meaning we can do more to encourage this trend.

Today’s most important challenges cannot be tackled by any country on its own. This is true of infrastructure, trade facilitation, policy harmonisation, and even marketing.

For the East African region, the Northern Corridor Projects Integration initiative between Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda for rail and energy infrastructure development, streamlined Customs procedures, as well as easing free movement of our citizens and tourists to our countries is a recent example.

Deeper regional and continental integration is not only good for Africa, it is good for investors and trading partners. It makes it easier and cheaper and less risky to do business in Africa.

For the first time, the world seems to be going our way. But Africa’s demographics are favourable.

Standards of governance are improving. We have opportunities for large-scale infrastructure investment found nowhere else in the world.

By deepening regional and continental integration, the bright future reflected in the “Africa Rising” narrative has a better chance of becoming a reality within our lifetimes.

Focusing on implementing our respective transformational national agendas, based on the aspirations of our citizens, will ensure that we have healthy partners working together for more productive partnerships in Africa.

Paul Kagame is the President of Rwanda.

The issue of Federalism in South Sudan: Are we really on the same page?

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary

By Agok Takpiny, Melbourne, Australia

“You make better progress with a task if you don’t try to do it too quickly”

I have no firsthand source of information from the peace talks that is currently underway in the Ethiopian capital between the rebels and the government of South Sudan. However, my “friend” Facebook/social media has been hastily updating me with everything that is going on there. Nevertheless, one area which my friend Facebook has let me down on is the clarity of the agendas for the peace talks, sometimes the agenda is power sharing, other time the agenda is an interim government and/or caretaker government.

Optimistically still, despite the lack of clarity of the agendas in the current peace talks in Ethiopia, I hope that as per Makuei Lueth on SSTV the other day, a “deal is just around the corner”. On the other hand, as sanguinely as I may be about the prospects of a potential peace deal between the government and the rebels, the recent inclusion of federalism as one of the top agenda by the rebels raised my curiosity whether our people are just interested in stopping the current carnage by merely pushing it forward for another time, or do we really need a lasting peace and stability in our country?

Ladies and gentlemen, get me right, federalism as we will look at it in more details in just a moment is one of the best governing system today in the world. On the contrary, imposing it or adopting it too quickly without proper procedures can be as catastrophic as our current tribal politics.

As someone who is far away from the peace talks, the two questions that came to mind are: (1) do the rebels want federalism to be negotiated, agreed upon and ready to be implemented immediately as soon as the final peace deal is signed? or (2) do the rebels want to simply highlight the issue of federalism (that is to let the South Sudanese know that after peace deal is finally reached, and after necessary processes, South Sudan will eventually be governed through federal system)? As I do not know the answers to these two questions, I will assume that the latter is not the intention. If this is the case, then we are going to have a major problem down the track in South Sudan.

In 2004, as the newly found slogan of taking towns to the people and not the people to towns took shape, the SPLM decided to create more counties so that it would be able to implement that very vision. The intention was to create more government’s agencies close to the people so that service delivery can be efficiently and timely done. My home town of Yirol was divided into three (3) counties: Yirol West County, Yirol East County and Aweirial County. After the announcement of the formation of new counties, the youth and vast majority of locals misunderstood the reasons behind the idea, the people who happened to be from the old Yirol town centre which under new formation is now known as Yirol West began to tell the people who happened to be now from Yirol East and Aweirial that they should move to their respective counties.

In retaliation, the youth of Yirol East and Aweirial who happened to have the best grazing fields along the river Nile told the now Yirol West to move back to Yirol West with their cattle. What ensued from that confusion was a bloody four years conflict that cost the people of greater Yirol hundreds of lives. The lack of community education about the idea of creating many counties was the source of misunderstanding that cost lives, people where not on the same page to why all of a sudden they no-longer belong to Yirol centre. If there was proper consultation and awareness done, people would have understood that, although the old town is divided into three, the people are still the same and there should have been no telling people to move to their respective counties or move away from the grazing fields that belong to the other counties.

To their credit, the people (cattle keepers and their chiefs) of greater Yirol, when they realised that the government was not interested in explaining to them the reasons behind the division of Yirol into three counties and isn’t doing anything to stop the killing among these great people, they decided to convene and carried out their reconciliation. They decided to drop claimant of blood compensations and revenge attacks. In South Sudanese standards, greater Yirol is now one of the peaceful place in the country. I am not saying that if federalism is immediately adopted and implemented, people across the country will behave the same way the people of greater Yirol did back in 2004 which would be a disaster.

However, we cannot rule it out, prevention is better than cure. Thus, as the discussion of federalism gain momentum just like the slogan of taking towns to the people did in 2004, in my view, we South Sudanese must not repeat the same mistake of making no effort to educate the people of South Sudan about the meaning of federalism.

Developing federal system in South Sudan

Firstly, we should view federal constitution as a conceptual framework that will serve as a guide for all levels of governments in our country. My follow South Sudanese, many of you would agree with me that the lack of proper consultations during the development of the current interim constitution has in part a hand in current mayhem in our country. In other words, if proper consultations were made during the drafting of current interim constitution, someone somewhere who have no vested interest in giving the president almost absolute powers would have pointed out that there is a provision which allows the president to remove elected governor on the pretext of “national security threat” which was in itself dully or not defined at all.

We now have experience, a real bad experience in making too little or no consultation when it comes to the development of the constitution. Consequently, the development of the constitution of the proposed federalism should start with drafting a DISCUSSION PAPER. This initial draft paper would be made available in both hard and soft copies for all South Sudanese (not just those in the peace talk) to make preliminary comments. The committee or whichever body in charge for this project of drafting the federal constitution would then collect and review all the comments and recommendations made by individuals or groups and then produce a second phase draft.

The second phase draft document would specifically be seeking a unifying definition of federalism, its aims and the notion of ONE country under the federal government. This process would take one year to complete, and after which the people of South Sudan would carry out a referendum to vote and accept the constitution with 80% approval or reject it. The question that we must ask ourselves now is, if we want a system that we will all love, respect and abide by, shouldn’t we all (South Sudanese) take part in developing it in a fair and transparent manner? If the answer to this question is yes, then the next question would be, should the current peace talk be tied to the acceptance or rejection of federal system knowing that it would take a minimum of 12 months to complete the process of writing the federal constitution? I will leave this to you (South Sudanese).

What is federalism?

(1) Federalism is a principle of government that seeks to reconcile unity and diversity through the exercise of political power along multiple autonomous levels.
(2) Another definition: federalism is a system of government in which powers are divided between two or more constituent entities (states, territories and counties) by a written constitution.

AIM of FEDERALISM

Note that although the wording in the above two definitions are not the same; the underlying objective is the decentralisation of power into multiple levels of government. Nevertheless, the differences in the wordings in both definitions can cause huge confusion. Let’s assume that we choose the first definition, which define Federalism as a principle of government that seeks to reconcile unity and diversity through the exercise of political power along multiple autonomous levels.

This definition implies that federalism is the best system of government in countries which have different religions, languages and cultures. In other word, federalism works best in states which are multicultural or multinational. The reason why federalism works well in the mix of the above mentioned categories is that it provides protection against domination by the majority, and provide opportunity for self-fulfillment and self-development for the minority through institutions that it controls while maintaining the ability of both groups to pursue common goals. Each level of government is protected by the constitution. The objective of federalism according to this definition is a division of powers between federal government and the states and territories. Yes states will have substantial powers to make laws and many other things (less domination by the national government).

However, in some states domination of minorities by the majority will still likely to cause problems unless we pay attention to it while attempting to define federalism. Take Unity state for example, the Ruweng Ngok Dinka are only 25% while the Nuer are 75%. The recent peace deal between the government and Yau Yau which gave Murle, Anuak, and other two tribes which share 90% of cultural traits a territory of greater Pibor would fit well with the above definition. And therefore we may as well do the same thing with Ruweng Ngok Dinka as they have distinct cultural traits with Nuer who are majority in the state. I am not suggesting Ethnicity base federalism, however, it is something we should also be looking at as we try to find a way forward. Think about it.

Power distribution between Federal and states governments

Usually, the constitution outlines which level of government should be responsible for what. Comparably, in all federations, the national or federal government has powers to regulate interstate commerce, declaring war, building an army/navy, making laws to enforce the Constitution, making treaties, regulates immigration and border protection, manage national resources (e.g. river Nile) and printing money. The state governments on the other hand are responsible for issuing licenses, providing public health and welfare, regulates voting, and regulates education.

The concurrent powers, or shared powers of the federal and state government are making laws, making courts, building highways, and collecting taxes. The states and federal laws must not conflict each other, in other word, they must be consistent. However if there is inconsistency between the states and federal laws, the federal law will override the state law. With this in mind, it is not hard to see that federal government will still be a ‘big brother’.

Reason for the referendum

Let us assume that the above mentioned objectives are the aims of federalism that we would have in South Sudan should we adopt it. Hence if particular individuals or parties disagree with objectives identified above, they would most likely disagree with various prescriptions provided within federalism. Therefore if the permanent federal constitution is to be developed logically and consistently, there first needs to be some consensus on important issues such as what the meaning of federalism is and what its objectives are.

Unless there is agreement on fundamental issues, such as those just mentioned, the proposed federalism will be developed in a rather ad hoc or piecemeal manner with limited consistency between states, federal government and among South Sudanese in general. Furthermore, there are times where each level of government has an advantage of power. This is where we South Sudanese need a proper consultations and awareness to choose the system of federalism that is best for us.

Highly decentralized federalism

Basically, there are two types of federal system, in Australia and Canada for example, federalism is used in a more DECENTRALIZED manner. This means that in Australia each individual state and territory carries more power than the federal government does. In Australia and Canada, most of the money which each state receives from the federal government is unconditional. This means that each state or territory is able to allocate the resources as they see fit.

This highly DECENTRALISED federal system is not without shortcomings. In Canada for example, the province of Quebec has been seeking sovereignty for many years. They wished to preserve their faith, their language, their laws and their culture. Likewise, in Australia for example, the Western Australia state has also been seeking to secede and become a sovereign country. If Quebec ever does achieve to be separate from the rest of Canada then it will reduce the sense of equality among the rest of the provinces and territories. This could cause other provinces and territories to wish to leave Canada and take control over their own province, the same is the case with Australia.

Centralised federalism

The United States on the other hand uses federalism in a more CENTRALIZED approach. Here, the national government gives the state government money, but the state government must use the money according to how the national government wants the money spent. The national government has an increase of power here because they can get the state to do whatever they want them to do. This is also known as a conditional transfer because the state has to follow certain conditions the federal government gives them. Federal mandates is an order from the national government given to the state government that the state government must comply with and if they don’t, there will be consequences (federal funding can be revoked).

It is used when the federal government wants the state government to implement a certain policy. This also gives the federal government more power because if the state decides not to do it, the state can get punished by failing to comply with the national government. Unlike Australia and Canada where federalism is more decentralized (giving states more powers), this problem of wanting to secede is not seen in the United States because of their centralized approach to federalism. This approach allows each state to be equal and no one state to feel the need to overpower another state.

Notion of ONE country under federal government

Finally, if comments on Facebook and on other media outlets can be used as indicative of what South Sudanese think federalism will bring, the summation would be that many South Sudanese think that if federalism is adopted, people of Lakes state must not go to Central Equatoria state, people of unity state must not go to Upper Nile state and vice versa. However, integral to any federalism is the choice and freedom of movement. Citizens and businesses in a federation have the freedom to move to another state if they are unhappy with the government or the conditions where they currently reside.

This provides an incentive for states to improve their services so that they can compete with other jurisdictions. People of South Sudan especially those who don’t read or write in rural areas should be made to understand this idea before the federal system is adopted. To be sure that they have understand it and that we are all on the same page, they must cast their votes in the referendum for the federal constitution.

David Yau-Yau: A Militia Man and Theology  

Posted: June 7, 2014 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Commentary

By Manyok Mabiei                                                                                                             

First of all, who is a man called David Yau-Yau in South Sudan? This is my pleasure to review a militia and theology career of Jonglei. It isn’t too late to open up a case of the killer in 3years in Jonglei.

A man known as David Yau-Yau was a refugee in North-Kenya, Kakuma in 90s under care of the UN, and lived in Group 56, before he left the camp. He started a primary school in Kakuma with some of the children under care of the UN. Mr.Yau-Yau was a member of the Presbyterian Church in Zone-one in Kakuma. He studied theology course in Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan in 2000s.

What is a Connection between David Yau-Yau and BishopTaban?

Paride Taban is a well-known Bishop and respectful person who engaged in peace dialogue between South and North, before the South Sudan got her own independent state from North. Taban is from Eastern Equatoria and served as a Bishop in the South Sudan during the civil war before becoming an advocate for peace who is widely respected by the governments of South Sudan and North Sudan.

What brought these two men together Taban and Yau-Yau by framing a peace deal between the South Sudan Democratic Movement Cobra-Faction and Government of South Sudan?

Bishop Taban and Yau-Yau were connected because of religion in South Sudan. Mr.Yau-Yau was helped by Taban to study the theology to become a pastor and to change Murle Community, so that they can understand the word of God and the people around them.

Taban was preaching a peace deal in Juba by devoting his times working on behalf of Yau-Yau and Government of South Sudan to end up the violence in Jonglei between six tribes.

David Yau-Yau was helped by two Bishops to study theology training through recommendation of Bishop Taban and Bishop Akurdit from Diocese of Bor in 2006, before he rebelled and killed the thousands of thousands of civilians in Jonglei.

Ruben Akurdit was interviewed by Sudan Tribune on December, 21 2012; he said, “he thought David Yau-Yau was going to make a pastor” when he taught him in Bortown of Jonglei.

This is meant Mr. Yau-Yau was taught by two Bishops of South Sudan to teach his Community to understand the word of God and avoid the violence to their neighbors.

A man was admired by two Bishops to become a good pastor and preach a peace between the communities, and government. It is a long time Murle practices what is calling abducting and stealing neighboring children.

Now, Yau-Yau is seemingly he bartered his allies two Bishops who taught him about the word of God.

What Turn a Theology Career to militia?

Mr. Yau-Yau came from Murle Community in Pibor, County and Gumuruk-Boma nearly 120 miles from Bor Community. Murle is sharing the borders with these communities including Dinka-Bor, Lou-Nuer, Anyuak, Kachipo, and Jie in Jonglei.

The six tribes made up of Jonglei in South Sudan. The Jonglei is a bigger by size, and populations, which can be divided into two and still bigger than these three States Warrap, Lake State, and Unity States.

The course of the matter came along with David Yau-Yau was an election on April, 2010; as an independent candidate in the states parliamentary during the election for the Gumuruk–Boma seat to representing his county of Pibor in Jonglei.

Yau-Yau and Judy Jokongole were fighting for one position until he was defeated by Jokongole, after; he loosed an election. Then his rebellion and killing the civilians were escalated the war against other communities near Pibor, County including government forces.

He launched his first attacks on May, 21 2010 by attacking the Pibor, County and killed the civilians. He escalated the war to other communities because he defeated by Kokongole from his area.

How this madness call an evil work or evil theory act less?

He went on and formed his party in the bush called the South Sudan Democratic Movement as the Cobra-Faction carried out deadly against people of Jonglei State and Government. He killed thousands of thousands of civilians in Dinka-Bor, Uror, Lou-Nuer, Anyuak, and Akobo in less than 3-years of rebellion.

Who will believe Yau-Yau Peace Deal in Juba?

If Mr.Yau-Yau will commit a lasting peace he should started from his neighbors by involve them in peace deal in Juba. He should start a peace deal with these communities including Lou-Nuer,Anyuak, Dinka-Bor, Kachipo, and Jie, rather than preaching a peace without them, while he left them as the victims of his war crime.

First, he should do by making apology to these communities including Lou-Nuer, Anyuak, Dinka-Bor, Kachipo, and Jie, because he killed their love one and abduct children.

This is called a madness of rebellion that cannot surprise the people, as Dr. John Garang was saying that, “Evil can even call for democratic.” These communities including Lou-Nuer, Dinka-Bor and Anyuak were calling for peace with Yau-Yau militia, but he abandoned and dishonored the deal in 2012.

Does anyone believe this peace will last between these communities without any attack?

I still doubt these communities will believe in this peace from Yau-Yau was preaching between Juba and Addis Ababa without including their neighboring communities, while he violated a first agreement in 2012.

Yau-Yau Demand a State of Murle

Divide Jonglei State into two states will not be a solution to end up the violence and attacks from these communities. A Militia Yau-Yau was claiming these four tribes including Murle, Anyuak, Kachipo, and Jie to have their own state in South Sudan. It is not a bad idea to add another state, but it will not prevent the crimes between these communities.

More to the points, there are probabilities the rebels can dishonor what they said, as an evidence Yau-Yau was signed the peace agreement in 2012, and then he dishonored it. This is a second agreement Yau-Yau exposes to the government and avoids their neighboring communities.

There are probabilities 98% of the rebel can violate their agreements without commit to it. The evidences the rebels like Kuanyin Bol, Riek Machar, Gadet Yak, and David Yau-Yau were against the government and killed the civilians, and calls for peace, but they violated more than two times.

Yau-Yau was assuming the four tribes in Jonglei will follow him to make up a state in South Sudan, while Anyuak, Kachipo, and Jie were not supporting the ideal of separation. Mr. Yau-Yau needs to form a (formal agreement) between these tribes Anyuak, Kachipo, Jie, and Murle in Jonglei to walk along in one road.

He failed without unite them, while there are rumors in the air Anyuak and Kachipo are not a part of the agreement with Yau-Yau. They were thanking Yau-Yau and his community, but they are not in agreement of separation from Jonglei. That mean Yau-Yau demands are in dilemma.

This is seemingly these communities are not agreed a deal by militia and theology career who kill thousands of civilians. Yau-Yau needs to know that without (formal agreement) with these communities in Jonglei; he will not achieve his demands.

It is a bad idea from South Sudan Government to reward the criminals who committed crimes to deserve the position in the government. This is totally wrong encouraging a criminal act by criminals to kill the innocents and reward them with prides in the government.

How this call? It is a violation of law to reward the criminals rather than give them a capital punishment without rewards them. Same way Dr. Riek Machar who was putted the country into mass-conflicts will be reward later a position. This is seemingly the nation is under lawless if there is no exposing the law.

Yau-Yau should deserve the capital trial and precondition without moving loosely in Juba. He should also commit into a peace agreement of 5years without attacking some other communities near Murle, and then his case will be overview in 6years later.

The only solution is to educate these communities who are still living in “Middle Ages” of lifestyle, especially Murle. It is a good idea to open some roads and schools, so that there will be interactions and connections between them to avoid living in the jungle style, as some communities are taking advantage of attacking others who abandoned the bush life.

Manyok Mabiei is currently in Chicago, IL. He is a one of the SPLA-Chapter Founders in Chicago and a former leader of the Red-Army of South Sudan. manyokmabiei@aol.com.