Are Our “Reformists” Patriotic?
By Kuol K. Alberto
Patriotism is portrayed by one’s action and mostly when one has the country at heart.
I shall refer to reformists in this article specifically to those who are currently waging bloody and senseless war against the government of the republic of South Sudan. As for those who may be reformists within the country and diaspora and have not caught the buffalo by its horns, I do not intend to use this term to refer to them. I shall restrict it to the rebels.
It seems there is enough evidence to answer the above question affirmatively for the obvious reasons I shall enumerate below.
Firstly, majority of those currently in the bush battled seriously with various Khartoum regimes for the rights of Southerners. They did that without wavering until their heroism finally brought peace in a sliver plate to all southerners regardless of whether they participated in the war of liberation or not.
Secondly, most of those who defected against the legitimate elected government held many press conferences to voice out their concerns regarding the way the government led by SPLM is veering off the path and ideals for which they took up arms thirty something years ago. This was done in a peaceful manner by stating very serious issues which were going on wrong and needed immediate correction to salvage the nation.
Finally, they had the courage to go back to the bush again although they had had an experience of what bush life is to fight for the “rights” of the civil population and to correct the mistakes before the country could collapse completely. In this, they had to sacrifice a lot.
These and many other examples which may be best known to them are the examples which depict one as a patriot and a nationalist. And for that, they may be called reformists.
However, looking at a different angle and scrutinizing their activities critically, there is a lot to be desired of the so called democratic forces in the name of rebels. I shall state few examples here and the readers shall expound on the rest and judge whether the term truly applies to this group.
Right after the coup story and subsequent mutinies in Bor and Bentiu and the declaration of Dr Riek as the automatic leader of the defectors, the world witnessed wanton destruction of towns, ruthless killing of innocent people, kidnapping and any other malicious acts one could imagine to be engineered by the group that is fighting for the liberation of the very people they are killing and destroying their properties.
Even during the war for the liberation of Southern Sudan, such atrocities where never done either by the various Khartoum regimes or by the SPLA in the towns which were liberated from the Arabs.
The group secondly, went ahead and forged alliance with Sudan and in fact used the flag of Sudan such that every time they captured a town, and the government forces managed to retake it, traces of Sudan’s flag could be found. Does this group have this country they are fighting in heart if you could use another country’s flag?
Thirdly, some of the group’s representatives have been voicing out the possible disintegration of the country (South Sudan) to various countries with some parts being annexed to Sudan, some to Ethiopia, some to Uganda, Kenya, DRC and CAR. While this is possible, which part will remain as South Sudan? Why should you go to the bush if you have lost interest in the unity of South Sudan? It is obvious that, the idea of rebellion is to make this happen such that both the rebels and the government loss this nation.
Fourthly, the WikiLeaks that were recently made public (between the rebels and the security of Sudan) by insiders leave a lot to be desired about the real motive and objective of this senseless rebellion. How could someone accept to be the governor of the state which is annexed to another country just to enjoy the wealth from the resources of that state? Why should they stoop so low to reveal security details about the dealings of the government of South Sudan with SRF rebels? Do these rebels see the danger they are putting the country in it?
In any case, why should they reveal these things now when they have a hand in it? The government of South Sudan in one way or the other has been a sympathizer of SRF rebels long ago when Riek was the vice president. If all are to be accountable, then, he should not be saved at all. Inasmuch as rebel movements bring changes, any guerrilla movement with wrong agenda will always fail.
Fifthly, the request for a separate army just like the way CPA was designed to monitor the peace agreement. Looking at the case of that of CPA, it was obvious that Sudan and Southern Sudan were one country but with quite different mentalities. There was so much mistrust created by long period of fighting and because of the various agreements which were abrogated by Khartoum with Southerners.
As for the case of South Sudanese, we are one and again, there has been no any agreement that is broken although it is possible. That is why there are various international bodies including UNMISS.
With all these said, I conclude by saying, insofar as common people sympathized with the “reformist” at the beginning, people have begun to realize the motives behind the so called democratic forces’ agenda.
The government should open cases of treason for them so that, as soon as peace is signed, and they return, they should be taken to court to answer these charges against them for selling the country to our enemies.
They do not deserve to be called Democratic or reform forces, but rather, forces of destruction and bunch of opportunists.
You can reach the author, Kuol Kuol Makuach, at his email: Kuol K. Alberto <kuolkuol2001@yahoo.com>
About Post Author
