The IMF assistance is not a priority for South Sudan, system and economic reforms first
24 min readThe IMF Assistance is Not a Priority to the Nation: Restructuring of Systems and Economic Reforms are
By Madit Them Arop, Juba, South Sudan
Introduction
June 24, 2016 (SSB) —- This writing is grouped into three segments arranged on basis suitable to the author and purposively serves the chosen organization of the work. It is openly started with elements thoughtfully considered, if well revised, strategized and legalized would open opportunity rooms for a better system. Before the elements, the nation overview since its inception demonstrated practices seems permanent from variety perspectives when in truth unearthing them is possible. The denial to put tangible system up has frustrated both political, economic, culture and social norms. And it’s the point being tried to unpack such that the elements to address have proper foundation with clarity.
First and at the world level, the Republic of South Sudan is one of the nations with plenty of resources. Evidently, the resources are in abundant, how and why the nation is on its knees is the puzzle to deal with. Second, restructuring of system (the corrupt practices): such resources are critically witnessed limbless, why it’s the case; does corruption has a hand in this? Some nations thrive without oil and other major resources, South Sudan is not exception, and why it’s sinking? Third, the IMF usefulness and its doubted side: why assistance rather than restructuring of the system? And finally, conclusion will serves as summary package focusing on whether taking of the IMF assistance would be healthy or it may requires prepared time to cross the loan-bridge to help evaluate the nation’s readiness.
A: The Resources
As a point of urgency, the Republic of South Sudan, the world youngest nation, has pleaded for assistance from international partners but its capacity is being doubted abroad and within the region. These doubts have number of factors genuinely seen weedy and unsystematic. One of the factors is rooted in the government files surely crammed of corrupt practices. Good examples are 75 government officials identified having million dollars in foreign banks. This amount allocated for personal use is considered as an execution unlawfully slide. The action sowed doubts in donors’ mind, and the partners wonders when the nation money is use in absence of accountability, then what difference would it make in assistance being cried for? What mechanism would be used when in fact there is no independent financial system established to help track thefts, or hold those involved in dragging nation’s funds into their pockets. Critics, partners, and vulnerable citizens have lost trust in way public funds are utilize, and should this donation or loan requested for succeeded and approved and wired into the central bank account, what strategies are in place for loan money to end up serving the intended purpose? For clarity, the answers to these questions are none from critics’ perspective. Only the government could have the strategy in place.
But in reality check, more of this type of activities has taken place before, such as the 10 million dollars allocated to commercial banks, Alpha and Ivory Banks in particular; this amount was meant for food intervention security. The honoured banks promised to provide consumable items within two weeks epoch, and had added that their items would have lowered prices for affordability purposes. Worst of all and as this writing substantiated, nothing is understood to have been carried out. Items were never brought, the money was approved and vanished while food scarcity is deteriorating, and inconsiderate prices are on fluctuating mode daily. The banks did their best to received and stuck in implementation phase. There also been an off and on auctioning of dollars to commercial banks recently, about 400 million dollars proposed for bidding. The idea was to speed up lack of dollar in the nation, to help in reducing or blocking black market skyrocketing, still, deadlock is surely reached. No change seen either in dollar market or in food supply.
Given specified evidences explained, it becomes an easy practice to burgle in nation’s name; sympathetic requests, as that of the banks, are made to help make individual voices powerful, convincing and neutral to donors as well as to the public, when in fact it’s all about interests. But after the requests are executed, well planned accountable system is never trace, only the network of friends gathers over the public funds. This demonstrates undetectable system with proper policies being not in place, deficiency in judiciary system accorded with unjust practices. Accountable system is a justifiable system, but truly, it’s not the case here. The commercial banks failed to deliver because of inactive accountable system which encourage attractable injustice activities. It is bad administering!
Mishandling of resources has great hand in our current situation. First and foremost, the nation resources vanish daily or are misuse routinely, a major disturbing unfitting practice. The oil revenues, for example, has vase outcome with an exploitable use. It’s shocking and unconvincing! Even though shutting down of oil operations in 2012 has added to economic situation at our laps, an abrupt decision the government won’t have done, experts thought so, the nation would still have sustainable momentum. Also, the austerity measures imposed, which hurtfully cut salaries, failed to make any difference economically, is another hand in this view.
Still, cluster of other arrangements created like Disaster Management Committees, tasked to monitor how civil population salaries paid out after 2013 political eruptions, did as well nothing suitable. Irregularities shot up; only an accorded for budget was exhausted in default process, almost all resources poured into these activities ended in the hands of individuals like other major governmental events. Lack of accounted for system have encouraged unacceptable interests. That’s why when we look at Juba City, one find that all best buildings, hotels, bars and restaurants are either belong to the foreigners attached to officials or belong to individuals, leaving the government with almost nil. The group of friends enriching friends, individuals making themselves rich out of public resources is never a surprise in South Sudan.
Another issue is government contracts. The government contracts are sabotaged. One of the convincing examples is main road connecting Juba City to Bahr el Ghazal Region, which president officially declared open for construction in 2015. That contract didn’t go according to the orders because of unknown problems which turned out to be hidden interests according to reliable sources. It was blocked and eventually died due to disagreement between constructors and mediators, middle people demanded for a share which put contractor at a severe loss. And therefore, third partying put this country at unrest position.
Vilest of all is the devaluation of nation economy. The floating of economy declared in 2015 has put the nation upside-down, no economic stone left unturned, it miserably placed local currency against dollar hard currency. If this devaluation was never officially passed and levied, pounds would still have momentum. The decision was reversible in this view and would have been recalled since it added nothing to it purpose. But in simple sense, authority responsible feared of losing trust from partners and so it was left to go-wild like bulldozer cracking down houses. It was bad decision and it is still wrong. The government in the first place won’t have involved in the market with improper calculations, risking matching pound with dollar which resulted in great recession. Bad idea! For government to control, regulate the market on regulation basis rather on equalizing basis because it won’t be easy to control forces of supply and demand. That’s it should have left “black-market” open and put emphasis on pounds rate at the central bank. Such that when black market go up, the bank rate would either remain the same or maintain reasonable lawful rate, where seekers for the dollar could get it. And when dollar is not in the market, the bank can booth it until things work out.
In order to alleviate practices mentioned, serious restructuring of system is swiftly needed. To sabotage or have a third party illegally is unhealthy rehearsal. It is a practice recognized as corrupt practice. That’s one of reasons the nation is economically poor, no system established to help control unwanted policies or practices. South Sudan is like any other nations in Africa and perhaps in the world. It has sovereign status or much better over some nations when we talk of available resources.
Taking Uganda and Ethiopia the landlocked countries like South Sudan, for instance, are seen doing way better and their economic stand is firmed and standardized. These countries including Kenya and Tanzania don’t have much oil revenues and are growing, surviving and progressing well. Why not South Sudan? The Republic of South Sudan has oil and evergreen arable lands, which put it at different circle. Yet it monetary situation never add an inch year in and year out.
The factual reasons are that the aforementioned countries have systems structured and respected while South Sudan is doing the opposite. South Sudan has refused to impose enacted laws; refused to respect its constitution, it is managing the nation on relations, friends favouring friends, elites taking laws into their own hands. When this practice exist and when laws protect powerful elites, and negligently neglecting the common people then the result is regrettable as it is being experienced now.
If president Kiir was to be advised and before asking for assistance, he would have first improve/strengthen the system, give law arms to hold anyone accountable without interference, when culprit is caught red handed, law must serve it cause. The president must remain vigilance and reserve on some past policies. One of the policies is Amnesty. Amnesty Policy in this country has encouraged unimportant activities and has been one of the bad policies in this view. In this circumstantial era, enough is enough for amnesty policy. It’s tried, it fruits are known with mixed tastes, it’s time to try or go for something new and fresh.
The other element is of course the corruption as mentioned. Corrupt practices become part of human life. But in reality, no living being can rule out corruption, only to alleviate it through accounted for system. To alleviate corruption, anticorruption laws must get dusked and deploy to an active duty; on the other respect, the president must mean in practice the “no tolerance” phrase and wash it off everlastingly from just using it as lip warning!
Above all and on honest line, the elements of bad practices are many in the Republic of South Sudan; nevertheless, the idea here is to archive the past, open an immaculate page, start enforcing legalized regulations, use past policies as reference but take decisions on now basis. In other words, it is not about trial and error practices; it is acting lawfully while putting this nation’s interest above and beyond. Taking what you think necessary as yours and that for the nation is obligations for every citizen to distinguish on nationalistic basis or on patriotic perspective. Therefore, the nation resources had convincingly been going for a wasteful ride, an exploitation if reverse and corrected, it would put this country back to its firm economic feet.
B: The IMF Assistance
The crux for this writing is the loan from the IMF. The assistance from the IMF comes with economic enthusiasms and economic discrepancies than it’s openly known. In his book Making Globalization Work, Stiglitz, a prominent economist, warned the developing countries from committing to agreements that would make them worst off when dealing with the western community. That the developed countries exercise their knowledge muscles to make developing countries lost in a complicated process when it comes to seeking for assistance. In order to get loan, they are either made convince to accept deals which will make them worst off in the long run financially or force them to take too much loan for their capacity to handle paying back when time come. “Developing countries borrow too much_ or are lent too much_ and in ways that force them to bear most or all of the risk of subsequent increases in interest rates, fluctuations in the exchange rate, or decreases in income, p.212.”
To borrow is to receive and repay. When too much is lent, repayment is difficult for some nations, which may lead to default of nation economy or going for assistance as it’s the case for South Sudan, which, if this proposed borrowing is certainly not calculated carefully, then borrowing unprepared for may lead to regrets. In other words, to take is easy than to give. The systematic capacity available is considered thin and narrow. That’s being poor, lack of proper knowledge, lack of regulatory system open up chances to accept deals questionable and unbeneficial. And this happens all the time to poor countries, according to Stiglitz. It is easy for poor nations to accept bad deals. They do it deliberately or unintentionally, and still, there are secret conditions comes with the borrowed loan. Such conditions are either made known partly to the poor nations or they come sealed and hidden. The conditions only appear when unusual arrangements happen to the obligated loans, according to the experts. As a result, the country end up between “two unpleasant choices: defaulting, which brings with it fear of economic collapse, or accepting assistance, which brings with it the loss of economic sovereignty,” Stiglitz stressed.
In this case lack of framework with workable system which determine what will happen when country failed to pay should be first priority to put into consideration and address before involving into making commitment. Such that a country can go with loan knowing the consequences attached. This sound valid nonetheless it is none of anyone business, the developed nations have the power, have the knowledge, have the resources and are in the market which allow them to promote their interests, period. It’s up to the borrower to play it cards right and legally well, otherwise defaults or failures in paying become an international legal obligation to fulfil. You easily get it and easily get default if went in unprepared.
South Sudan, from this point of view, is very eager to have speedy assistance to help jumpstart up its crippled economy in order to construct inaccessible roads, improve health system, bring in facilities needed, readjust security of the nation, restructure educational system, and more so, universalize judicial system. By the end of the day and after the loan exhausted and the terms for the loan is up, heated waves from the IMF reappear, demanding for first commitment pay. Having caught unready, looking at the bill with surprise eyes, trying to either complaint or blame or ask for more time, in due course, the default clock started to move, more interests accumulate while the image of the nation is deteriorated internationally should default occurred. And when this happen, decisions are taken as being late or defaulted on nations in three ways, through what Stiglitz called the brute forces: invasion, occupation and regime change.
Given the three forces, all are certain. The candle being illuminated is on both ends. First end will give smile appearance as receiving comes with enthusiasms while taking something meant as a loan not a gift, would either lead to “unfortunate financial situation” if went in arbitrarily or would temporarily alleviates it course. But then putting aside all these together and opted for debt forgiveness when ended in deadlock crisis, the consequences remain unchanged and financial harshness would be high. Debt forgiveness is not healthy to hope for. It comes with layers and such layers are not easy to unpack without spiting economic collapse blood. The result dwells on listening to the IMF advices because the nation has reached the gridlock economically. But using the IMF approaches is better on one thing and a lot terrifying in many ways. Getting loan is appreciating only when terms are well spelt out and implemented accordingly. And it becomes a disaster after negotiated terms half way change appearances.
In other words, the IMF focuses on it interests, it doesn’t fix the system for a nation, it enforces it own system. The nation’s weaknesses are their strengths. These weaknesses give way to new rooms, the opportunity rooms for gain and success in the pool of weak system in a less powerful nation. The opportunities for change on terms are necessary to uninformed borrowers, this is done because they can’t defend their positions since terms in question stand polished and could look fairly the same. So requesting for assistance sounds like a pleasurable opportunity when in fact it’s a curl game to begin with.
The president of the nation said in his one of presses that the partners who helped the country to make peace and promised to provide assistance hadn’t do anything in order to finish implementing the remnants of peace. In deed, the president was right to remind them; however, their prompt acts should not be seen as an answer to our chronic bad system cancer, the corruption cancer, lack of accountability cancer, the nepotism cancer, the tribalism cancer, it is us to accept general responsibility, and consider this country as “ours” rather than banging on it as if it is loaned to us. More effort in our system required reform, to come up with accountable, transparent system. When we do this and respect it, a lot more gets corrected in just a matter of time while strategizing and prioritizing any legalized activities. Systemizing strategic plans with priorities prevent falling back into economic pitfalls. And this is not seen being the case in our current situation; but certainly, going back to calamity is swift and it’s going to be austere. Predictably, it’s to happen, because bad plans in borrowing will push clock back and if it happen, coming out has no proper prophesy.
In other words, too much debts, restructuring debts, and profitable debts have inequality gains. Too much debt is obvious, it is taking more than less and necessary to take which ends in default, that’s failing to keep up with the terms; to restructure a debt is a principle used to mislead rather convince a borrower to borrow when is not in need to do so. This happens a lot when institutions concerned could convince other poor nation to file up for more money in order to accumulate their economy strength. Because with presence of money in plenty and abundant, the country could do anything affordably. These are some of advices institution like the IMF give to make a particular nation thinks being helped when in fact it is being dragged into its own pit. Profitable debt is a simple way of making borrowing nation pay less in borrowed loan in order for a loan to have an extensive term with an increase of interests, which would have been paid in fewer amounts if payment was made in greater amount. The bottom-line is the beneficiaries are lenders, the rich corporate sucking sweat of poor nations in a polished manner.
The trusted IMF in viewpoints of loan lenders countries do what is sure known unfit yet worthwhile to be identified. The plan provides provisional intervention with permanent fluctuations, variation of interest rates, which benefits the owners, and at the end, put the borrowers back to the seats that they belonged. From Stiglitz perception, the IMF “makes sure that those who have entered into these unfair contracts fulfil them, whatever the cost to their people, p. 220.” The idea is like the scenario that even though my mother stops producing while she has conceived and borne me, it is none of my business to question.
The IMF makes sure it pushes other nations to recession which could lead to an eventual depression. And it do this because it is known to the institution that most of the countries are so poor that they won’t have guts to turn away loans regardless of the badness in terms involved.
In other words, the IMF is not an equal universal financial institution providing equal services to both developing and developed countries. It is a western institution serving at all fronts with mandate to provide the west with diamond and developing countries with silver. There is private service which benefits the west and make worst to the poor nations. An example is stipulated in what Stiglitz called the Private Cross_ Border Debt. In his capacity, he explained that the institution provided loans to pitiable nation’s governments to make them repay in return to western society favour. The IMF “provided the governments with the dollars to repay the Western creditors. The creditors were protected, the borrowers were let off the hook_ and taxpayers in developing countries were left with the burden of repaying the IMF, P. 231.”
Clearly as stressed, there is a need to have a sense of stability between creditors and debtors. This happens when globalization laws regulate both institutions and governments in international markets. It is of advantage to the West to milk from the developing nations. It is known to them that the developing nations are at the brink financially, which is good thing; making them even poorer is the best way to control them. In other words, providing the poor nations with loan to pay as bill in number of years would keep them vulnerable and voiceless to doubt in anything cooked and polished in favour of the western society. The terms involved are not properly negotiated because of urgency of time while demands are high. So the leaders in developing countries opted for quick with less reliable process to obtain achievable outcome leaving their societies wondering over economical shortfalls dug trench.
And therefore, the IMF is being accused of the slogan from critics’ standpoint: misleads the poor in order to gain. And that is why the governments in developing nations are encouraged to borrow more and just more in order to make payments on interests of loan owed. And this act may expose borrowed countries to more risk, engage them with unreliable advices and make them have endless liabilities. This is intentionally done as a constraint, to tether a nation around their focus.
It would have been appeasing if borrowed loans were issued in local currency. Stiglitz brought up this convincing proposal which would have made a huge difference in terms of making payment of borrowed loan in country local currency. But since the IMF, the World Bank are western financial institutions, operates and controls grounded on west interests, the proposal was given deaf ears. It was rejected because it favoured or helped make other nations recognizable and would’ve lowered the cost incurred when paying in dollars.
In his article A Farewell to Alms, James Suroweicki had about the same concern and argued that “aid support turns countries into aid junkies, clinging to the Word Bank for their next fix. Instead of looking for help, African countries need to follow the so called Asian Tigers (countries like South Korea and Taiwan), which overcame poverty by pursuing superior economic policies.” Foreign aids poured into country end up making no difference in his view.
These aids are provided purposively for rescue reasons, has no connection to improvement of economy or development of a nation according to Suroweicki. So to standstill waiting to be lifted out of economic poverty won’t go for long and it would be unsustainable.
Also, it should be noticed that the IMF provides assistance to countries with accountable and transparent system. In South Sudan case, which is available: accountability or transparency or a little of both? It’s not easy to risk choosing one leaving the other. And it is not safe to say one of them is available and functioning over the other. And it is much riskier to admit accountability-transparency crusading without receiving a very inconsiderate reactions. And therefore, to go for long run system with fixed well respected policies, well considered normalized system, this nation required immediate economic reform, restructuring of the system, establishment of policies and assemble all these changes in to one package tangibly labelled “South Sudan Systems.”
Without comprehensive system, we won’t afford to stand shine in the world, let alone asking for assistance and be able to get well-crafted feedback with respect. Even though the partners would have justifiable reasons to provide us with all we need, it would be just a matter of receiving without sustainable system to administering it. As a sad side result, the country would eventually go back or pass far beyond the started point in crisis, and consequently, more aids, demanding for assistance would constantly be an option for us in years to come. That’s why it is important to check, strengthen our system or create one if there is nothing to restructure. Because borrowings come with more problems than anticipated, and the ruling party like SPLM is no exception, it should make note of accusation labelled on it, that when the SPLM is in peace, it loots; when in disagreement, it kills.
This means the SPLM mismanages the assets in time of peace and do the opposite in time of war. It is this mismanagement of resources, lack of transparent system and bad administering have added to financial vulnerability, deteriorated trust and eventually installed economic instability.
Such economic instability was spelt out clearly when the IMF team visited Juba, capital of South Sudan on 30th of May through 1st of June, 2016, which recommended for full restoration of macroeconomic steadiness, collaborates within the nation, create political reform policy with guided approach from partners. “If macroeconomic policies do not change, the economic situation will deteriorate further, resulting in more humanitarian suffering and potentially threatening the still-fragile peace process,” partially read the IMF statement. Political reform will gradually strengthen human lives, will make policies strong and will open trust windows for donors to exercise their responsive part in bringing forth assistance to help narrow up the widened monetary gap. “Strong policy efforts by the government could lay the basis for donors to play a role in providing support to close the fiscal gap, including through budget support.”
The Fund assured the government to restore credibility by preserving peace and the rule of law and by also starting to implement a stronger public financial management framework and enhancing transparency in its financial transactions. Political unity with public financial management “will be key steps to rebuilding policy credibility and regaining access to external financial support,” the report strained. It is to draw in this position that fragile peace is still fresh, strong reform is needed and reform comes when parties involved accept differences through unifying decisions. And for that reason, the IMF is concerned of “fresh” elements, conflict elements and elements of economy to be put into thoroughgoing consideration.
Based on recommendations it is convincing that South Sudan has a long trip to make, and in such journey, fulfillment in restructuring the system, economic stability reform, political reform and judicial reform are urgently required and when these are nailed through, it will help assured partners about serious changes reached. And as a result, the partners would have an envelope of ideas to rigorously study about the nation. With this the feedback train would be ready to hit the rail. Because it would be seen that reorganization in the house of South Sudan system has added fertilizers to the field and it’d be time for plowing that field. That’s it would be time to ask for assistance and assistance body would authorize approved seeds based on revised policies.
On the other hand, getting loans is an inevitable for a nation seeking assistance in time of economic downturns, other viewers may argue; however, it’s still an option that requires systematic evaluation as cited. It’s requires robust comparison between earnings over losing, between time we are in and time to come to scale the outcome on improving or disadvantaging basis. The IMF term is about 18 months, standby programmes. With this period, South Sudan may not be ready to meet its requirement, because it has too much to put in order. Again, the house is disorganized, it need immediate restructuring so that when new page emerge it’s receive with full commitment.
On Briefing Paper: Does The IMF Really Help Developing Countries, published on April 1993, by Overseas Development Institute (ODI), for instance, pointed out that “the Fund is able to secure sustained improvements in the Balance of Payments, but it is unable to achieve growth and inflation on fiscal outcomes and credit expansion.” This leaves fear of economic instability in developing countries. The paper stressed lack of comprehensible policy set forth for loan takers to help belief in service being provided. Doubts are high with inconsiderate promises. “High failure rates and a paucity of ‘success story’ leave particular questions about the Fund’s ability to operate successfully in African and other low-income countries,” ODI explained further. Feeble nations politically and economically easily receive poor decisions with bad conditions. That’s “political determination of country lending decisions remains a weakness. The Fund is seen adding to the financing problems of the developing world rather than reducing them,” the ODI strongly stated.
In our case, the background of this nation is questionable, political crisis put it at risk, economic collapse, corruption with bad policies are major concerns. In truth telling, of course the nation is losing it economic stand, economic sovereignty has deteriorated and is being feared of losing strength completely; however, with improper policies, bad administering due to poor system, unaccounted for structure put the partners in dilemma. Providing with assistance is good thing at this time; on the other hand, pouring the loan into a nation with irreconcilable political disparities is puzzling.
What could be the way forward? The way forward is: make current government understand that the million dollars with seventy-five officials are exchangeable with packable approved loan if the government want bailout. How? Put pressure on government to trace the money while the loan is being processed on conditions. And the first condition is that the first payment of the loan, if it is to be the case, should be paid out from the 75 official money when loan conditions are met, though it’s not a priority, and place in process for approval. Second, let the government put out strategic plans, if loan is issued, what should be done with it. Because trust is thin in current system; also, civil servants unpaid for months should get covered though it is unusual to borrow loan to pay salaries. Third and while these arrangements are being dealt with, parties should commit themselves to bailout the nation through full implementation of peace remnants. This will open ways for trust and with trust, economic development will follow. In other words, peaceful nation plans for development, and such money requested for should go for enhancement of the country. The donated money like that of German government 6 million euro should be used for peace dividends. TROIKA should do the same on voluntary will. In current situation donations are favourable over borrowing. Fourth, restructuring the system, impose anticorruption laws with economic and judicial reforms. Fifth, amnesty policy should cease. Reformed laws are eyes to unjust acts; so due process or judicial proceedings should visually be doorways to legal laws and regulations, must relate to government legitimacy, period, not an arbitrarily amnesty ideas which encourages fading policies. Lastly, this donation, should be managed by the granted institution, it’s unconvincing to cut-off person’s head and still thinks having a useful relations with person’s society. Political disagreements in current government has opened up hates with economic turmoil, which will take times to heal.
C: Conclusion:
Political reform is a major element wish to improve in this country. This means improving of the Republic laws, constitutions, amendments and other elements in accordance with expectations of the civil population and the nation. The components of community needs should be involved, both rich and poor, educated and uneducated, political parties and non-members should have voice in the expected representation reforms. Second, other element such as economic reforms, economic efficiency must improve, to remove distortions caused by unwarranted regulations; to strengthen economic structure policies that lead to inefficiency. The ineffectiveness connected with jobbery, the corruptness, an act of influence for personal fitness must be adjusted. It’s this economic failure with political eruptions in 2013 and recent devaluation of economy led us to this unreturnable path. After reaching the deadlock, the economic instability, which resulted to seeking for assistance from the IMF and other institutions like the World Bank.
Up till now and as demonstrated, taking loan is treatable and worth doing only when the nation is ready, it’s imperative to keep up with terms involved in the loans, failure to understand the conditions could generate more crisis than it’s analyzed and predicted. Lastly, though taking this loan the nation is yawning for could sound like a rightful time to do so when in reality, taking the loan unprepared has reedy chances for economic improvement. That’s why it’s important to put South Sudan laws in order first, reorganize the system, strengthen political gaps through reforms as a priority, to make parties dialogue together in order to rest unfinished remnants of peace. When we do this, when the country accept to set achievable goals for the sake of humanity, a lot of correctable concerns could be completed in just a matter of time and after putting grievances out of way, it would allow receiving the foreign loans while undivided, while the system is strengthened, while the economic reform is polished, and thus far, the responsibilities for administering would be one for one people in one nation. But given the political stand, with rush approach, where trust is lacking, tribalistic tunes singing song of finger pointing and blames, we won’t only regret in loan taking decisions but we’ll go back to the same devastation, because the borrowed loan would be wasted on activities not strategized in unaccounted for system. Therefore, borrowing now while unprepared transports more problems than its merit.
This author is reachable at aropmadit@gmail.com;
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
