Princeton Lyman: South Sudan is not a failed state to be placed under UN-AU trusteeship
A respond to Mr. Princeton Lyman and Kate Almquist’s article on Nation mirror dated 22/July/2016.
By Bol Madut Ayii, Juba, South Sudan
July 25, 2016 (SSB) — “I did not start a media war with evil writers who wrote against my country and I don’t want a war with them, but if someone launches an attack, though, I will respond I don’t want media war”. In order to give a precise and clear respond to Mr. Lyman and his co-writer, I would like to take my readers briefly on how South Sudan came to existence, this does not mean that the people of South Sudan do not know where they came from, but the intention is to educate those of Lyman and his friend Kate that South Sudan was not a gift from UN to be withdrawn as they wishes.
It took more than hundred years for sons and daughters of South Sudan to see the light and dream of their forefathers. The journey to freedom was not easy, but due to commitment and heroic sacrifices exerted by the freedom fighters the successive Islamic regimes in Khartoum accepted to sit on the table of negotiation after long years of struggle being Anya- Nya one or the SPLM/A. The first agreement of Anya-Nya one popularly known as Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 which was later teared like toilet paper by the then Sudanese President Jafaar Mohammed Nimeri saying it was not holy Quran or Holy Bible.
Being not satisfied with the way 1972 agreement dishonored by Sudanese President, South Sudanese heroes under the command of late Kerubino Kuanyin Bol Deng launched the Sudan people’s Liberation Movement/ Army (SPLM/A) in the town of Bor on the 16th / May 1983 and later appointed Comrade Dr. John Garang as the leader of the guerrilla movement. The SPLM/A under the leadership of late Dr. John Garang fought for twenty-one years till the Sudanese government voluntarily accept the negotiations on how to end the war. After so many years of negotiation the SPLM/A signed a unique peace agreement with National Congress Party of Bashir. The CPA provided for the right of self-determination for the people of southern Sudan after the end of six years of the interim period.
It was not easy for Islamic government of Bashir to implement the CPA but President Salva Kiir in his capacity as first vice President of Sudan and president of the autonomous government of southern Sudan pushed Bashir slowly but sure till Bashir found himself implementing the agreement. The people of Southern Sudan voted almost 100% for freedom in an internationally monitored referendum on the 9th of January 2011 and the result was internationally and regionally accepted. On the 9th of July 2011 the independence flag was raised up proudly with South Sudanese shedding tears while signing national anthem as a sign of great honor to the fallen heroes and heroines whose blood cemented the national foundation.
To come back to the respond, Mr. Princeton and his friend Kate in their article on nation mirror proposed the placement of South Sudan under UN/AU trusteeship for ten to fifteen years. The two writers miserably failed to give the bases or the legal ground of their proposal. The two writers also falls short to tell the world and South Sudanese the mandate of UN trusteeship, its successes or failures, how and when to apply and whether South Sudan met the criterion for placement under trusteeship.
The United Nation Trusteeship Council is one of the principal organs of the United Nations (UN) formed in 1945. It mandate was to oversee the decolonization of those dependent territories that were to be placed under the international trusteeship system created by UN charter as successor to the league of nations mandate system. The trusteeship council was designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence. With independence of Palau in 1994, the council suspended operations. The charter (UN trusteeship charter) does not specify the actual territories to be placed under trusteeship. Article 77 merely states that the system shall apply to three categories as follows:
- Territories still under mandate
- Territories “detached from an enemy states as a result of the second world war” and,
- Territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
South Sudan doesn’t fall within the above mentioned categories of UN trusteeship, article 76(b) of the UN charter provides, “to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement”, as the definition signifies, South Sudan is and independent state , a member of the United Nations, a member of African Union (AU) and has its democratically elected government with all its effective organs being executive, Legislature or Judiciary.
South Sudan is not under the mandate of any colony and therefore it doesn’t falls in the trust territory. It (South Sudan) did not declare its inability to administer and runs its administration and therefore, there is no voluntary placement of UN trusteeship, lastly South Sudan gained her independence as the outcome of the internationally recognized referendum and thus it was not just a detach from an enemy state.
With the above detailed conditions of placing a country under the UN trusteeship, there are no legal grounds in the eyes of international laws that qualify South Sudan to be place under the trusteeship. Again, the UN charter is equally nonspecific on designing the administrators of trust territories. It states simply that the individual trusteeship agreements shall designate the authority in each case, which may be “one or more states or Organization itself”.
Therefore, it will give UN and its influential members such as USA a chance to nominate a person of their choice which might not be in the interest of the said trust country as well as international law norms. Among those placed under the UN trusteeship and their administers were:
- In East Africa: Ruanda-Urundi administered by Belgium, Somaliland by Italy, Tanganyika by the UK.
- West Africa: Cameroon administered by the UK, Togoland by the UK.
- In the Pacific: Nauru administered by Australia and on behalf of New Zealand and the UK, New Guinea by Australia, and in September 1975, when New Guinea acceded to independence, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands became the only territory on the agenda of the trusteeship.
All these countries were placed under UN trusteeship because they were not independent and the objects of Article 83 of the UN charter apply to their territories.
Article 83 of the charter in its entirety doesn’t apply to South Sudan and therefore any unilateral attempt by UN, its counterpart the AU or suggestion of by those of Princeton Lyman to place South Sudan under UN trusteeship is of no legal ground under the principle of customary international law.
The current situation that South Sudan is passing through is a normal one experienced by any newly independent state. I don’t think whether all the African countries are free from rebellions or coups. It is immaterial to conclude that South Sudan should be placed under UN trusteeship because of failed coup which turned to rebellion.
In conclusion, I would like to appeal to Ambassador Princeton Lyman and his colleague Kate to engage their respective countries and international community to support the transitional government of national unity (TGoNU) in the implementation of the Agreement on the resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS).
I am pessimistic that peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved by proposing the trusteeship or sanctions being individuals or government, moreover proposal of trusteeship or foreign intervention militarily will hinder the implementation of peace and increase the suffering of the people of South Sudan. I am not aware of the country that attained peace by foreign military intervention or trusteeship and that trusteeship or foreign military intervention are not practical solution to South Sudan problem.
The writer is reachable via bolayii93@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, city and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
