Too many cooks spoil the broth: The case of SPLM-FDs/G-10 in South Sudan

Posted: February 22, 2017 by PaanLuel Wël in Columnists, Commentary, David Deng Chapath, Opinion Articles, Opinion Writers

By David Deng Chapath, Kampala (Uganda)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

February 22, 2017 (SSB) — South Sudan never ceases to make headline. In January 2011 South Sudanese were given an opportunity to vote on unity or separation, nearly 99 per cent of southern Sudanese voted to go their own way as they voted for separation.

 Decision by South Sudanese to vote for separation made great news all over the World and in Sudan in particular as legalized divorce between Sudan and South Sudan became a reality and took place at day light.

On 9 July 2011 after the vote for Separation as pointed out in the above, the Republic of South Sudan was declared as independence nation becoming Africa’s newest country, the 193rd Member State to join the United Nations and UNESCO’s 194th Member State. This made very great news headline all over the world. 9 July becomes a day for independence of South Sudan and all South Sudanese celebrated and continue to celebrate it.

The above dates were dates that created the happiness for South Sudanese in which all South Sudanese were united.  However, January 2012 became turning point in the history of South Sudan as the reality of the nation building was beginning to surface. The oil shutdown in January 2012 began the sad days for South Sudanese and at that time the South Sudan made the news headline not because of happiness of South Sudanese but the economic war between Sudan and South Sudan was the source of news headline.

In April 2012 there was direct conflict on the border, in an oilfield area that the Sudanese call Heglig and South Sudanese call it Panthou. This was the starting point of the problems of South Sudan as the armies of Sudan and South Sudan began helping rebel movements, fighting each other on the disputed border, destroying oil facilities at a time when both economies and both sets of people were suffering from the lack of oil money.

The examples I have cited above showed some instances where South Sudanese were acting in unity within the country and also supported their leaders. However, 15 December 2013 was the beginning of the end of South Sudan as many groups engaged in contestation of power emerged.

15 December 2013 was the day the world’s newest state descended into civil war and continuing fighting has displaced more than 1,000,000 and killed over 10,000 while a humanitarian crisis threatens many more.

What was clear was that both South Sudanese and the international community were not properly prepared to prevent the conflict except some groups within the government that took the money of the nation in anticipation of the occurrence of some kind of conflict or war.  One of the groups within the government that took money of the nation in preparation for the present war was some members of G10.

Thus in this article, I will discuss the conflict of South Sudan by pointing out that it has its genesis in the G10’s struggle for power in South Sudan. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth which means that when all people have many solutions without agreeing on one thing then the thing will be destroyed.

The same is correct in regard to South Sudan in relation to G10. G10 members have many solutions to South Sudan though they do not agree among themselves. When we talk of G10, we are talking of group of detainees that were detained in the aftermath of attempted coup in South Sudan. These detainees were: Pagan Amuom, Majak Agoot, Oyai Deng Ajak, Deng Alor, John Luk, Chol Tong, Gier Chuang Aluong and others that I have not mentioned here. This is because my main interest is in some of the personalities I have listed here.

The members of G10 listed above were detained due to the fact that they were implicit in the plan to overthrow the government and because of that they were considered to be within the larger conspiracy group planning to overthrow the government of South Sudan.

Though they were released from detention and allowed to go to Kenya, it cannot be denied that majority of them wanted to become presidents of South Sudan. For instance, Dr. Majak Agoot, Pagan Amuom, Gier Chuang Aluong and Nyandeng Garang (though Nyandeng is not a member of detainees) have very clear intention of each of them becoming the president of South Sudan.

Such a desire of individuals for becoming the president of South Sudan has made them remain intentionally divided though united as group. The unity is only due to the external threat and security but not for the purpose or goal.

It is the same division within their group that makes them campaign for the taking over of South Sudan by the UN under Trusteeship because they have failed to agree as to who should become the president and because of that they wanted South Sudan destroyed.

As each of them wants to become the president of South Sudan they do not contribute towards the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan as they are interested in the failure of the Government so that they come in and take power the country.

It is the same reason they are advocating for the government of technocrats as Pagan and Majak have consistently been campaigning for. This is shown by the fact that though they talk of the government of technocrats but they do not propose as who are the technocrats, which shows clear personal interest in the matter.

In some occasions, they campaign that there is a need for the government of stakeholders to be formed and in this case they consider themselves as members of stakeholders and supposed to be part of that government; hence, clearly showing their individual personal interests.

 The G10 members should be reminded that they have a hand in the crisis of South Sudan as they were implicated in corruption and mismanagement of the Country. This fact is shown by the type of houses they have built in East Africa and other parts of the world.

In summary, what I wanted to tell G10 is that too many cooks spoil the broth. Their struggle all for each to become president is not healthy for South Sudan. It is worrying because even if one of them gets power today, the others will still oppose him or her and they may even rebel against that person in power.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese student residing in Uganda and can be reached through: dengdavid00@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 from.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s