US Officials’ Frequent Visits to the Sudan

Sen. John Kerry (Democratic Party), the Chairman of the United States (US) Foreign Relations Committee at the Senate, visited the Sudan on April 15^th, 2009. He headed a US Fact-finding Congressional Mission to the Sudan. He was to review the progress of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA). Kerry's visit came immediately after a previous visit made by Gen. J. Scott Gration, appointed recently by President Obama as his Special Envoy to the Sudan. 

Kerry is a former US army officer, who had volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, because, as he later said in his own words: "it was the right thing to do." He believes in the notion that “to whom much is given, much is required”, (http://kerry.senate.gov/about/biography.cfm). Kerry is also known for his commitment to his country, the US. He worked as Committees' and Sub-committees’ Chairman at various levels. He is known for his tough commitment to regime change in the Sudan during the period of the Clinton and Bush Administrations. He had stated that: “Besides, an intervention against the Sudanese government would fit rather nicely within the contexts of the Terror War”, Kerry, (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2004/07/kerry-stop-genocide-in-sudan.php). 

While in Vietnam serving his country, especially in the midst of the battles, he had seen the lives of his fellow soldiers, his friends, put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions. For his leadership, courage, and sacrifice under (enemy) fire, he was decorated with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts,(http://kerry.senate.gov/about/biography.cfm).

Some news outlets like Reuters News Agency which followed Sen. Kerry’s visit to the Sudan, said President Al-Bashir’s response to Barack Obama’s overtures to the Islamic world was conciliatory. The statement also said that the Sudan viewed the US as an enemy in the past. “Kerry made his comments just days after Al-Bashir struck a more conciliatory tone towards Washington by welcoming US President Barack Obama's overtures to the Islamic world. Sudan has viewed the US in the past as an enemy,” (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH612957) 

Alertnet.org and Reuters shared the same views. It appears that one of them quoted the other, so it seems. But according to Alertnet.org, “Kerry arrived just two days after Sudan's President, Omar Al-Bashir, struck a more conciliatory tone towards Washington, seen by Khartoum in the past as an enemy,” (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LG649073.htm). 

Who in the current developing relations between Khartoum and Washington is really striking a more “conciliatory tone”, is it Khartoum or Washington? Is it true, therefore, that the Sudan had always viewed the US as an enemy? This article looks deeper into the developing relationship between Khartoum and Washington in a positive rather than a negative manner as was mentioned by Reuters and Alertnet.org. 

First of all, there should be some responsibility in writing news pieces and a respect to what President Al-Bashir means in his statement. Welcoming Obama’s overtures to the Islamic world does not mean that President Al-Bashir was toning down. But as one of those Islamic leaders in the Arab and African worlds, the president had the right to react to Obama’s statement. The statement was general and Sudan, including other Islamic leaders, had the right to respond. Who then “struck a conciliatory tone”, is it Washington or Khartoum?  

There's one thing that ought to be borne in mind, which needs to be accepted by everybody, including the news agencies as a fact that the Oboma Policy does not subscribe to confrontation. If it does, the policy would defeat the purpose of Oboma's Administration’s call for “ HYPERLINK "http://change.gov/" Change”; not only in the US context; but throughout the world. Obama’s non-confrontation policy seems to prefer negotiation with whoever believes that negotiation solves problems that were or are a reason for the conflict in the first place. 

This is one of the US Administration's top Policy priorities as was mentioned in President Obama’s inaugural speech: “And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seek a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more, ” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics). 

A new 17-nation poll conducted for the BBC World Service finds widespread and growing optimism that Obama's presidency will lead to improved relations between the US and the rest of the world. In 15 of the 17 countries polled, majorities think that the election of Barack Obama will lead to improved relations with the rest of the world. On average 67 percent express this upbeat view, while 19 percent think relations will stay the same and just 5 percent (said) that relations will worsen, (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/583.php). 

It would then be reasonably sound to say that the appointment of US-Air Force Gen. J. Scott Gration as US Administration's Official Envoy to the Sudan was the first sign that points towards the implementation of the Obama non-confrontation policy. Choosing Gen. Gration for the job wasn’t just a coincidence. Gen. Gration was brought up in Africa by his missionary parents. Thus for the success of the policy implementation, it was wise for President Obama to appoint someone who understands Africa like Gen. Gration. For the benefit of the reader, it is appropriate to give a brief resume of Gen. Gration.

Gration grew up in the  Democratic Republic of the Congo, where his parents worked as missionaries during the  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis" \o "Congo Crisis" Congo Crisis in the early 1960s, his family was evacuated three times and became  refugees. After his family returned to the US, he studied at Rutgers University, where he enlisted in the  ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) programme and earned a Bachelor's Degree in  Mechanical Engineering. After graduating he joined the  United States Air Force in September 1974. He earned a Master's Degree in National Security Studies from  Georgetown University in Washington in 1988, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gration). 

In his maiden speech as he assumed his official duty, Gen. Gration spoke to journalists in Khartoum. He said: "I come here with my hands open. It will be up to the Sudanese government to determine how they want to continue with the relationship. Hopefully it will be with hands of friendship and cooperation,," (http://www.rnw.nl/internationaljustice/icc/Sudan/090402-us-envoy-to-sudan). He said he had discussed with the government of National Unity (GONU), Darfur Administration and Government of South Sudan (GOSS) the progress of their administrations and the peace processes. 

Sen. John Kerry as described in the second and third paragraphs of this article is the second sign of implementation of the Obama’s Policy of non-confrontation. Kerry’s delegation was quite representative of the US Administration's executive and legislative arms in the persons of Gen. Gration, President Obama's (White House Appointee) Special Envoy to the Sudan; and Sen. Kerry, US Senator and Chairman of the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, leading both Senate and Congress delegations. He confirmed to the press in the Sudan that he was heading the Congress and the Senate delegations: "Now it is my opportunity representing the US Congress and US Senate to be here to engage on humanitarian issues and obviously issues pertaining to the conflict", (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH612957). 

In addition to these signs of implementation to the Obama’s non-confrontation policy, the tone of the US Administration as observed from the two envoys was and remains to be friendly – toned down – so to speak. The aggression witnessed during the Clinton through to the Bush Administrations is none existent. More so, there is a call from these US envoys for the improvement of the 'bilateral' relationship between Washington and Khartoum. 

Strategically and in no uncertain terms, what seems to be happening is that the US Administration is implementing parts of its policies in the African and Arab continents. The US Administration, GONU, GOSS and Darfur Transitional Authority seem to be embarking on a serious effort aimed at implementing the CPA, DPA and new agreement with the Darfur rebel non-signatories to the DPA, as well as working out possibilities of normalizing full diplomatic relationship between Khartoum and Washington. This message was very clearly given to the Sudanese people by Gen. Gration: "The US and Sudan want to be partners, and so we are looking for opportunities for us to build stronger bilateral relations", Gen. Gration, (http://www.rnw.nl/internationaljustice/icc/Sudan/090402-us-envoy-to-sudan). 

These relations (US-Sudanese) were severed immediately after the introduction of Shari'ah Islamic Laws (which were popularly known as September Laws) and followed by the SPLM/A rebellion in the country in 1983 and later in 1997. To query why the relations are needed now by both parties? One would speculate an answer that it could be a matter of both countries’ strategic interests. 

For Sudan's strategic interests, however, recognition of the Sudan by the US as an effective member of the international community and removal of its name from the list of countries that Washington alleges sponsor terrorism would be a mere addition to its many successes. It is understood in international politics that what the US supports, is usually, but not always, supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The US normally commands NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In the recent past, "the NATO Secretary-General and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe welcomed the nomination by President Bush of General David D McKiernan as the next commander of the NATO-led ISAF," (http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/01-january/e0118b.html).

Sudan has the oil and other precious natural and mineral resources and would need the World Trade Organization (WTO) through the NATO to have some of its products sold in the NATO markets. It would also mean that the European Union (EU) could become an automatic partner in such a business process because its citizens are the majority in the NATO alliance.

As for the US Administration, the Sudan is a strategically located country and that is of great interest to the US and its allies. Sudan is a bridge between Africa and the Arab world. It is in the US interest to renew friendship with the Sudan and avoid many complications, including a belief of the US previous administrations that the Sudan was dangerous terrorist country. The US Administration could gain from the many natural resources that the Sudan is endowed with but only through a non-confrontation policy like the one adopted by the Obama Administration. 

The US is known to have a reservoir of oil that cannot be used unless sanctioned by an order from the top Administration. In other words, the oil to the US is an important strategic item. Sudan has other natural and mineral resources which the US Administration would be interested in. Sudan's strategic location that borders Nine (9) African countries is an interest to the US. The Great Lakes region from where many streams drain into and thus producing Lake Victoria and River Nile in the Sudan, which is one of the fewest sources of clean drinking water in the world, ought to be a long-term strategic interest of any country let alone the US because water is life. A columnist stated in The Citizen Newspaper that: "Specialists are anticipating disputes to arise over water sources in the world because of population increase that is unmet by a similar increase in those sources", (Economic Viewpoint Column by Muhammad Rashad, The Citizen Newspaper, May 3^rd, 2009, p.11).

In short, the two countries have more than one reason to becomes friends and maintain such friendship for the interest of their peoples. But there are so many things this author as a Sudanese citizen has to say for bilateral relations between the Sudan and other countries to thrive.

The Sudanese peoples from all parts of their vast nation are known for their kindness and respect for foreigners. This kindness and respect should not be misunderstood for weakness and stooping low. It is true that the Sudan has had its internal civil wars. It is also true that these civil wars have been reduced to only one area instead of three areas of South Sudan, Eastern Sudan and Darfur. This wasn't simple and certainly going to bring peace to Darfur isn't simpler either. But peace in Darfur should be brought about by the Sudanese themselves and not through some kind of pressures from anybody outside the nation's borders. 

There are international and regional treaties of which the Sudan is a signatory except a few like the Rome treaty which gave birth to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Sudan, as obligated by the International Law, has the right to use all the articles mentioned in the United Nations (UN) Charter meant to guide diplomatic relationships between states and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Sudan as a country and its people – in the definition of the UN – is a member state of the UN. Being a member state of the UN means that what applies to all other member states applies to it without exception. But whenever bias of any kind is spotted, there's every reason for the Sudan and indeed any other country to react to that particular bias.

The Sudan is not an enemy of anybody as stated by Reuters and Alertnet.org; it doesn't choose to be anybody's enemy. What brought about bad relationship between the Sudan and the NATO/EU is the fact that the government of the Sudan is accused of killing people and fueling the wars in South, East and Western Sudan. The NATO/EU did not cross check some of the reports they receive from either their missions or International NGOs working in Darfur and South Sudan. Some of these reports were biased. Thus, some of these missions and NGOs have taken sides in the civil wars in the Sudan and as such made bad reports on the Sudanese government to the NATO/EU alliances.

Sen. Kerry said that: "in the midst of the battle while serving his country in Vietnam, he had seen the lives of his fellow soldiers, his friends, put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions," (http://kerry.senate.gov/about/biography.cfm). The Sudan is a victim of those kinds of bad decisions based on bad reports filed to the UN by humanitarian organizations working in the Sudan and other Western countries represented in the NATO/EU alliances.

 

Why were some leaders in Washington making bad decisions, according to Sen. Kerry? The answer to this question is simple: the reports on how the US forces were fairing on in their war against the people of Vietnam were bad or biased. Thus the “ Change” mission President Obama came for is to ensure that no bad decisions in Washington were made. The Change” seems to be comprehensive and will certainly include making sure that good reports were used for good decision-making so that no American serving his country at home or abroad, traveling around the world or just staying at home fell victim of bad reports again. It should clearly be understood then that bad reports on any situation would always lead to bad decisions made by the governments that entirely rely on such reports.

Gen. Gration is reported by the media to have made his second visit to the Sudan. This is yet another sign which clearly shows that Washington is serious about making “partnership” with Khartoum in what seem to be common interest: Darfur peace process, the CPA implementation and a possible normalization of diplomatic relations between Washington and Khartoum. Gen. Gration’s mission and GONU’s readiness to renew friendship with Washington are steps towards the right direction so long as they are based on Obama’s non-confrontation Policy.

One last thing to mention is that there is hope that the US Administration remembers the fact that the Sudan has many political parties. Therefore, the US Administration should improve its relations with all the political parties in the Sudan. Besides, the US Administration could support Sudan’s efforts to hold elections and support the Sudanese peoples in their efforts to transform into a democracy. But trying to maintain relationship with some political parties in the Sudan, pitting others against the government and totally ignoring others, the US Administration would be trying to wade along the watery or muddy path of its predecessor. To seek for “partnership” with the government of Sudan is seeking for “partnership” with the Sudanese people. 

Sen. John Kerry’s statement “on Friday, April 17^th, 2009, that the ICC war crimes charges against Sudanese President Omar Hasan Al-Bashir should not stop efforts to resolve the Darfur conflict” (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH612957). should be ignored and regarded as hangovers from the previous US regimes. It is not possible for a country like the US – which properly understands the meaning of collision of peace and justice – to fail seeing how the ICC war crimes charges against President Al-Bashir would not just affect but seriously damage the Darfur peace process and the CPA implementation. The US refused to ratify the Rome treaty because they don’t want American citizens to be subjected to such a court. Why, does it really mean that the US is prone to injustice? No judgment! But there are people in the US who have committed more crimes than ICC thinks President Al-Bashir did.

The illusive fight against corruption in South Sudan: "No prosecutions since the establishment of GOSS"

The Government of South Sudan (GOSS) under the leadership of H.E. First Vice-President, Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, had emphasized and reemphasized its commitment to fighting corruption in South Sudan. This noble task was backed up by an Anti-Corruption Commission. This commission was specifically created to fight corruption in all its forms in South Sudan.

Like it was mentioned in one of this author's articles entitled "Legislators Ought to Probe GoSS for the Whereabouts of $702m", (http://ohiyok-oduho.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-04-14T04%3A33%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7) early in March, 2009, the South Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) refused to approve a debate on a case involving cash amounting to 6.26 Billion Sudanese Pounds for food strategic reserve (food security) for South Sudan. It is reported that out of this cash only one state implemented what was required of it. The rest of the cash could not be traced and this seems to be supported by the SSLA leadership, which recently passed an anti-corruption bill. "The south Sudan legislative assembly has endorsed the anti-corruption bill for the year 2009",(http://www.gossmission.org/goss/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=772&Itemid=136).

On March 31^st, 2009, Al-Wifaq Newspaper reported the disappearance of 14 Billion Sudanese Pounds in Northern Bahr Al-Ghazal State. This cash disappeared from the State Ministry of Education in Aweil. The cash was distributed amongst the officials at the Ministry. The State Education Minister in Aweil discovered the racket and quickly reported the theft to the police who are said to be holding the culprits. 

This theft is occurring irrespective of the GOSS President's insistence to fight corruption in his government. "GOSS president has reiterated before the donors' conference in Juba his determination to eradicate corruption in the South", (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article20921). The President of GOSS declared his war against corruption in 2007. The menace called corruption continues to this date in South Sudan. Why? It's an infectious disease that seems to have been easily transmitted to the other people in GOSS administration. However, the fact that it's a disease, the SPLM Secretary-General, Pagan Amum, confirmed it. He said "corruption is a true disease in the South", (http://www.newsudanvision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598:south-sudan-passes-anti-corruption-bill-&catid=1:sudan-news-stories&Itemid=6). There are some factors that contribute to the continuation of corruption in South Sudan:

*Tribalism strengthened by poverty and protection of corrupt officials by the decision-makers in GOSS on sectional and tribal lines;

*Inability of the Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate and arrest those corrupt officials in GOSS; and 

*Parliament's inability to play its important role of enacting laws against corruption and its practices in South Sudan.

Tribalism, poverty and protection of corrupt officials via tribal bias

Tribe is positive thing; but tribalism is negative and on the line of tribalism, a senior government official would squander public funds but a senior relative from his/her tribe within that particular ministry any other higher institution in GOSS would bail the thief out. What happened here is that the corrupted cash is divided between the two or more as is the case in Aweil. These two or more relatives are both suffering from poverty and certainly want to live like the others who have been helped by their tribesmen in GOSS. This could be seen from those who were accused of corruption, arrested but later on released in Juba. There is hope, at least with the new anti-corruption bill, that those officials who divided between themselves Four (4) Billion Sudanese Pounds in Aweil, should be brought to books. If this happens, tribalism and poverty may differ in their close relationship in GOSS.

 

Anti-Corruption Commission

The Anti-Corruption Commission seemed to have been created to impress the donors. Otherwise, how could the commission fail to arrest and charge a single corrupt person? The answer to this question is simple: the commission is powerless – it has no powers to arrest and investigate unless such is done as a public relations exercise – smoke-screening – if you like. The Anti-Corruption Commission should not be blamed for failing to arrest anyone in the South. But now that a bill has been passed to help enact laws for the commission to carry out its duties, we hope that the commission would do its best to function and report any hindrance to its work. "In an effort to combat corruption, the SSLA passed the long awaited anti-corruption bill today in its third and final reading", (http://www.newsudanvision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598:south-sudan-passes-anti-corruption-bill-&catid=1:sudan-news-stories&Itemid=6).  

Parliament's failure to play its role

The parliament of South Sudan has some of the best legislatures this country has. The problems of corruption and insecurity in South Sudan are directly attributed to the poor or corrupt leadership within the SSLA. It should be noted, however, that SSLA leadership had ignored to discuss matters such as the 6.26 Billion Sudanese Pounds meant for strategic food reserve or food security. This amount was seriously mishandled by various states and some GOSS top officials and by refusing to debate it, SSLA is encouraging corruption.

Reactions from Anti-Corruption Commission and SSLA

The Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Dr Pauline Cuir Riak, was happy and had the following to say: “I am confident that with the provision of the bill, we shall be able to carry out our work effectively without any threats." "In an effort to combat corruption, the SSLA passed the long awaited anti-corruption bill today in its third and final reading", (http://www.newsudanvision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598:south-sudan-passes-anti-corruption-bill-&catid=1:sudan-news-stories&Itemid=6). 

Dr Jimmy Wongo, a legislator in SSLA, conquers with Dr Pauline Riak and says that, "the bill must be accompanied with strong measures to bring all corrupt agencies to law. Nobody has been prosecuted in the three years since the establishment of GOSS", (http://www.newsudanvision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1598:south-sudan-passes-anti-corruption-bill-&catid=1:sudan-news-stories&Itemid=6).

Responding to the same bill, SSLA Speaker, James Wani Igga, said: "a nation cannot work effectively with the absence of an anti-corruption bill." He hailed the adoption of the legislation as a milestone for the Southern Parliament. 

Conclusion

The best way to deal with this issue of corruption is not just the passing of anti-corruption bill. It's the seriousness to follow the implementation of such bills and taking those who undermine such implementation to task, including dismissal from public offices. This measure, coupled up with a commitment from the Anti-Corruption Commission to do its work unhindered, corruption may be eradicated for ever in South Sudan. 

The disappearance of the Four (4) Billion Sudanese Pounds from the ministry of education in Aweil may be a blessing in disguise. Those who are involved in the theft of this huge sum of cash must really be dealt with; now that the SSLA had passed the anti-corruption bill. 

Just like the SSLA Speaker said, "a nation cannot work effectively with the absence of an anti-corruption bill." Now that the anti-corruption bill has been passed, may GOSS, SSLA together with the Anti-Corruption Commission review the previous cases, like 702 Million Dollars which disappeared sometimes back, the disappearance of the 14 billion Sudanese Pounds in Aweil and of course, the Al-Cardinal scandal. Failure to address the cases that were known to be serious corruption matters in the past would encourage future corruption in South Sudan. It will amount to injustice to prosecute others while protecting other corrupt officials within GOSS. Best wishes for a success against corruption in South Sudan.

Government of South Sudan: implement the Kenana resolutions without hatred or tribal inclinations

Political leaders, elders and intellectuals from South Sudan have – in early April, 2009 – held a conference in Kenana. The conference was supposed to discuss the Government of Sudan (GOSS) non-committal stance to the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of the President of the Republic, Field Marshal Omar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir, and the political, economic and security situations in South Sudan.

In its closing remarks, the conference "categorically rejected the ICC warrant against the President of the Republic and demanded Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) to support this stance; and that SPLM should avoid isolating itself and South Sudan from opposing position to ICC procedures as expressed by the Sudanese people and their political parties." (The Advocate Newspaper, April 5th, 2009, p. 3.).

The conference – as usual – met very strong rejection from the SPLM and its supporters. The common phrase used by some of these SPLM and their supporters to describe the conference is that "the conference was born dead." Why should the conference be born dead? This article will try to discuss the importance of the Kenana and other conferences on South Sudan; reasons for "stillbirths" of conferences in the politics of South Sudan; and whether or not such conferences could add rather than reduce the unity in South Sudan.

Why Stillbirths?

Currently politics in South Sudan seem to be driven by SPLM and its supporters. This is not a bad idea at all so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people who are not necessarily SPLM officials or supporters. But those who refer to a conference that has not even concluded its deliberations as "born dead" are undemocratic.

There are many parties in South Sudan – some of these parties call themselves differently when they are actually part and parcel of the SPLM. There are also those parties which have different names but are actually allied to the National Congress Party (NCP). All this is fine in party politics. But it should not be ignored that there are independent political parties in the South that do not belong or support any of the two major Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) partners.

Thus, any group – not related to SPLM like those that are independent – trying to call for any conference or even gathering in the name of the people of South Sudan have always been discouraged. There are a number of reasons for this kind of behaviour:

A mistaken belief that SPLM, its allies and supporters should draw a roadmap for future developments; be they political or otherwise in South Sudan.
That any other party that does not support or toe the SPLM line is an enemy of the people – 'you are either with us or against us';
That SPLM must be consulted before anything is done about South Sudan; and
That such a conference held without SPLM blessing is "born dead".

Mistaken belief

The mistaken belief referred to in this article is a fact. For example, the South-South Dialogue which was conducted in Nairobi, Kenya, during the Naivasha negotiations was misunderstood by the SPLM as a power struggle. The South-South Dialogue was and remains a very important issue. Unless misunderstood; but the South-South Dialogue was aimed and would still be aimed at providing a forum for the people of South Sudan. It's a fact that apart from South-North conflict, South Sudanese fought each other in the period prior to the CPA. Forgiveness of each other and opening a new page for relationship between the people of the South were, and remain to be, the main agenda of the South-South Dialogue. What seems to be disuniting the people of South Sudan now is that there are people within the SPLM who believe that those who worked against the SPLM from the South should be thrown away into the dust bin of history.

Either with us or against us

"You're either with us or against us" was a phrase used by the former United States President, G. W. Bush, when drawing the redline between terrorists, those who sponsor terrorism and those who wanted to fight terrorism after September 11th, 2001, terrorist attack. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/ret.bush.coalition/index.html) For Bush, the phrase wasn't negative because he really wanted to know who amongst his allies were standing by his side.

But this cannot be true in the situations of the SPLM. SPLM is a political party that should endeavour to welcome into its party Sudanese from different walks of life. But a party that considers anybody who might actually be making up his/her mind to join it or has no interest in joining it as an enemy is detrimental to the party. Such a party may not survive for long because it does not trust itself and certainly has no future plans to accommodate more in itself.

Consulting SPLM

SPLM as the main political party governing South Sudan needs to be consulted only when requesting for permission to hold any big political gathering in South Sudan. But referring to Kenana conference as "Born Dead" just because SPLM and its supporters from the other parties think permission was not granted for them to so, is unfair. Kenana is Sudan and certainly those who chose Kenana are sending a clear message to the SPLM that security in South Sudan is not alright. But as South Sudanese they feel that they need to contribute by reminding the SPLM of its obligations as a de facto GOSS.

Kenana Conference" Born Dead"

Why do some people within the SPLM and the parties that support them believe that any conference on South Sudan convened without them is ill-conceived and condemned for a stillbirth? It's important for this question to have an answer, even if it's speculative, it would do the reader good.

It has been misconceived, misconstrued and irrationally understood by some people within the SPLM and its army, SPLA, that they are the South and the South is them. It is on this basis that the mentioned group of SPLM/A has created a serious divide between the people of the South. This same group has divided the people of the South into three categories:

SPLM/A Proper;
SPLM/A (reference to those who joined SPLM/A lately); and
Those they claim are used by the Arabs (or Jallabah) as they like to call it.

SPLM/A Proper

Whether in the SPLM, SPLA or an ordinary citizen, an SPLM/A Proper is always given VIP treatment. This member is supposed to have contributed to the liberation struggle more than the other two categories. AS such s/he deserves to reap from where he saw, whether in political, military or economic spheres.

SPLM/A

This is supposed to be an ordinary membership and it refers to those who joined the SPLM/A after the 1990s. It's true though that those who joined the SPLM/A in the 1990s have a mistaken believe that they are part and parcel of the Proper. It's not true and the way they are being treated by SPLM/A Proper testifies to this fact. People falling under this category have security from the Proper planted in and around their workplaces in order to check their activities and ensure that they are not infected by the last group: Those used by the Jallabah.

Those Used by the Jallabah

This group of those South Sudanese who worked with the government in the organised forces and the civil service before and after the CPA have problems reaching the South because if anyone of them does, s/he will be followed or even arrested for false accusations like s/he is sent by the Jallabah to buy people for the NCP. Many of these people are under lock and key in South Sudan's various states.

What SPLM/A should know

SPLM should know that trying to search for an invisible enemy is not a simple thing to do. It's called 'fear of unknown.' This fear of unknown would be bogging the SPLM and its leadership down from trying to do many good things for the people of the South. The enemy the SPLM should really be searching for is within itself not outside. Those in the SPLM who cannot tolerate non-SPLM members of the South Sudan public are the enemy the SPLM is searching for. SPLM may know, but these people may not, that South Sudan does not belong to SPLM or any other political party? The SPLM is just a political party like any other political party that would come to power and shall depart from such power when the time comes.

Importance of Kenana Conference

Kenana conference was necessary because it reactivated the leadership of the South to understand its role in improving the welfare of the South Sudanese people. This is a responsibility which SPLM cannot shoulder alone. The resolutions of the conference are not against the GOSS. They are aimed at improving the general welfare of the people in South Sudan and the welfare of GOSS itself. The importance of the conference is represented in its resolutions. For example one of the most important of this conference's resolutions said that it is "motivated by the desire to see the GOSS succeed in fulfilling the duties assigned to it by the CPA, especially providing peace, security, freedom and peace dividends to (the South Sudanese) people." (The Advocate Newspaper, April 5th, 2009, p. 3.).

Another example from the conference said in one of its resolutions that "the ICC has no legal basis to indict the president of the republic; and that a strong and vocal opposition of the South to the ICC's indictment of the president will certainly influence the decision of the UN Security Council in one way or the other." (The Advocate Newspaper, April 5th, 2009, p. 3.). Another one also said that, "the GOSS must ensure that all political parties and individuals have unhindered freedom to propagate their ideas." (Sudan Vision Newspaper, April 7th, 2009, p. 7.). This is a very important point because parties and individuals opposed to the SPLM/A have been hindered from carrying out their individual and collective responsibilities in South Sudan.

Other Kenana Resolutions

"SPLA as the professional army of South Sudan must be kept away from supporting or obstructing one political party or the other and should not be used for political purposes." (The Advocate Newspaper, April 5th, 2009, p. 3.). This too is an important point because the SPLA has been paying allegiance to the SPLM/A and South Sudanese from SPLM party.

"The first duty of a government is to provide credible and sustainable public and personal security for every citizen." (The Advocate Newspaper, April 5th, 2009, p. 3.). This is also an important point to note; because the South is never secure. The SPLA in the South is known to take law into its own hands and that somehow undermines the role of the police and the ministry of internal security in trying to maintain peace and quiet in South Sudan.

Relationship between the North and South are bad. One of the resolutions said that, "To our dismay, the last four years have been characterized by unnecessary friction and lack of cooperation on important issues related to the CPA. A successful implementation of the CPA can only be realized if the two partners are seen to be cooperating with each other."(7) This too is an important point; because the CPA may end up dead if the partners to it continued to be on each other's throat.

This author has made his views about GOSS and what GOSS ought to do in order to manage the South. To know more on this author's previous articles, please visit: http://ohiyok-oduho.blogspot.com or http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com. The Kenana conference is an additional voice to those that have already been ignored by the SPLM/A leadership. But those within the SPLM/A leadership, who know that they are accountable to the people of South Sudan in whatever they do, need to know that the Kenana conference resolutions are digested well and implemented where applicable. Those who met in the Kenana Sugar complex are South Sudanese. They are not calling for the overthrow of the de facto GOSS. They are simply asking it – as an obligation imposed to it by the CPA – to implement the Kenana resolutions without hatred and/or tribal inclinations.

Importance of Bashir's Visit to Doha

The President of the Republic, Field Marshal Omar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir, arrived Doha, the capital of Qatar, on March 29th, 2009. The trip comes as a response to an annual routine and to the Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs' reassurance that his country would ignore the International Criminal Court (ICC) decision to indict him.

It's worth noting here that the ICC had – on March 4th, 2009 – issued a statement in which it indicted the President of the Republic, Omar Al-Bashir. The statement said that the ICC will be seeking for the cooperation of the Sudanese government and other governments signatory to the Rome Statute to effect the arrest of the president.

The indictment statement had obviously raised the tensions of those Sudanese who felt that their sovereignty and integrity were tempered with. This included those other Sudanese who hoped that they would salvage something out of the chaos they envisioned would ensue after President Al-Bashir's indictment by the ICC. These two groups would be referred to hereinafter as 'two schools' of thought.

The school of thought that hoped to salvage from its imagined chaos was wishing for the president to travel to Doha so that he could be arrested quickly; even thought that it was not convinced that the president would travel. While the other school of thought – that which serves this country from the basis of nationalism and a commitment to its territorial integrity – was shocked to hear that the president's plane did land at Al-Doha International Airport. This thus made the shock to both schools of thought very mutual indeed.

It should be made clear here that the school of thought that opposed the president's travel to Doha is seriously affected by the president's decision to travel. Someone may ask why? This school of thought did not believe but was precautious that if allowed to travel to Doha, the president may be arrested. This school of thought is working round the clock to ensure the president's safety. Based on its serious work, this school had – through some of its affiliated bodies – warned the president from traveling to Doha. The fact that the president traveled, its shock is legitimate.

The other school is shocked because it had already suffered a previous shock: the absence of the chaos they expected would ensue after the ICC indictment of the president. The president's Doha visit is a relapse to the previous shock which was sustained by this school of thought from the failure to arrest the president in the imagined chaos. This article would be analyzing the importance of President Al-Bashir's visit to Doha and future visits, if any, to other countries around the world.

The Doha visit plus the other two visits President Al-Bashir made earlier are a message to the ICC Prosecutor-General, Louis Moreno-Occampo, that President Al-Bashir is the President of the Republic of the Sudan. It's not a challenge as was reported by some media outlets but rather a right for a sovereign representative of a nation to pursue his duties within or without the Sudan without fear. The importance of these visits is represented in the following:

The visits made by President Al-Bashir to Asmara, Egypt and Doha, were very important so that Occampo and those using him know that President Al-Bashir cannot and will not relinquish his sovereign responsibilities within and without the Sudan.

It will mean working for the interest of the ICC and its allies if the president is somehow grounded because of Occampo's decision in The Hague.

Adhering to the ICC decision would also mean that this country's sovereignty and integrity have both not only been compromised by its own sons and daughters but relinquished to Ocampo and those fueling ICC decisions from bellow.

There no other Seating President other than President Al-Bashir who is in a position to encourage the rest of the third world that must have been cowed down by the ICC decision to stand up and fight against any injustice.

It is President Al-Bashir who should send a clear message to the third world that there is neo-colonialism in the offing which seems to be used to target what are assumed to be powerless states within the third world.

If there is any final nail that should be put on the head of the ICC, it was in the hands of Occampo himself. That is Occampo's lack of respect to sovereignty, territorial integrity of the Sudan and President Al-Bashir who is the icon of the country.

It is the hope of every peace-loving Sudanese nationalist that the President of the Republic intensifies his visits around the world to countries that believe in the ICC decision to indict him as unjust and unacceptable. The government's intelligent forces are there and always do their best to ensure that there is enough information at hand to ensure the safety of the President wherever he goes.

When it comes to fear that President Al-Bashir may be assassinated or killed by these neo-colonial powers, it should be noted that death is in the hands of God Almighty. As believers in one God, faithful human beings know that no human person could end the life of another. But those who think they can harm President Al-Bashir or end his life would only be displaying themselves to the entire world as terrorists, lawless and ungodly people.

President Al-Bashir’s Indictment: a blessing in disguise and Successful Referendum on Popularity

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announcement to indict President Omar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir, which was mentioned first time in late 2008, was issued on March 4th, 2009. The decision to indict the president created a lot of local and international reactions as well as debates on the ICC's jurisdiction over countries that have not signed the Rome Treaty. The debate on the issue, however, also included the ICC's inabilities and incapability to physically arrest President Al-Bashir or indeed any other president former or otherwise. This article intends to add the author's debate on the ICC’s issue to those that have either been debated or are being debated in the political, legal and social scenes.

Local Scene

On the local scene – that is the Sudanese reaction on the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir – two phenomena were imagined or expected could happen by those behind the ICC. The first one is that, they thought that there were to be experienced in the Sudan a popular uprising against the government with a view to toppling it; and the second is that, they thought that the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) would overthrow the President of the Republic. Either of this imagined coup d’etat was thought could install a president that would cooperate with the ICC and its allies to arrest the President of the Republic and hand him over to the ICC.

South Sudan

The reaction of the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) on the indictment was unexpected. Led by the SPLM/A, which is a partner of the National Congress Party (NCP) in the Government of National Unity (GONU), GOSS had a moral obligation to back the President of the Republic against the ICC decision. But GOSS’ decision to maintain a non-committal approach to the entire ICC indictment saga and the beefing up of its security in the South could be nothing but precautionary measures on the two phenomena which were expected could happen to topple President Al-Bashir. This is in addition to GOSS leadership’s insistence that President Al-Bashir should cooperate with the ICC and its boycott of most of the ICC Crisis Committee Group Meetings on ICC Indictment, chaired by First Vice-President and President of GOSS.

Northern Sudan

Some opposition parties in the North, including Dr. Khalil Ibrahim’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) saw the indictment as a reason to advance their agenda. This agenda was based on the same two phenomena. The Popular Congress Party, led by Dr. Hasan Abdallah Al-Turabi, for example, said that the President of the Republic should cooperate with the ICC. JEM, on the other hand, said it was the ‘legitimate authority to arrest the President’ of the Republic; and angrily reacted by suspending the Doha negotiations, (BBC Arabic Service, March 5th, 2009).

Khartoum Citizens

Innocently, the citizens of Khartoum – listening to the strong rumours on the two phenomena – went to the markets on March 3rd, 2009, to stock their homes with food for fear of a coup d’etat. "I for one cannot see a political way out of this mess. The International Crisis Group writes that ‘the NCP is likely to look for a way out of a situation, by changing its policies or leadership. To succeed, it will need to change both.’ This is groping in the dark. What is ICG actually advocating here? It seems to me that it is calling for a coup. An internal coup is possible though unlikely and not, to my mind, a solution. (See this site for more details: http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/2009/03/05/unchartered-waters/.

Those Sudanese nationals who supported the ICC decision to indict the president, a matter they think could impose a coup d’etat in the country, could be having a number of personal and partisan problems. These problems could likely be represented in the following:

1. Ignorance in differentiating between a threat to the nation and that to the President as a sovereign representative of the nation;
2. Lacking commitment to the country's sovereignty and its integrity;
3. Lacking of political ability to decipher the real intention behind the ICC's decision;
4. Inability to read between the lines and understand that the ICC’s indictment of the president also targets the CPA;
5. Lacking knowledge of how the indictment could, say, by proxy, extend to some of them while in power;
6. False assumption that anyone could salvage anything from the imagined chaos thought would ensue once President Bashir is toppled; and
7. Trying to come to power through such crooked ways as ICC’s imaginary attempt to overthrow the Sudanese president.

Darfur Peace

It’s important to relate the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir to its main source, Darfur. Many experts believed that when the ICC threatened to indict the President of the Republic late last year; it were and could/will still work against the peace process in Darfur. This has now appeared to be true. JEM leadership is saying that they cannot talk to an 'international criminal' (a reference to President Al-Bashir by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim, BBC Arabic Service, March 18th, 2009).

This is what those who are pursuing the ICC indictment from within or without Europe want. Because it means prolonging the war in Darfur, and that means raising more funds for Darfur by the NGOs – especially those that were expelled – to continue surviving on the poor people of Darfur as they did sometimes and continue to do with the people of South Sudan..

Foreign Reactions

The powers behind the ICC’s indictment of the President of the Republic were overjoyed on hearing about the indictment. The United States of America (hereinafter referred to as US) said it was committed to peace in the Sudan but those who committed atrocities should be held accountable. "We are strongly committed to the pursuit of peace in Sudan and believe {that} those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable for their crimes." (For more details, please follow this internet link to read more on the foreign reactions on pro and against President Bashir’s indictment by the ICC. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/04074769,00.html?maca=en-aa-pol-863-rdf).

The European Union, a US ally, meanwhile, reiterated its full support to the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir। It said that, "the EU reiterates its full support and respect for the ICC and its key role in the promotion of international justice". (This statement is found on the same internet link above).

"Russia and China are opposed to the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir। The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that the ICC decision could further destabilize the situation in Sudan. "China, on the other hand, "expressed its regretfulness and worry over the arrest warrant for the Sudan President issued by the ICC," Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Qin Gang, said. (Both statements could be found in the same internet link above).

Africa, which usually takes refuge in the former Eastern Bloc when hardly hit by the US and its Western allies, said that, "the AU's position is that we support the fight against impunity। We cannot let crime perpetrators go unpunished. But we say that peace and justice should not collide; that the need for justice should not override the need for peace."

AU Commission Chairman, Jean Ping, concluded by saying that, "Africa was being selectively targeted। What we see is that International Justice seems to be applying its fight against impunity only to Africa as if nothing were happening elsewhere (as is the case) in Iraq, Gaza, Colombia or in the Caucasus." (AFP).

Meanwhile, the Arab League urged the Security Council to use its power under Article 16 of the ICC statute to suspend the case against Al-Bashir to avoid undermining the fragile peace process in Darfur and a rocky 2005 North-South deal that ended a two-decade civil war. The Arabs also suggested (that) they would ignore the arrest warrant if President Al-Bashir visits their countries. Jordan is the only Arab country that is a signatory to the ICC. (See http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/03/12/68287.html for more details).

Independent Reactions from Western Citizens

A prominent scholar, a US citizen living in the UK, Prof. Alex De Waal, is known for his critic against the Sudanese government most of the time. He has reacted very negatively against the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir. He, like the Arab League, called for invocation of Article 16 of the UNSC which states that: "No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this (Rome) Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN, requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions." See http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/2009/03/05/unchartered-waters.

Meanwhile, Dick Leurdijk, a citizen of the Netherlands, home to ICC, works with the Clingendael Institute for International Relations and Diplomacy based in The Hague, Holland, also reacted to the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir। He said that, "it was too bad that Moreno-Ocampo did not elaborate on how Sudan is obliged under International Law to arrest Al-Bashir even in his own territory."

Leurdijk acknowledged the fact that Sudan has not and will not recognize the authority of the ICC। The ICC, he said, was established through political negotiations, not on the basis of UNSC Resolution like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (and Rwanda).

Basis for ICC to Indict President Al-Bashir

The ICC made a reference to UNSC Resolution 1593 and articles 25 and 103 of the UN Charter as the legal basis for Sudan's obligation to arrest its own leader। Resolution 1593, adopted by the UNSC in 2005, was the basis upon which the situation in Darfur was initially referred to the ICC. The 1593 Resolution clearly says Sudan has no obligations under the Statute of Rome, which is the founding document of the ICC. Instead it merely calls on the country to cooperate fully with the ICC. Could such a contradiction be the answer to the ICC’s reasons to indict President Al-Bashir?

What could be drawn from the expert's arguments above? One would say it’s apparent that the ICC has no legal rights provided for by either the Rome Statute or UNSC Resolution 1593? However, if the basis to the ICC indictment of President Al-Bashir is not found in the International Law, could it then be found under the Rule of Sovereign Immunity? For the benefit of the reader, it is important to know what the Rule of Sovereign Immunity is and what it says?

It is the rule reflected on the fundamental premise that all states are independent and equal under International Law, and the notion that subjecting a state to a foreign court’s jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the idea of Sovereign Equality. The Rule of Sovereign Immunity governs the extent to which a state may claim to be free from the jurisdiction of a foreign nation’s courts.

Historically, International Law recognized a principle of absolute immunity for sovereign states, under which no state could be put on trial without its consent. This Doctrine recognizes that all states are equal in law despite their obvious inequalities in other respects: inequality of size, wealth, population strength or degree of civilization. (Visit http://www.globalpolitician.com/24351%20-international-law for more details).

Why Recognize Sovereign Equality?

It's because those very people who laid the foundation of League of Nations (LoN – now UN) did so because they were trying to avoid the wars that had plagued the world like those amongst themselves and world wars I and II। The principle for which the LoN was laid was primarily to ensure the sovereignty of states. State sovereignty denotes the competence, independence, and legal equality of states. Thus, any attempts to undo the principle of state sovereignty should be done in agreement with all the UN member states without exceptions.

ICC Indictment is Politically-Based

This apparently is what seems to be the case. The ICC decision cannot be legal as it is explained above and certainly not based on the rule of Sovereign Equality but rather on selfish political interests of those behind the ICC indictment. This brings in the formation of government in mind.

The government (Government is defined as the body within an organization that has authority and function to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules. Typically, government refers to a civil government -- local, provincial, or national) and is said to have three arms and those arms are: the executive, Parliament and the judiciary (http://www.teara.govt.nz/Places/Wellington/Wellington/8/ENZ-Resources/Standard/1/2/en). This being the case, it means that there can be no judicial system that could ever function unless it's part of the other two. If the UN is assumed to be the executive and its Security Council the legislature, ICC is independent and cannot be its judicial arm – it's out of the continuity of the two – it’s not a UN organization.

Blessing in Disguise

What the ICC and those behind it probably didn't know is that their decision to indict President Al-Bashir is a blessing in disguise to the President and the peace-loving Sudanese. The indictment of the president did not only generate more support to President Al-Bashir, something the enemies of this country need to note very seriously, but it has actually divided the international community.

Neo Colonialism

Sudan and other third world countries believe that the ICC decision to indict the president is an attempt to re-colonize them. Russia and China probably view the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir, something they are opposed to, as a Western ploy to insert its hegemony on the world, which seems to directly undermine them as fair players in world affairs. Since this appears to be true, Russia and China are likely to veto any such moves as that of the ICC on President Al-Bashir should it come to the UNSC.

INGOs Expulsion

First of all, it is important to realize that the ICC decision to indict President Al-Bashir is a threat to Sudan’s national security. Sudan as a sovereign nation had to react to what it sees as a threat to its national security and a possible re-colonization attempt in the making. Its act to expel the pro-Western International Non-governmental Organisations (INGOs) was in place since it’s its duty to protect the country from any such threats. The expulsion of the INGOs was legitimate as it were to any sovereign country. The INGOs – working as secret agents to those supporting the ICC decision – should not be allowed to work in the country if doing is the only measure there is to control international espionage.

Some INGOs Exacerbate Underdevelopment

It should be remembered that some of the countries where these INGOs come from did exacerbate underdevelopment in Africa and Prof. Rodney's book, “How Europe underdeveloped Africa, testifies to this. It is important to note that, at one time before the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), an expert came from Europe at one time and joined an INGO working in South Sudan as an expert on security. This security expert earned 10,000 US Dollars per month and that is equivalent to 20,000 Sudanese pounds nowadays. This expert had to seek for the help of a Sudanese national within the INGO to debrief him about the situation in the Sudan.

This expert no doubt was an expert in his country's security affairs. But it is a fact that he knew nothing about the security affairs in the Sudan. A Sudanese could have been employed as such an expert with the INGO. But these INGOs, however, underpaid monthly salaries of less than 1,000 US Dollars to a single Sudanese.

To multiply 10,000 US Dollars earned by the foreign expert by 12x5 years it equals to 600,000 US Dollars. This was just the salary of such an individual expert (known as expatriate) per annum. How much could this amount be for the entire foreign expatriates employed to work in the Sudan and elsewhere in Africa? And how much does one INGO get in the name of the people of the Sudan? Most of these INGOs, however, employ their foreign nationals in order to re-siphon the cash back to where it came from.

Conclusion

It’s important not to ignore the noble mission of the current US administration. It’s trying to improve its relations with countries which the previous administration called terrorists or supporting terrorism. In order to do this, the current US administration has to go an extra mile to do better than the previous administration.

However, the recent US administration’s statement that it’s "strongly committed to the pursuit of peace in Sudan" sounds good and very welcome indeed. But the administration contradicted this welcome statement by another statement. The contradicting statement says that US "believes {that} those who have committed atrocities (in the Sudan) should be held accountable for their crimes."

How could peace come when those who are committed to bringing about it are to "be held accountable for their crimes?" This is what the AU Chairman referred to as "collision of peace and justice; that the need for justice should not override the need for peace."

Instead of trying to improve its relationship with those countries which oppose its previous policies, the current US administration seems to be adding more countries to the list of those that disagreed with its policies like Africa as a whole, represented by the AU. Africa’s reaction is the same as that of China and Russia on the ICC’s decision to indict President Al-Bashir. This seriously means that the International Community is divided over the ICC’s indictment of President Al-Bashir. Could such a serious division help the cause of the US current administration’s bid to improve its relations with countries that were simply alienated by the previous US administration? Perhaps not because that needs a precision to some policies that are may be old or new to attract more friends from the outside world.

Divided or not divided those behind the ICC decision to indict President Bashir and hoped for a miracle coup will – as was stated by Vice-President Ali Osman Muhammad Taha – wait for a long time. The division wished for the Sudanese people by supporters of the indictment has now turned out to be a successful referendum on President Al-Bashir’s popularity and that of his government, thanks to the enemies of the Sudan.

Equality before the Law

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination", http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/7.asp

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

"Integral" promised to examine each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; "majority rule"; "Minority rights"; and "Free and fair elections". Today's feature is divided into five parts. In this five parts, "Integral" will be looking at "Equality before the law" and its importance as stipulated in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan (ICSS) in Part II Bill of Rights; "Equality before the Law", article 18: "all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination as to race, ethnic origin, colour, sex, language, religious creed, political opinion, birth, locality or social status. For more information on ICSS, visit: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_SouthernSudan.pdf. As for those willing to follow the "Integral" column right from its onset, visit: http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/.

Equality before the law could be a simple and an understandable phrase if conceived in general terms. Its meaning, however, is as important as its reaffirmation of justice to all irrespective of their political, military and other social statuses or standings. Each one of the words forming the phrase have other meanings but "Integral" will only cherry-pick those that are relevant to the topic. Equality means uniformity; before means in front; and law means jurisprudence; (Collins, 2000:205; 55; 351). Thus, equality before the law could be rephrased as 'uniformity in front of jurisprudence'. This means that law should be applicable to all evenly. In other words, no one is above the law.

How does equality before the law relate to the "Integral" concept: "Disunity in South Sudan"? It does because there is inequality before the law in South Sudan and that breed conflict and conflict is one – if not the main – cause of disunity in many countries around the globe and South Sudan is not an exception। Before linking this discussion upto "Integral"'s line of argument, it is good fair to make the reader know about other examples on the concept of equality before the law.

Looking at the other examples of the rule of law around the world, in its most basic form, rule of law is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other।"

In England, the issuing of the Magna Carta was a prime example of the "rule of law." The Great Charter forced King John to submit to the law and succeeded in putting limits on feudal fees and duties. Another earlier example was Islamic law and jurisprudence, which recognised the equal subjection of all classes, including caliphs and sultans, to the ordinary law of the land।

Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. Samuel Rutherford was one of the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations, in Lex, Rex (1644), and later Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748)।

In continental Europe and legal thinking, the rule of law has frequently, but not always, been associated with a Rechtsstaat. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include a clear separation of powers, legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and "equality" of all "before the law"। The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use".

Relating these examples to "Integral"'s concept: "Disunity in South Sudan", the readers should be able to understand the meaning of the last sentence in the examples above। It says that the concept: "Equality before the law" is controversial that is probably because it is misused to connote equal application of the law; meaningless perhaps because some ideologies have abused the concept as this normally happens with totalitarian regimes.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. The term is usually applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Shōwa Japan or communist states, such as the Stalinist-USSR, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Mao-era and modern China and North Korea. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tact.

"New Sudan", a concept in the making that is supposed to show in practical terms the difference between the old and the Sudan under SPLM/A control, could simply be added to the list of modern China and North Korea unfortunately. Terror tact, personality cult and the use of mass surveillance are but common practices in the "New Sudan". This statement may be judged to be unfair by those in the government of South Sudan (GOSS) who want to maintain the status-quo. Some would ask why South Sudan under GOSS should be equated to modern China and North Korea. It is because ideology (mainly revolving around the concept of "New Sudan") carries more meaning than the equal application of the law. For example, there are a number of cases that are awaiting a political decision rather than a court of law. Two of these cases received a political decision already instead of a court of law as the examples bellow could emphasise.

There are three senior members of the South Sudan community, namely Paul Omoya Thomas, an active Colonel in the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and former minister of agriculture in Eastern Equatoria State (EES)-GOSS; Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) Arkanjello Thomson; and Maj-Gen. Isaac Obuto Mamur Mete, Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS) for Morale Orientation.

Col. Thomas was accused of trying to assassinate the Speaker of South Sudan Interim Legislative Assembly (SSILA). He was wrongly accused because the arrest was not procedural. More so there is no trained military officer who could lay an ambush while waiting for the enemy on the road within which the ambush is supposedly laid. He had an illegal withdrawal of his immunity by the Governor of EES. He was illegally arrested and detained by SPLA for two years without trial. He was released by a political decision in mid 2008 without charges.

Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) Thomson was accused of collaboration with the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). He was arrested and detained by the SPLA with Col. Thomas for two years illegally. He was released by a political decision together with Col. Thomas also without charges.

Maj-Gen. Mete, SPLA DCOS, was accused one year ago by the SPLA of acquiring weapons from, and training soldiers in Uganda, without the consent of the SPLA. He was also accused of failing to account for some cash he allegedly used while chairing the integration of Lt-Gen. Paulino Matip's South Sudan Defence Force officers and men into SPLA. A Military tribunal was formed and a court marshal instituted to try him. The court marshal did not find any evidence sufficient enough to convict him of any wrongdoing.

Both the SPLA affairs acting minister and the SPLA C-in-C; that is 1st-Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, 1st Vice-President and President of GOSS, are not in a position to release him possibly for fear of his reaction and so the case remains as complicated as the reasons for Maj-Gen. Mete's arrest were.

Col. Thomas, Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) and SPLA's Maj-Gen. Mete and many other South Sudanese have witnessed the GOSS/SPLA tact that deliberately deny detainees the right to courts, trial and the application of the due process of law just to inflict harm on, and perhaps dehumanize, them.

The practice of personality cult in the case of South Sudan includes fearing but not respecting senior leaders of the SPLM/A. Statements like 'had Dr Garang lived nobody could have tempered with GOSS finances; and that the GOSS could have succeeded in many ways' are but serious attachment of hopes on inexistent person. This is very dangerous because the South may not go ahead as its leaders may wait forever and the South together with its citizens will have to face the consequences.

Dr Garang is dead and nothing is going to bring him back. H.E. 1st-Lt-Gen. Mayardit has succeeded him and the only way to make things go in the South is to ensure that Mayardit has a strong cabinet and advisors not sycophants. Sycophants, who promote the practice of personality cult, do not care whether or not Mayardit succeeds in his efforts to rid the South of corrupt leaders and embark on its development so long as they loot the South in his name when the price will have to be paid by Mayardit himself.

From the above examples, how could anyone judge the impact of such on the relationship between the GOSS/SPLA and the people of South Sudan? The answer is simple: mistrust between GOSS/SPLA and the people will continue unabated. This mistrust is there and people in South Sudan are forced to live with it because those who try to address it fear retribution for commenting on the obvious. How does SPLM/A intend to unite the people of South Sudan? Is it through intimidation or understanding? The latter is the way forward but not intimidation of any kind, including misinterpretation of laws in the interest of few individuals who worship other individuals.

Those in GOSS/SPLA who encourage these kinds of practices could be equated to modern Chinese and South Korean leaders. This is because suppression of any kind, especially failure to embrace the due process of the law is inhuman. Due process of law is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights, instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. In the laws of the United States, this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process of law has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions

Equality before the law develops trust between the people and the government. A government that applies law equally gives its own citizens an opportunity to respect and interact with each other as each one of them would be aware of the consequences of committing any crime and its legal repercussions. Once it becomes an acceptable practice, the citizens would see fairness in their government and thus embrace it and, depending on their fair judgment, give it full support when need be.

GOSS/SPLA has failed to exercise fairness on all those it has arrested. Many South Sudanese would emphatically agree with this statement. Take the example of Arthur Akuen, GOSS' former minister of finance who was accused of embezzling money worth millions.

Arthur Akuen was arrested and locked up in prison after he was accused of involvement in the infamous Al Cardinal scandal. Later, however, he was released and upto this moment he lives in his house as a free man. Could the decision to let loose Arthur Akuen have something to do with his immunity as a minister or his affiliation to the ruling tribe?

Assuming that Col. Thomas of the SAF and Lt-Gen. (Rtd) Thomson of the unified police were regarded as enemies, something SPLA never hides from saying, what about Maj-Gen. Mete, the SPLA DCOS? Could this kind of treatment have something to do with the tribe of Maj-Gen. Mete? Would Mete have remained in solitary confinement as he is now for nearly two years had he been from the ruling tribe? Why is Mete's case unique in military law? Can't the SPLA fire him if he is found guilty of corruption, which is widely practiced in GOSS/SPLA?

He could be dismissed without post benefits and either detained in civilian prison or discharged from active service and set free. But should he be clean from all the accusations as this is said to be the case, which awaits a political decision of the C-in-C, he should be cleared and reinstated in his office. It is only mutiny, rebellion and releasing of classified information which is treasonous but not a common practice in South Sudan like corruption.

What is there on planet earth that could be more disuniting to a people with a common destiny than segregation of its own inhabitants on the basis of clan, tribe, creed, colour and nationality? These are things which cannot be practiced by modern governments let alone being encouraged by citizens of the 21st Century। The world that is inherited today by its current leaders was in wars that were caused by divisions on the basis of strength, clan, tribe, creed, colour, you name it. The social contract theorists made possible the adoption of modern states based on the rule of law and equal application of that law on all regardless of their statuses.

In his Leviathan book, Thomas Hobbes, an English scholar mostly known for his scholastic work on social contract, set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments - based on social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war।

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii)।

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected: the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers।

As in the words of Hobbes, the GOSS/SPLA top echelon seems to believe that it is sovereign and as such it must be in full control of the civil, military, judicial except the ecclesiastic powers। Hobbes helped the creation of modern states but the states of the 21st century which are based on strong democratic principles separated powers in a modern state and agreed that the people of any nation are sovereign. What seems to be the problem with GOSS/SPLA is their inability to deal with those who undermine the due process of the law by blocking the application of the law on equal basis and depriving the people of South Sudan of their sovereign rights?

Should these corrupt individuals be removed from power to avoid corruption as well as misinterpretation of the law? This may be obvious but it is unlikely because all of them are comrades-in-arms (tribes mates may be) and removing one or two of them may mean a lot of things to those individuals who maintain them, including losing political support base।

The GOSS, however, has to embark on a political awareness programme that should seriously aim at educating those individuals within the SPLM/A who have this misconceived believe that they are in GOSS to stay। They need to be told that governments are not like homes where people retire to. Governments are public institution from where people retire to homes. It should also be made categorically clear that governments are not and shall not be money-making institutions; and that those who are found making money from public institutions – however senior their positions are in government – ought to be tried on equal basis with other criminals.

The lack of due process of law in South Sudan is the main cause for the absence of equality before the law। Therefore, GOSS should not play innocent by burying its head on the sand with a view to ignoring the due process of law. Equality before the law cannot be applied in where there is no due process of law. It is time that the executive in South Sudan reactivates the judiciary to manage and interpret the laws correctly. The judiciary needs to apply law equally on all the citizens, including government officials by following the normally laid down legal procedures; especially those that sanction the stripping off of politicians and senior officers in the organised forces of their immunities to stand trial.

The absence of equality before the law has made some law abiding South Sudanese living abroad to refuse to return home। All South Sudanese follow the events that are taking place at home. Some are asking a lot of questions on hearing of illegitimate arrests and detention of their fellow citizens without the due process of the law. In fact it becomes difficult for someone to leave a country in which his/her rights, legal or otherwise, are respected and protected only to come to where those very rights, legal or otherwise, are violated by none other than the some senior officials in the government who are charged with the duty of protecting those basic rights in the first place.

South Sudanese in Diaspora do long so much for a faster return home. This could be made possible by GOSS which has to implement the due process of law that in turn will support the existence of equality before the law. There is no one in this era of the new world order who would want to stay in an environment which is lawless. Albert Einstein, a German-born theoretical physicist, once said: “As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule।”

Therefore, GOSS needs to promote political liberty, toleration and equality of all citizens before the law as a rule. It is only then that South Sudanese in Diaspora and Northern Sudan will have the courage to return home, a safer home, not the one they ran away from during the war. It is only after the return of all South Sudanese that the unity of South Sudan – based on equality, freedom and justice for all – could be realised.

Free and fair elections

"The will of the people and free and fair elections are more powerful than any state machine, notwithstanding its strength and severity… undemocratic regimes cannot stop the realization of the people’s will and the basic rights." - Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko – http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/elections/elections_speech_excerpts.html

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

It promised to examine each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; "majority rule"; and "Minority rights". Today, "Integral" will be looking at "free and fair elections" and its importance as stipulated in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan (ICSS) in Part II Bill of Rights; "Equality before the Law", article 18, which states that "all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination as to race, ethnic origin, colour, sex, language, religious creed, political opinion, birth, locality or social status. For more information on ICSS, visit: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_SouthernSudan.pdf. Those willing to follow the "Integral" column right from its onset should visit http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/.

Free, fair and elections are three words that have to be defined each separately to benefit some sections of "Integral" readership, especially the students. Free has two meanings. The first one means gratis. The second one means at liberty. Fair means unbiased and/or reasonable. Election means choosing by vote. In "Integral" context, therefore, free and fair elections could be rephrased as 'choosing by vote conducted at liberty and without bias.'

As one of the democratic pillars or values, free and fair election is perhaps the epicenter of democracy itself. There are many countries around the world that claim to be democratic or use election to demonstrate to the world that they do practice democracy. Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

True democracy, however, is exercised by governments that give credit and trust to their own citizens – governments that are resolved that the sovereignty of their nations is vested in their citizens. These governments, directed by the constitution of their nations, give their citizens the right to pass verdicts on them in the way they manage their affairs. Governments like these organise elections in such a way that the citizen of their nations decide – in a freewill – to vote men and women of their choices to parliaments, senates, presidencies, and indeed any other public offices.

Government of South Sudan (GoSS) has stipulated in ICSS Part I, Chapter I, 2 (1) Sovereign Authority of the People of Southern Sudan, that "without prejudice to Article 2 of the Interim National Constitution, sovereign authority in Southern Sudan is vested in the people and shall be exercised through their democratic and representative institutions established by this Constitution and elected by them in regular, free and fair elections. (2) The authority of government at all levels in Southern Sudan shall derive from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, this Constitution and the law.

To relate free and fair elections to the concept of "Integral" column, "disunity in South Sudan", it is important to note that the non-observance of free and fair elections has brought about disunity in many parts of the globe. Therefore, as part of that globe, "Integral" is fully aware that GoSS has not conducted any elections. But it will sooner or later. This being the case, it is important that GoSS and the ruling party, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), understand that non-observance of free and fair elections in South Sudan – in the near or far future – may not differentiate South Sudan from the dictatorial democracies around the globe. Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe offer good examples of how non-observance of free and fair elections caused disunity amongst the peoples of these countries. For the purpose of this feature, "Integral" will only highlight on the Kenyan presidential elections, as an example.

In Kenya, there were reports of wide rigging of votes and the quick swearing-in of President Mwai Kibaki was a testimony to this. How? Because the concept of free and fair elections cannot become practical unless the government in power ensures that the peoples' choice is the verdict needed to bring about a political change. The opposition could not have cried fowl if its observers had seen free and fair voting exercised. They did not see it and so they had to declare that the elections were not free and fair. The government refused to listen to them and instead rushed to swear-in the opponent of the opposition. The opposition leader was supposed to concede defeat and attend the swearing-in ceremony of his worthy opponent but he did not. This did not only cause disunity in Kenya but thousands of lives were lost.

In South Sudan there are very serious trends insinuating elections rigging in future. This statement may be misunderstood by fellow brothers and sisters in both GoSS and the SPLM for an unfounded accusation. But it is a fact that many members of the SPLM and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) have been and continue to say GoSS came through a gun; and that they will not allow anybody to take it by a ballot box. Others are making strategies of having members of their ethnic and/or nationality groups elected from occupied territories within South Sudan.

Those who say that GoSS came through a gun; and that they will not allow anybody to take it by a ballot box are openly saying that there will be no elections. But should elections be sanctioned by all means, then elections will be rigged in order to maintain the status-quo with a view to enjoying what has been earned through the gun, GoSS.

Meanwhile, the strategy of illegally settling people in some parts of South Sudan amounts to a planned future neo rigging of elections. Since numbers decide in elections who lead, any of these settlers could be simply elected by his/her ethnic and/or nationality group illegally settled in an area where they become more than half of the original population. More than half of the population gives anybody a clear win and as such democracy, according to those who are selfish, could have spoken.

Why should anyone in his/her normal mind for example think that s/he as an Equatorian from Otuho nationality in Torit could move part of his/her clan to Bor and expect to win elections and represent the people of Bor? Why can't this Otuhoni relocate to Bor through legal means and seek for support of the people of Bor? How does someone expect to become popular in his/her own tribe and village and thinks that s/he could use such across the boundaries of his/her village? Does tribal leadership improve the chances of a tribal leader to become a national leader?

It is not possible for anyone to move his/her clan and expect to become popular in a territory in which s/he is regarded a squatter. S/he who imposes himself or herself on the people, including his/her own tribe, may not enjoy leadership no matter where s/he settles.

However, it is possible for someone to easily become popular in his/her own village and uses that across the boundaries. There are two things that would make this cross boundaries popularity possible: one, the use of tribal affiliation to promote the general good of mankind; and two, the need to acquire qualities that do not divide people on the basis of tribe, religion, creed, race and/or gender.

Tribal leadership does not improve the chances of a tribal leader, especially one who is addicted to his tribe and tries to use anything in his/her powers; be it public or otherwise to promote tribal interest. Leaders like this cannot go an inch from their villages. Even in their states chances of their political survival are limited unless of course the said state is made up of one tribe. Should that be the case, then clanism may be used to promote the interest of that clan. Leaders like this would continue deteriorating until they disappear in tribal chieftaincies.

South Sudan is made up of about 63 nationalities (http://www.gurtong.org/people.asp) and hundreds of tribes. Leaders within the South, especially those who are running the government of the day should really know that insinuations of rigging elections cannot promote popularity of any kind. Thus, those who might have found themselves within the rank and file of the national and state leaderships should know that democracy is void of rigging. There is no way anyone could just rig himself or herself into leadership without consequences. Those consequences are many and they all amalgamate to produce a serious disunity of the people, something that could easily be avoid by following the true values of democracy.

Insinuations to rig elections are not as dangerous as the actual rigging of elections. They simply represent the possible dangers of election rigging in future. This thus means that the current leadership of GoSS under H.E. 1st-Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit needs to address a number of important issues like educating those who think that they cannot part with GoSS because they fought for it. Those who use as their tribal strategy the occupation of other peoples' lands in South Sudan in order to see the emergence of their tribesmen and women as members of parliament from where they are not part of historically. These are the only signs of future election rigging in South Sudan and could be dealt with now. Any feet dragging aimed at protecting the thinking of those expansionist South Sudanese is likely to produce bad results that are likely to affect the unity of South Sudanese people.