Ban Ki Moon is not to Blame for South Sudan War

0
33

Outgoing UN chief Ban Ki Moon

Somalilandsun-Dear Editor, this letter is a literary response to the recent words of contumely by Taban Abel Aquek in the Dawn Daily that the UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon has been fueling and inciting inter-ethnic hatred among the Southern Sudanese communities and hence the genocide in Southern Sudan through armed conflict between the two communities of Nuer and Dinka

. Taban Abel Aquek is also the parliamentary chief whip in Juba, and thus by logic of connotation his sentiments and opinions reflect how the Majority of the politically correct in Southern Sudan look at current war in Southern Sudan. It is understandable that emotions of patriotism and nationalism can fail one to make very sentimental statements in case of one’s country having a political or military problem, and hence Taban Abel Aquek must contextuallybe understood for his sentiments, but it is also so clear that armed fighting between the Dinka and the Nuer has not been incited and fuelled by Ban Ki Moon.

I strongly encourage Taban Abel Aquek to go beyond inverted self-conviction and find out what experts, neutral observers and researchers are saying about the Dinka-Nuer conflict. I would like him to read the Analysis of present political problems in Southern Sudan by Mahmood Mamdaniwritten under the title; who is to Blame in Southern Sudan?  Published in the June 2016 edition of the Boston Review. The facts are bare and indisputable about the forces behind the failed political transition as currently seen in Juba Sudan; colonial legacy, failed anthropological analysis of the pre-colonial Dinka and Nuer communities by the British colonial government,absence of administrative structure, absence of the technical, legal as well as judicial structure and as well as lack of training and command in the Southern Sudanese Military are some of the factors that fuel the Dinka-Nuer war.Mamdani similarly goes ahead to cite tribalism, politics of exclusion, giving the government jobs to the two communities against sixty three communities and as well as failure to de-militarize the civilians after formation of the state in July 2013, account for the current Southern Sudanese political and security quackmire but not Ban Ki Moon. 

Comparatively Yoweri Museven in Sowing the Mustard Seed identified the same facts as the one pointed out above by Mamdan as necessary transitional actions to be taken when forming a state from a situation of political imbalance through use of the armed civilians. Museven stressed for de-militarization of the civiliansabsorbing of the former fighters into the conventional army but after serious training. Not to reward to former fighters with powerful political positions.

It is true Western Powers like USA,UK and Norway as well as very many other countries in Africa and without Africa have indirectly manipulated the peace process in Southern Sudan for malicious reasons hinged on economic gain, but this is only succeeding because of the people and the political as well as religious leaders of  Southern Sudan refusing to accept a fact that political, tribal and religious extremism are not abridge to any political betterness, self-sacrifice and tolerance to otherness in national building and state-formation is.Technically, the People and leaders of Southern Sudan must appreciate an  observation by Mamdan that  The troika of America, United Kingdom and Norway supported the quick formation of the Southern Sudanese State not because they wanted democratic freedom for the people of Southern Sudan, they only wanted a place from where they can have a strong hold when fighting the Islamic Terrorism.Thus such observations need not to push as to a tic state when we go tad sober and profess that,for the state of Southern Sudan to be formed there is need for tribal disillusionment among the Southern Sudanese themselves.

I also request Taban Abel Aquek to read Toni Morrison’s letter to the editor she published in the Newsweek under the title;The Justice of Public Whipping in Sudan. Morrison was pushing a human rights and gender idea in regard to how the Sudanese societies both in Khartoum and Juba are fond of public whipping especially, of the women and foreigners as a way of punishing a crime. Morrison condemned this justified brutality in Sudan because public whipping of a woman, a stranger or any other person without medical direction is an overtone of well entrenched patriarchy and sentimentality of xenophobia. And it is so obvious that collective psychology that derives satisfaction from patriarchy and xenophobia cannot form a modern state, whatsoever.

The media in Kenya and other Countries of Eastern Africa have been regularly reporting cases of brutality against foreigners in Southern Sudan; cases of a man-driver from Kenya being whipped a hundred strokes by the Sudanese police because he said hello to a Sudanese woman, Ugandan women working in a hotel being murdered by Sudanese men because of talking to another man, Kenyan business men being beaten to death for no explainable reason are very many in southern Sudan. Socially this is known as Xenophobia. It works against other good intentions like economic and political development. Under such like experiences the Southern Sudanese people are to blame for the war in their country, but no one else. They must accept to tolerate otherness before they can form a modern state.

By; Alexander Opicho

(From Lodwar, Kenya)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here