The Demolished Lives of Juba Residents of Line Temirjya

By John A. Akec

It was one bright and hot Sunday afternoon in March of this year (2009) in Juba, South Sudan, when I agreed to meet up with a friend in Hai Malakal. The friend was late and I decided to stroll around for exercise as well as search for a shop to top up my cell phone call credit. The walk, coincidentally, took me to the nearby Line Temirjya block - a residential area that was established in 1946 for nurses. It is dominated by grass and mud built huts. I estimate a few hundred families had their homes there. All the names used to describe my discussants are not real.

Line Temirjya broadly means "Nurses Quarter." It is located behind Juba Blood Bank, a short distance south of Juba teaching hospital. It is bordered in the north and north-east by Supiri and Juba Girls Schools, respectively. A large playground separates Line Temirjya and the two schools. A single-carriageway in the west demarcates the residential block from Hai Malakal. Measuring by South Sudan’s standards, Line Temirjya is an old residential block. However, what greeted me on that particular Sunday afternoon was a scene of carnage and devastation, similar to one often left behind in the aftermath of a hurricane or an earthquake. Line Temirjya, as I came to know from clearly devastated residents, was in ruin - demolished two days earlier by Juba town planning authorities.

What captured my attention most as I got closer was the sight of residents sitting in the ruins of their houses and still try to carry on with something like a normal life. There I could see a women frying peanuts in large saucepan under clear sky on firewood and sending white smoke into air; three men working themselves out and sweating intensely under hot sun as they try to recover grass from their demolished house; two little kids playing with mud in what was their home few days earlier; a woman breastfeeding her child at the entrance of partly-chattered roofless house; an apparently stressed young woman sitting on a deckchair and rocking nervously in the sun amid the wreckage; a teenage boy sitting on a broken wall and holding a toddler in his hand, to mention but a few.

Curiously enough, I approached a woman doing some washing and asked her to explain how all this happened and what she felt about it. She called out to the young lady who was sitting on a deckchair a few yards from her, probably struggling to understand my Juba Arabic or English. It turned out the two were originally from Uganda. I introduce myself to the lady and bystanders as a university teacher who is also interested in society and the issues affecting communities. The young lady, Samyia (not her real name), told me she arrived in Juba two years ago to look for work so that she could go back to Uganda and pay her school fees. I asked whether they had enough notice when the demolition machines arrived. No, replied Samyia. "We were told that only those who built their houses in school playground will be destroyed, and were surprised to see the machines approaching and razing down every house", she continued. What the future looks like now that she is virtually homeless, I asked Samyia. "Don’t know", she replied with blank face as her eyes scanned the edge of the demolished village. That encounter left me with the impression that these residents share a similar profile as Samyia or those displaced by war to seek shelter in Juba town. But I was wrong. The majority of them as I came to discover were South Sudanese of all backgrounds. Some, now adults, were born there and lived all their lives in the block.

A middle aged woman, Martha (not her real name), and her husband were Amadis from Nimule who moved to Line Temirjya in 1993 lived close to Smyia. Ayor is a housewife with her husband Malwal ( a private truck driver) are Dinkas from Yirol . Ayor’s mother in-law was a Bari (that is, Malwal’s mother) had always lived in Line Temirjya since 1972. Malwal was out driving his truck to Rumbek when the ‘demolitionists’ arrived at his home back in Juba and left his child, wife, and mother all fending under a tree.

Achol barely said much as she stopped breastfeeding her child when she saw me approaching. All expressed anger and disappointment with government. "The government should to be like [good] father. He may discipline his children but still caters for their needs", said a 22-year old neighbour, Peter. Peter is a Bari and his parents have always lived in the block since his birth. Peter currently studies public and business administration at the University of Juba. At least 13 of his family members have been rendered homeless by the demolition and their luggages were visibly packed at the corner of a room in their demolished house.

Most moving still, I had a chat with a brother-and-sister (Tina (7) and Leon (5)). The two siblings were playing in what was their house front space. I asked little Leon to show me his bed. Leon pointed to a heap of clothes and furniture in the middle of the wreckage, with one of his right-hand fingers pushed in his mouth. I asked Leon whether he goes to school these days, but Tina interrupted to tell me that he used to go to nursery. Their mother, Agnus, was busy baking peanuts in a large pan on an open fire. She sells the peanuts to buy food to feed her family. Her husband, Leme, also a Bari, was born and raised up in Line Temirjya. A friend came to help Leme to recover some of the grass from their demolished house. I asked him what he was going to do with the recovered grass. "Find a space in no-man-land and errect a shelter for my family", retorted the clearly annoyed Leme.

Another resident told me that it is strange that their government should destroy their houses with no alternative arrangements to resettle them or give them any sort of assistance with the move. "It is unthinkable for people to be told just move out with no where to move !", he said angrily.

On the other hand, a local friend and colleague told me two days later that the area now belongs to Juba Blood Bank and that compensation was paid in early 1980s to many residents to quit and resettle elsewhere. I also heard from same friend that some of the residents have received payment from authorities. From my conversation with sample residents, it would appear a great majority had not received any compensation financially or in kind.

Overall, I spent nearly an hour walking across the block and chatting to the residents who sat under trees or under open sky, or sheltering by broken walls as the rainy season approaches with dark clouds hovering menacingly in the horizons of Juba. With no exception, all those I spoke to were disappointed with the government demolition policy and complained about luck of support from anyone, including NGOs.

Eventually, I walked out of camp of suffering, with heavy heart. Like residents of Line Temirjya, I was not impressed by the lack of proper planning to compensate or resettle those adversely affected by demolition.

We, the South Sudanese, have fought an impressive liberation war and paid a high price for the achievement. However, we are yet to demonstrate to our citizens that we have what it takes to win the development war within reasonable time scale. And with the general election approaching next year, the case of homless residents of Line Temirjya in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, is hardly an election vote winner.

The time for the decision-makers in the government of South Sudan to rethink their development strategies by reflecting on the experience of the past 4 years is long overdue.

Why the University Education Still Excites Many People Today?

By John A. Akec

With more than 30 universities in Sudan and with talk of declining academic standards and rising level of unemployment amongst university graduates in our country, one is led to believe that university education has lost its glitter and is now next to worthless. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Recently, I was invited to give a keynote speech at an occasion to celebrate the admission of new students from my county to various Sudanese universities. The celebration was organized by my county’s university students association. I decided to steer clear of the usual political stuff that seems to preoccupy most of us at every gathering these days: the future of CPA, elections’ laws, the ICC’s ruling, Darfur, insecurity in the South Sudan, the LRA, the land grabbing in Equatoria by ‘outsiders’, and the like.

Instead, I decided to focus our minds on what it means for these young men and women to be admitted to university. This is the basis of my article.

University Education and Its Importance
The first question I asked myself was why is university education important? Many educationalists argue that university education is the critical parameter in the well being and success of an individual in today’s society. As one academic puts it: "It gives the man [and woman, my italics] the clear conscious view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, eloquence in expressing them, and force in urging them."

Another academic succinctly expressed the purpose of university education saying: "the aim of university education is to produce a human being who have heart for the people and environment, create a just society, disseminate knowledge, and improve the quality of life."

A UK secondary school head once told parents that: "A-level results determine student’s life expectancy." By that he meant those who go to university are more likely to enjoy a higher standard of living, and hence, a longer life expectancy than those who don’t. In fact, a government funded research in the UK a few years ago revealed that, on average, a graduate earns in a lifetime 400 times more than those who did not go to the university.

A Quick Historical Glance at the Origin of University Education
So intrigued with the exciting outcomes of being a university graduate that we, as students, graduates, and parents, are also bound to ask further questions in order to further and deepen our understanding about university education: What is a university after all? When and where did the idea of university originate? Where are world’s best universities located?

A modern definition of a university is that of an institution that continuously teaches and awards degrees in advanced studies. Another definition describes university as a community of teachers and scholars.

The world’s oldest university that has been continuously operating and granting degrees is University of Karaouine in Morocco. It was established in 858. The first university to be founded in Western world is the University of Bologna in Italy that opened in 1088. The universities of Paris in France (founded in 1150), Oxford (in 1167) and Cambridge in England (in 1209), Salamanca in Spain (in 1218), and Padua in Italy (in 1222) followed next.

In fact, if the definition of university is broadened to include those that offered advanced studies but fell short of offering degrees, Nanjing University in China would be the oldest world’s university as it was established in 285 but did award degrees until many centuries later. All that Nanjing University did before becoming a full-fledged university in modern sense of the word was help students prepare for exams after which those who passed had their names entered into the scholar’s gentry.

By 1500, many European countries had universities established and from there on universities began to spread all over the world. The oldest Sudanese university is Khartoum which was founded in 1902 as Gordon Memorial College. Today, there are more than 30 public and private universities in Sudan.

Some Facts about Today’s Universities Ranking
The THE-QS World Universities Ranking 2008 placed Harvard at the first place of top 10 world’s universities. Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, California Institute of Technology, Imperial College, University College London, University of Chicago, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Columbia followed in that order. A closer look at the list reveals that only two countries, namely the US and UK dominated the top 10 between them, compared top 100 where 13 different countries were represented. On the other hand, 33 countries participated in top 200 universities.

Back to Africa, the top 10 are dominated by Egypt (6 universities) and South Africa (4 universities) with following ranking order: Cairo University, Ain Ashams, Cape Town, Pretoria, Stellenbosch, KwaZulu-Natal, Mansoura, German University in Cairo, Helwan, and Asiut.

Amongst the top 100 African universities that are represented, University of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) came in 12th place, Makerere (Uganda) ranks 17th, Ilorin (Nigeria) in 32nd place, University of Zimbabwe in 47th place, University of Addis Ababa in 58th place. Three Sudanese universities made it into the list, and they are: University of Khartoum in 34th place, Sudan University of Science and Technology in 42nd place, and Ahfad University for Women in 61st place.

Overall, 24 African countries are represented in the list of top 100 African universities. The participation is distributed as follows: Egypt (24 universities), Algeria (16), South Africa (15), Morocco (7), Kenya (6), Nigeria (5 ), Tunisia (4), Sudan (3), Ghana (2), Tanzania (2), Mauritius (2), Namibia (2), Uganda (1), Botswana (1), Ethiopia (1), Mozambique (1), Senegal (1), Reunion (1), Zimbabwe (1), Burkina Faso (1), Madagascar (1), Zambia (1), Libya (1), and Rwanda (1).

It is to be noted that North Africa alone is represented by 52 universities (distributed among 5 countries), while 19 African countries are represented by 48 universities. All North African countries have been represented. Many sub-Saharan Africa countries did not feature.

What’s more, a look at the GDP distribution in those two regions of Africa will definitely suggest a link to the quality and quantity of their universities as can be said about countries enlisted in top 100 African universities. Hence, this simple analysis does confirm the well sang fact about the African "divide", with sub-Sahara Africa, as usual, trailing behind North Africa in education as well as in other prosperity indicators.

It is also a stark warning to those finance and economic planning ministers of the Sub-Sahara African nations that assign low priority to research and education in their annual budget allocation. Hence, any finance minister who would like to get the balance of payment right without investing in research and educational institutions has forgotten his walking stick. He or she is not going to get anywhere close to the economic goals they are dreaming about anytime soon.

The Challenges Facing the University Education in the New Millennium
The new millennium whose economy is being shaped by new technologies, new means of communications, and new social and economic phenomena such as the Internet, genetic engineering, globalization, the spread of consumerism to new corners of the world, the rise of China and India as new global economic super powers, the threat to Earth’s environment and resources in the form of global warming and dwindling energy and drinking water resources; all put great challenges on today’s universities to equip these young men and women who make it to their gates, with skills, attitudes, and work cultures that will enable them to succeed in the new world they will be joining after graduation.

The new world in which these young men and women will be part of (and is already here) goes by many names: electronic or e-age, e-economy, the knowledge economy, or information society. In this new world, there will few jobs-for-life and many of new graduates will have to operate as independent self-employed knowledge workers or fleas as they are called by the British social thinker, Charles Handy in his book The Elephant and the Flea: Looking Backward to the Future (Hutchinson, London 2001). In e-economy and globalization, the borders between nation states will get blurry, according to Handy and others, paving way to free flow of skilled workforce, talents, intellectual property, and capital. Many graduates will face stiff competition at home from roaming global knowledge workforce that is highly skilled, flexible, and willing to do the jobs they will be aiming for, faster, better, and at lower cost.

That means the new breed of university students will have to be informed about, and get to grip with these new scientific, technological, social, economic, and environmental realities and concerns. The needed skills and knowledge will not be acquired solely by attending lectures or going to the library, but also by being aware of the burning issues of the day that are facing the wider society beyond the safety of lecture hall and campus; and by sharpening their personal, interpersonal, team, and communication skills; and by discovering their hidden talents through the pursuit of hobbies such as sport, music, art, writing, and debating, among others. By so doing, many of them will survive, and survive they will, successfully to be sure.

Sudan: Overtaxed, Over-ticketed, and Overcharged Nation for Scarcely anything in Return

By John A. Akec

In Sudan there are many issues that can keep us writing and asking myriad questions at infinitum. One of them is the addiction with collecting taxes and charging citizens for every service they use. And for sometimes, I have been wondering as to why Sudanese pay taxes when they are charged for all services they use or need to access. The service could be as essential as children education or hospital treatment; or as mundane, yet vital, as using a public park, or visiting a loved one in hospital. Universally privatised Sudan economy and tax did not make much sense as good bed-fellows and therefore I have come to suspect that the Sudanese could be the most overtaxed, overcharged, over-ticketed people on Earth, all for nothing in return. Here is why.

A not-so- recent publication has estimated Sudan government’s tax revenues composition at 30% direct tax and 67% of indirect tax. I believe indirect taxes have dramatically risen at the time when education and health services are being privatized. In Britain where I lived for many years, it takes great search to locate a private school in the neighborhood. In Sudan a school means private school. In Britain (a rich country), a private school is only for the very rich. In Sudan (a poor country), a private school is the only likely thing available in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the Sudanese person nowadays pays to see a doctor in public hospital, pays for medical tests, and then pays for prescriptions. No operation is free. To call an ambulance the Sudanese must pay. To visit a hopsitalised relative in public hospital, one must pay SGD 2.00 at the entrance. And oddly enough, doctors are more likely to prescribe more than one drug (an average of 2 or 3) for an illness, which unnecessarily drives up the treatment costs for the patient. And many a poor have asked the inevitable question at the pharmacist’s counter: which drug is the most important among these? Also over-dosed nation? I would think so. And as many pharmacists are attached to health centres, commercial self-interests may be blamed for the tendency to over-sell drugs to patients. The difference between a ‘public’ hospital and private hospital is only measured in costs of treatment; with public hospitals being ‘slightly’ cheaper, not free.


And if the concern about paying for what should have been common and free goods was confined to education and health service, the debate would have beeen straight-forward and political one. But the Sudanese man and woman can hardly use or ask for a service without being asked to pay. To apply to university, there is SGD 125 (US$ 60) application fee. There is airport fee of SDG 35.00 (US $ 17.00) for external air travel and SDG 20 (US $ 10) for internal travel. To leave the country one must pay for an exit visa ($ 50.00 in Juba International Airport).What is it exactly are we paying for? What service when we are paying for parking in Khartoum International Airport? And recently, paying SDG 5.00 (US $ 2.5) for using a trolley at Khartoum International Airport? This is when Juba International Airport still lacks sound or public address (PA) system to convey information to passengers, and instead relies on raw human voice to make announcements? When the tractor still pulls the luggage's trailer in Juba International Airport?


Whats more, I changed my UK driving license into a Sudanese one about a year ago. First, I went and enquired from relevant authorities and was told it would cost about SDG 175.00 plus SDG 25.00 eye-test fees. Not accurate information, as it later turned out. On the day I obtained my driving license, it cost me a staggering SDG 250.00 (or $ 120.00).That included additional (originally undeclared) charges such as UK license translation fee to Arabic, application form fee, stamp duty fees, and photocopying costs.


And most recently I was involved in a minor traffic accident and had to pay SDG 30.00 ($ 15.00) for a copy of police traffic report which insurance companies in Sudan need in order to process claims. Because there was no photocopier in the traffic police office, I was asked to drive half a mile in order to photocopy second party’s insurance document. I told the official later that it would have been more convenient for me if they had their own photocopier in their office. What happens to SGD 30.00 ($ 15.00) being paid by their clients to get traffic report? I asked. I could not receive a single convincing answer from him.


Sometimes I am let to think that our government has become addicted to collecting money from citizens and anybody that steps into our soil. This is when Sudan’s wealth indicators show a GDP of $44 billion. That works out as $88 billion (purchasing power parity. This means a dollar in Sudan is worth twice its value in the US in terms of what one can buy with it), according to Economist Intelligence Unit of The Economist (2008).

While the IMF has been praising the government of Sudan for its impressive economic growths (see the attached GDP growth since 2004), the average Sudanese is still to feel the impact of such economic growth in terms of free services such as free access to hospital treatment and free Universal primary and secondary education for their children, amongst others. Besides, there are a lot of externalities and failures of this laissez-faire economy that would demand an immediate government intervention. The IMF should consider looking at the resulting quality of life's indicators which are not made available by the IMF as they never concern the potential investors.

In summary, taxing people and charging them is pointless unless those concerned with collecting taxes and charges realize that citizens are entitled to some free goods and services and, in case of charged services, they deserve the quality of service that reflects what they are paying. In business jargon: we need better value for money. It is also clear that part of fees need to be reinvested back in whatever service we have been concerned with and paying for in order to improve the quality of service without necessarily raising up the charge. This is not happening in most cases. And that is sad.

I do recognize the importance of tax and charges. But tax for nothing in return ought to be baffling to an average person. All this provides food for thought to Sudanese politicians of all colours and persuasions, especially those politicians who will dare to make a difference in the life of an average Sudanese man and woman.

SPLM: The Wisdom of Celebrating Obama’s Victory or Rather the Lack of it

By John A. Akec

It was reported that the president of African National Congress (ANC- Sudan) and a former vice president of Sudan, Kongoor Arop, once told an angry gathering of South Sudanese parties opposed to SPLM that: "We cannot fight a woman carrying a baby at her back!."

Here the former Sudan’s vice president was referring to SPLM (Sudan People Libration Movement) as the woman. The baby referred to destiny of South Sudan and other marginalized areas of Sudan. Many South Sudanese, me included, would applaud Mr. Kongoor for his very nationalistic stand. And indeed, it is what SPLM will do in the next three years that will determine whether South Sudan will sink under oppression or attain its freedom (be it as an independent nation or free and prosperous region in a united Sudan). Yet, when the baby-carrying-woman (SPLM) wonders off the save path, there is a cause for concern least the life of the baby be jeopardized by any kind of misadventure.

Often times, innocent political gestures or decisions taken by a ruling party can have significant impact on the political interests of the people it represents. Most recently, the electoral victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential elections has taken the world by storm, all for different reasons. The Kenyan government immediately declared a public day of celebration. SPLM is also preparing to "celebrate" Obama’s victory.

OK, Kenya is rejoicing because Barack Obama’s father is a Kenyan by origin. However, if one might ask: what is SPLM celebrating? Will election of Barack Obama of African linage translate into better South Sudan – US relationships? Will President-elect Obama give better support to CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) than was provided by Republican administration under Bush? Which US administration in history has ever given serious attention or shown such interest to stop Sudan’s bloody wars? What signal is SPLM sending out to the Republicans who stood firmly with them and people of South Sudan until CPA was signed? Which administration has ever opened the door of the White House to the people of South Sudan than the outgoing Bush administration?

For most of us, as far as South Sudan is concerned, the answers to above questions are likely to negative, even pessimistic. The ineffectiveness of the Clinton administration to bring peace in Sudan is a case is well documented (refer to the attached blog article).

President Clinton in most part had maintained a hand-off approach to Sudan conflict. His Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright once said: "Sudan war is not viable." During his time, Al Qaeda was founded and fared. His actions in most parts were nothing but knee-jerk reactions such as missile strike of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in August 1998 as retaliation to bombing of two US embassies in East Africa that year. That action did nothing to promote the cause of peace and freedom in Sudan but only added fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism without serving any purpose.

With this abysmal Democratic record in view, the author fears that the coming Obama administration will be nothing but Clinton 2, courtesy of Obama. Besides, celebrating Obama’s victory could be construed by the Republicans as celebrating their defeat. This portrays South Sudanese as ungrateful and opportunistic lot, lacking any moral principle. This is what embracing a new president and shedding no tears for Republican party who did so much for South Sudan would mean.

My article need not be understood as being anti-Democratic party or the election of Barack Obama. It shows that the American people could not be hostages to the racial dogmas of the era gone by that judged a man by the colour of his skin and not by what he can do. It is a fulfillment of the prophetic speech of Martin Luther King at the step of Lincoln Memorial in Washing DC in August 1968 ("I have a Dream") in which he said:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

From this vintage, Obama’s electoral victory is well deserved for his magnetic character that is 100% American, his charisma, and his vision for America and the world. For a common man and woman, this is a victory for humanity that was brought about by the American people who have now silenced every doubting Thomas. Barck Obama is no lesser white than being black. He is foremost a human being regardless of other superficial considerations.

For SPLM party to appear as neutral in US’s political, it makes no sense for the party to "celebrate" Obama’s victory. I would rather suggest we (in South Sudan, SPLM included) hold our breath and fast until we get a clear sign that president-elect Barack Obama is not Clinton 2 and is going to give the same level of attention to and interest in the future of South Sudan and Darfur as the Bush administration did, or better.

And until that happens, it is wiser just to congratulate Obama and not "celebrate" his victory.

John A. Akec

(END)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attached related blog article:

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Democrat's Gain in US Mid-Term Elections Could be South Sudan's and Darfur's Loss

By John A. AkecLondon, UKAs a democrat and socialist by inclination, you may think I was going to dance at the news of the recent control of both the Senate and House of Representatives by Democratic majority following the US mid-term elections on November 7, 2006. Nothing could be further from truth. In fact, I am very concerned that the good days of handshake by Sudan opposition leaders with the US president in the Oval Office could soon be numbered.

I have every good reason to mourn the Republican loss in recent mid-term elections. I like their decisive, black-and-white approach to issues. Only a Republican administration could have appointed Sudan US peace Envoy (Senator John Danforth), pass a stronger version of Sudan Peace Act, pressure SPLM and the government of Sudan to conclude Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Kenya in January 2005, call Darfur war a genocide, and push for AU and UN intervention in Darfur.In contrast, countless fellow South Sudanese, author included, witnessed with absolute dismay how our people suffered in wilderness of Clinton era.

The Democratic administration under President Bill Clinton maintained a hand-off approach to Sudan civil war. During that period, Khartoum became the global centre for Islamic fundamentalism, and a training camp for terrorists - all targeting American foreign policy and interests, and declaring Jihad war on marginalized people of Sudan in the South, East, and West. Khartoum’s contempt of the US was manifested in hosting of Osama Bin Laden between 1991 and 1996, playing a role in first attempt to blow up World Trade Centre in New York in February 1993, the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (a committed US ally in the region) in Addis Ababa on June 25 1995, and the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar Al Salaam (Tanzania) in June 1998.

As far as the problem of war in Sudan was concerned, the US interest to get involved in ending the war under Democrats did not go further than setting up expert testimonies and hearings within subcommittees for East African Affairs in the State Department. Sudan civil war was never an issue that concerned the Congress to merit a serious debate on the floor of any of two chambers. The efforts by Carter Centre for Peace to mediate between Sudan warring parties were neither effective nor influential to commit the Clinton administration to play a more active role to end genocide in Southern Sudan and bring about a lasting peace.Vain threats and feeble attempts to frighten Khartoum regime with economic sanctions and missile strike on Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in August 1998 as a retaliation for Sudan's role in the bombing of US embassies did nothing but emboldened the Nationalist Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum to adopt a more hostile and extreme anti-western and anti-American posture, and to invite Bin Laden to pitch his training tents for his followers outside Sudan capital, Khartoum. Moreover Bin Laden was able as to fund commercial enterprises in Sudan that helped greatly to boost his financial muscle that allowed him to expand his Al Qaeda organisation.

Madeleine Albright, who served as the Secretary of State under president Bill Clinton was very reluctant to commit America to bring peace in Sudan. She was famously quoted saying: "Sudan war is not viable." It goes without saying that Secretary Albright did make a number of controversial statements, not just on Sudan political problems, but on many international issues, some of which she later came to regret and describe as "stupid." This was Albright's own word, not this author's.

The lack of interest to get involved to end African ethnically fuelled wars was in stark contrast to the more active role played by the Clinton administration to intervene alongside NATO in ethnic wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina that pitted Muslim Bosniaks and Croats against Christian Orthodox Serbs between 1992 and 1995. The US took a similar stand in war between Serbs and Albanian Muslims in Kosovo between 1996 and 1999. All the efforts eventually led to the break up of Yugoslavia and creation of new independent states.The role of the US under President Bill Clinton to end genocide against Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, the US involvement to end sectarian violence in Northern Island (the ancestral home of president Clinton) that resulted in signing of Good Friday Agreement in Belfast on April 10, 1998; and his lack of interest to aid the repressed Africans in Sudan are hard to reconcile.

Nowhere is this lack of will to get American hand dirty in Africa apparent than when Clinton ordered withdrawal of US forces in Somalia when 18 US soldiers were killed in an ambush by Somali warlord in October 1993, leaving the country to degenerate into anarchy. Compare that to the number of American servicemen dying in Iraq since 2005 while the US forces continue keep security in that challenging country. What conclusion do you come up with? Was it because Somalia was not viable? Or is it that Bush is made of a different metal? Tell me if you have a reasonable explanation.

Although as a youngster, I grew to view Western conservative governments of all flavours with suspicion and regarded them as anti-immigration, anti-social justice, and anti-black. I was attracted to Western socialist parties because, in theory, they stood for social justice, equal opportunity for all, equitable distribution of national wealth, and global economic fairness. After living in the West for decade and a half, I have seen little evidence to believe that this always the case. Whether in the government, or outside the government, socialist ideals seem to make little difference, if any, when it comes to the kind of geopolitics that has continued to discriminate against Africa. African problems seem to be the last thing on everyone’s mind. Democrats too, are guilty, and very guilty.

The United Nations, being the hotchpotch of sovereign states has been often been bogged down in debilitating divisions amongst its members to be able to intervene in timely fashion to help the repressed groups within states. What goes in the UN is basically that of "you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours. UN has proved not to be an effective world policeman and a restorer of stolen rights.Furthermore, "old" Europe is addicted to constructive engagement that maintains the status quo - good or bad.

In Africa, it is open secret that there is a unanimous consensus that colonial boundaries between sovereign states must be respected at any cost. They must be preserved like Catholic marriages - where divorce is not an option under any circumstances. That whatever evil that goes on within those 'sovereign states' it ought not be anyone's business.All above has left a great gap in the world for a powerful and just arbiter to correct the sins of grave injustices such as cruelty of man to man. It therefore begs a huge moral question whether or not America as the sole superpower should intervene and settle issues of injustice or break a political stalemate such as Sudan wars.

The Republicans administration under president George W. Bush Jr. seems to have done just that. Bush vowed that he was going to fight alongside those who wanted to be free. He used American might to intervene in Iraq. Like the biblical good Samaritan, George W. Bush promised during his first inauguration speech that he would not pass by if he sees a victim of injustice fallen by the way side.And true to his word, President George W. Bush tried his very best to do the right thing and paid the high political price. He bullied the strong to give to the weak.

By sending more Democrats to the Congress, America is signalling to Bush administration to pull out of Iraq and to slow down his interventionist policies elsewhere.It is worth reminding ourselves that United States Congress is comprised of two chambers: the House of Representatives, made up of 435 elected members, and the Senate formed of 100 elected senators. All directly elected. As the result of recent elections, Democrats now control a majority of 229 seats, while the Republicans control 196 seats. In the Senate, Democrats have 51 seats, and the Republicans hold 49. This seems like a small difference, but it is very significant.As prime legislative body, a Democrats controlled Congress has powers to pass new law or block new bills from being passed into law. It also has powers to block presidential decisions on home affairs and can initiate investigation or probe into previous decisions by the White House as it sees fit. Foreign policy is still largely the responsibility of the president and the State Department.

The president is also empowered to veto certain decisions against Congress' will. Hence, all is not lost. It is not as if president George W. Bush, the liberator of people of Iraq, South Sudan, and Darfur, is dead and gone. But, it does mean that our liberator is now highly constrained in what he can or cannot do. It also does mean South Sudanese and people of Darfur will now face very uncertain future and should strive to make the most of Bush’s commitment and sympathy while he is still around. As a democratic country that America is, people's decisions must be respected.

The American people have spoken: no more freebies for the oppressed and marginalized people of the world. Let us therefore accept their decision ungrudgingly. At the same time, let us be ready to face the law of unintended consequences, be it good or bad.

The County Road Rage: Governors Muddle in Business

"They do not defend the rights of the poor……the priests rule by their own authority…"
Jeremiah 6:28 & 6:30.

By John A. Akec

Prologue
Throughout the two decades of its struggle, SPLM party sold a bright future to the people of Southern Sudan and Sudan in general. Some of the slogans the party has been raising included rooting out all forms of marginalization and inequality in the Sudanese society, protection of the rights of all, good governance, freedom of speech, religious freedom, democracy, and much more. One favourite speech attributed to the SPLM founder, thinker, and Chairman, Dr John Garang De Mabior, used to be: "Oppression has no colour."

Oppression as we know it can take many forms: political, economic, social, cultural, ethnic, military, and so on. Anyone one of these can be as painful as the other. By saying that oppression has no colour, the SPLM chairman in his countless speeches wanted to teach the Sudanese people including South Sudanese that it does not matter who (friend or foe), or what skin colour (white, black, yellow, or brown) your oppressor takes. Anyone and he literally meant anyone who takes away somebody’s or community rights unjustly, or try to marginalize them is an oppressor.

Dr. Peter Nyuot Kok, a law professor and a former Minister of High Education and Scientific Research in the Sudan government of National Unity on SPLM ticket further amplified this point by once saying in a civil society workshop in Kenya that: "Even your [own] father can be your oppressor."

To date, and since the SPLM took over running the affairs of Southern Sudan in July 2005, all those slogans have fallen on the wayside. Instead of putting these truly revolutionary slogans into practice in the running of the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) and in states governments, the picture that has been emerging to the lay observer is that of a party that has ditched its script book (party principles, ideology, and advocated policies), and decided to go it alone. The result has been that the party is committing the very deadly sins that were responsible for creating the old Sudan. The very Sudan that SPLM took arms against.

When those who rule in the name of the party are no longer guided by party’s ideology, then we have a picture which Jeremiah saw in Israel long time ago when he expressed the Lord’s anger against Israel’s rulers: "They [the rulers] do not defend the rights of the poor……the priests rule by their own authority [not by word of the Lord in the Torah]."

The parallel with current SPLM government will be self-evident considering a case of bad governance and marginalization in the troubled Warap stateand Western Bhar El Ghazal state, in relation to award of road contracts and all the malpractices that accompanied it.

Thurjok/Awrad, AYAD/Africa Congdai, and Uneven-Handed Governors
Early this year a Company called Thurjok was awarded a contract by the former governor of Warap State to construct a road linking the capital of Gogrial East County, Lietnhom, to Wau in February 2008. Gogrial East is one of most deprived areas of whole of Warap State and does not have all-weather road of any sort. From June to October, the road linking the area to Wau is not drivable. Thurjok International was established in 2005 with shareholders mostly from Gogrial East County. It participated in transportation of displaced people in the North to Warap State. It bought and distributed for free more than 12,000 sacks of sorghum to meet seasonal food shortages in Warap State between 2005 and 2006. The State government promised to reimburse the costs. Yet the company so has not been fully reimbursed to this day.

What’s more, before the company could start the execution of the road project, the new governor of Warap State, Mr. Tor Deng, decided to cancel the contract won by Thurjok, and is in the process of awarding it to AYAD/Africa Congdai, consortium, two other new Southern Sudan based companies. The reason given by governor Tor Deng is that Thurjok has no financial resource to undertake such project. According to my investigation, this has no basis. Like AYAD and Africa Congdai, Thurjok has subcontracted to another Northern-based company called Awrad for Roads and Bridges.

The company favoured by governor Tor, AYAD, was previously awarded contracts to execute a number of road projects in Aweil in Northern Bhar ElGhazal state. And according to the feedback received by this author on the quality of their work, AYAD did a very bad job in Aweil. The company blocked waterways wherever the road crossed them including: natural drainage channels, and seasonal streams. Now the company is being sued in the court of law by Aweil Community leaders for negligence and for being responsible of recent flooding in Aweil that led to loss of life and property. Specifically, it is being asked to pay for damages caused by its poor road engineering work. The muscle behind AYAD/Africa Congdai consortium is a Northern company called Abdalaziz and Sons Co. Otherwise, according to one informed source, the Southern Sudanese shareholders in AYAD were ordinary people when peace agreement was signed. But few of AYAD shareholders are now said to have jumped from rags to riches since GOSS was established.

Changing the Initial Project Plan
After being promised the contract to execute Wau-Lietnhom road, the contractor, AYAD, in cooperation with Warap Ministry of Transport, are now modifying the path of the road. The original road was planned before the Naivasha agreement was signed. It goes from Wau through Panameth, Nyinakpk, Matiel, Malwalwut, Luanyaker, and Lietnhom. The planners wanted to ensure that it passes through many parts of Gogrial East County so that these areas can have easy access to services. The modified road will pass through Warngap, Achong Chong, Manyang, Pankot, and Mayenrual, Luanyaker, and Lietnhom. Of all these named places in the new plan, only Mayenrual, Luanyaker, and Lietnhom fall within Gogrial East County. The others are in North Tonj County.

To put it mildly, great majority of areas of the county will not be served by this new road. The concerns of citizens of Gogrial East (Apuk) are being flatly ignored. Governor Tor Deng is taking away the road the Apuk people of East Gogrial wanted, and is giving them the road they never wanted. It is taking away the fish from people’s mouth, and giving them a stinking scorpion, an utterly improper deed.

Governors getting too close to big business?
Thurjok was given green light to go ahead with road project by Gogrial East Commissioner and former Warap State government. Their subcontractor (Awrad for Roads and Bridges) completed more than 30 km of dual carriageway that is said to have no parallel anywhere in South Sudan. Shortly after the appointment of Tor Deng as Warap state governor, things began the go bad for Thurjok and their subcontractor, Awrad. In collaboration with governor Mark Nyipuoc of Western Bhar El Ghazal state, an army was sent to order at gun-point the workers and security guards of Thujok subcontractor to stop roadwork, dismantle their camps, and vacate all their men and equipment back to Wau town. When governor Mark Nypuoch was asked why he was doing that, he answered that he did not want "these people" to construct roads nor erect camps on his [state] land! Ignoring the fact that the whole purpose for the project was to link Wau and East Gogrial County and that there bound to be some inter-states roadwork and camping.

And as it is turning out, there is self-vested interest to all this. As revealed by a recent Khartoum Monitor interview with governor Mark Nyipuoc (Khartoum Monitor, Vol. 7 Issue No. 1647, September 24, 2008) AYAD has been awarded contracts to construct Wau-Raja road, and internal roads within Wau town. Like governor Tor Deng, it can be construed that governor Mark Nyipuoc would not want any other company beside AYAD to win Wau-Lietnhom road. This is gross favouritism being practiced in day light by two SPLM governors, and there is no one anywhere in the world to tell them to stop the misuse of SPLM authority as well as cease poking their noses too deep into business.

Where is GOSS Ministry of Transportation in this?
According to my investigation, Thurjok has been unable to secure the blessing of the GOSS ministry of transportation. This is primarily due to the report filed by governor Tor Deng, which says Thurjok has no capability to successfully complete the project. Thurjok, on the other hand, tried to convince the GOSS minister of transport, Deng Athorbei, to independently find facts for himself. And accordingly, the minister Deng Athorbei asked for a report from his authorized person in Wau. Paradoxically, the authorized person filed a report that confirmed the claims of governor Tor, despite visiting the company and being shown around. Disappointed by what they called misrepresentation of facts, Thurjok decided to film a video at company headquarters in Wau showing all the construction equipment and recorded interviews with key officials in Warap State at company’s headquarters and on several locations on completed parts of the road. When the video was presented to Minister Deng Athorbei, he was all the more confused, or rather seemed to be. The fight has also reached the desk of president Salva Kiir Mayardit, who was also said to have been confused by contradicting reports from governor Tor Deng and managers of Thurjok International. Therefore, the president of GOSS has been unable to arbitrate. And why should the president of GOSS be a final arbiter in awards of contracts when there is whole government machinery in place?

Concluding Remarks
I have just given a brief background to the controversy surrounding the award of contracts for road construction projects in Warap and Western Bhar EL Ghazal State. Much can be said about malpractices being pursued by the authorities in those states. It suffices to say that there is no fair system of tendering and arbitration in award of contracts in Warap State (I don’t know the situation in other states), which opens way to favouritism and corruption. Second, the trend is now to concentrate road construction business in Warap, Western Bhar El Ghazal, and Northern Bhar El Ghazal (Awiel) in the hands of one company, AYAD/Africa Congdai consortium. This is in contradiction to principle of fairness and "wealth-sharing" ingrained in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Wealth sharing should be reflected in North-South relationships and in South-South relationships. Anything short of that is marginalization. Here we see that only few select companies are being enriched by being given complete monopoly; while others are being deliberately driven out of business at gun point. Certainly not what SPLM stood for. Third, there is no interest to take into account the views of the main stakeholders (the authorities and citizens of Gogrial East County) as to who should execute their vital project, and what sort of benefits they will derive from the project when completed. Giving the contract away to AYAD/Africa Congdai Consortium and diverting the path of the road from the original plan without their approval, clearly amounts to the total marginalization, even oppression, of people of Gogrial East County by the uneven-handed governor Tor Deng & Co.

Yes, so much has been said by SPLM over years about ending marginalization and fighting all forms of inequalities in our society, truly a noble call. But actions speak louder than words, and SPLM will be judged more by what its government does on the ground and not by fanciful nationalistic slogans, good speeches by its leaders, or the usual clever talk in the medial by SPLM Secretary General, comrade Pagan Amum.

The current SPLM government has two choices, not more: to take a hard look at itself, change course, and administer justice and fairness; or continue to alienate the very people it claims to serve, come what may.

The Wisdom Facor: A Missing Link in South Sudan Politics

By John A. Akec

Wisdom is not necessarily knowledge. And knowledge is certainly not wisdom. Nor is intelligence equitable to wisdom. Wisdom is the most supreme of all these three highly coveted human traits: wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence.

Not every wise man or wise woman is knowledgeable. But knowledge and intelligence allows the wise man or wise woman to do great things. Things wisdom, knowledge, or intelligence alone cannot achieve. To me intelligence and wisdom are very close cousins. However, they differ in some important ways: Intelligence sees the way with its eyes. Wisdom sees the way with its brain. Intelligence can go astray and boomerangs. Wisdom will never go astray nor boomerang. Intelligence is insecure. Wisdom is secure.

Knowledge is neutral. It is beneficial. It is a good servant to wisdom. You can never have too much knowledge. But when knowledge is too little, it does more harm than good. In fact, we have been told by a respectful host of philosophers and educationalists that little knowledge is dangerous. That is where half-truths fit: dangerous. Hence, is it better to be aware of our ignorance than believe we know much when, in actual fact, we don’t.

In contrast to knowledge, any amount of wisdom is beneficial. It is like a mustard seed. Very small in size (1/20 of an inch) but out of it grows one of the largest trees in the forest. Better to have little wisdom than none at all.

By the way we conduct our affairs in South Sudan, we clearly display how much we need to seek and find wisdom: be we the ruled or the rulers. Without the exercise of wisdom by all concerned (stakeholders), it is impossible for me to imagine how we are going to survive as autonomous region in united Sudan or an independent sovereign state should we secede in 2011.

This wisdom means no matter how evil or wicket we are, we should avoid creating another Somalia in heart of Sudan in one way or another. We should also not think we have "the final solution" for our ethnic and tribal differences. No matter how disguised these "final solutions" may be in form of engineered or sponsored ethnic conflicts or engineered famines. These have failed to render "the final solutions" all the evil dictators have craved for throughout our human history.

Finally, let us avoid anything that will open an account with the ICC which in due course will send a Louis Ockampo in our trail. Wisdom can deliver us from such temptations and tendencies.

Intelligence: Are you listening? Don’t harm others and eventually hurt yourself. Ask wisdom for guidance.

Thinking of Something or Sombody Democratic

John A. Akec

Anything needs exercising or else it may die. A young child needs to be taught to walk in order to grow. Hands needs exercising to gain manual dexterity. Faith needs to be exercised by praying, preaching, practicing its teaching, and overcoming our besetting sins on a day to day basis through our faith.

South Sudan needs to practice its nascent democracy by people coming out and expressing our opinion on anything that may affect our lives, and by leaders being responsive to people's needs and demands. A wise leader should fear his people opinion like hell itself. Any "bravery" by leaders to yield to their people's yearnings and demands is not "bravery" at all. That is fool's bravery. Because when people's anger pours out nothing will stand on its way. Not the thick and impervious walls of powers. Not the iron gates. Not bullet proof windows. Not tanks and armoury. It is like a hurricane that blows everything away in its path.

A young and wounded democracy like ours is like a broken hip. Once treated, needs exercising and stretching. At first it hurts. And when the patient gets bolder, he or she tries to stretch the legs further to exercise the hip muscles or put more weight on it. They grow in confidence. They get back on their feet sooner than later.

I beileve democracy at first hurts. It is like a new cloth we shy to dress. So we must continue to stretch or wear it until we get used to it and are comfortable in it. If not, intolerance will muchroom in its place. Intolerance begets dictactorship. And dictatorship will grill us in its mighty teeth until we scream.

Who want to invest in nursing a monster that will feed first on the hands that fed it? Silence is the food that feeds dictactorship while harming democracy.

Furthermore, democracy before anything else, improves the quality of decisions being made by government by laying every decision bare and disecting it. It allows the government to know the minds of its people and take their opinions into account.

Let us go "democratic" . Leaders and people alike.