Sudan Tribune

June 16, 2015 (JUBA) – South Sudan has accused neighbouring Sudanese government of carrying out air attacks inside South Sudan at a border area in the oil-rich Upper Nile state on Tuesday.

A SPLA soldier looks at warplanes as he lies on the ground to take cover beside a road during an air strike by the Sudanese air force in Rubkona near Bentiu April 23, 2012 (Photo Reuters/ Goran Tomasevic)

Upper Nile state officials said warplanes sighted as coming from neighbouring Sudan entered its airspace twice on Sunday and Monday this week in Maban county area, dropping bombs and injuring at least four children, including a woman.

The air attack, according to Upper Nile state minister of information and communications, Peter Hoth Tuach, took place on Sunday in Khor Tumbak, an area at the border with Sudan in Maban county, saying this was a clear “violation” of international law.

“Sudanese warplanes, Antonov, dropped two bombs on Sunday and again on Monday in Khor Tumbak area in Maban county, wounding four children including a woman,” Tuach told Sudan Tribune on Tuesday.

“This is not the first time the Sudanese warplanes have dropped the bombs in the same area. They have done that before, destroying schools and local health centre,” he said.

Maban county commissioner John Ivo also told Sudan Tribune that the area witnessed two warplanes flying over again on Tuesday and dropped more bombs, calling it “a barbaric act in violation of the international norms and practices.”

South Sudanese army spokesperson Colonel Philip Aguer in a statement to the state owned South Sudan television on Monday accused Sudanese army of violating international law by repeatedly entering the airspace of another independent country without permission.

Aguer said the army was capable of defending the country against foreign aggression but added that the military leadership and its general command remained committed to respecting political process and bilateral agreement as a way to addressing security concerns at the common border with neighbouring country.

It remained unclear why this particular area in the border state has continued to be targeted by the Sudanese military.

Maban, which hosts over 130,000 Sudanese refugees, was bombed several times in 2014 by the Sudanese army, as Khartoum accuses the south Sudanese army of supporting the rebel Sudan people's Liberation Movement- North (SPLM-N).

The Sudanese army recently intensified attacks on the positions of the rebel SPLM-N, which controls some areas near the Upper Nile state.

Sudan and South Sudan have been trading accusations about the activities of their respective rebel groups at the border.

Last April, Sudanese government troops ambushed in a remote area in South Darfur near the border western the fighters of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) who reportedly crossed from the South Sudan Western Bahr el-Ghazal.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (JUBA) – The South Sudanese army spokesperson has denied the armed opposition's claims to have captured pro-government forces, challenging the rebels of those allegedly captured in clashes over control of Kaka in Upper Nile state on Sunday.

South Sudan army spokesperson Phillip Aguer (ssinpo)

Col. Phillip Aguer told Sudan Tribune that fighting continued on Monday, accusing the armed opposition of allegedly violating greed ceasefire agreements.

He said government roops have been responding to repeated attacks from militias of Gen. Johnson Olony, who until recently allied to the government of president Salva Kiir.

“If they have captured some SPLA soldiers, let them [rebels] show them to you [the media],” said Aguer.

“Let them [rebels] call the press and let them show where those soldiers are,” he added.

The armed opposition forces loyal to South Sudan's former vice president Riek Machar claimed their forces captured an SPLA field commander in Kaka. The rebels further claimed to have inflicted heavy casualties on the army and allegedly killed 60 of them.

Sudan Tribune could not, however, independently confirm the armed opposition's claims.

Aguer admitted there was clashes on Sunday and continued through Monday, but strongly dismissed claims that government forces had violated the ceasefire.

“[Gen] Olony has been attacking SPLA in Malakal. They [rebels] wanted to capture the oilfields, they went to Melut and they were defeated. They think the whole world is fool but they will not fool most of the South Sudanese,” Aguer told Sudan Tribune.

He said the army headquarters in Juba was still awaiting official reports from field commanders to ascertain if the SPLA lost some soldiers or if others were missing.

Olony, a former rebel leader until 2013, changed sides last month and declared allegiance to Machar's rebel group. His forces have been battling for control of several areas with the government in oil rich Upper Nile state for the last one month.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (JUBA) - South Sudanese rebel forces in Northern Bahr el Ghazal state under the overall command of Major General Dau Aturjong, on Monday claimed they received new defecting officers and officials joining their ranks and file from the government. General Dau is a senior commander under the leadership of the rebel leader, Riek Machar.

Rebel commander Brig General Joseph Gai Gatluak (left) pictured in front of his troops in Upper Nile state's Manyo county in March 2015 (ST)

Abdallah Kuot, spokesperson of the group told Sudan Tribune on Monday they have received up to 200 officials and military officers after launching offensives in response to large scale offences in the area.

The group, according to the opposition official, was led by Lieutenant Colonel Deng Deng Aliel, whom he said defected from Gaj, a local administrative headquarters where the government troops in the area had established military outpost.

If confirmed, Colonel Aliel's defection will be the latest in a series of such moves by high-profile government officials, raising questions about the stability of president Salva Kiir's government two years into the civil war gripping the country.

Lt. Col. Aliel had previously served as the head of logistics and supply for the government troops fighting the armed opposition fighters in Jonglei state at the start of the conflict between late 2013 and early 2014. He led retreating government soldiers in June 2014 from Jonglei state to some of the states in greater Bahr el Ghazal region.

The new defecting officers, he said, claimed that many soldiers still serving in president Kiir's government had lost faith and morale and were ready to join the movement any time soon.

“Colonel Deng Deng and his group have told us that those still serving in the government of Salva Kiir and his friends are only for appearance's sake to present an image to the international community showing that the regime is the one that pulls together all segments of South Sudan,” Kuot explained.

“He had been working with rebels to defect”, he said.

There was no immediate reaction from the government on the reported defection.

(ST)

June 15 (JUBA) - Warrap state government in South Sudan has presented a request seeking parliamentary approval to extend the term of governor Nyandeng Malek, one month after her term in office expired in May, leaving the state in limbo.

Warrap state governor Nyandeng Malek (ST)

Minister of local government in the state administration, General Acuil Tito, last week tabled the request before the house asking them to expedite the process so that it did not create political and administrative vacuum in the state.

Minister Acuil, according to his request, copy of which Sudan Tribune has seen, cited article 72 of the state model transitional constitution as the basis of requesting for extension of the term of the governor.

Acting chairperson of parliamentary committee responsible for public relations information and communications, Ariech Mayar Ariech, confirmed in a separate interview receipt of the request, but said there were faults in the procedure.

“The representative of the governor has presented the request and urged the members of parliament to pass the amendments under article 72 (1) of the model state transitional constitution, which is wrong. It is the article used for adoption of minor resolutions. The correct article [which] tackles any amendments in Warrap state transitional constitution is article 55 (1), which requires two-third majority of all members to the amendment and passing,” Ariech told Sudan Tribune on Sunday.

The legislator said the citing of a wrong article indicated bad intention on the side of the executive in collaboration with speaker of the house to use wrong approach in order to rig parliamentary procedures.

Any amendments to the constitution, according to Ariech, should be done after spending a period of one month after the request has been submitted to the parliament in order to allow members ample time to carry out proper studies and examine rationality of the request and whether it meets the public interest

“There is bad intention in submitting this request with a strong call on the members to pass it. In our constitution, any request seeking amendment to the constitution should stay at least for one month. But now they are asking for the passage before the completion of the period permitted by the constitution,” he said, accusing the speaker of working with the executive to rig the process.

“The way they are doing it shows that they want to bribe some members of parliament and if they fail to bribe some of us, then they will resort to rigging the process and the procedures,” he said.

He said the state executive wanted to do the procedure in the same way the national transitional constitution was passed in 2011 spearheaded by former justice minister John Luk Jok who rushed and wrote a bad constitution.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (KHARTOUM) - The Sudanese government said the United Nations has retracted from an agreement reached by the tripartite team on an exit strategy for the hybrid peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID).

A UNAMID peacekeeper during a routine patrol in Tawila, North Darfur.(Photo UNAMID/Hamid Abdelsalam)

A tripartite committee including the Sudanese government, African Union (AU) and UN has been set up to develop an exit strategy for the UNAMID from Darfur and the parties were expected to sign a agreement last May.

The head of the tripartite team from the Sudanese side, Jamal al-Sheikh, told reporters on Monday they reached an agreement on the report of the exit strategy but he was surprised by the refusal of the UN representative in the team to sign it.

Al-Sheikh said the refusal came as a result of the UN headquarters attempt to impose a specific agreement that has been rejected by the team, noting it doesn't have the legal or procedural right to interfere in the work of the team during the current phase.

In a report to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on 26 May, the UN chief, Ban Ki-moon said that no agreement on the exit strategy of UNAMID has been reached yet by the tripartite team, adding that the team's meetings were suspended and are supposed to resume later this year.

Ki-moon further said that UNAMID suggested during the negotiations to withdraw gradually from West Darfur, and leave from three bases in North and South Darfur, in areas that do not currently necessitate its presence, noting that withdrawal from other areas would only be possible if a ceasefire and protection of displaced are ensured.

Following a meeting of the foreign ministry's undersecretary with ambassadors of the UNSC permanent members in Khartoum, al-Sheikh said that the report of the tripartite team, after it is signed, should be submitted to the three parties, noting that New York's intervention is not legally, ethically and procedurally right at this juncture.

He said the team's meetings were suspended following the UN's refusal to sign the report and denied that the mission of the team has been terminated, adding the move must be decided by agreement of the three parties.

The Sudanese diplomat further said the statements of the UN chief regarding the failure of the team to reach an agreement as “incorrect”, and revealed the refusal of the African Union Security and Peace Council (AUSPC) for a recommendation to extend UNAMID's mandate without modification, for the next 12 months, until 30 June 2016.

For his part, the spokesperson for the foreign ministry, Ali al-Sadiq, said the ambassadors of the UNSC permanent members admitted that UNAMID must eventually exit and that there is no disagreement on the exit strategy.

UNAMID deputy joint special representative Abdul Kamara was summoned by Sudan's foreign ministry last Thursday to inform him of the government discomfort and disappointment of false and erroneous information contained in Ki-moon's report.

Also, the Sudanese deputy ambassador to the UN, Hassan Hamid Hassan, on Wednesday accused the UN secretary-general and the UN peacekeeping department of seeking to provide a distorted picture about the security situation in Darfur. He criticized the assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping operations for attributing the recent displacement of civilians, which is caused by the tribal clashes, to the government military campaign on rebel groups.

The hybrid mission has been deployed in Darfur since December 2007 with a mandate to stem violence against civilians in the western Sudan's region.

It is the world's second largest international peacekeeping force with an annual budget of $1.35 billion and almost 20,000 troops.

(ST)

By Eric Reeves

This morning (June 15, 2015) Omer al-Bashir, President of Sudan, was allowed to leave South Africa despite a pending arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court charging him with multiple counts of genocide and massive crimes against humanity. Since South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute that created the ICC, the government of South Africa was legally obliged to surrender al-Bashir to the Court's jurisdiction. That agents of the government failed to do so not only violated South Africa's international legal commitments, but its own constitution: the government's decision to allow al-Bashir to fly back to Khartoum defied a court order that would have obliged a legal review of South Africa's treaty obligations in light of al-Bashir's presence in the country. The order, following an application from the Southern Africa Legal Centre, was issued specifically to prevent al-Bashir's departure before a judicial review of the applicant's arguments (the court documents may be found here).

Many around the world—including many who stood by South Africa and the African National Congress of Nelson Mandela during the dark days of apartheid—are shocked and dismayed at the decision by the ANC, as the governing party, to side with an indicted génocidaire over the fully justified claims of international justice. This disgraces Mandela's legacy, reveals the ANC and President Jacob Zuma in particular as falling further into the pit of political corruption and disregard for the rule of law, and tarnishes South Africa's international standing. It should be noted as well that there was strong opposition to al-Bashir's presence in South Africa, coming from many of the country's human rights and civil society organizations, as well as journalists and academics.

This shameful episode also brings into high relief the character of the African Union, whose summit al-Bashir was attending. Over the past thirteen years, an organization nominally representing an effort to do away with the corruption and political high-handedness that defined the old Organization of African Unity has largely reincarnated those very failings. It is little more than another “old boys” dictators' club, with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as its all too representative president. As many in Africa and outside the continent have observed, the African Union seems much more interested in furthering various political interests (including self-preservation) than human rights and the concerns of ordinary citizens of the 54 countries that make up the AU.

The AU leadership, specifically the African Union Peace and Security Council, has actively encouraged contempt for the ICC, and has declared that ICC jurisdiction does not apply to African countries, even those that have signed the Rome Treaty. There are efforts within the AUPSC to have all African countries withdraw from the Rome Treaty en masse. This increasingly hostile attitude is the primary reason Sudan's president has been able to travel so widely internationally in African countries, several Arab countries, and other countries as well (e.g., China, Iran). Most of those to which al-Bashir has traveled are not party to the Rome Statute, although some—Kenya and South Africa, for example—are.

Understanding this, the South African government reportedly offered al-Bashir “back-door” immunity from ICC arrest, promising him behind the scenes that he would not be seized while in South Africa. Evidently not much thought was given to the prospect of having to engage in unconstitutional acts, including defying the country's judiciary, in order to make good on this promise. But we may also be certain that the leadership of the Africa Union knew full well what was going on behind the scenes, and saw no problem in encouraging any illegal activity that might occur. The AU leadership's growing contempt for the ICC as an institution has become de facto “African policy.”

Such open flouting of constitutional obligations by the ANC government is a terribly destructive consequence of the decision not to arrest al-Bashir. Moreover, we must consider that this destructiveness was understood in advance, and accepted as the price to pay for hosting the 25th African Union summit. Pushback from the court system was immediate, but as of this writing al-Bashir has already landed in Khartoum amidst quickly orchestrated pomp and celebration.

The “Independent On Line” (June 15, 2015, South Africa) gives us a sense of the crisis created by the ANC-led government:

The High Court in Pretoria has demanded an explanation as to why Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa on Monday, despite an interim court order barring him from doing so. “We request an affidavit to be filed with the registrar of this court within seven days, disclosing the time when he left, the port of entry or exit that he used,” Judge President Dunstan Mlambo told the government's legal counsel, advocate William Mokhari. “It is of concern to this court that it issues orders and then things just happen in violation of those orders. Be that as it may, that is an order we issue under the circumstances.”

It is difficult to estimate the damage done to the South Africa's traditional respect for the rule of law and the ICC itself with this egregious breech of treaty obligations. Certainly the government of South Africa knew that is was creating problems for itself. Indeed, in a last-ditch and desperate effort to insulate itself from those obligations,

on Friday the South African government … asked the ICC for an exemption from its obligation, on the grounds that Bashir enjoyed immunity from prosecution as he was attending an AU summit, and was therefore in the country as a guest of the AU and not South Africa.

But turned down by the ICC, the ANC—the ruling party in the South African government—wanted it both ways: the ANC National Executive Committee declared yesterday (Sunday, June 14) that the ICC was “no longer useful for the purposes for which it was intended,” and that this justified their refusal to honor treaty obligations. “Ask for an exemption—but don't take no for an answer,” seems to have been the governing thinking.

What would the ANC and the AU put in place of the ICC by way of addressing the need to bring to justice those who commit large-scale atrocity crimes? We got a clear answer last year, at a July 2014 meeting of the AU:

A Pan-African court set up to prosecute the continent's worst criminals will not be allowed to try sitting heads of state or their cronies after they voted to give themselves immunity. The continent's leaders agreed [to] their [own] exemption at a closed-door session of an African Union meeting, and then tried to bury the decision in an obscure paragraph of the post-summit communiqué. The decision was a “backward step in the fight against impunity and a betrayal of victims of serious violations of human rights,” said a spokesman for Amnesty International. More than 40 activist organisations had opposed the move. (New Zealand Herald, 3 July 2014)

So much for the birth of the “African Court for Justice and Human Rights.
?"?

There is an ongoing debate about the merits of retributive, as opposed to “restorative,” justice. The arguments for restorative justice are not simple, and often reflect both pragmatic attitudes about ending violence and traditional methods of achieving justice through reconciliation of victim and victimizer. But the argument seems wholly inappropriate when speaking about someone like Omar al-Bashir, who is of course protected under the new “African Court for Justice and Human Rights.” Here is a man who has presided for 25 years over a regime that has engaged in serial genocide: in the Nuba Mountains in the 1990s, in South Sudan at various points in the long civil war (1983 – 2005), and now again in Darfur (for the past twelve years) and South Kordofan and Blue Nile states.

There is no imaginable “restorative” justice that is appropriate for dealing with the massive crimes committed by the tyrannical al-Bashir regime. He has been president of Sudan since the military coup that brought the National Islamic Front (later the National Congress Party) regime to power. Millions of lives have been lost in greater Sudan since the NIF/NCP seized control of all military and political power in Sudan; many millions have been displaced, perhaps 10 million civilians altogether; and the country of Sudan has endured a perpetual struggle between the poor, terribly marginalized regions and the center that is Khartoum and riverine Sudan.

If after twenty-five years of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide retributive justice is not called for, then it never will be. But it is irresponsible fantasy to believe that ruthless dictators and military leaders in Africa, if they feel they are insulated from prosecution, will not see this as a license to kill and engage in the most ruthless schemes of self-enrichment. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming, whether we look to Sudan, Chad, DRC and its neighbors, Eritrea, Libya, Zimbabwe, along with many others.

South Africa's refusal to arrest al-Bashir has moved the continent a step further toward accepting this dangerous fantasy, a fantasy that continues to be assiduously cultivated by the African Union Peace and Security Council for selfish, not principled reasons. This development is inevitably destructive of the ambitions for justice on the part of the ICC, currently led by an African woman, Gambian jurist Fatou Bensouda.

The disgrace, and consequences, of the unconstitutional and treaty-abrogating decision by the ANC government of South Africa will not soon dissipate.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, has published extensively on Sudan, nationally and internationally, for the past sixteen years. He is author of Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012 (September 2012)

By Luk Kuth Dak

See Kiir speaking on the national television in his native language. Watch him clutching arms and kissing the hands of the Ugandan's dictator, Yoweri Museveni, the very hands that are filled with the blood of our beloved leader, Dr. John Garang de Mabior. Witness him says one thing and does the exact opposite.

The debate over Salva Kiir's responsibility in turning the country into a morgue is never-ending. Certainly, there is something drastically wrong about Salva Kiir Mayardit. And it's not the virtual lack of formal education. For example: my father, the late Kuth Dak Mut didn't go to school. But he was armed with a natural Ph.D. in wisdom, vision and common sense. He was an outstanding Judge and a beloved community leader, whose advice on matters life and death was in high demand.

Salva Kiir's problem is: ignorance, arrogance incompetence, character and judgement issues, among other components that clearly aren't presidential. Therefore, no one should ever be taken by surprise as to why he had established one of the most corrupt state the world has ever seen.

We know how difficult it can be to govern, but it takes an honest person who really is willing to serve all of the people, not just a few- with dignity, integrity and respect. In the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., " If you want to be important, that's wonderful. If you want to be great, that's wonderful. But recognize that he who is the greatest among us shall be your servant." Meaning that everybody can be great because everybody can serve. Everybody has the power of greatness because greatness is determined by service.

By contrast, we have a president in South Sudan who has devoted his regime to destroy the nation, committing a massacre against innocent Nuer civilians, and he is increasingly becoming a detour to the nation's health and reconciliation. Today, under this totalitarian dictator, South Sudan is not a country, but a tribally segregated societies. Now, here looms a question: do we really want to continue going through this crooked road, or do we need a straight path that will bring anybody and everybody along?

The danger of following Kiir's path couldn't be clearer. Today, South Sudanese do not live under the same rules. There is one tribe that's controlling the nation in every aspect imaginable. the eventuality is that, all those who are left out will inevitably hit the breaking point, and their voices are only going to get louder and louder each and everyday Kiir continues to be at the helm. More so, it will likely result in the split of the country on tribal lines, something that will not be good for everyone. So, South Sudanese who care about the future of the country have their work cut out for them. They must- in a hurry- make a choice about what they want the country to be be like in the future!! Do you want a country only for one tribe, or a country for all?

In our view, inclusiveness is a necessary ingredient for a truly successful and sustainable country that we can all be proud of, again.

Luk Kuth Dak is an independent columnist. He is reachable at lukedak@hotmail.com

June 15, 2015 (RUMBEK) – A Sudanese trader was on Sunday killed by unknown gunmen in South Sudan's Lakes state capital, Rumbek.

Map detail showing South Sudan's Lakes state in red

The deceased, Salman Ahmed, hailed from Sudan's western region of Darfur.

Moses Achiek, a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer, confirmed the incident, saying the killers were being searched for.

“Criminal acts are on high increase and it is becoming difficult to get facts from host community because surrounding communities have refused to share with us security-related information,” said Achiek.

“The businessman was killed inside his shop, but till now, we do not know who the real suspects involved in the murder,” he added.

Azuma Mangar, a senior Lakes state police officer, said the businessman could have been killed by gangs looking for money.

“These are gangs who may have killed the businessman after they tried to loot his properties and resistance caused his death,” he said.

Meanwhile, a pastoralist was also killed in a separate incident just next to the state legislative assembly, prompting police to increase night patrols to curb rising crimes.

Moses Ater, an activist, accused state authorities of allegedly failing to protect the population in the wake of the worsening insecurity levels in Lakes state.

“This state government is part of the insecurity and there is no way you can share information with them,” Ater told Sudan Tribune, adding, “If you tell them information [then] they turn against you,”.

Lakes state has been blighted by cattle raiding since South Sudan gained independence from neighbouring Sudan in 2011, and continues to be locked in a cycle of inter-clan clashes and revenge killings.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (JOHANNESBURG/JUBA)– The United Nations will actively contribute to efforts aimed at finding peaceful solutions to the conflict in South Sudan, Jan Eliasson, the deputy secretary general of the world body told the African Union summit on Sunday.

People gather at a makeshift camp for displaced people at a UN compound in South Sudan's capital, Juba, on 22 December 2013 amid fears for further violence (Photo: AFP/Tony Karumba)

"This war, this nightmare, must come to an end," said Eliasson.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed and nearly two million displaced by the conflict, which broke out in the world's youngest nation in mid-December 2013.

The deputy secretary general requested the continental body to take a position necessary for resolving the conflict, which undermines regional and international efforts.

Elisson also stressed the need for peace and national reconciliation ahead of the proposed power-sharing between the South Sudanese government and opposition groups.

African heads of state must find effective interventions to eradicate the scourge of war on the continent, Zimbabwean President and African Union Chairman Robert Mugabe said.

“Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the prevailing political instability and insecurity in some parts of our continent clearly demonstrates the urgent need to fully operationalise the African Standby Force (ASF),” Mugabe told a gathering of African heads of state at the 25th African Union summit in Johannesburg on Sunday.

“We need to live up to our commitment to operationalise the African Standby Force by December 2015. This will be an important step towards the goal of silencing the guns by 2020, which is our pledge," he added.

Mugabe said peace and security were prerequisites for the achievement of the continental body's developmental targets, including Agenda 2063.

“I am encouraged by the fact that we are making steady progress in this regard. We have to redouble our efforts in dealing with the issue of the unnecessary loss of lives of our young people in the Mediterranean Sea in their desperate need to reach Europe and other places,” said the African Union chairperson.

“This matter requires our collective and urgent retention. Concrete steps have to be taken to deal with this unfolding tragedy, particularly in terms of addressing its root causes such as poverty, war and insecurity, lack of opportunities, perceptions of good and life abroad as well as stamping out human traffickers and smugglers," he stressed.

NO XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS

The AU chairman said African countries must work together to eradicate xenophobic attacks similar to the spate of violence experienced in South Africa in recent months.

“While condemning the recent spate of barbaric violence targeted at foreign nationals…let us be cognisant of the fact that this is a problem that falls upon all of us and we should work together to find a solution. United we will not fail.”

“President [Jacob] Zuma has given us details of the programmes they have embarked upon. The government of South Africa will leave no stone unturned in trying to stem the violence.”

The high-level AU summit is being hosted by South Africa under the theme “2015: Year of Women's Empowerment and Development Towards Africa's Agenda 2063”.

Meanwhile, the African Union Commission chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma told the summit that the recent Ebola outbreak had exposed the weakness of the continent's health systems. She said the people dying on the Mediterranean sea and the victims of xenophobic violence in South Africa were driven by factors beyond their control.

“The lessons from the Ebola virus disease are that with African solidarity and resolve, we can find solutions to our challenges. The disease exposed the weakness of our health systems, especially public health. We must look at training more health workers and build our health systems and infrastructure,” she said.

“Excellencies, again we have been faced with the tragedy of many people dying in the Mediterranean sea and also the incidents of xenophobia. These are the people who leave their countries not out of choice, but out of desperation – to try and make a living elsewhere.”

The AU summit was attended by most African heads of state including Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

(ST).

June 15, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese president Omer al-Bashir has been received by senior government officials and hundreds of supporters upon his return from South Africa on Monday evening where he participated in the 25th African Union summit.

Sudanese President Omer Hassan al-Bashir salutes his supporters as he disembarks from the plane, after attending an African Union conference in Johannesburg South Africa, at the airport in the capital Khartoum, Sudan June 15, 2015 (REUTERS)

Bashir left South Africa few hours before judges at the High Court handed down a decision ordering his arrest.

He arrived in Pertoria Saturday, defying two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against him for war crimes and genocide in Darfur region in March 2009 and July 2010.

Technical problems prevented the Sudanese president from addressing the large crowd who held a casket in which they wrote “taking the International Criminal Court to its final resting place”.

Sudan's foreign minister, Ibrahim Ghandour, said in a press conference at the airport upon Bashir's arrival that Sudan's participation the summit could have taken place normally and without noise were it not for those whom he called “enemies of Africa and Sudan” who sought to turn it into a “drama” to prevent the president from attending the summit.

He said their insistence on Bashir's participation in the summit was due to benefits expected from it, noting they were aware of the uproar which accompanied the president's trip to South Africa.

“We knew it was nothing but media hype, an attempt to block the sunlight”, he said
“Bashir followed this [media hype] with astonishment while he followed the other things [court proceedings] with coolness”, Ghandour added

Ghandour pointed that Bashir's participation in the summit confirmed the fact that he is the “star of Africa's leaders”, saying the way he was received by the African presidents and ministers proves that Africa pays special recognition to him and to Sudan.

He emphasized that Bashir would continue to participate in African Union's summits.

The Sudanese top diplomat said that Sudan would take a firm stand against any country which issues a statement supporting the arrest of Bashir, noting that Sudan is a sovereign nation and Bashir is an elected president.

Ghandour stressed the summit decided to send a delegation comprised of six people to the UN Security Council (UNSC) in order to implement the African Union resolution to cancel the referral of the Sudan and Kenya cases to the ICC.

“The ICC's [powers] has been eliminated following refusal of all African countries to implement its rulings”, he stressed

He described the take off of Bashir's plane from Waterkloof military base in Peritoria as “normal”, saying all planes carrying the African leaders have been transferred to private airports after they landed in Johannesburg airport.

Ghandour praised the stance of the South African government and its president Jackob Zuma who refused to carry out the ICC arrest warrant against Bashir and said he is a dear guest and they are proud of his participation.

He said that South Africa's foreign minister told them they made sure of their legal position 12 days before the commence of the summit, saying they published in their official gazette that all African leaders participating in the summit are under the protection of the state of South Africa.

Meanwhile, the governor of Khartoum, Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Hussein, said the African leaders have proven that the ICC doesn't mean anything to them, describing as a “fatal blow” to the court which he said was set up to “humiliate the Africans”.

“The Africans have proven that they don't accept any humiliation inflicted on any African president”, he said.

He said that Bashir's participation in the summit was meant to show that the ICC doesn't mean anything to Africa.

It should be recalled that Hussein is also wanted by the ICC on 13 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Sudan's western region Darfur.

The former vice president, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, said what happened to the president in South Africa shows the authenticity of the Sudanese leadership and the status of Sudan in African.

He added the incident has strengthened cohesion and feelings besides the humanitarian, intellectual and political links among Africans, saying the stance of Sudan and its president represents a symbol for defying attempts to curb Africa's movement towards the future.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The South African government issued a statement on Monday vowing to probe the manner by which Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir left the country despite a local court ruling ordering him to remain in the country until a decision is made on a case pertaining to him.

South Africa Flag

“Government notes the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court on the matter regarding Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir,” reads a brief statement attributed to South Africa's acting cabinet Spokesperson Phumla Williams.

“As indicated in court, government will enquire the circumstances under which President Al Bashir left the country. We will also comply with the court order relating to submission of an affidavit outlining these circumstances”.

As far as the judgment ruling related to Bashir's immunity, Williams said that they will await “written reasons of the judgment” which is expected to come out in a week.

This is the first official comment by Johannesburg since the Bashir row erupted over the weekend.

Earlier today, the High Court judges handed down a decision ordering Bashir's arrest despite government assertions on his immunity.

"The respondents are forthwith compelled to take all reasonable steps to arrest President Bashir ... and detain him pending a formal request for his surrender from the International Criminal Court," presiding Judge Dunstan Mlambo was quoted as saying by local South African media.

But when the decision was being read, Bashir had already left the country. This was communicated to Judge Mlambo by the government attorney right after he read the ruling adopted unanimously by the court.

The government attorney had been telling the court in the first part of the proceedings that he believes that Bashir is still in the country.

Judge Mlambo expressed concern that Bashir was allowed to leave despite the court order and ordered the government to file an affidavit explaining how that happened in what appears a step before determining who will be held in contempt of court.

"It is of concern to us, as a court that an order issued was ignored" he said.

Despite the government suggestion that Bashir 'sneaked out' of the country without their knowledge, it is understood that his outbound flight was facilitated by South African officials who saw him off at the airport and cleared his plane for takeoff at Waterkloof military airport.

Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), which brought the case against Bashir, expressed satisfaction with the court ruling today despite Bashir being allowed to leave.

“I think we are delighted with the court decision,” Caroline James from SALC told Sudan Tribune by phone from Johannesburg.

James said that while they have yet to see the reasoning behind the court's decision, they believe the judges affirmed that the government had no right to grant immunity to Bashir and overrule constitutional and international obligations.

“This is really really good,” she said before adding that the decision will likely result in a political fallback specially when the government files the affidavit explaining how Bashir managed to leave.

Asked about the next steps, James said that once the affidavit is served, SALC will have its lawyers review it before deciding on whether to pursue contempt charges against government officials.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (ADDIS ABABA) – South Sudan's former vice president, Riek Machar, turned leader of the armed opposition faction of the ruling Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement (SPLM-IO), has met the president of the United Republic of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete, over the ongoing reunification process of three factions of the ruling party in the young country.

SPLM-IO leader Dr. Riek Machar meets Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete, June 15, 2015, Johannesburg, South Africa (ST photo)

The two leaders met on Monday on the sidelines of the African Union (AU) summit of heads of state and government in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Rebel leader's spokesman said the meeting centered on how best the Arusha intraparty dialogue on reunification could be complementing the Addis Ababa comprehensive peace process to end the civil war in South Sudan.

“The two leaders discussed how best to approach the Arusha SPLM intraparty dialogue as a complementary to the IGAD comprehensive peace process,” Machar's spokesman, James Gatdet Dak, told Sudan Tribune when contacted on Monday.

He said the SPLM-IO leadership was committed to the intraparty dialogue which was addressing the root causes of the current crisis in the country in the context of the ruling party.

“You know the current national crisis started as a political crisis within the SPLM party before it developed national. If the rival party leaders can address those causes and accept SPLM transformation, reforms and leadership succession, I think they can also accept similar reforms on governance at the IGAD process,” he said.

Dak stressed that the Arusha reunification process would address democracy within the disintegrated ruling party including structural, organizational and leadership issues which caused the crisis.

He however said the process was not a substitute to the IGAD peace process and should not be misinterpreted to mean “mere reinstatement” of SPLM leaders previously dismissed “unconstitutionally” by president Salva Kiir following the crisis.

The rebel leader's spokesman commended the Arusha roadmap agreement signed in January this year, describing it as a positive guiding document in resolving outstanding issues within the party.

“Our leadership believes that addressing the root causes of the conflict through the intraparty dialogue would positively reflect on the IGAD peace process,” he said.

But, he added, an intraparty agreement would not be an end in itself, ruling out what he said were misinterpretations by people who thought the rebel leadership would return to Juba if an agreement was struck by the SPLM factions.

Full implementation of a reunification agreement, he further stressed, was dependent on a final peace agreement in Addis Ababa that will resolve on all outstanding issues such as on governance and security arrangements and reforms outside the party's jurisdiction.

President Kikwete's ruling party of the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) has since last year been mediating between the SPLM in government (SPLM-IG) led by president Salva Kiir, SPLM-IO led by former vice president, Riek Machar and former detainees (FDs) led by former party's secretary general, Pagan Amum in trying to reunify their ranks and file.

Observers say the process is expected to be complementing to the IGAD peace process to end the 18-month long civil war in the country.

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (WASHINGTON/KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir left South Africa few hours before judges at the High Court handed down a decision ordering his arrest and rapping the government for what it described as a violation of the constitution.

"The respondents are forthwith compelled to take all reasonable steps to arrest President Bashir ... and detain him pending a formal request for his surrender from the International Criminal Court," presiding Judge Dunstan Mlambo was quoted as saying by local South African media.

Bashir has left around noon local time as the High Court was listening to arguments from the government attorney and the one representing Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).

The government attorney asserted to court in the first part of the proceedings that he believes that Bashir is still in the country.

He went on to say that the list of passengers on the Sudanese presidential plane submitted to the control tower at the Waterkloof airbase did not include the name of Bashir.

The arguments were then focused on the issue of immunity for the Sudanese leader who was indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 & 2010 over alleged war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity during the Darfur conflict.

But the government underscored that despite South Africa being a state party to the ICC founding statute and having incorporated it into its constitution, Bashir is covered by the Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges Act .

He also said that Bashir as one of the delegations attending the African Union (AU) summit hosted by South Africa has been granted blanket immunity per this act and for the purposes of this regional summit. .

The judge then asked the government attorney whether Bashir would be liable for arrest should he be South Africa for a vacation.

"Yes" was the direct response by the government attorney.

Before the adjournment of the first session the government attorney affirmed his position that Bashir has not left the country.

After the court session resumed, the government attorney said that he received notification from the South African presidency and Department of International Relations and Cooperation that the Sudanese president flew out.

He explained that the government will initiate an inquiry into how Bashir was able to leave the country despite a previous order barring his departure from the country pending a decision into the case.

Mlambo expressed concern that Bashir was allowed to leave despite the court order and ordered the government to file an affidavit explaining how that happened in what appears a step before determining who will be held in contempt of court.

"It is of concern to us, as a court that an order issued was ignored" he said.

BASHIR TO RECEIVE HERO WELCOME IN KHARTOUM

Bashir is expected to arrive at 6:30 PM in the evening and will be met by a crowd of supporters mobilized by the ruling National Congress Party (NCP).

The Sudanese Minister of State at the Ministry of Information Yasser Youssef confirmed on Monday that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir left Johannesburg.

Sudan News Agency (SUNA) said that the Sudanese Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour will hold a press conference on Monday at Khartoum airport immediately upon the return of President Bashir and his delegation.

Meanwhile, youth organizations and NCP-affiliated entities called for people to come to Khartoum airport on Monday afternoon to receive the president.

CRITICISM OF SOUTH AFRICA

Bashir's arrival and departure from South Africa unhindered has angered NGO's and human rights groups.

“This is a sad day for South Africa and a blow to the rule of law,” said Anton du Plessis, managing director of the Institute for Security Studies, an African think-tank.

“Until now, the country has been a champion of international justice and has done more than most in Africa to make sure victims get justice" he told the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Earlier on Monday, United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said South Africa must arrest Bashir to fulfill its obligations to the international court.

"The International Criminal Court's warrant for the arrest of President al-Bashir on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes is a matter I take extremely seriously," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Geneva.

"The authority of the ICC must be respected and its decision implemented," Ban added.

Elise Keppler, acting director of international justice at Human Rights Watch (HRW), said that "by allowing this shameful flight, the South African government has disregarded not only its international obligations, but its own courts".

“When Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir took off from South Africa today, he took with him the hopes of thousands of victims of grave crimes in Darfur who wish at last to see justice done,” she said.

“An opportunity was missed, but a clear message has been sent to Bashir that he is not safe from arrest.”

(ST)

June 15, 2015 (WAU) – A panel of experts from United Nations are in South Sudan's Western Bahr el Ghazal state to probe crimes committed during the conflict.

A woman carries water through a UN camp for internally displaced people in South Sudan's Upper Nile state (Photo: IOM)

The UN team of experts are headed by Vladimir Zhagora from Belarus.

Zhagora told reporters that his delegation has been touring the country to get information on the conflict, which started in 2013.

“We are trying to establish an open professional relationship with everybody in south Sudan whom we meet in states,” he said.

“We had been meeting government officials throughout the states and in Juba on issues of diplomacy,” added Zhagora.

The UN secretary general appointed the five-member panel in April in response to a request from the Security Council's resolution 2206 (2015), adopted on 3 March, 2015.

“The panel is inquiring information on who is obstructing the ongoing peace process on South Sudan in Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa,” said Zhagora.

“We are also inquiring information on who launches attacks on the civilian's population in South Sudan's areas of conflict during this conflict,” he added.

The UN team will also seek information on those said to be blocking movement of humanitarian workers in areas most-affected by the war.

“The security council did not impose any sanction by this resolution,” said Zhagora, adding that council would decide what kind of sanction could be applied to some individuals in South Sudan.

The UNSC is considering a way to impose sanctions against both sides of the South Sudan conflict, which has continued despite several commitments by it warring parties to honour ceasefire deals.

The conflict broke out following disagreements within the ruling party (SPLM), killing tens of thousands of people and displacing nearly two million others since December 2013.

South Sudan strongly opposes calls for sanctions, saying such a decision would generate adversarial relationship and further aggravate the country's ongoing conflict.

(ST)

June 10, 2015 (NAIROBI) – Kenyan former president, Daniel Arap Moi, has urged Dinka and Nuer elders of the rival major communities in South Sudan to put aside their tribal differences and take the lead in the typical African elders' role to end the ongoing deadly war in the young country.

Former Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi (Reuters)

“What are the elders from all sides advising the South Sudan leadership or have you taken sides,” former president Moi told the Dinka and Nuer elders.

“In your African culture, elders are the pillars of the society and we believe that where there are elders things do not go wrong,” he said in a statement which copy Sudan Tribune has obtained.

Moi made the remarks during a joint meeting with rival elders from the Nuer and Dinka communities whom he invited to his house in Nairobi last Wednesday for consultations on a new initiative on role the elders should play to end the war.

He told the elders of his support to the initiative, saying there was need to address the root causes of the conflict which erupted in mid-December 2013 and plunged the country into civil war.

The former Kenyan president also challenged the South Sudanese leadership to be “brave enough” to let go power ambitions in order to save the country from collapse.

Moi, who was instrumental in bringing to an end the 21 years of war between Sudan and South Sudan, said he felt pain seeing the country he helped created yet to go back into deadly violence and not development.

He pledged to facilitate the rivals elders in their joint efforts to mobilize for peace in the country and urged them to do it by forging a joint platform with one united voice for peace, pursue the way of dialogue instead of fighting, establish the root causes of the conflict and how they can be addressed as well as mobilize respective communities to support peace and initiate a process of healing and reconciliation.

“Mine shall be to facilitate you in achieving these objectives, and any that you may consider critical,” he assured the elders of his support to the initiative.

“The future generations will judge you harshly if you let your country collapse because of your own failures to maintain peace. You cannot run away from the responsibility of making peace and promoting national integration,” he told the elders.

He also advised them to include elders from other communities in South Sudan in the initiative for peace mobilization across the war-ravaged country.

President Salva Kiir's community, the Dinka, had formed what they called Jieng [Dinka] Council of Elders which many critics said were anti-peace and responsible for many negative actions the president might have executed per their advice.

The Nuer community, from which the opposition leader Riek Machar hails, also reciprocated and formed the Nuer Council of Elders which significance and influence on the rebel leadership is not yet measured.

War erupted on 15 December 2013 when internal political debates on reforms within the ruling SPLM leadership turned violent. The fighting pitted rival Dinka and Nuer communities when president Kiir's guards and ethnic Dinka militia groups turned against Nuer civilians in the capital, Juba, reportedly killing thousands of their members in cold blood.

(ST)

By John Young

The recent two part Al-Jazeera series on the establishment of South Sudan has re-ignited a cat fight among the ‘experts' about what went wrong in the country, why the peace process is failing, and who is responsible. Alex de Waal's criticisms of the self-named ‘Friends of South Sudan' - Eric Reeves, John Prendergast, Ted Dagne, Roger Winters, and Brian D'Silva – has led to Reeve's response, ‘Alex de Waal and Sudan: A brief history of one man's destructive misrepresentations' in the Sudan Tribune. There is a danger, however, that the differences between these and other experts is understood as the expression of two highly divergent camps and approaches to peace-making when in fact they have more in common philosophically and ideologically than they care to acknowledge. As a result, the various debates underway among peace-makers do not help to understand why decades of peace-making in Sudan and South Sudan have failed. The starting point to appreciating why there is no peace in Sudan and South Sudan is to critically examine the model that all the various organizations and actors have employed.

Much of the focus of the conflict between de Waal and the Friends relates to their differing perceptions of the SPLA, and not the peace process, with de Waal arguing that the SPLA leadership was deeply flawed and not the liberators they claimed to be. Meanwhile, Reeves and his crowd lionized SPLA leader John Garang and want to ensure their hero is not tarnished by the corruption and mal-administration of the SPLA in government and the recent war, and that the Friends are absolved of guilt because they warned Salva Kiir about the destructive path his government was on.

But Reeves' argument doesn't wash: the SPLA did not suddenly go off the rails after Garang died; under him the party was militarist, murderous, confused, and had no program to mobilize the people. Garang was, however, remarkably skilled at charming naïve Westerners. If the SPLA had met the needs of the people instead of terrorizing many of them it would have defeated the Khartoum government and not needed the boosterism of the Friends and other Western lobby groups to achieve their ends. Indeed, within the region Eritrean, Ethiopian, and Ugandan revolutionaries overthrew their regimes without international assistance.

The Sudanese Armed Forces did terrible things in South Sudan as Reeves argues in his article, but many South Sudanese looked upon the SPLA as an army of occupation and preferred SAF – a terrible indictment of the movement. The formation of militias in Equatoria and even among the Dinka, as well as the Nuer led South Sudan Defence Forces, in response to SPLA encroachments in their areas makes clear that many southern Sudanese did not shared the Friends' simplistic views of the movement. The systematic misrepresentations over many years by the Friends about John Garang and the SPLA cannot be air-brushed away and are part of the well-known legacy of this group. Unfortunately the US Government and its Western allies believed the distortions of the Friends and their fellow travellers in the Enough Project, based a peace process on them, and turned over South Sudan to the SPLA. The results have been disastrous.

De Waal did not get taken in by Garang and his colleagues and his research contributions to the region are second to none, unlike Reeves who specializes in mud-slinging, feigned moral outrage, and believes the US Government can solve all the conflicts of Sudan and South Sudan – as long as it follows the advice of the Friends. But de Waal was a guarded supporter of the Navaisha peace process, the inspiration for the failed Darfur peace process in which he was also a key negotiator, and an advisor to Thabo Mbeki's AU mediation. As a result, he is part of the mainstream peace movement and not the rebel critic that AJ made him out to be.

The quarrel between de Waal and the Friends bears comparison with the less public quarrels between General Lazrous Sumbeiywo, another ‘African hero' for his role in the flawed Naivasha peace process and his co-chair of the IGAD South Sudan process, former Ethiopian foreign minister, Seyoum Mesfin. There are also on-going quarrels between Ethiopia and Kenya over which country should lead the peace process, a dispute that has become more intense in the wake of the failures of the process. Meanwhile, the AU has added more countries to the IGAD mediation, but not changed the approach utilized. The Friends, Enough, and disgruntled diplomats are now arguing for sanctions in South Sudan, as if sanctions have proven to be a great success in Sudan. As frustration grows there are debates in both Sudan and South Sudan about whether the AU, IGAD, or the UN should conduct the various peace processes. All these disputes are about quests for power and finger pointing, but do not help us understand why peace-making has failed because all these parties share the same fundamental assumptions.

What links the peace-making efforts of all these countries, institutions, and individuals is acceptance of the precepts of liberal peace making. Liberal peace-making took form in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the 1990s and reflects Western triumphalism. Like the arrogance of earlier modernization theories it favours Western economic and political processes, institutions, outcomes, and values, and their transfer to frequently radically different environments than from which they originally developed. Typically liberal peace making professes to be concerned about the ‘root causes' of conflicts, although there was no sign of that in IGAD I (Naivasha) and it was quickly dispensed with in IGAD II (Addis Ababa). This term, however, is highly contentious because the West rejects the notion that capitalism or economic or political dependency could be root causes of conflicts. While ruling out economic democracy the West insists that free enterprise – which in practice means opening underdeveloped economies to powerful multinational corporations and accepting the dictates of the International Monetary Fund – is integral to the definition of democracy.

Adherents of liberal peace-making further compromise any genuine commitment to democracy by contending that if there is conflict between participatory politics and the threat of armed conflict, the latter must be given priority. This contradiction was evident in the 2010 Sudan national elections which were known to be deeply compromised, but given a pass to ensure that the peace process was not disrupted. Support for democracy is restricted to the rhetorical level, human rights are given short-shrift, and liberal peace-making is primarily concerned with stopping the fighting, returning to the pre-war status quo – a less than desirable outcome in either South Sudan or Sudan – and integrating the combatants into a Western dominated international state system.

The Nicaraguan critic, Alejandro Bendana, who analyzed many failed peace-building efforts in Central America similar to those in Sudan and South Sudan concluded that liberal peace-making is ‘top down, externally and supply driven, elitist and interventionist,' (Bendana, 2002). Indeed, liberal peace making negotiations are led by Western officials, or ideally their trusted agents to give an appearance of authenticity and local ownership, but Western string pulling is always present. In the case of the Naivasha peace process the West operated through its own creation – IGAD - and a favoured dictator in the region, Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi. Moi then turned over the IGAD Peace Secretariat to General Sumbeiywo who was trusted by Moi because he had kept him in power against the wishes of the Kenyan people for many years as his chief of defense staff and by the US which had worked closely with him on security matters.

Liberal peace making negotiations usually takes place in the seclusion of five star hotels because the elites must be pampered and secrecy is a major concern. There may be token efforts to ‘consult' selected groups, although this is viewed with suspicion because these groups may become ‘spoilers'. It will be recalled that IGAD rejected demands that the people of Sudan get to vote on the CPA and contended that the elections would serve to gain their assent. But the elections were fraudulent and assemblies in Khartoum and Juba passed legislation precluding any parties from participating in the elections unless they endorsed the CPA. It is elite accommodation, and not popular consultation or democratization that is at the core of liberal peace making and as a result it is a deeply conservative exercise.

The highlight of the Naivasha peace process in the minds of the international peace brigade was when John Garang and Vice-President Ali Osman Taha cooked up a deal on their own in total secrecy. But the joy of the internationals was tempered when Garang died and Ali Osman was marginalized by Bashir who - contrary to the assessment of the diplomats - was the real power wielder in Khartoum. Nonetheless, the peace process went forward, southerners voted for a jalaba, Yassir Arman, for national president even after he had withdrawn from the election, and then voted for secession in the 2011 referendum. But ignored was the fact that the CPA failed to achieve any of its stated objectives of a united Sudan, democratic transformation, and sustainable peace, or the later addition of Thabo Mbeki's AU mediation, of viable successor states after South Sudanese opted for independence.

Meanwhile, the US wanted to have it both ways - claiming that the peace process and the secession of South Sudan represented a major foreign policy success, something it was still doing only months before the outbreak of the December 2013 civil war, and at the same time praising the local institutions, actors, and the peace process that it endorsed. But Sudanese and South Sudanese understand that the creation of an independent South Sudan was dependent on the US since the SPLA never controlled more than a fraction of the country and the US opposed self-determination for other groups internationally just or more worthy than the southern Sudanese.

The official post-CPA narrative claimed that the SPLA had always fought for the independence of the south and Reeves apparently subscribes to that view, despite its name which suggested otherwise, successive party programs, and northern party membership which opposed secession. Meanwhile, the Salva-led SPLA did an about face with the support of the internationals who believed that secession would bring peace to Sudan and South Sudan and set the stage for the resolution of the other conflicts afflicting Sudan. But in this too the international peace brigade was mistaken. Under the guidance of the internationals the SPLA constructed a state in the image of the West, but it was only about appearances and virtually nothing functioned except the systemic looting of state coffers by its leaders.

While the Friends were singing the praises of the new country and congratulating themselves on their success in achieving it, many long term observers of the SPLA were expecting an implosion and they did not have long to wait. When the war began in December 2013 after the killing of Nuer in Juba by Salva's Presidential Guard the response of the international peace brigade was to dreg up IGAD, the Troika, and General Sumbeiywo, and employ the same failed model of peace-building. After failing miserably the first time around the peace makers went on to reward themselves with new roles. In March 2015 the IGAD peace process had collapsed and the AU announced ‘IGAD Plus', using the same stale actors as IGAD, plus the AU, EU, China, and the IGAD Partners Forum, but maintaining the same approach. Can it surprise any right thinking person that a model based on the failures and personnel of the past is again not working?

After twenty-six years of failed international peace-making in S/Sudan – that is, since the NIF carried out a coup on 30 June 1989 to stop the National Assembly approving the internally generated Koka Dam Agreement - there is a need to analyze the fundamental flaws of the model utilized. In these twenty-six years Sudanese and South Sudanese have witnessed peace-making efforts by President Jimmy Carter, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Eritrea, the AU, IGAD I and II, and the recent Addis Ababa IGAD efforts, and they have all failed. These processes did not fail because of technical inadequacies, but because they were conceptually flawed, utilized a broken model of peace-making, and deliberately focused on the elites and marginalized the people. Despite this record of failure, the peace makers have never demonstrated any humility for their role in the on-going tragedy, much less conducted a critical audit of the many failed peace processes, or seriously considered alternative approaches. The leaked draft submission of Professor Mahmood Mamdani to the AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan called the CPA a failure, held that IGAD members should not play any role in the provision of security for South Sudan, and that the country's administration be turned over to the AU and UN. It can be assumed that Mahmood did not reach these conclusions easily, but as a result of exasperation at the failures of peace-making by IGAD I which were then repeated by IGAD II.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, despite the sound and fury the quarrels between the various peace-makers and would-be peace-makers is essentially an in-house affair among people that share the same commitment to liberal peace-making and thus they are largely much ado about nothing. What is desperately needed is a critique and rejection of the liberal peace-making model and for efforts to be directed at constructing an alternative approach. Such an approach would embrace the people instead of fearing and marginalizing them, place democratic and state transformation at the forefront, and not reward failures. Short of such a fundamental change in approach, or the kind of conclusive military victories that occurred in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Uganda, there is reason to fear that in another twenty-six years we may still be witnessing endemic wars and continuing ineffectual peace processes.

John Young, is author of ‘The Fate of Sudan: Origins and Consequences of a Flawed Peace Process' which now available in Arabic.

June 10, 2015 (JUBA) - Authorities in South Sudan's Western Equatoria state have appealed to the local populations to fully extend their cooperation to the government agents over increasing insecurity in the state in order to get information and provide adequate security and protection to the citizens.

Arrow Boys seen here in May 2010, patrol a village in south Sudan in an attempt to defend themselves from attacks LRA rebels (AFP)

Maridi county commissioner, Wilson Thomas Yanga, told Sudan Tribune on Wednesday that the frequency in attacks carried out by “unknown gunmen” in the area is due to lack of cooperation and trust between the security forces and the local populations.

He said the Sunday night attack on a cattle camp about half kilometer away from Maridi town along the Rumbek road, which resulted in the killing of at least 10 people and 7 cows, could have been averted.

The county commissioner explained how the fighting started, saying he received reports from security personnel in the area that unknown gunmen carried out attack on the cattle camp when the cattle owners were not at the camp. They started shooting at the cattle killing seven and injuring six before running away without taking any cattle.

He said one suspect in the Sunday's cattle camp attack was arrested the same night and taken to Maridi police station for investigation. But he further added that on Monday morning security agents went to the scene for investigation and after they left the camp shooting erupted again, killing one cattle owner.

The cattle owners then carried out revenge attack, killing at least 9 people from the local communities in Maridi, which resulted to displacement of the population in the area as people ran away from the town to take refuge elsewhere, forcing markets and schools to also close.

South Sudan parliament in response on Wednesday announced to form a committee to investigate the cause of the fighting and the resultant death toll which they put at 9 dead.

The Monday's shootings involved cattle owners from neighbouring states, particularly from Dinka ethnic group of Lakes state, who have been asked in the past to leave Western Equatoria state and were accused of allegedly terrorizing citizens.

Last month president Salva Kiir issued a presidential order to evacuate all the cattle camps from the state.

There are however two different rebel groups in addition to local armed youth or ‘arrow boys' claiming to have been operating in the area, but the state government said the attack was carried out by unknown gunmen.

South Sudan defence minister Kuol Manyang Juuk last week briefed the parliament on the situation in Western Equatoria state and told the lawmakers that a rebellion was emerging in the state and that action must be taken to nib it in the bud.

But the state government in Yambio said they had no information that a rebellion was emerging and instead criticized the national army for indiscipline in the area.

(ST)

June 10, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The Eritrean president Isaias Afewerki will embark on an official visit to Sudan on Thursday that would last several days during which he will hold talks with his counterpart president Omer Hassan al-Bashir on bilateral ties along with the latest developments in the region, state media reported today.

Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki (Reuters)

Sudan's ambassador to Eritrea Magid Yusuf, told Sudan's official news agency (SUNA) that consultations have been ongoing between the leaderships of the two countries on matters of mutual concern.

Afewerki was notably absent from Bashir's swearing-in ceremony last week despite confirmation by Sudanese officials that he would be attending which raised speculations about a silent rift between the two countries.

Tripartite summit in Sharm El-Sheikh

In a separate issue, the leaders of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan held a summit in Sharm El-Sheikh on the sidelines of the African Economic Blocs.

Bashir proposed the establishment of a supreme joint committee between the three countries at the leadership level from which smaller subcommittees would emerge that specialize in political, economic, cultural and social fields with the goal of strengthening the relationships between them.

The leaders of Egypt and Ethiopia welcomed the proposal and agreed to have their foreign ministers pursue its implementation.

The three leaders also stressed their commitment to the principle of not harming the interests of each party and achieve mutual gain for all in line with the aspirations of the peoples of the three countries, who are looking to translate the principles of the Renaissance dam framework agreement signed in Khartoum last March and to address any concerns about the dam and its potential impacts.

They also discussed the follow up on the ongoing work of the Tripartite Commission and technical steps, on the dam that will be conducted by the consultancy offices who were selected for the preparation of technical studies on the dam.

They stressed the importance of adhering to the timelines included in the framework agreement.

(ST)

June 10, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir will delegate his 1st VP Bakri Hassan Saleh to attend the African Union (AU) summit in South Africa.

Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir greets his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma (L), at the presidential palace in Khartoum 1 February 2015 (Photo: Reuters/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah)

The anonymous AU source who made this revelation to Turkey-based al-Anadolu agency did not give a specific reason for the expected absence of Bashir.

This week a Sudanese foreign ministry official told Sudan Tribune that Bashir was unlikely to go but that a final decision has not been made.

South Africa has warned several times in the past that it will arrest Bashir should he visit in compliance with an arrest warrant issued for him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on ten counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide he allegedly masterminded in Sudan's western region of Darfur.

This was despite AU resolutions instructing its members not to cooperate with the ICC in apprehending Bashir.

In August 2009 the South African Department of Foreign Affairs issued a detailed statement outlining its position on the AU resolution regarding Bashir from a legal and political perspective.

“An international arrest warrant for President El Bashir has been received and endorsed by a magistrate. This means that if President El Bashir arrives on South African territory, he will be liable for arrest” the statement said.

Bashir has not visited South Africa since the issuance of the arrest warrant but in May 2009 he asserted in an interview with the BBC ‘Hardtalk' program that he could visit if he wanted to.

(ST)

June 10, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The government of Germany has contributed €1 million (about $1 million) to the 2015 Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) to help address growing humanitarian needs in Sudan.

Germany is a first time donor to the Sudan CHF but has long-been a committed donor to the Sudan since 2000.

The Sudan CHF is a multi-donor pooled fund that assists the timely allocation and disbursement of funds to Sudan's most critical humanitarian needs.

In 2015, the Sudan CHF has received $22 million granted that will be allocated to international and national NGOs and United Nations agencies to enable them to implement urgent and life-saving projects.

The German ambassador to Khartoum, Rolf Welberts, said given the high numbers of vulnerable people in many parts of Sudan, timely and uncomplicated responses are very critical.

“With Germany's first contribution to the Common Humanitarian Fund in Sudan we are giving the humanitarian community the opportunity to fill critical gaps and the flexibility to intervene where the greatest needs are.” he added

Some 5.4 million people are targeted for the humanitarian aid across Sudan. For 2015, the Sudan CHF has prioritized activities that provide immediate life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable people– women and children.

Humanitarian partners in Sudan are driven by the principle of humanity to protect life and health and ensure respect for human beings.

El-Mostafa Benlamlih, the humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, for his part said with donor commitments to recent regional crises, humanitarian funding to Sudan is limited.

“Germany's contribution to the Sudan CHF reinforces the commitment of the donor community to the people of the Sudan, and supports humanitarian partners in sustaining immediate life-saving assistance to people in need.” He pointed out

To date, the Sudan CHF has received and granted over one billion dollars to aid organizations in Sudan.

Last year, the fund received support from Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) and allocated more than $55 million for humanitarian action across Sudan.

(ST)