South Sudan Vice President Unfortunate Remarks or are they Intentional?

 As one of these young liberators who resides in the United States, I am appalled by Dr. Machar’s mischaracterization of us.  However, I should be clear, I am not under an illusion to deny or suggest that no Lost Boys of South (Former Sudan) are sitting in American’s prisons. At the same time, I am shocked with Dr. Machar characterization in which he seems to suggest that those sitting in American's prisons were Lost Boys alone. To me, this mischaracterization is misleading and/or ill-informed for a person of his statue. First, according to the best IOM estimates and other reputable statistics that many experts are familiar with, the number of original Lost Boys who came to the United States stands at around 3,000 to 3,500 and even Dr. Machar himself cannot dispute this statistics. This figure in itself discredited statistics that the Vice President of South Sudan cited unless he is not talking of the Lost Boys population alone. Second, even if every Lost Boy was sitting in American’s prison, it is unwise that South Sudan Vice President took a pessimist approach of highlighting negative side of the Lost Boys of South Sudan (Formerly known as Lost Boys of Sudan) and ignored great things that these brave young men and women have done in the United States toward the liberation struggle of our beloved Country of South Sudan.

According to what I hear every time I call my friends around the United States, I hear of Lost Boys graduating from colleges, universities and other academic institutions around the United States. I hear of Lost Boys being promoted at work places, I hear of Lost Boys’ weddings, I hear of Lost Boys building schools, hospitals, water wells and businesses back in South Sudan not to mention intellectual contributions that we are offering to the people of South Sudan.

So why the Vice President of South Sudan did ignored these well documented facts about Lost Boys’ successes and contribution? Perhaps, it is a philosophical revisit to an old tactic of a psychological warfare that he is familiar with. It could be another attempt to inflict doubts, and hopelessness in the minds of families who their hopes were destroyed in the past and who their future now exclusively depends on the Lost Boys who reside in the United States. Thus, by presenting Lost Boys in the United States this way, Dr. Machar psychologically served another disheartening message to these hundreds of families who are still trying to put their lives together after many years of war that destroyed their lives and livelihoods.

 Another explanation could be that Dr. Machar doesn't personally have anything good to say about the Lost Boys for reasons he personally knows. Whatever the reasons are, the manner in which Dr. Machar talked about the Lost Boys is unfortunate and doesn't reflect the position bestowed on him. I hope our leaders turn away from pessimistic views of the Lost Boys given the manner in which they treated us in the past during the liberation struggle. It is time for SPLM/A leadership to realize that we are no longer the kids we used to be back then in Fignudo, Dimo and Itang and neither are we the clueless children who they used as political and military bargaining chips with the international community. Time has changed and so are we. We are now independent thinkers and we deserve to be treated with respect and dignity as everyone else who has fought to bring about South Sudan’s independence. Unfortunately, it seems  Juba is not willing to recognize that fact and neither should we accept to remain silent either.

The Egyptian's Middle Kingdoms' Ups and Downs

 Egypt has always been one of the more interesting countries in human history. To fully understand Egypt’s Middle Kingdom, one must know the culture, the people, and the location that made this magnificent empire unforgettable. These three factors allowed Egyptian's middle kingdom to be one of history’s most amazing empires. unfortunately, these same factors also  contributed to the  demise of  this empire. In this report the important of Egypt's geopolitical location, people, and its  foreign influence during the Middle Kingdom will be explored in detail to understand the rise and the fall of this great Kingdom.

 Geographically, Egypt lies along the Nile River, with the Mediterranean Sea to the North and the Red Sea to the East. The waterways that surround Egypt have over the years given Egypt protection from the rest of the world. The water also has been a blessing to the Egyptian’s ways of life. Agriculture prospered along the Nile River and at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea.  When the Nile would flood, after the water receded, a rich soil  deposits is left which  eventually sustains abundant agriculture products (Egypt, 1).

 In the Ancient World, Egypt was considered a peaceful nation. The natural boundaries, Nile at Aswan, desert to both the East and West of the Nile River and Mediterranean Sea to the North provided adequate security from Egyptian’s potential enemies (Stratos, 1). Egyptians at first did not consider themselves as invaders or conquerors. By the first Intermediate Period, things began to change (Stratos, 1).  it is believed that several factors culminated into the fall of the 10th   Dynasty. First, there was internal strife among the rulers in this dynasty (Chronicle p, 70). During this period, tension began to rise after the death of Pepi II. The result was a struggle for power, the central government disintegrated, the bureaucracy ceased to exist. As a consequence, the rulers in various segments of the Egyptian's territories became rivals to one another. This  finally resulted into the fall of the Old Kingdom in about 2040 B.C (Chronicle p, 70).

Then came the Middle Kingdom which started with the reunification of Egypt under the 11th Dynasty which was during King Mentuhotep I's reign (Chronicle p, 70). Under King Mentuhotep,  Egypt entered into another union with King Mentuhotep as it ruler. He suppressed rebellion, and established stability in the country by uniting both the Upper and Lower delta regions into one massive kingdom, which became known as the Middle Egyptian Kingdom. Mentuhotep I’s reign was considered a peaceful. He demanded people’s loyalty to the Kingdom and rebuilt bureaucratic institutions that had been destroyed by the turmoil in the previous Kingdom (Kingdom, 1). He also educated staff, administrators, and Scribes with the Spirit of national unity. Mentuhotep managed to create the image of himself as that of a “good shepherd,” rather than a god like king. He consolidated his power and reigned for about 50 years until his death   around 1962 B.C. (Kingdom, 1). Though Mentuhotep was a great king, he did not expand the military. He still believed that Egypt should remain as a peaceful nation.

The Middle Kingdom was a great period in Egyptian history. Mentuhotep was succeeded by other kings. Mentuhotep II succeeded the first king of the 11th Dynasty in 2010 B.C (Chronicle p, 75). Mentuhotep II reigned for twelve years. During his reign he developed defensive attitudes towards the neighbors to the north as well looking keenly on the southern frontier of the Nubian Kingdom. He did a lot of construction works, including building temples and some shrines. He also initiated a series of expeditions to gather raw materials for the Kingdom (Chronicle p, 76). However, He pursued the predecessor’s policy of a peaceful empire and he did not expand the military. His military strategy  included  depending on a voluntary army to provide security and defense against his potential enemies. Mentuhotep II was the last king of the 11th Dynasty. Upon his death, he was  succeeded by Amenemhet I.

The reign of Amenemhet I was the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. Historians recorded that he had a sizable army of around ten thousand men who he used for his defense (Chronicle p, 78). By this time, Egypt had begun experiencing contacts with a lot of foreign people. According to the historian Manetho, the 12th  Dynasty consisted of seven kings from Thebe, namely Amenemhet I, Senusret I, Amenemhet II, Senusret II (Chronicle p, 78) and Queen Sobeknefru though her reign was not significant in the 12th Dynasty (Chronicle p, 78). Amenemhet’s thirty years reign brought stability to Egypt that it had not seen in 200 years. His rule laid the foundation for the strength of the rest of the 12th Dynasty which lasted for two centuries until it broke down under Queen Sobeknefru at the beginning of the Second Intermediate Era (Chronicle p, 78). Amenemhet was later murdered, and succeeded by his Son Senusret I who was the leader of the military. Senusret I took a different approach. He expanded his military to the east and west as well as pushing to the south through the Nubian Kingdom in Northern Sudan (Chronicle p, 79). The reign of Senusret I lasted for thirty four years. Before his death, Senusret I established a strong hold in the south for gold and agricultural goods. He built thirteen forts that he used to control the trade route (Chronicle p, 79). After his death in 1926 B.C; he was succeeded by his son Amenemhet II who reigned for thirty four years.  

Under Amenemhet II, Egypt experienced  increased contacts with the people from Lebanon, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Crete (Chronicle p, 82). During this time, Egypt was  actively engaged in the Levant region of modern Syria during the earlier dynasties (Fox, 1). Historians like Manetho have recorded that King Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty had a military campaign in Southern Syria which resulted in the capture of the city of Shechem in Syria (Fox ,2). Still, Egypt was  considered a peaceful land in which agriculture continued to prosper tremendously.  This prompted King Senusret III  initiated a series of construction projects. He decided to build  himself a pyramid at a place called Dahshur which was east of the earlier 4th Dynasty pyramids of Snefru just before the end of his reign in 1900 BC according to historian Manetho.

Many historians believed that  his reign started around  1880 B.C. Because of the peaceful culture King Senusret III nurtured, he was considered to  be among the best of all Middle Kingdom pharaohs. He was know as  a king with great height, 6’ 6’’ or about two meters. Historical records described  him as a great warrior and is credited with solidification of the kingdom. Senusret III managed to create a new system of a government which conquered the autonomy of the regions. Under his reign he divided the country into three administrative units, the north, south, and lower Nubian each being administered by a council of senior staff who report to him on constant basis (Chronicle p, 85). He was considered a leader with military resume. He initiated a series of devastating campaigns against Nubians in northern Sudan. By doing so, he safeguarded the security of Egypt during his reign.

 It was also during this time that he mobilized his military to secure the southern border against any incursion from his southern enemies, the Nubians. Senusret III broadened and deepened the southern route to access the Nubian’s resources (Chronicle p, 85). Furthermore, he managed to bring the Nubians into line on different occasions during his reign and he was proud of his military success in subduing his enemies. He pushed Egypt’s boundary further south than those of his predecessors and prepared a way for the future expansion. Though most of his military campaigns were directed against the Nubians, there were records of his campaign in Syria.  But those were more  of a preemptive strategy  than  a quest of expansion of his kingdom in that direction (Chronicle p, 86). Like another ruler of Egypt before him,  he oversaw the building of  pyramids before his death. contemporary archaeological  findings of remains of his tomb revealed the tomb of his wife, his sister and his fine gold jewelries (Chronicle 87).

 The Middle Kingdom was marked by Amenemhet III. During this era, Egypt's economic growth reached its highest point during Amenemhet III reign.  The period that came after Amenemhet III is sometimes considered the dark era which was characterized by Amenemhet IV and the Queen Sobeknefru who little is known about their reigns. Since there are no other rulers known after Amenemhet IV, the theory may be correct that he was the last pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom. After more than 250 years of strong centralized government, it is believed that Egypt disintegrated and once again, Egypt entered another dark period of chaos and decline of which  government and economy collapsed (Chronicle p, 89).

  So, how did these kingdoms survived militarily?  What kind of military capabilities did these kings developed during their reigns. And to what extend did their militaristic campaigns and expansions undergo? As mentioned earlier, Egyptians were a peace loving people and were protected by natural defenses of both water and the deserts. Perhaps this was why Egyptians were less concerned with building strong military defenses to some extent. But that being said, Egypt nonetheless had a loosely organized army. The army was primarily made up of part time soldiers with inferior weaponries (Stratos, 1). Any king during any reign would call upon his people to join military service in the time of civil unrest and during wars with the neighbor.  However, there was a small core of regular soldiers who guarded the Palace and a few that were stationed on the borders as patrons (Stratos, 1). In term of armaments, troops were armed with simple weapons. In addition to guards, there were ship escorts whose their primary duty was to protect ships on the Nile and in the Mediterranean Sea. Egyptians by far were very hesitant to be involved in wars outside their territories because of cultural and religious reasons, namely, the fear of dying and being buried on foreign soils without receiving a proper and appropriate Egyptian’s funeral rites (Stratos, 1). Because of this, Egypt most of the time made their armies with foreign mercenaries, some coming as far as Libya and Nubia.

 Although, there was no strong sitting military accept army of volunteers at this time. However, as said earlier, there were very hierarchical military leaderships.  The king was seen as commander- in- chief of the army. He led the military in battle during major battles. During minor military operations, king would delegate to his prince or senior general to lead the expedition. Due to a strong religious prevalence among Egyptians, the king was treated as god like (Stratos, 2). Below him were the generals who oversaw the military and reported directly to the king. The next in line were lieutenant commanders who served as senior officers in the military. They were followed by overseers of the Nubian Frontiers and the Mediterranean coast fortresses (Stratos, 2).  The troop garrison overseers appointed troop commanders who were charged to lead several regiments, brigades and/or a fortress. The other chain of command included captain of troops, a commander of 250 soldiers, standard- bearer who controlled 200 men. Below the chain was the “Greatest of Fifty”, the lowest commander in the military hierarchy (Stratos, 2). This was how the king organized his military during this time and later, pharaohs used this kind of troop organization as well.

 Like the commanders, the troops were organized in a similar fashion. During the Old and Middle Kingdom, the army was divided into Upper Egyptian corps and the Lower Egyptian corps.  Each being led by a lieutenant commander. The strategy was for each division to cover a distinctive area in which they are trained to operate in. Each division was stationed at frontiers forts of which some escort the pharaoh royal processions (Stratos, 2). Apart from this organizational hierarchy,  the corps were responsible for quelling riots and sometimes worked as unskilled building laborers special in pyramids building, tombs, and other monuments (Stratos, 2).

The army itself was made up of the infantry and chariotry. Divisions were either commanded by a king himself or one of his princes.  The infantry was further divided into regiments similar to the Greek army. They were formed and very distinguished, the regiment consisted of bows-men, spears-men, swords-men, clubs-men, and slingers. Each regiment was disciplined and uniquely trained according to the fighting maneuverings (Military, 1). Each division consisted of about 5,000 soldiers and was named after an Egyptian’s god. The soldiers were given some basic training in how to use weapons. Sometimes, there were specialized soldiers who guarded the king known as the “the Bravest of the King” (Stratos, 1). The Bravest of the King were the most fighting forces which led the attacks accompanying the King in major battles. The rest were the recruits and untrained soldiers who make up the largest part of the military. In addition to these mentioned above,  there were a group of mercenaries who served in the Egyptian’s military (Stratos, 3). These mercenaries came from places like Nubia, Libya and as far as Syria and even Greece (Military, 1).

In term of  military and weaponry technological advancement in ancient Egypt.  History shown that during the pre dynasty, the army used simple weapons like spears, cudgels, clubs, throwing sticks, daggers, bows, maces, and leather shields (Military, 1). It was later during the Middle Kingdom that there were some inventions of weapons like scalloped axes, head battle axes were invented and later, Hyskos introduced chariots into Egypt (Military, 1). The Hyskos are believed to have come to Egypt between 11th and the 13th century BC. At first, Hyskos came as traders and mercenaries who later invaded and instituted their rule in Egypt for sometime (Redford p, 111). When they first ventured  into Egypt, they settled in Thebe and moved to Memphis where they established themselves to become a rivalry to the Egyptian rulers for about 200 years (Chronicle p, 94). The Hyskos gradually acquired increasing power but, not until later that they began extending their rules beyond their base at Memphis to Delta region and far beyond Thebe (Chronicle p, 94).

As this report shows, Egyptians had a very distinctive system of weaponries compared to the primitive civilizations that bordered Egypt. The fighting weapons were divided into at lest six categories. The first group of weapons was the impact weapons, which included clubs and maces. The second group was edged closed combat weapons comprised of axes, knives and swords. The third group was the projectorial weaponries comprised of bows and arrows, slingshots, javelins, spears and throwing sticks. Defensive weapons or equipment was the fourth group made up of shields and some limited number of body armors (Fox, 1). The Egyptians too have well elaborated system of transportation including naval boats battleships. Throughout the Egyptian’s history, their battleships never changed. They were constructed of bundles of reeds put together into a specialized manner to form a ship to be used in wars. Later, there were horses and chariots.  In addition, there were siege towers, scaling ladders, and battering rams for attacking fortresses (Fox, 1). The chariots at this time played important roles in the army. The Egyptian’s chariots  were use to charge the enemy position, after initial barrages of arrows and spears. When  the position of the enemy was disbanded; chariot units would  charge into the battlefield  to crush the enemy (Military, 1).

 By the late Middle Kingdom, the Egyptians had developed a lot of military tactics. Historical artifacts and manuscripts clearly  shown that Egyptians did pose the means of conducting a siege.  Unlike other powers in the region such as the Assyrians. For the most part, the Egyptians tried to avoid this warfare tactic. Instead, they preferred to face the enemy on the battlefield.  My guess is perhaps Egyptians believed they were more civilized to fight that way (Fox, 1). However due to large number of fortified cities through the regions, Egyptians were sometimes forced to employ siege warfare. Although, Egyptian army was professional and well organized, it still used harsh warfare tactics on their enemies. For example, if the enemies sought protection behind their fortifications, the Egyptians would siege the forts and starve their enemies into death or into submission. In case of light fortifications, Egyptians would break into enemy’s forts through gates, and sometimes they used battering rams to force their ways through the gates (Stratos, 5). As Egyptian history taught us, Egyptians were very civilized.  Sometimes, prior to the beginning of the battle, they let their enemies know when they planned to attack and/or wage a battle. This was not always the case since not all enemies were civilized like them. As a result, Egyptians sometimes become the victim as what Egyptians would considered primitive enemies would attack them without warning (Stratos, 5).

  In comparison to other Kingdoms, I would argue that Egypt has been known as a peaceful people who coexist with their neighbors. However, internally, it has challenges of her own that it deal with of which result sometimes turn out disastrous.  Internally, there conflicts among different ethnic groups  that have through out various kingdoms undermined the prosperity of this great civilization. some of these conflict as said earlier  contributed to the  demise of Old Kingdom (Chronicle p, 70).   That being said, the collapse of the Old Kingdom may not have been a bad thing when looked in retrospect.  First, had the previous kingdom not fallen; perhaps there would have been no unified Egypt.  We learned from this  historical era that Egyptians were much divided under the reigns of Pepi I and Pepi II as a result of the reunification.

Second, if the previous divided Kingdom had survived, Egypt would have been a victim of a military invasion from other empires particularly  the Mesopotamia and Assyria empires. Perhaps, the Egyptian’s societies would have been absorbed and assimilated by invading empires. The ups and downs  that plagued sequential  Egyptian's dynasties and kingdoms was necessary for the continuation of this civilization.   This in  itself was evident in the Middle Kingdom when reunification resulted into economic prosperity and internal stability of the empire. I hope this short report provide people with some understanding  the ancient Egypt. By an measure, i considered Egyptian civilization as one of  the greatest  world’s civilization that ever formulated by mankind. The culture, architecture, literature, and history of this such greatness have brought mankind a tremendous knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, arts and amusement all which are things to remember for centuries to come. As of today,  scientists are still studying the Egyptian’s science of pyramids, wandering how they built these magnificent structures bare handed. In the times to come, I am confident that Egypt  will once again surprise the world with  something we never thought would come out  from that part of the world. Finally, I hope  people become more interested than never before to explore the mysticism  of this great civilization.

                                           References

Clayton A. Peter. (1994). Chronicle of the pharaohs: The reign-by- record of the rulers
     And dynasties of ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson Ltd, London.
Fox T. (2007) Leading up to the battle of kadesh. Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
     http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kadesh1.htm
Egypt: What is the secret of Egypt? (n.d). Retrieved January 8, 2007 from http://
     www.compulink.co.uk/~archeology/civilisation/egypt.htm
Egyptology online (n.d). Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
     http://www.egyptologyonline.com/middle_kingdom.htm
Fox T.  The equipment of pharaoh’s military (n.d). Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
     http://www. touregypt.net/ featurestories/weapons.htm
Military Technology (n.d). Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
     http://www.mnsu.edu/museum/prehistory/egypt/military/tech.html
Redford, G. Donald. (1992).Egypt, Canaan and Israel in ancient times. Princeton
     University Press, New Jersey.

Stratos A. (2007). The evolution of warfare. Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
       http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kadesh1.htm

The Middle Kingdom (n.d). Retrieved January 8, 2007 from
     http://www.osirisweb.com/egypt.egypt2.html

Jonglei Twic East County Alcohol Law: The Case of illogicality and lack of Legislation Priorities

This week, the Twic East County Commissioner, Dau Akoi Jurkuch announced during the Paramount Chief’s election at the County Headquarter in Panyagoor that his administration banned the sell and/or the consumption of alcohol at wedding ceremonies and other public gatherings.  It is not clear what relation does wedding ceremonies and public gatherings have to do with the banning of alcohol. But, I suspected it has to do with crimes and/or outbreak of fights during marriage receptions and/or other public functions.

However, even if this was the case, the commissioner decision to ban sell and/or the consumption of alcohol at wedding ceremonies and public functions is unwarranted. Jurkuch’s decision is actually a case of liberty and freedom of choice violation. In addition, the commissioner decision to ban alcohol at wedding and public functions is exactly the tip of the iceberg of how this commissioner is out of touched, lacks knowledge and/or unwillingness to tackle real issues facing the county.

 Making the matter worse, I see this decision as resurrection of sharia in the county in a form of informed commissioner. Think about it ladies and gentlemen, what is a different between Khartoum’s Sharia Law that banned us of alcohol during the old Republic and this so called Twic East County Banned of Alcohol consumption during weddings and public functions? Who knew that Sharia Law-like was going to emerge out of Jonglei particularly in Twic East County?

  Don’t you see the irony here? What a sad beginning for Twic East County in Jonglei state?  No. it should not be the case. People have to stand up to this indecisive Commissioner and his ill-informed policies.  Whoever is advising this commissioner, please tell him to reason with his head. Tell him, if the reason for enacting this law is his fear of crimes or fights during weddings and/or public functions, then, you got it wrong Mr. Commissioner. You have incorrectly defined the problem for these reasons.

First, infrequent fights that sporadically occur during wedding ceremonies and other public gatherings in the county are not all because of alcohol consumption. Instead, it is because of people who don’t control themselves and boredom that that pervaded many people in the county due to lack of jobs or works. If your target is those few individuals who drink and cause problem or fight, you don’t need to deprive majority of people who use alcohol and pose no threat to the public. What you need to do is make police available at every wedding and public function to pick up those who drink and cause problem, throw them to jail and prosecute them to the fullest of the law. After all, is it not the work of the police to maintain civility at public areas?

 Second, stopping or banning alcohol at the wedding ceremonies and/or public functions is not going to prevent fight from happening anyway. You know it in your heart that there are other times that fight will break out among people in the county without alcohol involvement.  No matter what, this law is not the solution. The solution is to hold those who few misguided people who cause crimes and/or fights accountable instead of punishing good citizens or banned older men and women from having few drinks during their daughters’ weddings. You and your administration need to revisit this decision. You are creating bad precedent for the state and the country. What’s next?  Tell people they cannot sleep with were wives on the first day of their wedding?  Are you going to tell us next we cannot eat outside our houses or? Are you willing to turn Twic East County into an enclave of tyranny?

Do yourself and the county’s people some services. Focus your energies, time and skills if any on matters affecting the county like building roads, schools for the kids, hospitals, improving communities’ relationships and attracting investors into the county to create jobs the countless people in the county instead of becoming a wedding police.   

Unfeasibility and shortsightedness of the Four Freedoms’ Agreement between the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Sudan

First and foremost, let me be clear here, since the death of the late Dr. John Garang in2005, I have never had doubt about President Kiir ability to lead us through the darkest days and years following the death of Garang and I was right to begin with for good reason like any other true South Sudanese. In fact, I even wrote about my unwavering confident in President Kiir in one of my articles on April 20,2011, titled, “ General Salva Kiir X-Factor” in which I argued how Khartoum might have under estimated him and his ability to fill Garang big shoe. Unquestionably, he has led the people of the Southern Sudan into the Promised Land with care and resolve.  He was a great shepherd during the darkest nights in our journey to the Promised Land.  He made us a proud, free people on his shift, we for the first time called ourselves, South Sudanese under his watch.

  I hope people now have an idea about my stand on SPLM/A and its leadership. By any measure, don’t call me naïve or pessimist, for I believe that our sun is beginning to rise and it is morning in South Sudan. I still believe in the SPLM/A leadership-ability.  However, my optimism, respect, confidence and loyalty to and/or in SPLM/A under the leadership of President Kiir don’t take away my freedom of speech that we all dearly fought to achieve.  Consequentially, the recent developments starting with how Juba leadership dealt with Heglig fiasco got me nervous. Juba and its diplomatic corps did not explain it well to the rest of the world who never knew that Heglig was in fact, a South Sudan’s territory.  But, I understood and so were the rest of the South Sudanese, our government is young and not immune to committing mistakes of which Heglig fiasco was one of them.

That being said, we South Sudanese expect our government to learn from its past mistakes and grow wiser. I see mistakes as not obstacles, but, as a learning experience. However, this seems not to be the case with the Juba government. It is not learning from it mistakes. Instead, it is doubling down by committing more countless rookie mistakes of which this new development is mind boggling and which prompted me to write this opinion article. Yes, I am mindful, not everyone would agree with me on this matter and/ or in substance of which I am writing.

As I was checking the news headlines at sudantribune.com, I came across a news headline that reads, “Sudan and South Sudan ends talks over four freedoms” (www. sudantribune.com).  Basically, the short of it is this, South Sudan and Sudan agreed on four principles both which I see don’t make sense to me given our past experiences with Khartoum under the old Republic and which one expects our government to know or at least able to explain its rationale to all South Sudanese to relieve any speculation like I am doing if I am at all.

For those who don’t get their news from sudantribune.com, let me regurgitate these four freedoms as they are called as well as giving you my account of why I think this Agreement and/or Agreement-In-Principle is a bad idea and one that I thought should haven’t been agreed to by our government. Here are the freedoms, “freedom of residence, freedom of movement, freedom to undertake economic activity and freedom to acquire and dispose property”. In a nutshell, these four freedoms called for both countries to allow their people to acquire permanent residence in each other territory, move freely, work, and establish property ownership each other territory. What?  You may ask? Yes, exactly that was my first reaction when I came across this news headline.

 But the truth is nobody needs to be reminded of our  past ugly encounter with Khartoum.  We all know that part of the reason we went to war starting with Anya Nya I was the fact that equally residence under old Sudan was not possible which makes me wonder what might have changed in the last seven in Khartoum that led Juba believes Khartoum this time would honor South Sudanese and allows them to have equally access to residence, to move freely, own property or dispose one and conduct business equally like everybody else in the Republic of Sudan.

Something is not adding up. First, we all know that there is no way a South Sudanese who wants to run a beer, liquor business and/or brews any other locally alcohol under any circumstance would be allowed to operate in other part of Sudan not to mention Khartoum which has become a Sharia brewer for the rest of Sudan. That is a history which we have lived and which I hope no free South Sudanese should relive it again. Yes, I have faith and confident in the South Sudanese people. I know they might allow Sudanese to live, work, move freely and own properties in South Sudan which in fact, are already guaranteed freedoms for some Sudanese who are now living in the Republic of South Sudan.  Unfortunately, we all know what is being done to our brothers and sisters who are stranded in Sudan. They are living in unbearable conditions that no human beings are supposed to be subjected to.

Second, everything is still murky between Juba and Khartoum. International borders not drawn, Abyei, Heglig, status of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile are in limbo and each country is actively orchestrating a proxy war. These entire pending issues do not paved a way for a cozy relationship but workable relationship. Instead, it is a time to tackle border issue and oil debacle first.  After that, the two countries can revisit auxiliary issues like these four freedoms and many other diplomatic issues once international borders between two countries are defined and settled.  

 Frankly, I may say, Khartoum has not yet overcome the bitter divorce that just happened. It evident in her actions and is working harder than never before to reunite the country which makes me wonder whether these four freedoms agreed upon are a pretext that Khartoum wants to exploit to further the reunification goal.  I wonder about what Juba’s rationale for entering into this kind of transaction? What if Khartoum sends her agents and or military personnel under the guise of civilians who wants to live, work and do business, but with the ultimate goal of spying, gathering intelligence, infiltrating civil society and/or launching another Islamization with the goal of reunifying the two Republics and God forbids  throwing the sitting government in Juba? 

 And making the matter worse, South Sudan still doesn’t have strong immigration policies and tracking mechanisms to locate whereabouts of all the potential influx of Sudanese who I know will exodus  into South Sudan for one reason or the other if this agreement becomes enforced. How forgettable are we becoming? Don’t we remember that this is how Arabs came to Sudan in the first place? Or is everything else we read in Sudan history wrong? Don’t we read that they came as traders and merchants? And almost two hundred years later, we are still dealing with repressive and brutal Arab regime. With due respect to decent Arabs around the world, forgive my language here, I am referencing to  a heartless regime in Khartoum that over the years has cared less than the rest of humanity in Sudan.

Appointment of Dr. Francis Deng as a South Sudan Permanent Representative to the United Nations

For a while, many South Sudanese have voiced their criticism about President Kiir indecisiveness in how he appoints candidates for public offices. This began when he appointed his first cabinet following his inauguration as president on July 9^th, 2011. Some of the critics argued that he appointed some candidates to oversee ministries that they have don’t have the credentials and/or experiences that justified their appointments to such positions or ministries.

Of course, I have my reservation like everybody else, but, who am I to question the president’s wisdom and/or judgment about who he sees fits to what office. As I remembered, most of the people president Kiir appointed to serve on his cabinet were those who fought alongside with him during the old good and bad days of the liberation struggle.  There got to be something he saw in them that prompted him to appoint these men and women to his cabinet.

Despite all previous criticism of the president on his cabinet appointees, it seems like his critics will have less or nothing to say about Dr. Francis Deng’s appoint as South Sudan Permanent Representative to the United Nations but praises.  So, let me join in applauding president Kiir in his decision to appoint Dr. Francis Deng as a Permanent South Sudan Representative to the United Nations.  President Kiir by making this appointment has given South Sudan a voice at the United Nations.  He has chosen the right man for the right job and I hope people start seeing good intentions in president Kiir instead of constantly blaming.  First of all, he is a man who went to the bush twice beginning with Anya Nya I to SPLM/A.  He is a man who loves South Sudanese and spent his life fighting for it. Second, if he has made small mistakes here and there. Give him a slack. He is a human like everybody else. You may blame him but never question his love of the country. He has already proved that by his sacrifice of which he tirelessly endured the hardship of the bush life like any other of his comrades.

President Kiir’s love of South Sudan is what he again once shown by appointing a competent scholar with an extensive background to represent South Sudan at the United Nations.  Without doubt, this appointment is going to give South Sudan a chance to tell her story to the world. And who is better to tell that story than the only renowned scholar, Dr. Francis Deng.  A man who held different high profiles positions in the old Sudan and has served in the best institutions in the world.

 For those who know little about Dr. Deng, he served as Sudan minister of the state for foreign affairs, ambassador to Canada, ambassador to the United States, Sudan representative to Scandinavian countries, served as Special Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General on Genocide prevention. More importantly, he has written extensively about Sudanese issues as well as on global issues.  A fellow at the Brookings Institute and has taught in American’s prestigious universities including Yale University, Columbia university, and Georgetown university among others. His career list is endless but all pointed to one thing, competency and experience.

How lucky we are as South Sudanese to have such experienced and knowledgeable competent scholar among us. Thank you president Kiir for having at last recognized the importance of the position of South Sudan’s Ambassador to the United Nations.  And thank you Dr. Francis Deng and now a South Sudan Ambassador to the United Nations for taking up the challenge. Your country has faith in you. Our president Kiir has trusted your stewardship to represent us at the United Nations to tell our story to the world. We wish you great luck. We are counting on you sir…..  

 

Afghanistan’s War Dilemma: Is the NATO coalition forces winning or losing Security Stabilization and Reconstruction war?

     On September 11^th 2001, America lost over three thousand people when nineteen terrorists hijacked and crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center in NY, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. That’s day, America became a nation at war with Al Qaeda and states that sponsored terrorism. Just few weeks after terrorists brought down the twin towers and part of the Pentagon, American Intelligent communities linked this horrific attacks to Osman Bin Laden suspected to be living somewhere in Afghanistan. Afghanistan being a country ruled by Taliban, President George W. Bush declared war ordering the U.S. military to destroy Al Qaeda and Taliban government in Afghanistan (Tanner, 2009, p. 324).  Wiping out Al Qaeda, getting rid of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and instituting a pro American’s government were the main goals that President George W. Bush articulated to achieve in Afghanistan. My position in this paper is clear, I argued that U.S. and its allies are close to lose the stabilization and reconstruction battle

     Without a doubt, President George W. Bush was able to partially achieve all these three things before he left office. The U.S. and it allies were able to crashed Al Qaeda, overthrew the Taliban government and helped elected a democratic government headed by President Hamid Karzai. With much of Taliban and Al Qaeda infrastructures destroyed and many terrorists killed.  Security situation started to look good as humanitarian developmental projects started to take shape. Humanitarian organizations started to deliver food assistances to many Afghans, social programs like building clinics, hospitals and schools sprang up in some areas. For instance, United States Agency for International Development reported the building of about 10,000 schools, 6.5 million children enrolled in schools with 36.3% being girls and, about 6,865 adult learning centers opened in dozen of provinces (U.S. Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, 2010).

     On the economic front, Afghanistan’s economy grew at the rate of 12% by the end of 2007, 3.4% in 2009 according to U.S. Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.  Agricultural sector grew as well, roads and bridges constructions expanding, and for the first time since Taliban took power, electricity was nearly restored in Kabul providing electric power to four million Afghans.  Moreover, the health of the Afghanistan people improved. With the help of the United States and international humanitarian organizations, more health facilities were built employing thousands of health care workers in Kabul and other cities. For the first time since Taliban government left, child mortality deaths were reduced by 23% saving more than 800,000 newborn babies a year (U.S. Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, 2009). In addition, about 7 millions babies were vaccinated against Polio, Tuberculosis, Tetanus and basic healthcare training programs opened in 13 provinces around the country (U.S. Bureau of South and Central Asia, 2010).

     More importantly, as a result of United States and its allies’ relentless campaigns against Al Qaeda and Taliban’s remnants, security situation improved in Kabul and in some provinces. The coalition’s campaigns briefly appeared to be a success. There were few Al Qaeda and Taliban attacks against the U.S. and its allies’ forces, fewer attacks against civil organizations, fewer incidents of improvised explosives devices (IEDs). For instance the U.S. coalition suffered only fifty seven fatal casualties in 2003, down from the previous year (Tanner, 2009). NATO allies began to feel like they were gaining an upper hand in their fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban across the country.  Meanwhile in the United States, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Lt General McNeil commander of the United States forces in Afghanistan along the President of United States, George W. Bush in 2003, were singing the victory song all agreeing that, “the major combat operation against Al Qaeda and Taliban is ended and U.S. and NATO will shift their focus to stabilizing and rebuilding the country” (Tanner, 2009.P. 330).

     Judging by looking at these indices, starting with the overthrowing of the Taliban government, killing of Al Qaeda top officials, election of President Karzai, successful parliamentary elections, building of the  national security apparatus, construction of schools, hospitals, clinics, increased in the number of young people going  back to school particularly girls. The rapid growth of the Afghanistan's economy, progress in healthcare sector and fewer deaths of U.S. and allies' troops as well as decreased in civilian deaths- all indicated what appeared as a success for the United States and its allies. The problem is these relative accomplishments happened between 2001 and 2005.  Of course much changed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, with respect to the reconstruction process in Afghanistan.  

     With the United States involved in another war in Iraq, Afghanistan rebuilding and reconstruction efforts took the back seat as United States focused more time and resources to fighting Saddam Hussein’s regime. This shifts in the level of resources and personnel from Afghanistan to Iraq both culminated into unfortunate situation in Afghanistan in respect to reconstruction and stabilization processes.  The security situations started to deteriorate, Al Qaeda and Taliban militants remerged in areas where NATO allies initially thought to have secured. Consequentially, the number of allies’ casualties started to rise as Taliban and Al Qaeda increased their attacks on U.S. and allies’ troops e.g. the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and roadside bombs contributed to more allies’ deaths (Katzman, 2011).

     The shift in the level of resources and personnel from Afghanistan to Iraq eased the level of pressure on the Taliban as well as revealing that U.S. and NATO did not have enough man power to control most areas in the countryside anymore. As a result, the Taliban started to coerce local people to abandon their supports to foreigners. This reversal of loyalty by the local people from being pro NATO allies back to supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda completely undermined the progresses that have been made. The result became visible as an insurgency level against the United States and its allies’ rose sharply. In addition, humanitarian and reconstruction projects got stalled as Taliban and Al Qaeda regained control in some provinces in Southern and Eastern provinces. 

     As attacks against U.S. and NATO forces increased, instability started to spread across the country.  Areas like Helmand and Kandahar provinces started to experience increased attacks coming from Taliban and Al Qaeda elements. This of course became a serious challenge to those who have joined the Afghanistan nation army and those still thinking about joining.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda have made it clear. Anyone supporting foreign invaders will be targeted and killed (Katzman, 2009).  Therefore, many Afghans who have joined the national army and police started to desert the Afghanistan military to rejoin the Taliban and Al Qaeda for fear of reprisal. 

     This subsequently resulted into many people quitting the Afghanistan army which precipitated into the weakening of the national security apparatus.  It also sent a powerful message to President Hamid Karzai to stop working with the foreigners as it was evident in Taliban failed assassination attempt on Karzai life during the military parade in January of 2008 in Kabul (Katzman, 2009).

     As this literature reviews revealed, much of the successes made by the United States and NATO allies’ have been reversed or weaken. This raises the question of whether the United States and its allies’ have lost grip of the situation in Afghanistan and if so, what did the United States and NATO did wrong that resulted into such quick reversal of the security stabilization and reconstruction gains in Afghanistan. My position in this paper is clear, I argued that U.S. and its allies are close to lose the stabilization and reconstruction battle and here’s why:

     First, the United States military strategy of offensive campaign against Taliban and Al Qaeda has proved ineffective.  The United States and its allies might have killed thousands of militants as well as liberating several districts across Afghanistan.  However, the same offensive campaigns have caused a lot of collateral damages e.g.  used of unmanned drone and airstrikes on certain unverified targets  have turned many Afghans against the United States and allies  troops as well as against humanitarian organizations.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda militants have taken advantage of the unfortunate civilian’s casualties and they have used it as recruiting mechanism to enlist hundreds of Afghanistan’s civilians who have become dissatisfied with the way in which the United States and allies are executing the war on terrorism in their country.

      The truth is winning hearts and minds of the Afghans is not going to be about how many Taliban and Al Qaeda militants the U.S. and NATO killed or captured. Instead, it is going to be about protecting civilians and work with them to craft an engaging plan on how to conduct security stabilization and reconstruction programs.  This would require the United States and NATO allies to stop dictating the Karzai on how to deal with the local traditional leaders. Instead, the U.S. and its allies should encourage Karzai to negotiate with the traditional rulers as well as with moderate Taliban who are willing to abandon extremism in favor of becoming a part of the new Afghanistan government.

     Pushing Karzai so hard on things like curbing corruption is putting Karzai government at old with many influential elements. There has to be understanding that corruption is a common aspect of the Afghanistan’s society. If it means that buying off local leaders and moderate Taliban militants to help put the country on a right path, then, it’s should be encouraged for the time being to help Kabul government gains traction in its efforts to stabilize the security situation in the country.

     Second, over the last 7 years, U.S. and its allies have been micro-managing rebuilding programs that should have been left to local Afghans who understand the immediate needs for their societies.  This has not gone well with many Afghans who felt that U.S. and its western allies have been enforcing western leaning social programs against the Afghanistan’s local cultures e.g. coercing girls to attend schools built by western humanitarian organizations to learn English. An initiative like this proves to local people that America is there to impose foreign cultures against their culture and customs.

     Instead of the United States dictating what social programs to build and where to build them, U.S. and its allies should recognize and respect the local people and their cultures.  This would require creating local Afghanistan’s reconstruction team in every district because these are people who understand the local needs. Doing so would make local people feel respected and this would ultimately result into them cooperating with the United States and its allies in rebuilding efforts. This would also serve as neutralizing tool for the United States and its NATO allies by creating a collaborating commitment and partnership between the local Afghans and the coalition forces as well as denying extremists any opportunity to exploit the local populations.

     Third, on the democratic transformation front, United States and its allies have been pursuing wrong kind of democratic reform. By my own judgment, failure to institute democratic institutions across the country is not that Afghans don’t like or embrace democracy. The problem is that the democratic government led by President Hamid Karzai was formed with less inclusion from all the stakeholders in the country. Moreover, it is ineffective, corrupt and does not guarantee security and neither does it uphold the rule of law against the criminal elements across the country.   President Karzai and many other top ministers are parts of what exacerbates the level of corruption in the country. Their participation in the corruption does not send good example to encourage other people to fight against corruption.  As long people like Karzai who encourages corruption are left in power, Afghans will continue to lose faiths in the government. They may instead choose to back the Taliban who once guaranteed their families with security as oppose to back a democratic process that doesn’t even secure safety in Kabul.

     Fourth, U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan is unbalanced and doesn’t serve U.S. geopolitically.  If U.S.  doesn’t want  to repeat the mistake of past, then, the United States needs to formulate regional foreign policy that balances the balance of power in this region.  Unfortunately over the last few years, America has established a cozy relationship with Afghanistan and India as well as encouraging Afghanistan to establish a friendly relationship with India [e.g. U.S. giving nuclear aid to India and not Pakistan]. This kind of behavior by the U.S  has elevated the level of animosity that now exists between India and Pakistan particularly over Kashmir region as well causing political tension along the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders where Pakistani government allows Taliban militants to move freely to Afghanistan due lack of cooperation between the two states. The point is, without a balanced regional foreign policy. It is going to be difficult to contain the situation in Afghanistan particularly in lawless areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  

     In summary, for NATO allies to win the security stabilization and reconstruction battle in Afghanistan, they need to stop dictating programs.  Instead, they should work with local people, tradition leaders, moderate Taliban and recognize local cultures and respect them. Let the Afghans be the ones that direct the social programs. Moreover, U.S. needs to make a tough decision about Karzai. His alleged involvement in corruption scheme raises the question about his leadership to lead this fragile coalition government. Finally, there is an urgency to come up with a foreign policy that doesn’t create animosity among the regional states.  If the United States and its allies corrected their policies as discussed above, it’s my belief that stabilization and reconstruction battle in Afghanistan can be won. Not doing so would mean that, there is a great danger that NATO coalition forces may lose this battle.

 

References

Katzman, K. (2011). Afghanistan: Post-Taliban governance, security, and U.S. policy. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf

Tanner, S. (Revised Ed.).  (2009). Afghanistan: A military history from Alexander the great to the war against the Taliban. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:  Da Capo Press. 

United States Department. (2009). Background notes: Afghanistan.  United States Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm

 

 

Out of the Body Experience(OBE)

On October 1, 212 at 7:35AM, I woke up after a heavy dream stirred my mind, the dream begun when I asked a person who I had lived with in Ethiopia twenty three years ago. I asked in the dream, what do you think of the suffering that I have had in Fignudo compare to the rest of the boys in our platoon? 

Little bit about this guy. He was older than everyone else in the platoon.  He was a guy that mistreated me. He used to beat me, insulted me while favoring everyone else.

This person refused to answer my question. So I then said to myself, “whoever think supreme (God) doesn’t help……then I said, thank God for helping me.

After I thank God, I heard someone singing a song in Dinka (South Sudanese language). It goes like this…..

Yin ca leech we juachdit de Yijep.

We dhia, ne ke ci we gam, bi we luak war theer.

We ca leech ne ke ci we gam, bi we luak war theer.

We ca leech we dhia, we dhia.

English translation:

            I praised all of you the multitude of Egypt.
            All of you for you repented, and being saved from the beginning.
            I praised all of you for  repenting, and being saved from the beginning.
            All of you, I praised, all of you, I praised.

Then I started to fade into nothing. I could not feel my body but I know I was there. I started to fly and came across two people fighting. I told them to stop fighting but they do not listen. So I said something, (which I don’t remember) and the two guys turned into trees.  I thought for a moment. I did not like seeing these men as trees. So I said something again (which I don’t remember). The guys turned into human beings but the trees’ images of themselves remained standing and visible to my eyes and their eyes too.

These two guys left and walked away. They run into other two guys on the way.  They told these two guys met not to eat the trees’ images of them. They guys asked, why? They responded, if you do eat the trees, you will turn into trees. So the guys listened and never eat trees’ images.

I continue flying above in the sky. I met other flying people. We began commanding windstorm, heavy smoke to destroy the earth and the people. The windstorm and heavy smoke dropped people westward and I and other flying people faded into the eye of the windstorm eastward.

Then I came across three women who looked familiar to me. One woman was so familiar.  She was lying outside to my right and other two women were lying inside what appeared as a house made of thatched grass and muddy wall to my left hand side. The woman lying outside to my right hand side asked me. Is that you Yuot Tor? I got puzzled and frightened for she looked like my grandmother who died 1991 back home in South Sudan. I thought for a moment. I told myself that I am not going to lie. So I said, yes grandma. It is me. She laughed and raised her head and said, tell them, get my 14…… what she said was not clear to me. So I went and stood in the front of what appeared as a house. The other two ladies raised their heads and looked at me trying to get to know me. They said, “What does she say?” I said, she said she is hungry and I began to disappear from their eyes.

Little bit about my grandma….

She and I were very close when she was alive. She was the one who gave me the name Yuot Tor when I was born. She was blind when she died and couldn’t see people.

Then, I came face-to-face with my uncle David Chol Deng who recognized me and I recognized him. He wore black pants and white shirts. He gave me a hug and I hug him back. But, I could not feel any physical body. He immediately stepped back and said, “I got your letter. I accepted your counsel.”

Just little bid of background on my uncle......

 He was a soldier and got killed in 1987 during the civil war in South Sudan. I also remembered that I wrote to my parents in 1996 or 1997 asking them about my uncle whereabouts.  As far as to the content of the letter, I don’t remember the specificity of what I wrote.

My uncle then told me about how he how went to secondary school. He asked me about what I was doing. I said with excitement that I was doing two PhDs, I added, I am in debt. He laughed and said, ‘you are never in debt.’  He also asked me what happened to my teeth.  I told him, I had some put in. Of course, when my uncle left home in 1983, he knew that I was missing teeth in my mouth.

 He then asked me about Ms. Clinton and the guy named Obama. I told him, Ms. Clinton married. She ran in 2008 and lost to Obama.  I added he is now running for reelection. I also said South Sudan is now independent. We are now a different country.  And I heard the same song again being sung.

Yin ca leech we juachdit de Yijep.

We dhia, ne ke ci we gam, bi we luak war theer.

We ca leech ne ke ci we gam, bi we luak war theer.

We ca leech we dhia, we dhia.

 The song faded it way very slowly. I felt very vibrant and did not want to let go the song but I wake up……