---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Ashworth <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM Subject: [sudan-john-ashworth] Fw: Reflections on the death of Gatluak Gai To: Group <[email protected]>
1. Reflections on the death of Gatluak Gai Though Cowards Flinch July 28, 2011 The following is a guest post by Tim Flatman Sudan Tribune is reporting that Gatluak Gai’s deputy, Marko Chuol Ruei, has admitted to killing him. This corroborates the SPLA’s account that shortly after signing a deal with the SPLA to reintegrate his forces back into the army he had left and fought against, Gai had second thoughts, got into an argument with his own forces who were split on the issue of whether or not to trust the SPLA’s deal, and was killed in the course of the argument. I have no special knowledge of this situation, so I cannot comment on the specifics of what happened. Rather I want to draw out potential consequences for other “rebel” groups and the possibilities for their peaceful reintegration into the SPLA. [I use inverted commas as“rebel” still has positive connotations in South Sudan – suggesting soldiers are fighting for an ideal/against Khartoum, and it is a label many feel these groups do not deserve.] Firstly, Marko Chuol Ruei’s admission will not put the matter to rest. Especially while Peter Gatdet is still at large, his mouthpiece Bol Gatkuoth will be amongst those who continue to circulate the unfortunately plausible conspiracy theory that the SPLA killed Gai and had no intention of honouring their agreement with him. I should stress that especially after Ruei’s admission, this rumour certainly falls into the realms of conspiracy theory. It never made good political sense for the SPLA to have offed Gai so soon after he signed an agreement. Nonetheless, military figures do not always behave in accordance with good political sense, and the theory is believable enough that those who are already inclined to distrust the SPLA will believe it. The obvious point being made by several analysts is that Gai’s death will make other groups operating against the SPLA less likely to come to a peaceful arrangement, something that will have been painfully obvious to the leadership of the SPLM/SPLA. Secondly, the deal was always flawed. By offering a double promotionto Gai, the deal itself incentivised others currently within the SPLA to take arms against it in the hope of securing a promotion through negotiated reintegration. Here the death of Gai may have an unintended positive effect. It shows how risky this strategy is, and deters others from following it. In less complicated times, the SPLM might have issued announcements describing Gai as a martyr and celebrating his achievements during the war, portraying them as eclipsing later indiscretions. Such a strategy might appease those who believed he had been out-manoeuvred into choosing opposition as a last resort in orderto guarantee survival in a hostile environment. (Many of Riek Machar’s supporters, and even his detractors, would make the same claim of his actions at Nasir in 1991, neatly drawing a distinction between his lack of judgement in allowing himself to get into a position where he no longer felt safe accepting operational commands from John Garang, and Lam Akol’s malevolent intentions in treating Dinka and Nuer lives as collateral in a doomed attempt to further his own personal ambitions.) However, the SPLM’s spin machine is at full stretch and may be unable to give this full attention at the same time as dealingwith the day-to-day issues that accompany sovereignty and top priorities like Abyei and resource-sharing negotiations. Thirdly, the Gatluak Gai saga highlights the range of motivations behind armed opposition groups and the complexity of their relationships with key GoSS figures. The international community must bear some responsibility for much of the “tribal” violence it condemns for its acceptance of the “Dinka domination” narrative. It is in the clear interests of certain figures within the SPLM to push this narrative, and pose as unifiers. Surprisingly few figures within the UN, the academic community and NGOs seem to have the awareness to realise that when they repeat this narrative they are taking sides inleadership struggles within the SPLM. It is not unusual to hear UNMIS staff describe one former SPLA commander as an academic rather than a military figure, (intended as a favourable comparison to Salva Kiir) –an extraordinarily naive statement. It might seem extreme to say so, but blood is on their hands. In South Sudan, politics and armed opposition can often be complementary rather than contradictory. Having the connections to bring an armed opposition group to the table highlights your indispensability. When armed opposition groups issue manifestos declaring they are taking up arms because of “Dinkadomination”, and you have strong pull with Nuer and Equatorians, they reinforce your credentials as the only person capable of holding South Sudan together. Such figures may often be right in their insistence on constitutional changes and further devolution (though “devolution”often means devolving power to all-powerful governors rather than tostate parliaments, and the word itself should not be fetishised). But swallowing their narrative whole, especially when the SPLM has done so much to expand the movement from its largely Dinka origins and when Dinka do not hold a majority in the former GoSS cabinet, among Salva Kiirs advisors or in the SPLM political bureau, is tantamount to taking sides in an ongoing leadership campaign that relies in part on the existence of armed opposition groups which terrorise local populations. Fourthly, the attitude of the international community is hypocritical at best. The Government of South Sudan is told one day that the SPLAis too large and that a smaller more disciplined force would be better at respecting human rights. The next day it is told that it should increase the size of the SPLA by reintegrating “rebel” groups back into it and possibly by encouraging large numbers of SPLA from the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile areas into its ranks. It is told it should offer battle-scarred veterans alternatives to going to the bush, but it is also criticised when it appoints under-qualified military figures to civilian posts ahead of more qualified civilians, especially former exiles with university degrees. The international community does not acknowledge that its demands are contradictory – it has a solution to every problem but no understanding of how these problems inter-relate. So how should the SPLM deal with the six or so supposed “rebel” groups that still exist? Some may be beyond reintegration. It is hard to see how Peter Gatdet could be reintegrated. His group has been the most blatant in co-operating and accepting support from the Sudan Armed Forces. In the attack on Turalei approximately one month ago, eyewitness sources reported that Gatdet’s forces were wearing SAF uniforms and brandishing new AKMs. Nonetheless, stranger things have happened. In contrast to Gatdet, most Southern Sudanese would be delighted if George Athor would come back to the fold. It is however difficult to see how Kiir could offer him more than he has previouslyoffered. But contrary to the arrogant beliefs of the international community, the strongest calls for reintegration do not come from outside of South Sudan but from inside it. The SPLM know that South Sudanese expect them to give former SPLA renegades every reasonable opportunity to reintegrate peacefully, because they understand how you can find yourself on the wrong side of internal South Sudanese conflicts through circumstances. But if these groups consistently turndown reasonable offers, they expect GoSS to deal with them appropriately. What can the international community do? It can start by stopping: stopping making contradictory demands and stopping reinforcing narratives which disguise personal ambition and self-interested violence in a cloak of progressive anti-tribalism. http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2011/07/28/reflections-on-the-death-of-gatluak-gai/ END1 2. Gai’s family accuses SPLA of being behind his death in Unity State July 27, 2011 (BENTIU) - The family of the late rebel leader Gatluak Gai has accused the Republic of South Sudan and its army of involvement in his death, rejecting accounts from Gai’s deputy that his boss wanted to scrap a peace deal and join forces with North Sudan instead. On Saturday, Gai’s second in command, Marko Chuol Ruei, went on Bentiu radio to claim responsibility for the death of his commander, who was killed on Saturday in Pakur, Koch County. Ruei asserted he now had command over the old rebel group and expressed his desire to see through a peace deal signed on July 18 with South Sudan’s army (SPLA). But in an interview on Tuesday, John Nguanyeat Gai Gatwich Kuey, a brother to Gatluak Gai, disputed the account of Ruei. Instead, he blamed elements within the SPLA and the state government for plotting to kill the rebel leader out of anger for the high SPLA rank he was given in the negotiations. Gai’s brother said the radio report was false and claimed that the rebel leader was ambushed. According to Ruei, Gai told his troops on July 22 to dishonor the peace agreement and refuse integration into the SPLA. He further said that Gai wanted to bring his men to North Sudan to get more arms and continue the rebellion, which he started after elections in April 2010. But Gai’s brother Nguanyeat, who helped facilitate the talks between Gai and the SPLA, said his brother had no intention of heading to the North or dishonoring the peace deal, in which Gai was granted the rank of Lieutenant General. Nguanyeat added that Gai was killed within the assembling area Pakur, where he was to be re-integrated into the SPLA according to the peace deal. His brother dismissed the claims by other rebels that he was killed at an area that is two hours walking distance away. His brother alleged that Gai was ambushed by a combination of SPLA forces and those of his deputy Ruei, whom Nguanyeat alleges had struck a separate deal with the South Sudan army. Nyalony Tod Weal, the wife of late General Gatluak Gai, also dismissed the official accounts of Ruei. She said that the morning her husband was killed, women went to fetch water at 5am and found a group of SPLA and militiamen in the area. She said that short time afterwards; the bodyguard of her husband came and woke up everyone because the barracks was surrounded. He told the rebel leader he must try to escape. The widow said that the family had only reached 100 meters from the barracks when gunfire erupted. She said the women and children were taken in a different direction for safety, and that her husband was soon killed. The South Sudan government and army have long alleged that the Khartoum government supported Gai and other rebels in the South. Sudan’s army and ruling party both deny this. Ruei said the rebel group was in contact with Khartoum regarding the supply of munitions, but that this assistance was contingent upon the Gai rejoining the rebel forces of Peter Gadet and Bapiny Monytuel. Ruei denied accusations that the SPLA had anything to do with Gatluak Gai’s death. There have long been allegations that the Khartoum government has supported rebel groups operating in South Sudan. Ruei claims the Gai had been in contact with Khartoum regarding the supply of munitions. However, this assistance was contingent on Gai joining forces with other militias headed by Peter Gadet and Bapiny Monytuel, known as the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA). Ruei said the Gai’s branch of the SSLA under his command is now truly committed to peace. He denied claims that the SPLA carried out the killing. Gai’s localised rebellion began after Angelina Teny, the wife of South Sudan’s vice president Riek Machar was beaten by Taban Deng Gai to the gubernatorial seat in Bentiu in April 2010. It is believed that Gatluak Gai wanted a county commissioner-ship under Taban Deng Gai. (ST) END2 3. Update: South Sudan rebel leader Gatluak Gai killed in mysterious circumstances -* Update: SSLA rebels claim SPLA involved in Gatluak Gai’s murder -* Update: South Sudan army (SPLA) deny involvement in Gatluak Gai’s killing July 23, 2011 (JUBA) - A rebel leader in South Sudan’s Unity state was shot dead this morning in Koch county, only three days after he signed a peace deal with South Sudan army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Citizens and officials from the area told Sudan Tribune that Colonel Gatluak Gai was shot dead on Saturday morning along with some of his bodyguards after a group of people opened fire on him at Pakur where his forces have been temporarily assembled. Phillip Aguer, the SPLA spokesperson confirmed Gatluak’s death, accusing the latter’s deputy, Marko Chuol Ruei for allegedly opening killing the former rebel leader after disagreement within the rebel camp. "As you are aware, the government of Unity state entered into an agreement with Gatluak Gai and his forces leading to the signing of a peace agreement just three days ago. But two days later, differences began emerging within the rebel camps, whereby some soldiers led by Gatluak started disrespecting this peace deal," Aguer told Sudan Tribune by phone. He added, "This morning, five senior commanders led by Marko Chuol Ruei went and tried to persuade their leader only for Gatluak’s loyal forces to fire at them. Immediately, there was exchange of fire between the two rebel camps and Gatluak plus three others were killed in the process." Aguer, however, distanced the army’s involvement in the Saturday morning incident, saying the SPLA were assembled in one point simply waiting for the rebels, who days after the peace agreement, hinted on joining the southern army. Col. Gatluak signed peace agreement this week with the SPLA which was facilitated by the Deputy Chief of General Staff, Lt. General Pieng Deng Majok, and was promised the rank of Lt. General in the SPLA. Unity State government has been engaging in peace talks with Gai for the last six weeks. Gai defected from the SPLA and rebelled against South Sudan’s government after the announcement of election results in April last year. Gai, is believed to have hoped to become a county commissioner - a position appointed by state governors - if independent candidate Angelina Teny beat the incumbent Taban Deng Gai to the gubernatorial seat in Bentiu. After it was declared the Teny, the wife of South Sudan vice president Riek Machar, had lost Gai began a localised rebellion against the SPLA and the South Sudan government. But a spokesman for the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), another rebel group active in Unity state, contradicted Aguer’s account of what happened, explaining that the rebel leader was lured to the peace process and attacked by the SPLA. "Gatluak Gai was killed by the SPLA ... He signed a peace agreement and was ambushed by the same forces he signed the agreement with," Bol Gatkouth told AFP by phone. "It was a way of luring him in so that they could catch him," he added. Other sources in Unity state revealed that Gatluak expressed suspicion in the peace agreement with the SPLA when he was referred to as Colonel instead of Lt. General over radio announcement in Bentiu after the agreement contrary to the deal that confirmed him as Lt. General, a move that might have prompted the incidence against him. Salva Kiir the president of South Sudan took the opportunity on July 9, when the country became independent as part of a 2005 North-South peace deal, to repeat his offer of an amnesty to all rebel groups in Africa’s 54th country. (ST) END3 ______________________ John Ashworth Sudan Advisor [email protected] +254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile) +249 919 695 362 (Sudan mobile) +27 82 853 3556 (South Africa mobile) +44 750 304 1790 (UK/international) +88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone) PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation -- The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the content and the source is always cited. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
