Advice on issues raised in Equatoria Conference 2013
Article
Comments (1)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
facebook
myspace
twitter
buzzyahoo
By Jacob K. Lupai
March 10, 2013 - A fellow prolific writer, a friend and a brother
Ateny Wek Ateny in his Column, Beating The Drum of Truth, under Just a
simple way to advise Mr. Joseph Akim Gordon and some of his fellow
Equatorians, had expressed views on issues raised in Equatoria
Conference 2013 with a word of advice to Equatorians. Ateny and I are
not strangers to each other. We met in London in the United Kingdom
and had also shared discussions through the Internet.
In expressing his views brother Ateny seems to have been provoked by
the convening of Equatoria Conference 2013 and the subsequent
resolutions adopted. This was further fueled by what Ateny might have
seen as a provocative question that was too much to turn a blind eye
when he came across an article written by Joseph Akim Gordon under
what is wrong with Equatoria Conference?
Brother Ateny was not only dismissive of Equatoria Conference but was
also very dismissive of the resolutions adopted and therefore
dismissive of Joseph Akim Gordon’s justification of the reasons for
convening the Conference in the first place.
If the Column of brother Ateny in the esteemed Citizen Newspaper is
about Beating the Drum of Truth, one wonders how Ateny is beating the
drum of truth when he denies truth exists as indicated in the entirety
of the resolutions of Equatoria Conference 2013. The Governors of the
States of Equatoria are senior members of government in South Sudan.
It must have been odd if they did not have inner knowledge of what
they had publicly expressed in the Conference.
Brother Ateny was already biased against the convening of Equatoria
Conference 2013 because he had no inclination to regional conferences.
However, he is entitled to his inclination as others are inclined to
hold regional conferences. The constitution allows two or more States
to come together to enhance coordination and cooperation in fostering
development. The three States of Equatoria are within their
constitutional right to do so.
The three States of Equatoria are also within their constitutional
right of freedom of expression and therefore can discuss
socio-economic and political issues that promote development for a
high standard of living of their people. Those who do not have the
ability to convene a conference to strategize for their development
should not be used to deter others. What best can be done in nation
building is to learn from each other instead of being dismissive of
others innovativeness.
Equatoria Conference 2013
Whatever others may say the people of Equatoria have every
constitutional right to assemble and express their views freely. This
is also an act of democracy and precisely as an act of democracy the
people of Equatoria attended a 2-day conference in Nyokuron Cultural
Centre in Juba between 14 and 15 February 2013.
The Conference was well attended by representatives from the three
States of Equatoria spearheaded by the Governors. Equatoria Conference
2013 was a peaceful assembly of people with the common theme of
consolidating justice, unity and prosperity. It was to enhance
inter-state coordination and cooperation in addressing common
challenges.
Equatoria Conference 2013 was convened with the purpose of reviewing
the resolutions of Equatoria Conference 2011 and of articulating
common challenges facing the people of the three States of Equatoria.
The Governors spoke truthfully of the challenges facing the people of
Equatoria in particular and of South Sudan in general and these were
crystallized in the resolutions of Equatoria Conference 2013. There
was nothing to hide.
Unfortunately issues raised in the Conference and the subsequent
resolutions drawn seem to show that to some extent there was
institutionalized marginalization of people of Equatoria.
Denial of marginalization
For brother Ateny Wek Ateny he strenuously denies marginalization of
people of Equatoria exists. On February 27, 2013 in his Column,
Beating The Drum of Truth, Ateny said, “For me I do not think the
people of the former Equatoria province are marginalized”. In his
persistent denial brother Ateny went on to say, “However, if our
brothers/sisters in Equatoria are interested to be marginalized, then
that may be a different story”. This is a strange statement or cynical
indeed to say the least. Who on earth in their right minds would be
interested to be marginalized.
On scholarships it was observed in the Conference that only Bahr el
Ghazal from which my brother Ateny hails and Upper Nile were the
beneficiaries while Equiatoria was excluded altogether. However, Ateny
could not see this as marginalization of Equatoria. In his Column on
March 1, 2013 brother Ateny was of the opinion that, “For example; if
there are 200 scholarships then it should go 85 Bahr el Ghazal 65
Upper Nile and 50 Equatoria ----“. Brother Ateny seems to be
expressing an equitable distribution of the scholarships. I commend
him for being fair-minded.
As observed in the Conference there was no equitable distribution of
the scholarships but Equatoria was deliberately excluded. One may
wonder how brother Ateny will continue to insist that Equatoria has
not been marginalized in the distribution of scholarships. Also, in
the Conference it was observed that government financial support to
South Sudanese students studying in Kenya and Uganda was only provided
to students from Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile.
>From the above scenarios it is misleading to think that people of
Equatoiria are the ones interested to be marginalized. What should be
understood clearly is that they are being deliberately marginalized as
the presentations and comments in the Equatoria Conference 2013
showed. People were talking truthfully about it, something that should
have been appreciated by people interested in nation building and
national unity.
SPLM/A in Equatoria
The year 1991 was a difficult year for the SPLM/A. Mengisto
Hailemariam’s regime in Ethiopia fell in 1991. It was the main backer
of the SPLM/A. The SPLM/A had to make a decision in light of
developments. It relocated from Ethiopia to Equatoria. Shortly
thereafter a split occurred in the SPLM/A and this created a complex
situation for the SPLM/A. Morale was low and others were off to
Kampala and Nairobi in Uganda and Kenya respectively in search of
better life. The behavior of the SPLM/A in Equatoria was not also
helpful. It was characterized with brutality, looting and raping,
causing immense suffering to local communities.
As though there was no any other alternative local communities formed
into militias to protect themselves against the SPLM/A brutality and
insensitivity. Brother Ateny would call the militias bandits as he was
not in the receiving end of the SPLM/A mistakes in Equatoria.
Naturally the enemy would have taken advantage of such a situation.
People should not forget that when the SPLM/A relocated to Equatoria
its strength dwindled. Many left for refugee camps while some simply
left for their home areas.
In the period of the SPLM/A relocation to Equatoria my brother Ateny
would like people to believe that Equatorians were reluctant to join
the SPLM/A to tilt the balance in their favour. In his Column on March
4, 2013 Ateny said, “At that time, if Equatorians were to join the
SPLM/A for the mere fact that the SPLM/A training camps have been
moved to Equatoria, I bet the situation would have been different
now”. This is nothing but a grossly misleading assertion.
When the SPLM/A strength was dwindling and in the face of onslaught of
the enemy there was no one other than the elders from Equatoria who
took the lead in mobilization. Elders Elioba James Surur, Daniel Jumi
and Dr Philip Tongun took it upon themselves as a national duty to
rally fervently the youth of Equatoria for the liberation effort. The
youth of Equatoria responded positively by joining the SPLM/A in
droves while others opted for life of refuge with some others
switching sides.
The elders of Equatoria did a marvelous job but are they recognized.
With the exception of elder Elioba James Surur appointed as a member
in the Council of States, a person like Dr Philip Tongun, who had
actively participated in the mobilisation of Equatoria youth for the
liberation effort, has been completely forgotten.
Mainly as foot soldiers Equatorians played decisive roles in the
battles for the capture of Kapoeta, Torit, Kaya, Yei, Yambio and
Equatorians were in Eastern Sudan battling the enemy courageously. It
is only a myth to consider Equatorians as non active participants in
the protracted liberation war. Promotion of Equatorians to higher
ranks might have been a problem for Equatorians to appear prominent in
the SPLM/A given the revelation of institutionalized marginalization
of people of Equatoria.
Land grabbing
Indeed I agree with my brother Ateny Wek Ateny that land grabbing is
the most obsessive issue of concern in the whole of Equatoria and he
has given examples of land grabbing. However, leaving the reality on
the ground alone he has politicized land grabbing. Ateny wrote that
the perceived land grabbing issue is a mere political ploy aimed at
keeping South Sudanese categorized between the landowners and
grabbers. Brother Ateny went on to say in his Column on March 5, 2013
that, “It is the language coined by the Equatoria elite for advocacy
sake”. I think this is an insult to the ordinary men and women whose
plots of land have been grabbed at gun point.
To say land grabbing has been coined by Equatorian elite must be music
to the ears of the criminal land grabbers. For those who are ignorant
of the reality on the ground evidence abound for people who do not
have legal entitlement to land terrorizing legal owners. It seems
brother Ateny is out of touch with the reality on the ground. Crooks
in land deals should not be a justification for ignoring the claims of
legitimate landowners.
Land grabbing should not only be seen as it is all about crooked land
deals. A distinction must be made. Brother Ateny seems to lean more to
the political aspect of land grabbing than to the legal side. For
example, a land grabber who terrorized the owner with a gun had no
legal documents for the plot of land with ramshackle huts he rented
out to earn not less than 20,000SSP a month. The land grabber could
only produce a summon requesting him to appear before the court of law
as his only legal document entitling him to the land. What does
brother Ateny say about this? Is there any politics here?
Nation building and national unity is not promoted by ignoring
problems or brushing them aside with the hope that time will be the
healer. This attitude only polarizes people hence diminished interest
in unity.
At the end of my comment, I have to say I enjoy reading the Column of
my friend Ateny Wek Ateny. He is an independent-minded individual and
is confident to stick out his neck. Although I disagree with my friend
Ateny in some of his analysis of topical issues I respect him for not
being a sycophant.
In all Ateny’s advice to Equatorians seems to suggest Equatorians do
not have a cause for concern. According to him Equatorians are not
marginalized but are a problem unto themselves. Brother Ateny has
reduced land grabbing to squatting which seems to be easier to handle.
However, when a squatter uses a firearm to continue squatting will
that not fall under land grabbing?
I hope Ateny will not be too biased towards land grabbers who are
mostly non Equatorians as he is. Obviously there are greedy
money-minded Equatorians who do not care but for themselves. Those are
not helpful to Equatoria in particular and to South Sudan in general.
As South Sudanese there is a lot to learn from each other in our
diverse views of nationalism, regionalism and tribalism. When people
talk of nationalism they may mistakenly be promoting tribalism and
those talking of regionalism may be promoting nationalism in
diversity. Each may stick to their guns. However, how do we break the
stalemate? Well, there is no any other way except through a dialogue
for a better understanding of the various viewpoints and in
appreciating diversities as a source of strength but not weakness.
Only the inflexible or self-conceited may be a problem in nation
building and in promoting national unity.
The main challenge is egoism in blindfolded support for kith and kin
at the expense of nation building and national unity.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
