The Kenya elections: when will the AU show leadership?

Since its inception in May 1963, the OAU and its successor, the present-day AU, has not demonstrated any meaningful leadership nor solved a single crisis in Africa. African leaders are known more as dictators than as true leaders seeking to better Africa. Part of the problem of the absence of leadership within the AU is not understanding the concept of 'servant leadership'. Robert Greenleaf explains "the great leader is first experienced as a servant to others", and that this simple fact is central to the leader's greatness.
According to Greenleaf, "a servant leader is one who is a servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve others first, and to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served.
"The servant-leader isn't only a good speaker; he is also a good listener as he needs to hear the people's views and feel their pulse to determine the direction of the nation or organisation towards realisation of its goals."

Another primary reason why many African leaders fail to improve the state of their nations and their peoples is a lack of empathy, because "they live outside the people's world". It is very sad that these failures are evident within the AU. It is little wonder that Africa is suffering.
The AU leaders lack commitment to serving the greater consensual interest, to sharing power in decision-making, and encouraging ownership through the participation of African civil society.
They fail to recognise civil society has an important role to play in the achievement of democracy in Africa through, for instance, educating the public in the importance of democracy, fair elections, and good governance whose key components include accountability, legitimacy, democracy, equality, inclusiveness, transparency and rule of law.

African leaders accepted or inherited democracy from colonial masters without understanding the concept behind it. In essence, democracy, as applied in Africa, is tantamount to a 'copy and paste' of western democracy, lacking sensitivity to intrinsic domestic sociological beliefs, values and processes. As a result, these artificial applications of democracy remain vulnerable to the instinctive impulse of tribalism.

Ultimately, the absence of a thorough and systemic blending of fundamental African cultural elements into exercises in democracy in African countries will bear substantial collateral cost to Africa, especially through the highly-emotional election processes. Democracy in Africa is not an overnight event; but a process which requires time.
The lack of leadership within the AU has cost the many electors in Kenya their lives during the past days. Meanwhile, the AU has been slow to take the lead through established mechanisms to resolve the Kenyan elections dispute.

Only after the daunting reality of several hundred deaths in only a few days were envoys, including the current AU chair and president of Ghana, John Kufuor, dispatched to the region.
Kenya's election is a litmus test of peer-accountability and other vaunted mechanisms. Actions and results here bear substantial implications for upcoming elections in Zimbabwe, Angola, South Sudan and other African States.

What should be done regarding Kenya's election? The first step is that the AU should resolve disputes over the election result through the Disputes and Complaints Committee. The results must be reviewed, with all options put on the table including a recount to satisfy stakeholders' confidence in the AU.

Finally, the AU must seriously assess the legitimacy of Mwai Kibaki's claim to the presidency vis-a-vis mounting evidence indicating otherwise. The fact Kibaki had himself sworn in almost immediately after the results were announced is dubious at best.
Against a highly-charged background of electoral impropriety, the Kenya Election Commission (KEC) also falls into question for not allowing the statutory two weeks for complaints and disputes to be filed to insure fairness.

© Hüstin Läkü, Sr.

Ottawa, Canada.
Prize Letter: African Business, Feb, 2008 by Justin Laku

The Myth of the African Solution to Darfur’s Genocide

The failure of the African Union (AU) based on the facts Dr. Kwame Nkrumah underestimated the degree of suspicion, and animosity which his crusading passion had created among a substantial number of his fellow heads of state. Also, too many of African leaders had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided, because most of them had put their interest before the interest of the African nations.

The AU is a comfort club for African dictators where they meet to pat each other on the back, and compare notes on suppressing their citizenry. In order to be relevant today, the AU must change its dubious dealings from a "Dictators’ Only Club" to a people-based organization. The heart of the AU’s impotence is its principle of non-interference, and non-intervention which simply meant that member states turned a blind eye to their neighbours. Thus this explains why the Darfur’s Genocide will continue as long as the AU remains in charge in Darfur.

What is happening in Darfur today is exactly what happened in Rwanda, which left many choking and drowning on their own blood from April to July of 1994. Darfur is Rwanda in slow motion; the only different is the number of death: so far 300,000 people have died in Darfur while 800,000 deaths in Rwanda. This is a hidden holocaust which is unfolding before our very eyes.

The lack of good leadership, governance, clear vision, and high level of corruption in Africa are the problems that have contributed to the poverty, and underdevelopment of the continent. Good governance is the key to development in Africa, and leadership is the most powerful lever to good governance as well as clear vision. The founders of the OAU, and later the AU had bigger vision for Africa, and willing to build a nation of Africa from nothing. Clear vision gives people direction, where they want to be years down the road. Through good leadership, governance, and absent of corruptions, Africa has the potential to be able to move forward, and extricate itself from the cesspool of underdevelopment, and poverty that has plagued, and bedevil the continent since independence.

African dictators are well known for their high level of corruption. They have sticky fingers that have been implicated in the disappearance of public funds, and development money which more often than not ended up in their private accounts in banks overseas. To combat, corruption in Africa it is very important that Western governments pass law that will prohibits transfer of money from Africa to western banks without proper transparency; also the law must forced, and persecute the international banks or bankers who fail to disclose any private accounts from Africa, and specially if the account is related to statesmen. Failure of the Western governments to act means that the West is encouraging, and abetting the endemic corruption in Africa.

The Rwandan Genocide could have been prevented if there was good leadership, governance, and clear vision for Africa. If each member state of the AU had provided the Canadian hero, General Romeo Dallaire, with 50 troops, Gen. Dallaire could have stopped the killers from their genocidal operation. By sending African troops to assist Gen. Dallaire in his mission in Rwanda in 1994, it would have sent a different message to the international community that Africa is now responsible, and in charge of its destiny. This would have lent credence to the AU regarding the offering of uniquely African solutions to African problems. Unfortunately that did not happen from the AU. Therefore; why should the west believe, and trust the corrupted dictators of Africa that they will solve Darfur’s Genocide?

No one African leader or statesman raised their voice against Khartoum’s regime regarding the Genocide in South Sudan, Nuba Mountains, and Darfur. The AU turned a blind eye to the South Sudan’s Genocide; it never gives any consideration at the now defunct the OAU in its many summits. In fact, "T he OAU will not even allow our story South Sudan to be heard in its council," according to General Joseph Lagu, Chairman of Anya Nya I, in 1971. The reason is that most of the AU leaders are involved in corruption, jailing, and suppressing their oppositions such as in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Chad, Burundi, Liberia, Congo, and overthrowing elected governments in Africa . For example how could Olusegun Obasanjo, the Nigerian president, point fingers at Omer Basher, the Sudanese president, about the situation in Darfur, and label it as genocide that requires UN intervention while giving Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president, safe haven in Nigeria?

Most African countries depend on financial aid, and loans from the West. How can the AU support its troops in Darfur if it can not bankroll its army? In addition to that, the international community is fully aware that the AU lacks experience, training, logistics, and the AU has no history of dealing with crisis. For example to this date, the status of Western Sahara remains unresolved. Furthermore, the crises in Somalia , Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone , Chad, Uganda, Angola, and Zimbabwe remain unresolved. Since its inception in May 26th, 1963, the OAU (the forerunner of present-day AU) has not solved one single crisis in Africa. On the contrary, the failure of the international community consist of allowing Darfur’s Genocide to continue by leaving the Right to Protect (R2P) to the weak hands of the AU, which lacks a clear, and strong mandate to fight back, arrest, and detain the janajweed militia, backed up by the Khartoum’s regime, which terrorizes unarmed men, children, rapping innocent women and girls. Which begs the question; Can the weak protect the weak?

African oil is the property of Africans, however, the African leaders view oil money as their personal assets, and most of time they revenues from oil to enrichment themselves often time with the support of foreign companies as well as foreign governments. When it comes to wars in Africa, Western leaders say, "It is Africa’s problems". However, when it comes to exploitations of the African resources, and fuelling the wars in Africa, the West, including Canada, has always maintained its presence in Africa in order to protect its interests. Western greed, therefore, contributes, and fuels the persistent poverty, and underdevelopment in Africa.

Revenues from oil generate billions of dollars. If used wisely, these oil revenues can be used to improve healthcare, education, reduce crime, alleviate poverty, build infrastructures; and it can even be used to fund the AU mission in Darfur. Instead, the West is dishing out more money to the AU which fosters corruption due to a lack of transparency, and accountability. Eventual the war in Africa will be viewed as channels of generating funds to the African dictators’ private accounts. There are some many NGOs worldwide especially in Canada, and US collecting money to support the AU mission in Darfur, but we have not seen any statement from the headquarter of the AU in Addis Ababa detailing how much donations the AU mission have received, and how it was spent.

I believe that time has come for the AU to take responsibility of funding its troops in Darfur since it has the money from the oil or at least pay half of the cost in order to learn how to be responsible, and functionally proactive in preventing wars from happening. The proposed reasoning is that a member state which creates a problem must pay for the cost of the solution. If you get married, you’re responsible to look after your family, not your neighbor, otherwise stays away from marriage business - South Sudanese proverbs. It is unreasonable, and unintelligent for the West to foot the bill for the AU when the continent abounds in oil money.

The West is equally responsible for accepting the myth of African solution to African problems. Africans have to take full responsibility for how they are spending the billions of dollars that their governments are getting from the oil productions. Africans should fund the AU mission in Darfur. On the other hand, the AU, in partnership with the West, must come up with clear future plans, proposed solutions to all wars, crisis, and legal systems to persecute the law breakers (janajweeds) in Africa to bring about solutions to the myriad crises that bedevil the continent.
"The proposed extinction of an entire race should now be considered an override clause to the rule of national sovereignty. Rwanda is over and everybody mourns it comfortably. We ought not to wait until Darfur is over to start saying never again yet again" Mr. Rusesabagina


©Justin Laku
Thursday 14 December 2006

Will the Peace Hold in Southern Sudan after the passing of Dr. John Garang?, Oct 25th, 2005

Will the Peace Hold in Southern Sudan after the passing of Dr. John Garang?
The roots of the conflict in the Sudan goes back to the early 19th century, several decades before the advent of the Western colonialism in the Sudan; which makes it one the longest wars in the world after the Israeli- Palestine war.

Also, the war in the Southern Sudan, between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the National Islamic fundamentalism (NIF) in Khartoum is among Africa’s oldest and deadliest conflicts and largest in the region. More then 3 million were killed, achieving a death toll over twenty times higher than Darfur’s do date.

The NIF viewed the CPA as an opportunity to direct the international community’s attention away from their ongoing genocide in Darfur. While they have made some cosmetic changes, the NIF hasn’t fulfilled their core obligations to the CPA and don’t appear any more committed to this peace agreement than to any of the other treaties they’ve signed. In fact the NIF has put enormous obstacles in place to prevent progress on the CPA. It seems clear the NIF has no intention of sharing either power or oil revenue with the SPLA.

On the one hand it is impossible for the SPLA or the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGDA) to know if the NIF is sharing oil revenues according to the dictates of the CPA because the NIF won’t disclose what the total revenues are. It is also likely that the NIF will use oil money to manipulate voting in the upcoming referendum on separation, which will take place in six years time.

The NIF’s continued support for the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda is another problem calling the success of the CPA into question. How could the LRA cross the east side of the river to west, without the logistical support of the NIF? Yei is the only source of food to the population in Juba and most of the Arab trades are not happy that food should come from Yei, because it will have negative impact on their business in Juba.

As know you the recent attacked on the convey in early September between Juba and Yei, the NIF is behind it. How could (LRA) cross the east side of the river to west, without the logistic support of the NIF? Yei is the only source of food to Juba population and most of the Arab trades are not happy that the food should come from Yei, because it will have negative impact on their business in Juba.

The United Nation Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), could have prevented the recent attack in Yei-Juba road, but the 700 UNMIS peacekeeping troops are based only in Juba unarmed and mostly allied with Khartoum’s regimes and who have large investments in the Sudanese oil sector. Most of the UNMIS peacekeeping troops from Australia, Russia and other European countries are enjoying themselves in Khartoum’s expensive hotels playing cards and smoking cigars instead of patrolling the North / South border.

Besides this, the mandate of United Nation Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) is very weak. They have no power to arrest treaty violators, detain suspects or fight back. This is a repeat of the situation in Darfur and if such attacks continue UNMIS will be as impotent as the AU in that region.

Furthermore, the NIF has not disclosed the number of troops it still has in Southern Sudan to the UNMIS, either in Juba or other part of Southern Sudan.
Added to this hostile elements are the 500,000 Janjaweed with their horses, women and children that the NIF relocated from Darfur to Rokon County, about 60 miles south west of Juba. Their presence tends to indicate that the NIF intends to unleash a campaign of atrocities on Rokon County similar to the one they have in Darfur.

Another tactic the NIF is using to destabilize South Sudan is the transfer of large numbers of Egyptian Arabs to that region. This is in keeping with their policy of Arabizing Sudan and the implementation of this policy is what leads to the violence in Darfur.
The NIF encourages immigration from Egypt by offering these migrants the following rights: freedom of entry to Sudan without visas; residence permits are provided free of cost; freedom of movement within the whole of Sudan; the ability to own land upon arrival; the right to vote as soon as they settle in Sudan.

All of this is going on while tens of thousands of Sudanese languish in Egypt in deplorable conditions with none of the aforementioned privileges. Nineteen thousand are registered with the UNHCR, but there are many more Sudanese stranded in Egypt, unable to return to Sudan.
The strategy is obvious; the Arabs are being relocated in the south while African Southerners are being kept from returning in an attempt to shift the demographic to favour Khartoum when the vote for independence comes in 2011.

The abuse of South Sudanese is not restricted to Egypt. There are countless Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living in Khartoum or in the IDP camps around it such as Hagi Yousif , Kalakata and Al-Sal’ama Camp in Jebel.
Since the death of Garang the dumping of five to ten bodies of South Sudanese has become a daily occurrence. Those who had managed to scrape together enough to escape the IDP camps and eke out a living in Khartoum are being driven from their homes once again by landlords who are increasing rents by as much as 100%. Whole families are being driven back into the camps straining what resources are available there.
In another effort to keep Southerners from returning home the NIF has increased air fare from Khartoum to Juba from $100, to $200.
These are just a few of the tactics implemented by the NIF to insure the CPA fails. It is up to the international community to monitor these violations and, more importantly, insure there are very real and very negative consequences for such abuse. Only through this type of foreign intervention will the NIF be made to respect their obligations under the CPA and implement it fully without delay.


©Justin Laku
Oct 25th, 2005

Can the Weak Protect the Weak?

During my first trip to Darfur in April 2005, I visited three Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Camps, ZamZam, Tuwela and Abu-Shuko. On Sept. 24 I returned to Abu-Shuko. The situation hasn't changed much. Living condition have not improved, and there has only been a slight increase in food distribution. The population has increased from 230,000 to 270,000 IDPs due to the insecurity around Al-Fasher. This is especially true in the Tuwela camp, where fighting has occurred between rebels SLA/M and government forces.

I did not travel to Tuwela this time, because of the military activities around Tuwela camps. Most of the IDPs are fleeing the Tuwela region to nearby towns.

Due to insecurity and logistical problems there are parts of Darfur that NGOs and the UNHCR cannot reach. The situation around Jebel Al-Mara is particularly bad and the IDPs there cannot be reached by outside agencies. Ironically, even with the worsening situation, the IDPs in Abu-Shuko may be better off than those who are in Jebel Al-Mara.

The increasing violence is keeping IDPs from returning home and making them completely dependant on foreign aid. Those who do try to return to their villages to tend to crops are attacked and killed or driven back to the camps.

Despite the fact that Abu-Shuko is supposed to be under the control of African Union forces (whose mandate prevents them from carrying weapons) there were no AU troops on the ground when I visited this camp.

In a terrifying example of foxes guarding the chicken coop, the Sudanese soldiers who have, in many well-documented cases, openly supported the atrocities committed by the janjaweed control the camp's main entrance. [...]

[On] Sept 24, 2005, a bus traveling from Al-Fasher, via Zam Zam, to Nyiala City was attacked. One person was killed and seven other were injured. I went to the hospital to witness the wounded for myself. This incident could have been prevented if the AU troops had been armed. All AU troops in Darfur are without guns, and they patrol the areas unarmed. "It is [ridiculous] to patrol without guns," an Egyptian police officer told me.

If this insecurity continues, the international community and NGOs will not be able to provide the assistance that is so desperately needed by hundreds of thousands of people in the Darfur region. This is a direct result of the extremely weak mandate of the AU, the continual refusal by African leaders to request international support from the international community, and the absence of intervention by the UN and NATO. [...]

Without a change in the AU mandate, the IDPs will not feel safe and the Janjaweed will continue to attack, rape and kill civilians as long as the AU soldiers remain unarmed. The mandate to fight back, arrest and detain must be applied as soon as possible in order to save lives of innocent men, women and children in the Darfur region.

In addition, the living conditions of the AU troops on the ground are very poor: there are no sports facilities; the stress level is very high; there is a lack of clinical psychologists; no air conditioning; salaries are not paid on time; and the food is low in required nutrients. All these factors will not assist AU troops in carrying out duties in an effective and timely manner.

Two AU soldiers died of HIV/AIDS, so there is also need for medical check ups for AU soldiers before their deployment to Darfur. The only two countries that give HIV/AIDS tests to their troops are South Africa and Canada. (Currently, there are two Canadian logistical officers in Darfur assisting the AU). The danger is that HIV/AIDS will spread in Darfur because of the contact with AU troops, and could lead to a serious health problem.

©Justin Laku
Founder of the group Canadian Friends of Sudan
Ottawa, ON
October 12, 2005

Afro-Canadian MPs and african diplomats have a disappointing record on Darfur

Aug 24, 2005 (Ottawa) — If the Afro-Canadian Members of Parliament do not care about the genocide in Darfur, why should the Canadian government care about Darfur? Canada sent 1,400 troops to Bosnia because Canadians of European decent play a big role in Canadian government and politics today. Today, Africans do have a voice in Canada’s Parliament, but most have chosen to be quiet on issues affecting Africa. Bloc Quebecois MP Maka Kotto, a Canadian-African of Cameroonian decent, has chosen to keep quiet instead of supporting Independent MP David Kilgour in the fight against the genocide in Darfur, in Congo, and hunger in Niger, Mali and Ethiopia.

Why is Maka Kotto so silent on Africans’ problems? Why are Senator Donald Oliver, MPs Jean Augustine, Hedy Fry, Marlene Jennings, Rahim Jaffer and Deepak Obhrai silent in the issue of Darfur? Thanks to Gurmant Grewal and Bhupinder S. Liddar for their continued support of Africans: you are true sons of Africa, may God bless you. It is a shame on our African MPs.


Additionally and most important is the silence of the African diplomatic corps (with exception of some embassies). I think when Europeans come to Africa as diplomats they are very vocal in the press in the countryside, with the people, but our OWN African diplomats as a unit are very silent except for photo opportunities during Independence Day celebrations and parties; leaving their children in Canada when their term has ended. Therefore, I’d like to see the Dean and the African Heads of Missions in Canada form a coalition to ensure that the government of Canada plays its part in peacekeeping in Darfur and to push their weight collectively to answer all of Africa’s concerns.


In 2003, I wrote a letter to Jean Augustine in reference to rape victims in the Sudan and asking how she could assist. I received no formal reply from her office until now. How many times has Ms. Augustine written to the prime minister about the suffering women of Darfur? Not a single letter, that I know of. Last May I wrote an open letter to all MPs regarding genocide in Darfur. I received no responses from any of the Afro-Canadian MPs. So why should the world care about Africans and the Caribbean if black senators and MPs are not concerned about Africa?


It’s too early to know how much the newly appointed governor general will do for the victims of the rape in Darfur, peace in the South Sudan, genocide in Congo, and hunger in Niger, Mali and Ethiopia. I do hope she will not turn her back on Africa and Caribbean. Can she make injustice visible?

©Justin Laku,
Founder of the group Canadian Friends of Sudan

The Politics and Practices of the Common Enemy of the South Sudan

The situation of "a common enemy" for the people of the Equatoria state in South Sudan reminds me of a story I first read in the book Politics of Self-Reliance in Africa. The story is titled "the Gentleman of the Jungle". You may already know the story very well. I will, however, briefly recite it for the benefit of those who have not heard it before or just to refresh your memory:

According to this story, the Gentleman of the Jungle is the lion. One day a man is seated, relaxing inside his house. The lion says to the man "it is so cold outside here, can I just let my head in the house." Of course, the man allows first, the lion's head into the house, followed by the shoulder, and then front legs. When the lion completely inside, it says to the man "there is not enough room for you and me in the house, get out!" The man who owns the house is thrown out and the lion takes over the house. This story is interesting because it is the lion who now determines the fate of the house once inside rather than the man who built.

The story of the man and the lion is exactly what is happening to the indigenous people of the Equatoria state of south Sudan. During the war the regime of Khartoum soldiers forced the Southern Sudanese to vacate their lands and flee into other regions, urban centres or to the neighbouring countries as refugees as well as internal displaced persons (IDP). As the war was initially dominated by the Dinka, they were the first to be displaced from their regions, and they moved south to the Equatoria state, displacing the Equatorians who were forced to flee to the urban centres or to the neighbouring countries.

In the process of settling the villages vacated, both the Arabs renamed equatorial's cities they occupied and the Dinka's also renamed these places using their own names.

The problem with this issue is that it may become very divisive for southern Sudanese. Instead of a "common enemy" for the southern Sudan, the Dinka and the Khartoum regime have become the common enemy for the Equatorians. It is obvious that the Dinka renamed the villages using their own names because they felt these reminded them of their old villages they left behind. This is not difficult to comprehend since the feeling of "home" is very important as the homestead is a person's base. Unfortunately, what the Dinka and those who are following the Khartoum regime are doing is that they are not only alienating the Equatorians from their total environment, but also sowing seeds of discord among the people of south Sudan. For example, Juba is the base, and homestead for Equatorians, and their way of life. Now, they are being forced out of this city where they have attachment for economic, political, cultural, and religious reasons for ages.

The Khartoum regime did not bring armies from north of Sudan, but recruited the soldiers from the local population as a result of the divisions that exist among the Southern Sudanese. The Khartoum regime has helped set community against community, state against state, and clan against clan. Instead of uniting and focusing on one common southern Sudan enemy, the Dinka have helped empower the Khartoum regime over all the spheres of the local community. In other words, the Khartoum regime is now using Southerners to oppress themselves.

In my view, one of the most serious results of Khartoum regime and its followers within SPLA/M was to alienate Equatorians from political power and their cultural environments. You can see that all the ministers, ambassadors and high ranking officials of the government of South Sudan (GOSS) are mainly from one tribe or one state, in other word there is no equal representation of all the Southerners in the GOSS.

To alienate Equatorians from their political and cultural way is to deprive them from their power base. Alienation from one's environment brings the disease that be could call "not knowing oneself"

In my view as Equatorians, we should not hide our heads in the sand like an ostrich and pretend that there is no problem or that we can solve the problems of the 150,000 Dinkas in Yei by importing other tribes from their base, and homestead, and settle them in Equatorial State (Yei city). We should address this problem head-on. It was the Equatorians who fought back one year ago when Dr. John Garang was killed in a plane crash. The whole world witnessed the burning of northerners' shops in Juba, but not in Malakal, and Wau. Equatorians should think twice why Juba is to be the capital of the South Sudan government or otherwise Equatorians will become victims of CPA? Also, the lack of leadership in Equatorial is number one problem in Equatorial State; some one must stand up against and make the injustice visible.

By Justin Laku ©

Will the Peace Hold in Southern Sudan after the passing of Dr. John Garang?

The roots of the conflict in the Sudan goes back to the early 19th century, several decades before the advent of the Western colonialism in the Sudan; which makes it one the longest wars in the world after the Israeli- Palestine war.
Also, the war in the Southern Sudan, between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the National Islamic fundamentalism (NIF) in Khartoum is among Africa’s oldest and deadliest conflicts and largest in the region. More then 3 million were killed, achieving a death toll over twenty times higher than Darfur’s do date.
The NIF viewed the CPA as an opportunity to direct the international community’s attention away from their ongoing genocide in Darfur. While they have made some cosmetic changes, the NIF hasn’t fulfilled their core obligations to the CPA and don’t appear any more committed to this peace agreement than to any of the other treaties they’ve signed. In fact the NIF has put enormous obstacles in place to prevent progress on the CPA. It seems clear the NIF has no intention of sharing either power or oil revenue with the SPLA.
On the one hand it is impossible for the SPLA or the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGDA) to know if the NIF is sharing oil revenues according to the dictates of the CPA because the NIF won’t disclose what the total revenues are. It is also likely that the NIF will use oil money to manipulate voting in the upcoming referendum on separation, which will take place in six years time.
The NIF’s continued support for the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda is another problem calling the success of the CPA into question. How could the LRA cross the east side of the river to west, without the logistical support of the NIF? Yei is the only source of food to the population in Juba and most of the Arab trades are not happy that food should come from Yei, because it will have negative impact on their business in Juba.
As know you the recent attacked on the convey in early September between Juba and Yei, the NIF is behind it. How could (LRA) cross the east side of the river to west, without the logistic support of the NIF? Yei is the only source of food to Juba population and most of the Arab trades are not happy that the food should come from Yei, because it will have negative impact on their business in Juba.
The United Nation Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), could have prevented the recent attack in Yei-Juba road, but the 700 UNMIS peacekeeping troops are based only in Juba unarmed and mostly allied with Khartoum’s regimes and who have large investments in the Sudanese oil sector. Most of the UNMIS peacekeeping troops from Australia, Russia and other European countries are enjoying themselves in Khartoum’s expensive hotels playing cards and smoking cigars instead of patrolling the North / South border.
Besides this, the mandate of United Nation Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) is very weak. They have no power to arrest treaty violators, detain suspects or fight back. This is a repeat of the situation in Darfur and if such attacks continue UNMIS will be as impotent as the AU in that region.
Furthermore, the NIF has not disclosed the number of troops it still has in Southern Sudan to the UNMIS, either in Juba or other part of Southern Sudan.
Added to this hostile elements are the 500,000 Janjaweed with their horses, women and children that the NIF relocated from Darfur to Rokon County, about 60 miles south west of Juba. Their presence tends to indicate that the NIF intends to unleash a campaign of atrocities on Rokon County similar to the one they have in Darfur.
Another tactic the NIF is using to destabilize South Sudan is the transfer of large numbers of Egyptian Arabs to that region. This is in keeping with their policy of Arabizing Sudan and the implementation of this policy is what leads to the violence in Darfur.
The NIF encourages immigration from Egypt by offering these migrants the following rights: freedom of entry to Sudan without visas; residence permits are provided free of cost; freedom of movement within the whole of Sudan; the ability to own land upon arrival; the right to vote as soon as they settle in Sudan.
All of this is going on while tens of thousands of Sudanese languish in Egypt in deplorable conditions with none of the aforementioned privileges. Nineteen thousand are registered with the UNHCR, but there are many more Sudanese stranded in Egypt, unable to return to Sudan.
The strategy is obvious; the Arabs are being relocated in the south while African Southerners are being kept from returning in an attempt to shift the demographic to favour Khartoum when the vote for independence comes in 2011.
The abuse of South Sudanese is not restricted to Egypt. There are countless Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living in Khartoum or in the IDP camps around it such as Hagi Yousif , Kalakata and Al-Sal’ama Camp in Jebel.
Since the death of Garang the dumping of five to ten bodies of South Sudanese has become a daily occurrence. Those who had managed to scrape together enough to escape the IDP camps and eke out a living in Khartoum are being driven from their homes once again by landlords who are increasing rents by as much as 100%. Whole families are being driven back into the camps straining what resources are available there.
In another effort to keep Southerners from returning home the NIF has increased air fare from Khartoum to Juba from $100, to $200.
These are just a few of the tactics implemented by the NIF to insure the CPA fails. It is up to the international community to monitor these violations and, more importantly, insure there are very real and very negative consequences for such abuse. Only through this type of foreign intervention will the NIF be made to respect their obligations under the CPA and implement it fully without delay.

By Justin Laku©