May 5, 2014 (JUBA) – South Sudanese president Salva Kiir has agreed to meet face to face with former vice-president turned rebel leader Riek Machar on Friday, senior diplomats in Juba disclosed on Monday.

South Sudan's then vice-president Riek Machar (L) and president Salva Kiir pay their respects at John Garang's Mausoleum, during the celebration of the second anniversary celebrations of South Sudan's independence in the capital, on 9 July 2013 (Photo: Reuters/Andreea Campeanu)

“The Ethiopian prime minister in his capacity as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has notified the government of the meeting which the president had accepted to take place between him and Riek Machar,” a senior diplomat told Sudan Tribune on Monday.

“I am told the meeting will take place [this] Friday 9 [April],” added the official who requested anonymity.

He, however, did not elaborate on the agenda the two leaders would discus, although many analysts and observers say the meeting would diffuse the tensions and raise hope for a cessation of hostilities.

Several leading rebel officials reached by Sudan Tribune also confirmed receiving similar notification from the mediation team. They equally said the two leaders would meet on 9 May for the first time since the conflict erupted in the country's capital, Juba, in 15 December 2013.

“Yes, it is true we also received the same notification today (Monday) from the mediation team. We hope this will calm down the situation. On our side, Dr. Riek Machar has no problem to meet with Salva Kiir,” a key rebel leader said from Addis Ababa on Monday.

The current situation would have not developed to the level it is today if president Kiir had accepted to engage in dialogue with the other SPLM leaders before the start of violence in the country, he added.

US secretary of state John Kerry during a visit to Juba last week said the two antagonists will meet to reaffirm their commitment to the cessation of hostilities agreement and discuss a peaceful settlement to the conflict.

However rebel leader Riek Machar on Saturday said that any agreement on a power-sharing transitional government without a programme would be meaningless.

“I asked him (Kerry) what would be the purpose of a transitional government? It would not be workable without a programme to implement before elections come,” Machar told Sudan Tribune on Saturday.

“We need to have a peace agreement first with a new constitution. Putting [a] transitional government first is not realistic,” he added.

Speaking to reporters in Luanda, Angola, Kerry minimised the objections raised by the former vice-president and said the expects that the meeting between Kiir and Machar would takes place as scheduled.

“He left the door open,” Kerry said when he was speaking about Machar position, adding that the rebel leader “expressed some doubts, but he didn't say he wouldn't go”.

Machar “has a fundamental decision to make. If he decides not to and procrastinates then we have a number of different options that are available to us. We said we are serious and there will be accountability and implications if people do not join into this legitimate effort,” the American top diplomat further pointed out.

The bishop of the reformed Episcopal of South Sudan, Gabriel Roric, called on the two warring parties to observe the truce they agreed and to comment themselves to achieve a sustainable peace and development , adding that the Church had intensified prayers for reconciliation.

“We the Christians of different communions have come together in the common cause of peace, are deeply concerned about the growing hostilities and the suffering which our people continues to face,” Roric told Sudan Tribune in a separate interview on Monday.

He said the church would engage in prayers of penitence and petition with the people scarred and pained by the division of the nation and support the efforts of the National Council of Church for reconciliation, peace and reunification.

Roric further urged the two sides to engage in talks in good faith to end suffering. Also he called on the United States and all stakeholders involved to immediately resuming dialogue and negotiations to establish a peace agreement eliminating the threat of sanction and conventional war thereby establishing an enduring peace it also called the UN Security Council to support peace efforts between the two rivals.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) has announced that two Iranian navy warships docked at Port Sudan in a routine stop that will last for three or four days.

Iranian navy personnel stand aboard the IRIS Bushehr as two Iranian warships docked in the Sudanese Red Sea city of Port Sudan on December 8, 2012 (Getty Images)

SAF's spokesperson, Col. al-Sawarmi Khalid Saad, said the Sudanese Naval Forces (SNF) received the vessels on Monday at Sudan's sea port, noting one of them is a frigate and the other is a supply ship.

“The two ships docked at Port Sudan for refueling and exchange of information with the SNF and they will continue sailing because Sudan is not their main destination but a transit point,” he said.

He pointed that ordinary citizens will be allowed to tour the two ships within the framework of the social contacts and in accordance with the schedule provided by the Iranian authorities which oversee visiting warships.

Since 2012, Port Sudan has become a regular stop for Iranian warships drawing concern by the US and its allies in the Gulf. Khartoum insists that its relations with Iran are based on common interests and not intended to threaten the interests of the Arab Gulf states.

Iran says that In line with international efforts to combat piracy its Navy has been conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since November 2008 to safeguard the vessels involved in maritime trade, especially the ships and oil tankers owned or leased by Tehran.

Israel also accuses Sudan of serving as a hub for weapons coming from Iran that are sent to Palestinian militants.

Last March, Israeli navy commandos seized a ship in the Red Sea off the Sudanese coast that was allegedly hiding Syrian-made M-302 surface-to-surface missiles supplied by Iran.

Over the past few years there have been mounting signs of deterioration in relations between Khartoum and Riyadh.

Last March, Sudan's state minister at the foreign ministry, Kamal Ismail, admitted that there are tensions in Khartoum's relations with some “friendly” countries, but stressed that this only a temporary situation.

Although the Sudanese official did not name the countries, he was likely referring to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabian banks have also reportedly suspended their dealings with Sudan as of late February.

Last year, Saudi Arabia closed its airspace to the plane carrying Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir on his way to Iran where he was scheduled to attend the inauguration ceremony of president-elect Hassan Rouhani, thus forcing him and his delegation to return home.

Observers speculated that Sudan's growing ties with Iran could have irked the Saudis, prompting them to block Bashir's flight.

The mostly Sunni Muslim Arab Gulf states are wary of Iranian influence in the Middle East, fearing the Shiite-led country is seeking regional dominance that will stir sectarian tensions.

The Syrian conflict has also increased the divide between the two sides, with Arab monarchies supporting the rebels and Iran backing the Al-Assad regime.

Bashir, who performed the Muslim Hajj (pilgrimage) last year, did not meet with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz during the visit, despite the Saudi monarch holding separate talks with the Turkish and Pakistani presidents who also performed Hajj at the time.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan's Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM) has expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) but nonetheless expressed hope that the upcoming Darfuri internal dialogue could help achieve a comprehensive settlement for the crisis in the restive region.

The leader of Sudan's Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM), Tijani Al-Sissi, speaks to the media during an interview in Khartoum on 7 August 2012 (Photo: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images)

The DDPD signatory also declared that differences between its chairman Tijani Al-Sissi, and the secretary-general, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, have been settled.

The United Nations- African Union joint chief mediator for peace in Darfur Mohamed Ibn Chambas announced on Monday that the conference for internal dialogue in Darfur would be held on 26 May in North Darfur state capital of El-Fasher.

Ibn Chambas further said that senior government figures will take part in the conference in order to support the dialogue process to achieve permanent peace not just in Darfur but throughout Sudan, adding that that Darfur development strategy has made significant progress.

LJM spokesperson Ahmed Fadul told Sudan Tribune on Monday that the DDPD provided for holding the Darfuri dialogue in order to allow all political, civil and social components of Darfur society to express their views on the peace process and tribal reconciliations.

He said that invitations for the Darfuri dialogue will be extended to all concerned parties without exclusion except for those refusing to attend.

In a separate context, Fadul underscored that differences in views between Abu Garda and Sissi were cleared, adding that the recent meetings of the LJM leadership council which took place in El-Fasher managed to overcome differences on how to carry out reforms within the movement.

He refused to get into the details of both leaders' stances, noting that LJM is an umbrella comprised of several factions and reform must take place gradually taking into consideration the large number of those factions.

Fadul also said the leadership meeting discussed activation of political partnership with the ruling National Congress Party (NCP), revealing that they formed several committees to follow up on the implementation of the DDPD.

“We are satisfied with what we have done from our side but implementation is less than what we aspire to achieve”, he added

The DDPD was finalised at the All Darfur Stakeholders Conference in May 2011 in Doha. In mid-July the Sudanese government and the LJM signed a protocol agreement committing themselves to the document.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – The 101st Port Sudan Marine division celebrated the rotation of troops stationed in Halayeb, state's official news agency (SUNA) reported today.

Red Sea state governor Mohammed Tahir Eila addressed the occasion and praised the army's role in protecting the country and enforcing Sudan's sovereignty over its territories.

Eila stressed that the presence of the army in Halayeb is an expression of sovereignty over this Sudanese region.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Magid Bilal, naval commander of the 101st Port Sudan Marine division, also hailed the steadfastness of the troops stationed in Halayeb.

The Halayeb triangle that overlooks the Red Sea has been contentious issue between Egypt and Sudan since 1958, shortly after Sudan gained independence from British-Egyptian rule.

The area has been under Cairo's full military control since the mid-1990's after a Sudanese backed attempt on former Egyptian president Mohamed Hosni Mubarak's life. Egypt brushed aside Sudan's repeated calls for referring the dispute to international arbitration.

Last February, the Egyptian government issued a decree turning Halayeb into a city that encompasses the villages of Abu-Ramad and Ras-Hedreba.

It is therefore not clear how Sudanese troops have made it inside the region.

In June 2011, the Red Sea governor announced that president Omer Hassan al-Bashir will inaugurate developmental projects in Halayeb during his tour of the Red Sea state.

But Sudan's foreign minister Ali Karti afterwards denied that Bashir has any such plans adding that he will only visit the city of Ouseif which is outside the Halayeb triangle.

He accused that the Sudanese media of “mishandling” the report and likewise said the Egyptian media responded in an unwise manner.

(ST)

By Tesfa-Alem Tekle

May 5, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA) – Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Monday urged United Nations member states to exert pressure on the Ethiopian government to end the targeting of activists and media under its controversial laws.

On Tuesday, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) begins a review of Ethiopia's human rights record under the universal periodic review procedure, only days after Ethiopian authorities arrested nine news providers.

On 25 and 26 April, police arrested six bloggers from the Zone 9 website and three journalists reportedly accusing them of plotting to incite violence and instability in collaboration with foreign activists.

Government officials denied their arrest was in connection with their journalistic duties, claiming that they were implicated in “serious criminal activities”, without giving further details.

The arrests were made a few days before US secretary of state John Kerry's visit to Ethiopia as part of his tour to three African countries.

The arrests prompted widespread condemnation from international press freedom groups and rights human organisations.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said the mass arrests were one of the world's worst crackdowns against free expression.

While Amnesty international said the arrests fit into Ethiopia's long term trend of arresting and harassing human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents.

An Ethiopian political activist, who asked for anonymity, told Sudan Tribune that such arrests against critical journalists and political opponents is not a surprise considering that elections are less than one year away.

Exercising free speech and particularly criticising the ruling government when elections are approaching is considered an absolute crime, he added.

In a statement, HRW said that UN member states should use the periodic review to openly press Ethiopian government to stop the sweeping crackdown against freedom of speech and respect constitutional and international laws on media freedom.

“The UN review is taking place just as Ethiopia is renewing its crackdown on free speech,” said Leslie Lefkow, HTW's deputy Africa director.

“To make this review meaningful, UN member countries should forcefully tell Ethiopia that its attacks on the media and activist groups are a blight on its human rights record,”added Lefkow.

HRW said Ethiopia has failed to comply with the recommendations of 2009, when the UN made its first Universal Periodic Review of the East African nation.

The human rights group said that the human rights situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated substantially and the authorities in Ethiopia have shown intolerance of any criticism and they have sharply restricted the rights to free expression and association.

According to international rights organisations, Ethiopia is one among some of the worlds most closed press environments.

The Horn of Africa nation is the continent's foremost jailer of journalists next to neighbouring Eritrea.

Many critical journalists face lengthy jail terms under the country's controversial, vague and broadly defined anti-terror legislation.

With 49 journalists forced into exile, Ethiopia is also third worst after Somalia and Iran in terms of forcing an exodus of journalists.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA) – The chairperson of South Sudan Human Rights Commission (SSHRC), Lawrence Korbandy, said the body remains committed to investigating and monitoring human rights abuses across the country.

South Sudan Human Rights Commission chairperson, Lawrance Korbandy, speaks at prayer service for the late Isaiah Abraham, December 16, 2012 (ST)

Korbandy in an interview with Sudan Tribune from Addis Ababa Monday said the human rights body in the country is deeply disturbed by the high level of human rights abuses committed in the conflict that began in December.

He said the commission was preparing a detailed report on human rights situation in the country, but emphasised that it was the role of government and not the commission to protect civilians.

The report will give advice and recommendations on how to end the conflict, Korbandy stressed.

Considering the current political situation in the country, the official said it was imperative for the government to provide physical protection to South Sudanese civilians and their properties.

The rights body has a national agenda for human rights that entails programmes for human rights promotion in the country; including the introduction of human rights to the school curriculum, he said.

The budget for the programme has been approved, he said, adding they are developing the materials to be used in both primary and secondary schools.

“When the cash is received the commission is determined to move forward with the development and production of its human rights education literature regardless of the current situation,” he said.

This investment in education will help to educated the masses on their constitutional rights, respect for good cultural norms and values, their role in promotion and protection of others rights, he further said.

Following the recent visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry, UN human rights chief, Navi Pillay and UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide Adama Dieng to South Sudan, all have raised concerns over the human rights situation.

Korbandy said the interim report of the commission issued last month provides details of the commission's concerns on the human rights situation in the country and gave recommendations on how to move forward in improving the protection mechanisms and bringing those accountable to justice.

In a joint press statement dated 10 April, the United States, Norway, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom missions in South Sudan, as well as the European Union, applauded the commission's interim report.

The diplomatic missions encouraged the commission to continue to fulfill their constitutional mandate.

Furthermore, the diplomats called on all parties to cooperate fully with the commission as well as others such as the African Union's Commission of Inquiry (COI), United Nations Mission in South Sudan and other UN institutions responsible for investigating and reporting on human rights abuses and violations.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – Mubarak al-Fadil, a leading figure in Sudan's National Umma Party (NUP), announced that he will return to Khartoum on Tuesday in response to what he claimed are appeals by party members who asked him to step in and avert an imminent crisis brewing within the opposition party.

Mubarak al-Fadil (ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images)

In a statement distributed via email on Monday, al-Fadil noted that he decided in May 2012 to stay away from the strife engulfing the NUP after failing to convince its leader al-Sadiq al-Mahdi to hold a comprehensive reconciliation with party veterans and “revolutionary youths” who are looking for change within the party and the country.

“My goal from this was to have Mr. al-Sadiq al-Mahdi sense what is going on [within the NUP] away from the conspiracy theory which he used as a response to cries for change within the Umma Party to evade the required deliverables,” al-Fadil said.

Al-Fadil, who is al-Mahdi's cousin, defected from the NUP in 2002 and formed the Umma Reform and Renewal Party (URRP). He was of the view at the time that the NUP should take part in the government while al-Mahdi rejected any participation in a non-democratically elected government.

The two men exchanged bitter accusations during the years 2002-2003. He was appointed as a presidential adviser for economic affairs in 2002. Several members of his newly created party were also appointed in various positions in the government.

He was sacked in 2004 after a dispute with president Omer Hassan al-Bashir and was arrested in 2007 with a number of retired army generals and accused of attempting to stage a coup but was released five months later after it was revealed that the evidence against him and the others was fabricated.

Al-Fadil disbanded his breakaway group and rejoined the NUP in January 2011. The two men appeared to have normalised their relationship briefly before differences emerged and they renewed their personal attacks on each other.

In his press release, al-Fadil noted that last week's Central Commission meeting of the NUP confirmed the “deep divide between the party chief and a broad and important sector of leaders, cadres and youths which threatens an imminent explosion and another major split within the membership of the party that stayed with Mr. Sadiq al-Mahdi and formed the faction that has been supportive of him throughout the past period”.

The NUP leader at the meeting asked members of the Central Commission to relieve the former Secretary General Ibrahim al-Amin in light of his “failure” to create a consensual secretariat among other reasons.

The meeting eventually elected the head of the party's Political Secretariat, Sara Nugdalla, as its next secretary-general.

Al-Mahdi had tabled three names including Nugdalla but offered special praise to her. The other two eventually withdrew their nomination. This is the first time the party has picked a female figure for the position.

Al-Amin boycotted the meetings and argued that the current term of the Central Commission expired a year ago and therefore it is an interim one with no mandate except to prepare for the party's General Convention, which is tasked with electing members of the NUP to various bodies.

In an interview published on pro-opposition al-Rakoba website, al-Amin suggested that al-Mahdi is acting on behalf of the party without consulting with NUP bodies.

He recalled an announcement by the Sudanese president few months ago that they have reached a deal with the NUP after six months of negotiations which he said no one in the party was aware of.

Al-Amin said that this proves that there is a major deal that was sealed between the NUP and the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to affirm that the two parties' futures are interlinked and to solidify Abdel-Rahman al-Sadiq al-Mahdi position as Bashir's assistant.

“This is why I divided the party into two schools; the first is allied with the NCP and the second is the school of alliance with the oppressed Sudanese people who are deprived of the basics of life and the masses that seek to change the regime and establish a new democratic order,” al-Amin said.

Despite initially distancing himself from his eldest son's Abdel-Rahman decision in 2011 to become president Bashir's assistant, al-Mahdi later praised his son's qualifications to fill this role.

Al-Amin said he believes that Abdel-Rahman's move was endorsed by his father and even if he was not happy with it he would still have supported it because al-Mahdi “has a soft spot for his children”.

According to al-Amin, Abdel-Rahman carried an offer a year ago from Bashir to give him money. When he disclosed this to al-Mahdi, the latter told him that the NCP wants to shut him up which aggravated him further and made him extra careful in his dealings with pro-NCP figures in the party.

He stressed that they are not opposed to dialogue with the NCP-led government but said that the ongoing national dialogue called for by Bashir since last January is aimed at breathing life into the regime at the expense of the nation and future generations.

The ousted secretary-general claimed that there is a small controlling group in the party working against the goal of a popular uprising to serve their personal interests.

He accused his predecessor Sideeg Ismail of corroborating with the security apparatus to split anti-Khartoum rebels comprised of Darfuri movements and the Sudan People Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N).

Observers say that al-Mahdi has been uneasy with the election of al-Amin in 2012 over Ismail who is viewed suspiciously by the NUP base as being close to the NCP but is strongly backed by al-Mahdi.

Al-Mahdi afterward appointed Ismail as his vice-president in a move that was seen as a challenge to his ouster from the secretary-general post.

Al-Amin disclosed that he along with supporters of this line within the NUP will work to reach out to the party's base to unite behind the goal of change after which they will seek to get other political forces behind it.

He emphasised that they will not seek to depart and create a new party but will work from within to push for their views.

Al-Mahdi has consistently been critical in recent years of the opposition alliance of the National Consensus Forces (NCF) of which his party is a member and publicly questioned their ability to remove the regime.

He also frequently stated that he seeks to reform the NCP-led regime and not topple it warning that this could trigger a civil war.

Those who are against this strategy, al-Mahdi said can go ahead and form their own parties.

In a public letter to al-Mahdi last week, al-Fadil urged him to step down to give room to a new generation and play a symbolic role in the background.

But during the Central Commission meeting, al-Mahdi gave a subtle response saying that those who call for his resignation are “jealous” people want to destroy the party.

(ST)

Khartoum is again designated by the U.S. State Department as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism (April 2014); the regime targets a critical hospital in the Nuba for aerial attack—terror in another form

By Eric Reeves

May 5, 2014 - The stench of hypocrisy continues to settle more deeply over the Obama administration in its relationship with the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime in Khartoum, and two events from the past week only make more obvious the failure of the administration's Sudan policy. First, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) attempted to kill Dr. Tom Catena, an American citizen, in the Comboni hospital in Gidel. Dr. Catena is sure that he was specifically targeted in the May 1, 2014 attack by virtue of a number of compelling facts:

[1] He is the only surgeon performing life-saving operations on civilians wounded in Khartoum's relentless aerial assault on the people of the Nuba Mountains; the Comboni hospital is the only one in the Nuba mountains, and treats some 150,000 civilians per year; the unmistakable intent on the part of the regime is to block all humanitarian assistance to the people of the Nuba, even if it means attacking a civilian hospital marked with a red cross and far from any active fighting;

[2] Dr. Catena observed an observation drone over the hospital in the days before the attack;

[3] The bombing was carried out by a Sukhoi-24 air-to-ground attack aircraft; it is a sophisticated weapon from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union and has a good deal of advanced targeting equipment; and indeed one bomb caused major damage to the facility;

[4] The following day (May 2, 2014) an Antonov aircraft again attacked Dr. Catena and the Comboni hospital; many patients, even seriously injured ones, have fled to the hills, as have many staff, thus diminishing the capacity of the hospital significantly; one person was seriously injured.

(All information here comes by way of an email received from Tom Catena, May 2, 2014; see also, however, today's highly detailed account of the attack by Nuba Reports: http://nubareports.org/sudan-targets-only-hospital-in-nuba-mountains/)

In short, an American citizen, working to save the lives of wounded Nuba civilians, was targeted by the Khartoum regime for murder. This is an act of terrorism, if we have even the slightest imagination for what the word might mean for most of the world. And it is continuous with bombing campaigns against civilians over the past 25 years by the current regime (see "They Bombed Everything that Moved": Aerial military attacks on civilians and humanitarians in Sudan, 1999 – 2013, www.sudanbombing.org). The U.S., the EU, the UN, and the African Union have all failed abjectly in deterring Khartoum from continuing such bombing attacks, all of which are war crimes under international law (see especially the Rome Statute, Part 2 Article 8, [b] (5)); in aggregate, these attacks constitute crimes against humanity (Rome Statute, Part 2, Article 7 [a] [d] [g] [h] and [k]);). In both the Nuba and in Blue Nile this aerial terrorism has forced over a million people from their homes, and created a refugee population in South Sudan and Ethiopia that approaches 300,000. Well over a million people have lived with the prospect of starvation for almost three years, as the bombing campaign has made farming too dangerous. People live in caves and gullies, struggling to keep their families alive with a minimum of food and almost no primary medical care.

This is what makes the attack on Dr. Catena so heinous: he is alone in providing surgical treatment for victims of these largely indiscriminate bombings (when there is evidence of more precise targeting, it is generally for a civilian gathering, village, or farming locale that has been targeted). He is alone as a surgeon, working heroically at the Comboni hospital in Gidel since before the conflict began in June 2011. He is a modest and extraordinarily kind man (see my interview with Dr. Catena, March 9, 2013). There is absolutely no reason for the attempt on his life by military aircraft other than to deny civilians of the Nuba what is frequently life-saving medical care. Nor of course is there justification for terrorism of the more familiar kind; however, U.S. pursuit of such terrorism often has a mindless singularity, a pursuit that obliges ignoring attacks like that on Dr. Catena—and those attacks by SAF military aircraft that have affected millions of civilians in greater Sudan over the past quarter century.

But the second event of the past week, viewed historically, is just as disturbing as the attack on Dr. Catena, even when the issue is terrorism itself—against which the past two U.S. administration's have declared themselves to be at war. For in the most recent report from the U.S. State Department (April 30, 2014, representing findings for 2013) Sudan is one of only four countries designated as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" (the others are Syria, Iran, and—dubiously—Cuba). The report, with its expedient praise of the regime, seems designed to encourage Khartoum to get out of the terrorism business entirely, but such was not the case in 2013. The report notes:

• Elements of al-Qa'ida-inspired terrorist groups remained in Sudan. The Government of Sudan has taken steps to limit the activities of these elements, and has worked to disrupt foreign fighters' use of Sudan as a logistics base and transit point for terrorists going to Mali, Syria, and Afghanistan.

• However, groups continued to operate in Sudan in 2013 and there continued to be reports of Sudanese nationals participating in terrorist organizations. For example, regional media outlets alleged one Sudanese national was part of an al-Shabaab terrorist cell that attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in September. There was also evidence that Sudanese violent extremists participated in terrorist activities in Somalia and Mali.

• In 2013, Sudan continued to allow members of Hamas to travel, fundraise, and live in Sudan.

• The UN and NGOs reported in 2013 that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is likely operating in the disputed Kafia Kingi area, claimed by Sudan and South Sudan, in close proximity to Sudanese Armed Forces. At year's end, the United States continued to engage the Government of Sudan, the AU, and the UN to evaluate these reports. (the full State Department Sudan report appears as Appendix B)

The report begins by noting that Sudan has been on the State Department list since 1993, when Osama bin Laden found safe haven in Sudan and was in fact eagerly embraced by what was then known only as the National Islamic Front. Bin Laden was in Sudan from 1992 – 1996, the years during which al-Qaeda came to fruition; and there are a great many reports confirming Khartoum's continued support for bin Laden even after he and al-Qaeda had moved on to Afghanistan.

But the history of the "State Sponsor of Terrorism" designation reveals a peculiarly torturous relationship between Khartoum and Washington, one that has reached new lows in expediency during the Obama administration. This has led most conspicuously to the "de-coupling" of Darfur from the whole issue of Khartoum's sponsorship of terrorism, as explained by a "senior Obama administration official" (the official is not named in the State Department transcript of a November 9, 2010 background briefing):

"… the U.S. [is] prepared to accelerate the removal of Sudan from the state sponsor of terrorism list if the Government of Sudan did two things. One is to fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and two, to live up to all of the legal conditions required under law for Sudan to be taken off the state sponsors list. By doing this, we would also be de-coupling the state sponsor of terrorism from Darfur and from the Darfur issue." (emphasis added)

This is the face of the grossest expediency and does far too much to explain why, more than three years later, Darfur's agony continues, indeed has reached unprecedented extremes. Humanitarian access has never been so severely constrained; conditions in the camps for displaced persons, especially human security, have never been so bad; violence is accelerating rapidly as Khartoum has again deployed the Janjaweed, the time in the guise of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The RSF comprises Arab fighters from not only Darfur but Chad, Niger, Mali, and other countries in the region. It has been extremely aggressive in the destruction of civilian villages, attacks on displaced persons camps, and has worked in concert with the SAF in doing Khartoum's bidding.

These militia forces have also been deployed to the Nuba Mountains in Khartoum's effort to crush rebellion in the region. War crimes and crimes against humanity have defined this counter-insurgency effort from the beginning (June 5, 2011), and yet the Obama administration—even in the face of overwhelming contemporaneous evidence of these crimes—expressed a wholly unwarranted skepticism (see "Mass Graves Identified in Kadugli (South Kordofan): The End of Agnosticism," Dissent Magazine, July 14, 2011).

The Obama administration—by "de-coupling" Darfur, by failing to condemn in meaningful terms Khartoum's aerial attacks on civilians and humanitarians, and by failing to speak out decisively about the character of the assault on the Nuba in South Kordofan, and subsequently the people of Blue Nile—clearly has an agenda that subordinates atrocity crimes to other issues. And as I have argued, and argue again here, it is a willingness to make counter-terrorism intelligence the defining feature of the U.S. relationship to Khartoum, thereby setting key policy parameters. This is evident not only in the abandonment of Darfur, and the unacknowledged genocidal character of the assault on the Nuba, but in the expedient response to the looming Abyei crisis of late 2010. A brief history may serve as a reminder of how badly the administration has performed at the critical moment in the life of a nascent South Sudan.

In the fall of 2010, senior Obama administration officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry, pushed hard for Juba to "compromise" further on the historically important region of Abyei whose indigenous population if overwhelming Dinka Ngok—especially in the Abyei defined by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (July 2009). Juba's accepting this unfavorable finding—supposedly "final and binding"—was a mark of just how great a compromise it had already made, given the compromises already embodied in the Abyei Protocol of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005). As Khartoum conspicuously made military preparations for the military seizure of Abyei in early 2011—including deployments captured in great detail by satellite imagery from the Satellite Sentinel Project as well as brutal attacks by the Sudan Armed Forces and its (Arab) Misseriya militia allies—the Obama administration did nothing to warn Khartoum off this extremely provocative action. All who cared to look at the evidence knew the regime's military seizure was imminent; and even though it would not occur until the end of May 2011, the Obama administration said nothing of consequences during this critical period—and then attempted to blame the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) for the precipitating event (what all evidence suggests was an accidental firefight during a tense encounter between SPLA and SAF elements of a supposedly "Joint Integrated Unit").

After the military seizure—an egregious violation, indeed abrogation of the CPA—the Obama administration said nothing of consequence, indicated no penalties or consequences for military actions that were completely unjustified—historically without warrant and in violation of a peace agreement the U.S. had played a key role in securing during the Bush administration.

When two weeks later, facing no meaningful condemnation, Khartoum launched its military actions in South Kordofan, the Obama administration again did not react. Even the many reports of the mass ethnic targeting of people of Nuba ethnicity in Kadugli, capital of South Kordofan, produced only tepid expressions of skeptical concern from Princeton Lyman, by this time the new Obama administration special envoy for Sudan (see a retrospective of my publications from this period, chronicling the perverse and wholly unjustified skepticism on the part of the Obama administration: "Genocide in the Nuba Mountains: A retrospective on what we knew, June 2011 – 2013,"http://wp.me/p45rOG-18y).

Why this contemptible reticence? Why this wholly untenable skepticism, skepticism that was incinerated by a report produced by a UN human rights team on the ground for the month of June 2011, and which corroborates in ghastly detail the very atrocity crimes that Lyman refused to credit?

To answer this question we have to look at earlier comments by previous special envoy Scott Gration, which offer a window into how expedient the Obama administration was prepared to be in its dealings with Khartoum—and in particular, securing continued "cooperation" in the provision of counter-terrorism intelligence. During Senate testimony of July 2009, Gration declared:

"There's no evidence in our intelligence community that supports [Sudan] being on the state sponsors of terrorism. It's a political decision," Gration said. (National Public Radio) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111422940)

But of course there was ample evidence, and not all of it cited in the continuous reports by the annual State Department reports on "State Sponsors of Terrorism," which had listed Sudan every year since 1993 (see overview of Sudan's role in supporting al-Qaeda following September 11, 2001—Appendix A). What was political was not the decision to keep Khartoum on the list but the suggestion that it did not belong there, and remained only because of "political" considerations. This evidently meant to assign blame to the advocacy community in the U.S., which clearly knew more about the men in Khartoum than Gration, who infamously spoke of encouraging these ruthless, serial génocidaires as being susceptible of influence with "smiley faces" and "gold stars." His tenure as special envoy was marked by no greater diplomatic sophistication.

It is conceivable, but unlikely, that Gration did not know of the reports on Khartoum's involvement in supporting terrorism that had been revealed in a series of "wiki-leaked" documents earlier that year, as well as the State Department assessments from preceding years. In the latter document, to which Gration certainly had access by the time of his testimony, we find that:

…al-Qa'ida-inspired terrorist elements as well as elements of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and HAMAS, remained in Sudan in 2009 (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2009/index.htm).

Moreover, U.S. intelligence knew that in March 2009 Sudan had played a role in supplying Iranian arms for Hamas in Gaza. The Guardian (UK) reported in late 2010 on "wiki-leaked" State Department cables from both January and March 2009, well before Gration's testimony:

State Department cables released by WikiLeaks show that Sudan was warned by the U.S. in January 2009 not to allow the delivery of unspecified Iranian arms that were expected to be passed to Hamas in the Gaza Strip around the time of Israel's Cast Lead offensive, in which 1,400 Palestinians were killed. (December 6, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-sudan-iranian-arms-gaza/)

US diplomats were instructed to express "exceptional concern" to Khartoum officials, but those warnings evidently went unheeded. The Guardian goes on to report:

In March 2009, Jordan and Egypt were informed by the U.S. of new Iranian plans to ship a cargo of "lethal military equipment" to Syria with onward transfer to Sudan and then to Hamas.

The cables don't specify what the disposition of this "lethal military equipment" was. But Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Japan—and the U.S., a fact confirmed in the most recent State Department report on "State Sponsors of Terrorism." Again, Khartoum's role in the supply operation to Hamas in March 2009 is explicitly identified by U.S. intelligence.

Why the egregious lying by Gration? Why no aggressive follow-up questions from Senators? And why no connection of the issue of terrorism to the continuing atrocity crimes in Darfur? Clearly a deal had been made, and Gration's script called for him to directly contradict the evidence in hand. It was our clearest sign to date that Sudan policy was not really in the hands of diplomats or the State Department, but rather the security agencies of the U.S. government. And it explains the preposterous claim by special envoy Princeton Lyman in December 2011, after Khartoum's military seizure of the Abyei and subsequent military assaults on South Kordofan and Blue Nile:

"Frankly, we do not want to see the ouster of the [Sudanese] regime, nor regime change. We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures." (Princeton Lyman's response to a question by the respected Arabic news outlet Asharq Al-Awsat concerning Sudan and the "Arab Spring," December 3, 2011)

This truly absurd assessment, flying in the face of all evidence, would have us believe that the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime, which came to power by military coup 25 years ago, and whose president is under indictment for genocide by the International Criminal Court, can "carry out reform via constitutional democratic measures." This cynical mendacity will likely cost tens of thousands of lives—perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives—in South Kordofan, Blue Nile, Darfur, and other regions of Sudan. And as a sign of just how opposed to democratic reform the Khartoum regime remains, several hundred civilian political demonstrators were killed in a brief uprising during fall 2013 in Khartoum and other major towns—murdered by police and security forces operating under "shoot to kill" orders (Amnesty International, September 26, 2013).

Obama, in accepting Lyman's assessment, has given unmistakable evidence of prioritizing counter-terrorism "cooperation" with the present regime over concern about ongoing atrocity crimes committed by that same regime on an ongoing basis (many highly informed observers who are not part of the Obama administration have grave reservations about the quality what this "cooperation" yields). This, in turn, directly contradicts an Obama campaign statement on this very issue; for in April 2008 candidate Obama expressed "deep concern" that the Bush administration was making an unseemly deal with the Khartoum regime as a means to bolster the fledgling but already failing UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID):

"This reckless and cynical initiative [by President George W. Bush] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments. First, no country should be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism for any reason other than the existence of verifiable proof that the government in question does not support terrorist organizations." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/18/statement_of_senator_barack_ob_10.php; NB: this link to candidate Obama's statement has gone "dead," and merely leads to the present Obama administration self-promotion site)

Sudan policy was guided first and foremost by the concerns of the intelligence community, including the CIA. Men such as John Brennan (current head of the CIA, but formerly the Agency deputy responsible for counter-terrorism) and Denis McDonough (former Deputy National Security Advisor who wielded immense foreign policy influence with Obama and is now White House Chief of Staff) were making the key decisions, not Hillary Clinton. That the decision to extend counter-terrorism cooperation with Khartoum meant ignoring U.S. law was evidently yet another price willing to be paid:

A senior U.S. official told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter. "We have told the Sudanese that what we intend to do is to waive the application of the [Congressionally mandated] Darfur Peace and Accountability Act] in this regard should they fulfill all requirements of the [Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005]," he added. (Washington Times, February 11, 2011; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/8/sudans-terror-list-removal-untied-from-darfur)

In fact, the Obama administration continued the botched implementation of the CPA that had begun when the Bush administration—having achieved a major diplomatic victory in Africa—walked away from the difficult challenges of implementing the CPA. One reason we are now witnessing the spectacle of ethnic slaughter and the prospect of massive famine in South Sudan is that those who secured the peace—particularly the U.S. and the UK—did not do enough to anticipate the obstacles to implementation, or the obduracy of Khartoum, or the desperate need for governance reform in the South, where the Government of South Sudan was in many ways little more than an extension of the guerrilla movement of the SPLA/SPLM. This need for reform, both within the SPLM and in the governance structure of the country as a whole, was the precipitating cause for the complex, and still not fully explained events of December 15, 2013, when fighting broke out in Juba and quickly turned into ethnically-targeted violence.

The disastrous last-minute diplomatic press around Abyei, almost six years after the signing of the CPA, is a measure of how much the U.S. had let implementation issues slide. For in addition to Abyei, the CPA-stipulated border delineation and demarcation of Sudan and South Sudan had not occurred; there was no agreement on oil transit fees or revenue sharing between Khartoum and Juba, even as independence was slated for July 9, 2011; several of the five main contested areas are potential flash-points for renewed North/South conflict, including Kafia Kingi (clearly part of the South if we are guided by the maps defining the region as of January 1, 1956). This is the area where there is very strong evidence that Khartoum is again supporting the maniacally brutal Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) of Joseph Kony:

The UN and NGOs reported in 2013 that the Lord's Resistance Army is likely operating in the disputed Kafia Kingi area, claimed by Sudan and South Sudan, in close proximity to Sudanese Armed Forces. (U.S. State Department, State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview, April 30, 2014)

Certainly there is no disputing that Khartoum used the LRA as a proxy force during the long civil war, against both South Sudan and Uganda, trying in the latter case to prevent Uganda from assisting the SPLA. Renewed support for the LRA, which looks increasingly likely, is an inexpensive extension of the regime's brutal counter-insurgency strategy.

The evidence of the priority given to counter-terrorism extends well back into the Bush administration. As Ken Silverstein of the Los Angeles Times reported on June 17, 2005 with remarkably authoritative detail, and with shocking interviews, Salah Gosh, the ruthless head of Khartoum's security services and minder of Osama bin Laden during his years in Sudan, was flown to Washington on an executive jet by the CIA that same month. Notably, the State Department had been kept out of the loop, Silverstein reports. Here it is important to bear in mind that Gosh had been deeply complicit in or responsible for a wide range of atrocity crimes at the time, including torture, extrajudicial executions, and taking a central role in the Darfur genocide; but this seemed not to trouble the CIA in its insatiable quest for counter-terrorism intelligence:

The CIA and Mukhabarat [Khartoum's intelligence and security services] officials have met regularly over the last few years, but Gosh had been seeking an invitation to Washington in recognition of his government's efforts, sources told The [Los Angeles] Times. The CIA, hoping to seal the partnership, extended the invitation. "The agency's view was that the Sudanese are helping us on terrorism and it was proud to bring him over," said a government source with knowledge of Gosh's visit. "They didn't care about the political implications."

Silverstein's account gives a clear sense of what Khartoum perceived to be U.S. priorities. Ted Dagne, a Sudan specialist with the Congressional Research Service, said administration officials believed Gosh's trip would "send a political signal to the [Sudanese] government that Darfur would not prevent Sudan from winning support in Washington." That "signal" was not made fully explicit until the Obama administration publicly "de-coupled" Darfur from bilateral issues between Washington and Khartoum concerning counter-terrorism.

But the signal of "de-coupling" Darfur has not been the only signal sent by the Obama administration to Khartoum. By essentially sacrificing Abyei to preserve the Southern referendum on self-determination; by refusing to condemn in appropriate terms the atrocity crimes in South Kordofan and Blue Nile; by not insisting that Khartoum open a humanitarian corridor to aid the more than one million people in desperate need in the regions; by accepting now completely discredited UN accounts of Darfur's realities; by refusing to demand, in consequential fashion, an end to all Khartoum's ruthless obstructions of humanitarian relief in Sudan (including not only Darfur, South Kordofan, Blue Nile, but also eastern Sudan); by appointing stubborn fools such as Scott Gration as special envoy (with no diplomatic background and no relevant regional experiences); and by any number of actions and instances of culpable inaction, the Obama administration has sent an unmistakable "signal" to Khartoum, its "partner in counter-terrorism""

The U.S under Obama will remain committed to maintaining this "partnership" even when Khartoum deliberately targets a hospital, marked with a Red Cross, whose most important medical staff person is an American (a fact certainly known by Khartoum). Despite surely understanding the implications of destroying the only facility in the Nuba Mountains capable of treating the countless number of children, women, and men—the infirm and the elderly—who have been wounded by aerial attacks that have continued relentlessly for almost three full years, the Obama administration will not re-calibrate its priorities in dealing with Khartoum. Thousands have died from these attacks; more would certainly have died without the heroic efforts of Tom Catena. Even in the face of such a despicable crime, directed against an American citizen whose only goal in the Nuba is to save lives by means of his surgical skills, American priorities in dealing with Khartoum will remain unchanged.

Past expediency, mendacity, and callousness have made clear that this administration will do nothing of consequence in the wake of the attack on Dr. Catena—nothing. This is a national disgrace.

(Appendices A and B: at http://wp.me/p45rOG-1i6/)

Eric Reeves is a professor at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. His most recent book on Sudan is Compromising With Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 – 2012. His new book-length study of greater Sudan (Compromising With Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 - 2012; available at no cost: www.CompromisingWithEvil.org Website: www.sudanreeves.org

May 5, 2014 (JUBA) – A coalition of South Sudanese civil society organisations have expressed their support for recent calls by the United States administration for possible targeted sanctions on individuals trying to block the peace process in the new nation.

Civil society activists demonstrate in Warrap state capital, Kuajok, April 16, 2012 (Julius Uma/ST)

The activists, in a statement extended to Sudan Tribune, equally lauded what they described as the historical bond between the US and South Sudan.

The group, however, argued that the unfolding tragedy in the country, especially the suffering of innocent people required international intervention for its speedy resolution.

“Women and children have been pulled out from the schools and on the hospital beds and killed by the roadside. Hate speech and negative narratives and unacceptable propaganda filling the airwaves, reminiscent of Rwanda 20 years ago, have surfaced,” the statement partly reads.

“What is happening right now in the country risks turning into Rwanda situation if it is not addressed? We know the international community; particularly the United States has the leverage to help stop it,” it adds.

Members of the civil society coalition also appreciated the unwavering support South Sudan had received from the US administration since the days of its liberation struggle for justice and freedom.

“The United States played a key role in the course of the struggle of our people for justice and equality until peace was signed in 2005 with the government of Sudan to end more than two decade conflict and pushed for the independence, even when the two parties were experiencing difficulties,” the two-page statement read.

“The US also did not stop with the independence. It continued to provide support in the capacity building programs of the government institutions, especially in the training of the security forces. These are important supports which our people would never forget but we also believe that the current situation voluntarily appeals the American support,” it adds.

John Alfred Deng, a South Sudanese activist, said the conflict in the country, which resulted from a power struggle within the ruling party (SPLM) leadership, should largely be blamed on president Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar.

“What happened is heartbreaking and outrageous. Both men have assets and family abroad. If the American sanctions hit the real protagonists, those close to the leaders to the conflict and it hurts them, we can certainly stop this conflict from spiraling into genocide,” Deng told Sudan Tribune on Monday.

But Anthony Sebit, a Juba-based analyst, doubted the effectiveness of such sanction threats.

“I am skeptical about these sanctions because I think there are many ways to evade sanctions in the world of today. First of all, it is not clear until this moment, who these sanctions will sanctions target. So, I am a little skeptical that most of this will have any anything beyond symbolic effect,” he told Sudan Tribune.

Several observers and independent analysts, however, say Russia could block any form of sanctions on South Sudan, despite calls from the US and France for the United Nations Security Council to effect these measures on individuals.

“If the United States can stop this war by imposing strong sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, especially those which will directly affect the abilities and access to assets and visit friends and family living abroad close to the centre of power, then the international community shall have saved the people of this country great deal,” one South Sudanese analyst said.

“Even if we lose let's say at the Security Council, unilateral sanctions by several countries will have a serious effect on the government,” he added.

Over a million South Sudanese have fled their homes while thousands have died since violence erupted in the country in mid-December last year. Nearly half a million people, aid agencies say, are largely food insecure in the world youngest nation.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan's defence minister says military cooperation agreements with neighbouring have largely contributed to the protection of borders and reinforced diplomatic relations.

Sudanese defence minister Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein (Photo: Reuters)

Abdel Rahim Hussein told the Sudanese parliament on Monday that the deployment of joint border patrols with Chad, Eritrea and Ethiopia deterred rebel cross border attacks, prevented drug and weapons smugglers and stopped criminal activities along the border.

He cited last week's rescue operation of 600 illegal migrants implemented with the Libyan army, which conduct joint patrols in line with a military cooperation agreement signed by the two countries since the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Hussein further said the recent developments in Central African Republic (CAR) impacted negatively the performance of the tripartite force with CAR and Chad.

However, he disclosed that contacts are taking place with the new government in Bangui to reactivate this tripartite force.

The political instability in CAR after the collapse of Francois Bozizé regime stopped the tripartite force. The operation is also affected by the latent tensions between the new regime in Bangui which blames Ndjamena of supporting the transitional regime of Michel Djotodia and his Seleka militia.

The minister also urged to raise the salaries of Sudanese soldiers and to increase the army budget, stressing that low salaries make the army less attractive for the new recruits.

He added that the recruits of the mandatory military service and the paramilitary forces of the Popular Defence Force are used to cover the shortage of troops.

Recently MPs demanded that the defence minister brief them on the military situation in the country generally and urged for more troops on the border with the Central African Republic.

The Sudanese army is deployed in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur region, plus many areas on the long border with South Sudan where Khartoum claims that the rebels are harboured.

Analysts agree that the heavy military budget, estimated at $ 4 billion impacts negatively the fragile Sudanese economy.

(ST)

May 5, 14 (JUBA) - Relative calm has returned to Jonglei Twic East county, which borders Duk county after fierce clashes recently occurred between the army and opposition forces in the area, officials said on Monday.

Twic East county commissioner Dau Akoi, March 29, 2013 (ST)

Last month, a least seven people were killed in Twic East's Lith payam (district) when armed youth clashed with rebels loyal to South Sudan's former vice-president Riek Machar. 20 rebels, according to the county commissioner, died during the battle.

“Many people came to Panyagoor and other places because of fear of attacks by the rebels. But now the rebels went backs to Lou”, Dau Akoi told Sudan Tribune phone.

Hundreds of people, he said, fled their homes to Panyagoor, the county headquarters and other areas for safety.

Several non-governmental organisations operating in the county reportedly evacuated their staff to safe havens when fighting intensified on Twic East last month.

Up to 959,000 people, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said in its latest update, have been displaced within South Sudan since conflict broke out with 20 per cent of those displaced in inaccessible areas.

South Sudan Crisis Response Plan said it requires up to $1.27 billion to meet the humanitarian needs of the those affected by the conflict. Already, OCHA said, some? $492 million had been received, representing 39 per cent of the amount requested.

(ST)

May 5, 2014 (KAMPALA) – South Sudanese rebels claimed on Monday to have regained control of both Nasir in Upper Nile state and Unity state capital Bentiu, which government troops say they captured on Sunday.

The United Nations MIssion in South Sudan evacuates civilians in Unity state capital Bentiu after the town was recaptured by rebels form government troops in April (Photo: UNMISS)

Rebel commander Maj. Gen. James Koang Chuol says their forces have flushed out Sudanese rebels from Unity state capital Bentiu who its claimed are fighting alongside the South Sudanese army (SPLA), saying both government troops and their allies had suffered a heavy defeat.

“The Sudanese rebels who are blindfolded by [the] Juba government have suffered heavy losses. We capture[d] heavy ammunitions and other light guns,” Chuol told Sudan Tribune by satellite phone, saying rebels had also pushed out the SPLA from Mayom county to neighbouring Warrap state.

However, military spokesperson Col. Philip Aguer told Sudan Tribune in Juba that the government army remains in control of Bentiu and had “repulsed two [rebel] attacks in the last 24 hours”.

Chuol said attacks on rebel positions in Nasir and Bentiu on Sunday constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement signed by the two warring parties in January.

Chuol says the leadership of the SPLM/A in Opposition remains committed to ongoing peace talks in Ethiopia, but said the government had shown a lack of interest in reaching a peaceful solution to the crisis.

He also warned Sudanese rebels against interfering in South Sudan's affairs.

A source at the UN camp in Rubkotna county told Sudan Tribune described Monday's fighting as among the heaviest the region has witnessed and had left many government soldiers dead in Bentiu and Rubkotna.

He claims he witnessed some government soldiers entering UN camp after surrendering their weapons to peace keeping forces.

The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) says at least 200 people were killed on the basis of their nationality or ethnicity when rebels recaptured Bentiu from the army last month, with the incident attracting international condemnation and warning the country was facing a possible genocide.

The South Sudanese army (SPLA) on Monday pledged to protect civilians in areas it recaptured from rebels over the weekend to avoid a repeat of what transpired the last time the town changed hands.

“[It] is a people's army and will remain accountable to the people of South Sudan,” Aguer said.

“We have rules and code of conduct that protect civilians during the war. And any violation to that is punishable,” he added.

Both sides have been accused of committing atrocities since political tensions between South Sudan's president, Salva Kiir, and former vice-president Riek Machar turned violent, igniting tribal tensions across the country.

However, Aguer told Sudan Tribune that government forces would protect civilians in Bentiu and Nasir “irrespective of their tribal affiliation”.

During the initial phase of the conflict, civilians the capital, Juba, were targeted on the basis that they were from Machar's Nuer tribe after Kiir accused his former deputy of attempting to stage a coup.

Aguer said the SPLA “acknowledges [that] some mistakes happened in December but the army ordered for investigations”. About 100 members of the security services have reportedly been arrested in connection with the killings.

“The army is ready for investigations, is ready to arrest whoever is seen committing any violation against civilians,” he said. However, Aguer admits that five of the suspects managed to escape during fresh fighting at Gieda military barracks in Juba, which erupted on 5 March.

“We have their (soldiers who fled jail) names and identities. They will be recaptured and brought to books,” he added.

The conflict has split the SPLA and the country's ruling party (SPLM), with peace talks in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, to try and negotiate a political settlement to the crisis, which could see a transitional government in place, so far failing to make headway.

Meanwhile, an aid worker in Unity state's Yida refugee camp told Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity that Sudanese rebel forces from the SPLA-N and JEM dislodged from the Nuba Mountains by a recent offensive launched by the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) had begun amassing in the refugee camp and Jau areas.

He said the Sudanese rebels are worn out from the war in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states and are seeking to cross to the Bahr el Gazal region to escape attacks by the Sudanese army.

(ST)

• S. Sudanese rebels claim to have regained control of strategic Bentiu town
• S. Sudan defence minister confirms recapture of key rebel towns

By Ijoo Bosco

May 3, 2014 (TORIT) – A women's coalition in South Sudan's Eastern Equatoria state has expressed concerns over deteriorating sanitary conditions in the state prison in Torit.

Members of a women's coalition visit Eastern Equatoria state's Torit state prison to meet with female inmates (ST)

The coalition claims the government continues to turn a blind eye to conditions inside the prison, saying it had only provided enough funds for the removal of sewage at the site on one occasion.

The organisation recently visited the prison after learning of the conditions and to listen to the challenges facing female inmates.

Dina Disan, a representative of the women's coalition, said they were particularly alarmed by the sewage system inside the prison, which serves both male and female inmates.

Disan said the sewage system was at capacity and needed to be drained immediately as it was polluting inmates' accommodation and causing a bad odour, making it difficult for them to sleep.

She said female inmates had asked for a helping hand to address essential sanitary needs in the prison, adding added that the coalition would work with the state administration to help address the issue in coming days and improve the prison environment for inmates.

Prison authorities declined to comment to the media, but acknowledged that more needed to be done to improve sanitation facilities.

Members of a women's coalition are shown the sewage system inside Torit state prison (ST

One prison officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said authorities regularly struggled to address sanitation conditions at the prison, saying they received limited funding from the state government.

Female inmates have called on the state government to address urgent sanitary needs inside the prison, as well as provide mosquito nets and sandals.

Coalition member Mary Oduho said many women and their children were unable to sleep at night due to mosquitoes, calling on prison authorities to fit nets inside rooms.

Lucy Iliha said members of the coalition had distributed gift items requested by the women, including soap and washing powder.

She said women at the prison were in generally good health, reminding female inmates to desist from alcohol once they are released as it is usually a factor in their imprisonment.

(ST)

May 6, 2014 (ADDIS ABABA/JUBA) – South Sudan government and its opposition faction have both recommitted themselves to facilitate humanitarian access and support all humanitarian assistance, including creating conditions that will enhance urgent supply of aid to all displaced and needy populations in the new nation.

The leader of South Sudan's government delegation, Nhial Deng Nhial (L), signs a ceasefire agreement aimed at ending conflict in the country following negotiations in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, on 23 January 2014 (Photo: Reuters/Birahnu Sebsibe)

Both parties, as part the humanitarian provision in the ceasefire agreement, also agreed to “immediately” recommit to open the humanitarian corridor within South Sudan and its neighbouring countries.

“[The parties agreed] to ensure the humanitarian coordinator is inclusive of the parties and mechanisms are put in place, or otherwise strengthened, to facilitate humanitarian access in all areas”, partly reads a communiqué signed by heads of both delegations and witnessed by the IGAD special envoys.

Aid agencies in the country had earlier voiced concerns over inability to deliver the much-needed humanitarian assistance to those affected by the violence that has displaced nearly a million people.

There have been numerous calls from the international community, the United States and the United Nations for the two warring parties to allow humanitarian access to the conflict affected regions of the country.

The two parties in the conflict, however, agreed to consider a month of tranquility from 7 May to 7 June to preposition humanitarian supplied and enable the people of South Sudan to plant their food crops, care for their livestock and move to areas of safety.

The parties “take all possible measures to respect human right and protect the civilian population from indiscriminate attacks, rape or any other form of abuse”.

JUBA WELCOMES TRUCE

Meanwhile, South Sudan on Tuesday welcomed the one month truce which allows aid agencies to freely access conflict zones.

“We [government] have been looking [forward] to this [truce] for a long time,” Mawien Makol Arik, the foreign affairs spokesperson, told Sudan Tribune on Tuesday.

Arik, however, warned the opposition against attacking government forces, saying “we are concerned with the suffering of our people.”

“The government is very excited [that this agreement is signed] and we are looking forward to see another commitment between the two parties which will help the people of South Sudan,” he said.

A rebel official separately confirmed that their forces would respect the agreement.

A cessation of hostilities agreement signed by both parties in January failed to stop the five months conflict that has killed thousands.

(ST)

Recommittment to Humanitarian Matters of COH, 5 May'2014-1.pdf

By Mansour Al Hadi

May 6, 2014 - Born out of Ottoman Empire's and British colonial rule's historical revulsion to the development of up-streamers over the Nile, Egypt's recent revolutionary tide against the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is storming regional and international diplomatic fields with ill-founded and spurious forecasts of the menace of the project on the lives and livelihoods of Egyptian people. Fettered by the stubborn adherence to British and Ottoman's “own will,” Cairo's polity is now incapable to put a bridle on its political officials' fickle, whimsical hydro-diplomatic acts to halt Ethiopia's move in making the project a reality.

Cairo's hydro-diplomacy single-mindedly and glaringly roams hither-and-thither to whittle away Ethiopia's determination, heavily leaning on its time-honored dependency on outsiders' to extend its interests. Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson's recent remark is a case in point to illustrate Egypt's hydro political dependency to cripple Ethiopia's march to accomplish its Dam and perpetuate its insatiable interests over the Nile. Badr Abdelatty told Reuters on 23 April, 2014 that "We have contacts with everybody….with Russia, with China, you name it….,"to bar them from supporting and financing Ethiopia's efforts to accomplish the grand project, stressing that the GERD was a ‘violation' of Egypt's interests.

This attempt is extremely antithetical to Ethiopia's stance over the intent of the construction of the GERD. Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn epitomizes the GERD as “a real expression of the nation's commitment to a project which demonstrates the determination of the people and the government to win the war against poverty whatever the cost.” In deed, Ethiopians have committed themselves that wails of indignity, famine and war will not wither their eyes along the banks of the tributaries of the Blue Nile, Barro-Akobo and Tekezze including various tributaries Wanqa, Bashilo , Walaqa , Wanchet , Jamma , Muger , Guder , Agwel, Nedi, Didessa, Dabus, Handassa, Tul, Abaya, Sade, Tammi, Cha, Shita, Suha, Muga, Temcha, Bachat, Katlan, Jiba, Chamoga, Weter and the Beles. They have also affirmed that the GERD will turn the Nile into a passage of light conquering the roots of mistrust, suspicion, underdevelopment and Egypt's exclusive mastery over the resources of the River for the shared benefit of all Basin countries. The GERD is an emblem of national project incorporated in the country's five year Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP).

Egypt's deaf ear to Ethiopia's calls for genuine discussion is a reminiscent of its historic, deep-rooted hydro-political dependence on the shoulders of the major traditional super powers, including Ottoman Empire (as its province), British Empire (as its colony), America (as its Cold War client state in the MENA and the Horn regions during the reign of President Sadat), and the Soviet Union (as a client in the Middle East and Africa).

In the mean time, Egypt is also wooing its traditional patrons and new emerging powers, including the US, EU, Russia, China, as well as many other major powers, to eternize its long-cherished geo-political goal—“Controlling the Nile”— and immortalize or keep alive the legacy of British colonial rule and Ottoman Empire's path towards the development, utilization and use of the waters of the Nile River. Blown by the waves of its long-term dependency syndrome and driven by the de facto ruler, Cairo is pursuing another hydro-political card to outsmart Ethiopia's march towards inclusive prosperity and common will, upholding the recently often-repeated second Cold War rivalry (the US and Russia) to project its unilateral securitization of the Nile and transcend its short-term interests over the Nile Valley.

After Egypt's independence from colonial rule, the country's leaders sought support from foreign powers to deter Ethiopia's development projects over the Blue Nile, Tekezze and Barro-Akobo. In fact, they were, according to Professor Yacob Arsano, successful in crumbling the Abbay (Blue Nile) Master Plan Study (1958-64). They made a quintessential role in crushing the Gilgel Abbay Project (1960s). More ominously, President Sadat also obliterated Ethiopia's Tana-Beles Development Project (mid 1980s) to salvage millions of people from Wello, Tigray, Gondar, Haddya, and Kambata from famines as a result of frequent droughts. Additionally, when President Nassir built the Aswan High Dam, the Soviet Union together with its Hydro project Institute provided billions of dollars, technicians and heavy machineries to the realize Egypt's symbol of power.

Egypt's hydro political dependency on outsiders is firmly rooted from its history as a province of Ottoman Empire and later as a colony of British colonial rule. Its dependency is not only confided to hydro politics but also its overall development direction. The dependency has taken root from the institutions which were developed by first Ottoman Empire and then British colonial rule. In this regard, James A. Robinson and Daron Acemo?lu assert that “the development path forged largely by the history of Ottoman and European rule” impedes Egypt from independently crafting its way to prosperity and development. They go on to say that leaders of post-independent Egypt “followed the former colonial world by developing hierarchical, authoritarian regimes with few of the political and economic institutions” to achieve the development goals.

Currently, Cairo's hydro political short-termism vows to view Africa as a strategic and security ally to enshrine its Nile factor in the African diplomatic circle and put aside the imaginative and self-induced fear of the Cooperative Framework Agreement. Reformulating its strategic goals and objectives, the post-Revolution Cairo's officials are stepping into the long-neglected African circle to seek the hand of the Nile Basin and other African countries to cement ways to have mastery over the geopolitical hemisphere of the Nile Valley and prevent up-streamers from using the waters of the Nile for the absolute use and benefit of Egyptian people. Beyond his calls for Egypt's membership in the African Union, Egyptian Prime Minister's visit to African countries succinctly entails Egypt's dependency on African circle to downplay the future development of up-streamers' peoples to utilize their water resources.

Now sounds pretty clear that Cairo's dependency and short-termism on the legacy of British and Ottoman rule transcends many ages and comes to the 21st century. In deed, the incumbent government in Cairo sticks to Britain's accords, which cultivated the imperial political supremacy than the integration of the Eastern Nile Basin countries. Their yearning to continue the legacy of British colonial rule, Ottoman Empire and Cold War rivalry over the use of the waters of the Nile is now calling for Russia, America and the EU to help sustain the dream of the founder of modern Egypt-Muhammed Ali-controlling the head waters of the Nile waters.

Al Sisi's recent visit to Russia was intended to make the US and the EU switch sides with Cairo's new roadmap on its future standing in regional and global affairs. He is also successful in pressing Obama administration to release $650 million of the total $1.5 billion aid allocated to Egypt. His cautious move is a reminiscence of the Cold War rivalry to extend the old state's interests. America and the EU have come on board to help support the coming Al Sisi's Government's fight against terrorism and legitimize Sisi's coup at the expense of democracy and human rights.

To the dismay of Egyptian politicians, up-streamers are committed to proactively engage and play their part in the making of today's and tomorrow's drama of regional and global affairs. They are now rethinking Egypt's unremitting hegemonic reign over the utilization of the Nile River. They offer another alternative—the mutually cooperative partnership over the development, management and utilization of the Nile— to fairly and equitably channel the waters of the River for the mutual development and transformation of the Nile Valley region and for the realization of the priorities of African Renaissance and Pan Africanism.

Having understood the failure to modernize their country and its severe repercussions on their ancestors, Ethiopians are today financing the GERD, reiterating the late Prime Minister's remark: “we not only have a plan, but we also have the capacity to assert our rights.” They are also committed to end one of the knottiest ironies of the world, as the Wall Street Journal put, “the land that feeds the Nile is unable to feed itself.” What Egypt needs to do is to reinvent its foreign policy direction towards the Nile abandoning its interest to preserve the needs of the old state institutions implanted by British and Ottoman rule. Again, it should also give a passage to interdependence than dependence on alien forces to maximize its interest to rectify the wrongs of yesterday and build a better tomorrow.

Dr Al-Hadi is an independent political analyst. He can be reached at mmansouralhadi@gmail.com

May 6, 2014 (WASHINGTON) – The US treasury department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced on Tuesday that it has imposed sanctions on two military officers from both sides of the South Sudan conflict.

Rebel General Peter Gatdet Yaka (L) and SPLA Major General Marial Chanuong Yol (R) (REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)

US president Barack Obama issued an executive order last month directing his administration to impose sanctions on South Sudanese parties responsible for ongoing violence and human rights abuses in the world youngest nation.

Today's decision impacts General Peter Gadet and Marial Chanuong Mangok according to OFAC statement.

Gadet is a general leading former vice-president Riek Machar's forces in Unity state, while Mangok is a major general commanding the presidential guard unit within the South Sudanese army (SPLA).

Mangok and Gadet are now banned from travelling to the US and any assets they have in US financial institutions will be frozen.

The United Nations and the international community condemned recent atrocities allegedly committed against civilians in Bentiu when the rebel fighters led by Gadet recaptured the capital of Unity state.

The presidential guard is accused of killing civilians from Nuer ethnic group in Juba last December.

“The measures taken against Marial Chanuong and Peter Gadet are only a first step and should serve as a clear warning to those in the Government of South Sudan and those who have taken up arms against it: the United States is determined to hold accountable those who choose violence,” US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said in a statement.

Power also said that the US “will also seek in the United Nations Security Council to authorise targeted sanctions against those who continue to undermine South Sudan's stability”.

(ST)

By Luk Kuth Dak

May 6, 2014 - People around the world are shaking their heads with bewilderment over President's Kiir behavior and his handling of the country's crisis that he created some four months ago. His latest non-stop shuttling to the neighboring countries showed the President at his worst: angry, irritable, defensive, arrogant, contradictory, and in most cases he appeared like a total psychopath.

So let's talk about Mr. Kiir's performance. Many South Sudanese, especially non-Dinka have a serious case to make on this front. They believe, rightfully so, that the tyrant has set the standards for a failed presidency the world has ever seen. Even some fair-minded Dinka do solemnly agree with their fellow countrymen in other ethnicities that in fact, Kiir's legitimacy hangs in the ballot ever since he orchestrated the genocide of the innocent Nuer people in the capital Juba.

As you may expect, Kiir's first rhetoric – in broken English- was putting the blame on Dr. Riek Machar, as the person solely responsible for the full-blown human catastrophe in the world's youngest nation. Yet despite the world's genuine efforts to end hostilities, bring peace to the nation, Kiir's still disingenuous in finding a way out of the logjam he faces, which will only globalize the conflict and broaden the differences between him and his former Vice President, Machar.

Hence, it will be far too late when dictator Kiir finally realizes that his enemy is actually not Dr. Riek Machar, but the mob he surrounded himself with, notably: Presidential Legal Advisor, Tilar Deng, Spokesman and Minister of Information, Michael Makuei, respectively. It's no secret that these corrupt couple is well documented for their hatred of the Nuer people in particular and all of the rest of the other non-Dinka ethnicities in the country in general.

See what I mean?

Most recently, in a private gathering that included one of the few Nuer boot-lickers who remained loyal to tyrant Kiir, Makuei was heard openly as saying: “the Dinka are born to rule… and not to be ruled.”

Evidently, Makuei, a lawyer, took the Nuer stooge's loyalty for granted. He thought that he was talking with an alley, and that as Americans often say: ‘what is said in Vegas remains in Vegas.' Sure enough, he was deadly wrong in that he didn't realize that his divisive, immature, bigoted and insensitive remarks had angered the attendee, who immediately after the event was over, went viral in spreading the word out to the social media, which included this columnist. Now, you ask: are these the kinds of leaders the Dinka Kingdom can offer the nation?

You weigh in!

More so to the point, on her Facebook account, Ms. Ashai Arob Bagat, the daughter of the veteran journalist, Arob Bagat Tongluth, quoted Makuei as saying “Alor (Deng) is suffering from an identity crisis. He would be better off if he speaks only about Abyei… and not the South Sudan,” He disparaged.

There goes Abyei!!

But if the rulers of our great nation must come from the Dinka Kingdom, as Makuei and others like him believe, then, we suggest that the Kingdom should have the moral obligation to give the nation some of its best sons and daughters that money can buy… and not just a bunch of mob, whose only purpose is tear the country apart, and rob our children of their pride and dignity by using bigoted words such: “Dinka are born to rule.”

In essence, Dr. Riek Machar Teny should be commanded for his heroic stand with the majority of the people of South Sudan against this an out- of- control dictator, Mr. Salva Kiir Mayardit. There should be no face-to- meeting with a murderer until justice for the genocide victims emerges.

Those who started the ‘mess' must be held accountable… not the other way around.

Luk Kuth Dak is a veteran journalist and a former anchorman at Juba Radio, he can be reached at lukedak@hotmail .com. Tweeter @kuthdak.

May 6, 2014 (WASHINGTON) – The leader of the National Umma Party (NUP) al-Sadiq al-Mahdi and his son Abdel-Rahman are working steadfastly to move the party towards rapprochement with the ruling National Congress Party (NCP), the outgoing Secretary General Ibrahim al-Amin said.

The leader of the National Umma Party (NUP) al-Sadiq al-Mahdi (R) and his son Abdel-Rahman al-Mahdi who is president Omer Hassan al-Bashir's assistant (L)

In a phone interview with Sudan Tribune on Tuesday, al-Amin lashed out at al-Mahdi and accused him of deliberately blocking any attempts to mobilize the party behind popular uprisings in the country as was the case during the September 2013 protests that broke out across the country after the government lifted fuel subsidies.

At the time, the leader of Sudan's largest opposition party suggested that the NUP is not prepared to support any uprising against the government until political and social groups in the country agree to a clear alternative.

He took a similar line during demonstrations that erupted in the summer of 2012 after the rollout of austerity measures telling the Financial Times newspaper that “we don't think that the time has come for us to organize such a movement until we have an alternative regime in place ... and democratic transformation".

Al-Amin asserted that the NUP chief may have personal fears leading him to adopt this position.

"There is an explanation that is being circulated, that he [al-Mahdi] thinks that if demonstrations break out [against the government], if change happens [afterwards] his chances [in governing] becomes less because the general mood turned against him," said the NUP figure who was forced out of the SG post with full backing of al-Mahdi during the Central Commission meeting last week.

"That is why he wants to arrive at some sort of alliance with the NCP and it will be a wider alliance and one with Islamic parties. If this happens, his prospects are better than if change happens through popular uprising," he added.
Al-Mahdi has critical in recent years of the NCF of which his party is a member and publicly questioned their ability to remove the regime.

He also frequently stated that he seeks to reform the NCP-led government and not topple it warning that this could trigger a civil war.

Al-Amin said the real danger is not having the NUP chief join the government but that these tactics have weakened the opposition front in the country.

"He is trying to disrupt the work of the [opposition umbrella] the National Consensus Forces (NCF) and even our relations with the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) with who we were going to forge an alliance with but in the end [former SG] Sideeg [Ismail] sabotaged it," he said.

He emphasized that he does not oppose dialogue in principle but insists on using it to induce regime change adding that al-Mahdi and some others in the NUP want to suspend anti-regime mobilization in favor of dialogue.

"This is the main political difference that exists in the NUP today," al-Amin explained.

The ex-SG also underscored the daylight between what al-Mahdi says and what he does.

As an example, al-Mahdi frequently warned against Islamist parties on the basis that they wish to install a Taliban-like government.

"He says that but practically his actions through Abdel-Rahman and with [President Omer Hassan] al-Bashir in trying isolate the civil parties and the SRF or at least weaken their presence and do something that aligns with their Islamic orientation," al-Amin said.

The NUP party is different from other Islamist parties, he said because it calls for middle-way Islamic understanding and as such they can hold dialogue with all other forces regardless of their of their ideology.

"Sudan is in decline in everything so if we [in the NCP] undermine the opposition [forces], did not establish the broad front with political and armed opposition forces, it all flows to help the regime," al-Amin said.

Al-Amin said that al-Mahdi has long been seeking to convert the NUP into an Islamic party and at one point after the 1985 uprising against late president Ja'afar Nimeiri, wanted to change the party's name to reflect that but backed down as a result of stiff opposition.

Furthermore, the former Prime Minister during his term from 1986-1989 always insisted on letting in the National Islamic Front (NIF) join the coalition government.

"This was a cause for disaster to us [in the NUP]," he argued. "The NUP chief also gave a de facto recognition of the June 30th 1989 coup by writing in a memo that was found by the military junta stating that "we have the legitimacy and you have the power".

The NIF headed by Hassan al-Turabi orchestrated the 1989 army coup which brought president Bashir to power.

Al-Amin emphasized that all meetings or deals signed between the NUP and the NCP over the last two decades has achieved nothing for the party and dealt blows to opposition work.

"The NCP wants to weaken the NUP so that people start questioning whether the NUP is part of the opposition or the government….This will extend the life of the regime until elections are held….Any totalitarian regime has as its main priority to kill the alternative so that there is no strong party or strong alliance that could pose a strong opposition and bring it [the regime] down," al-Amin said.

He went on to say that al-Mahdi's strategy has been to push for the election of certain figures to hold positions in the party's various bodies who will not challenge him. This includes those who defected from other parties and are immediately being assigned top positions in the NUP.

Al-Amin recalled the disclosure that a secret committee was formed by al-Mahdi to negotiate with the NCP without anyone in the party's top bodies knowing.

It was only after Bashir and former NUP SG spoke of an imminent deal with the NCP did the existence of a bilateral dialogue became known.

"There are institution within the party but no institutional [style of work]," al-Amin said, adding that while al-Mahdi wants the appearance of a democratic institution, he does not tolerate any dissenting views.

He highlighted al-Mahdi's "inappropriate" remarks to the party's base that those not happy with the NUP policies should leave and form their own parties.

Despite this, al-Amin insisted that he will not defect and will work to reconcile all NUP figures and move the NUP against any communion with the NCP.

The NUP leader asked members of the Central Commission in their meeting last week to relieve al-Amin in light of his “failure” to create a consensual secretariat among other reasons.

The meeting eventually elected the head of the party's Political Secretariat, Sara Nugdalla, as its next secretary-general.

Al-Amin boycotted the meetings and argued that the current term of the Central Commission expired a year ago and therefore it is an interim one with no mandate except to prepare for the party's General Convention, which is tasked with electing members of the NUP to various bodies.

Observers say that al-Mahdi has been uneasy with the election of al-Amin in 2012 over Ismail who is viewed suspiciously by the NUP base as being close to the NCP but is strongly backed by al-Mahdi.

"Our main aim is to stay in the party and move within the framework of the party and work to mobilize the people." al-Amin said.

The NUP figure also criticized the Ansar Affairs Commission headed Abdel-Mahmood Abo saying it is simply serving the aims of al-Mahdi and that they have drifted away from their religious mission to meddle into political issues and have turned into an alternative secretariat of the NUP.

"They represent the alternative secretariat [of the NUP]," he said.

The Ansar is the religious sect that has historically formed the base of the NUP.

Al-Mahdi's ultimate goal is to groom Abdel-Rahman as his successor through allowing him to gain influence by being in the government.

"But this is met with total rejection by the party's base…because of his personality and his participation with the regime," al-Amin said.

He gave an example of recent remarks made by Abdel-Rahman in which he affirmed the presidency's confidence in Khartoum governor after a major corruption scandal involving two people working in his office was uncovered.

"Not even the presidency or anyone in the government made such a statement," al-Amin said.

Despite initially distancing himself from his eldest son's Abdel-Rahman decision in 2011 to become president Bashir's assistant, al-Mahdi later praised his son's qualifications to fill this role.

In a related issue, the leading NUP figure Mubarak al-Fadil returned to Khartoum on Tuesday after staying abroad for two years.

Al-Fadil, who is considered al-Mahdi's main adversary in the party, told reporters that his main priority now is to bring about reconciliation within the NUP and end disagreements between him and the NUP leader.

He said he does not mind meeting al-Mahdi him but criticized recent decisions to expel and dismiss a number of party members because they held opposing views.

His second goal is to seek solutions to end a war stressing that national dialogue called for by Bashir in late January cannot be fruitful without doing so.

In a public letter to al-Mahdi last week, al-Fadil urged him to step down to give room to a new generation and play a symbolic role in the background.

But during the Central Commission meeting, al-Mahdi gave a subtle response saying that those who call for his resignation are "jealous" people who want to destroy the party.

(ST)

May 6, 2014 (JUBA) – South Sudan's president, Salva Kiir, has accepted the formation of an interim government, which includes former vice-president turned rebel leader Riek Machar.

UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon (L) and South Sudanese president Salva Kiir address reporters in the capital, Juba, on 6 May 2014 (Photo: Isaac Alebe/UNMISS)

A top aide said the president expressed his willingness on this new administration during Tuesday's meeting with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki moon in the capital, Juba.

“The president has accepted that the government delegation at talks [in Addis Ababa] go ahead with all the discussions, including the interim arrangements,” the aide told Sudan Tribune on Tuesday.

“He wants this conflict to be brought to an end so that a new page is opened, if the formation of the interim administration with Riek and his group can bring peace and stability to the country,” he added.

The South Sudanese leader also assured both leaders of his readiness for direct talks with the rebel leader as a way to resolve the ongoing violence in the new nation.

“He (Kiir) had accepted the formation of transitional government in these meetings and has already authorised the delegation at the negotiation to go ahead with all the discussions, including the interim arrangements,” the presidential aide said.

READY TO END VIOLENCE

Meanwhile, Kiir said he was ready to remove any obstacle to bring peace in the country, reaffirming his willingness to directly meet his former deputy Machar.

“The priority now is to bring peace so that our people return to their homes. With our friends and the international community, we will work together to remove any obstacle to end this conflict. Our delegation at the peace talks has been given full mandate to negotiate in good faith so that they come with peace,” Kiir remarked on Tuesday.

The head of state told journalists at a new conference after holding a high level meeting with the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, that his government was working hard to stop the fighting so that people could return to their homes.

“The priority of the government now is to stop this unnecessary war so that the people could return to their homes. The return of the people who have been affected by this conflict to their homes now is one of the main objectives and focus of the negotiation,” said the South Sudanese leader.

“This is because we feel there would be serious disaster if we do not allow our people to cultivate now,” he added.

Kiir said he was ready to travel to the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, to meet rebel leader Machar, even if the meeting took place soon after he met Ki moon.

“I have assured His Excellency [Ban Ki-Moon] that I am ready now to travel to Addis Ababa, to go and meet with Riek Machar, if he will accept to meet me,” he said.

COOPERATION WITH UN MISSION

Kiir said he had also assured the UN secretary-general of his government's “continuous cooperation with UNMISS (UN Mission in South Sudan) authorities”.

“The period we have spent with UNMISS under the leadership of Hilde F. Johnson was a fruitful time,” he said.

“[She] has been working with us hand in hand and whatever happened during our crisis, these were misunderstandings but (there is) nothing that happens in human life that cannot be corrected,” he added.

Meanwhile, the UN chief welcomed the president's decision to directly meet rebel leader Machar, describing it as a necessary step for the return of peace to the nation.

“I visited displaced persons …The United Nations will continue to help them so that they will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible,” he said. “For that to be possible there should be peace and security,” Ban said on Tuesday.

The UN chief vowed to speak with Machar and urge him to find a political solution to the crisis in the country, through dialogue.

“Even though they may have some different political views, there is nothing which they cannot overcome,” said Ban.

“They are same people, same country – this is their country,” he added.

Ban also called on both leaders and those in command of military units to fully protect the civilian population and also respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, adding that those who committed crimes would be brought to justice.

“The United Nations is behind the people of South Sudan, and that is why I am here,” he said.

LIP SERVICE?

Analysts, however, expressed scepticism over Kiir's statements, with some arguing it was simply an attempt to diffuse mounting international pressure on his administration to stop military offensive against rebel fighters.

“There was nothing new in the statement I have heard today. The president as usual expressed readiness to bring peace but has that ever happened? We have heard similar and powerful statements before. It is one thing to say something and it is completely another to put into action. Our people have had enough rhetoric and political narratives without substantive action,” a critic of the Kiir administration who spoke on condition of anonymity told Sudan Tribune on Tuesday.

“The statements we have heard before were merely uttered for public relations. There was nothing serious about them,” he added.

However, the country's deputy foreign affairs minister said Kiir's government had done everything possible to bring peace to the country, but that the rebels have never reciprocated on their part.

“The government has as a matter of principle made it abundantly clear that it is fully committed to working for peace and reconciliation so that our people live together as brothers and sisters. The visit of the United Nations secretary-general is therefore complimentary to the current efforts to end this conflict,” said Peter Bashir Gbandi.

(ST)

May 6, 2014 (KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese government dismissed reports saying it agreed to move the venue of Darfur peace talks to the Ethiopian capital, Addis Abab, reiterating its commitment to the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) to end the 11-year conflict in western Sudan.

Darfur peace implementation follow-up office issued a statement on Tuesday denying press reports saying Khartoum government had accepted to negotiate a peace agreement with non-signatory rebel groups in the region.

The office said that there is no such a deal and “we reject this idea in principle”, stressing that “the government sticks to the Doha platform as the sole and final venue for the Darfur peace process”.

The Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) failed last week to reach a framework agreement, but said they achieved some progress without disclosing on what they disagree.

Also while the talks were taking place, the rebel alliance Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) including Darfur holdout movements and the SPLM-N issued a roadmap for peace in Sudan proposing to unify the two tracks to end armed conflicts in Darfur and the Two Areas.

The rebels further proposed that a joint mediation – composed of the head of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP), Thabo Mbeki, Darfur peace mediator Mohamed Ibn Chambas and UN special envoy Haile Menkerios – brokers talks on security and humanitarian issues and matters related to their areas before to join a national conference on the new constitution.

Darfur peace office however said that the eighth meeting of the DDPD Implementation and Follow-up Commission (IFC) reaffirmed its support to the Doha forum and that the AUHIP is a partner in the Darfur Darfur dialogue process as provided in the document.

The ICF meeting, which was headed by the Qatari deputy prime minister, Ahmed bin Abdullah Al Mahmoud, took place on 29 April in El Fasher with the participation of the African Union, the European Union, the League of Arab States, Canada, Chad, China, Burkina Faso, Egypt, France, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

(ST)