September 21, 2015 (JUBA) – United Nations (UN) on Monday rang alarm bell over increased death rate among children in the UN protection of civilian site in Unity state's capital, Bentiu where 34 children under 5 years of age died in the first week of September, about 5 deaths a day.
Spokesperson for the UN secretary general in a press conference on Monday in New York said reports lamented the rapid loss of children in the camp.
"Turning to South Sudan, our colleagues at our Humanitarian Office (OCHA) say that thirty-four children under 5 years of age died from malnutrition in the civil protection site in Bentiu, Unity State, in the first week of September,” announced Stephane Dujarric.
He said the deaths mainly resulted from malnutrition, but added that water and sanitation organizations were stepping up activities to address malnutrition and child mortality in Bentiu.
OCHA said malnutrition remained a major concern across South Sudan, with about a quarter of a million children severely malnourished.
Meanwhile, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP) recently launched a joint nutrition scale-up plan, which will see the agencies and their partners assist over two million people – children, pregnant women and new mothers – for the treatment and prevention of acute malnutrition until May of next year.
“Just to give you a scale of the issue: following the recent fighting in central Unity State, we are now housing 112,000 people in our protection of civilians' camp in Bentiu," said Dujarric.
(ST)
September 21, 2015 (ADDIS ABABA) – South Sudanese armed opposition faction led by former vice-president and first vice-president designate, Riek Machar, has accused forces loyal to president Salva Kiir of committing further violations to the permanent ceasefire deal they signed in August to end the 20-month long civil war in the country.
Opposition leader's press secretary, James Gatdet Dak, on Monday said government troops attacked opposition-held territories and civilian settlements including Thoonyor in Leer county of the oil-rich Unity state.
“Soldiers of Salva Kiir have continued to attack our bases in a clear violation of the ceasefire. They attacked areas in Leer county in Unity state including Thoonyor payam, displacing civilians in the area,” Dak said in a statement on Monday.
He however said government forces were repulsed, but declined to provide details of casualties.
Dak also said fighting had been going on in Western Equatoria state in Mundri and Maridi counties, further accusing the government of launching offensive against their bases and civilian settlements.
President Kiir and opposition leader, Machar, signed a peace agreement in August and instructed their forces to stop fighting in observing the ceasefire.
Senior officers from the rival parties have held a week-long workshop in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, on the ceasefire deal and security arrangements, but could not agree on the size and composition of forces and joint integrated police that should remain or be deployed in the national capital, Juba.
Dak blamed the government for the failure to strike a deal, saying the Juba's suggested size of the force in the capital was contrary to the provision in the peace deal.
“The peace agreement clearly provides for demilitarization of Juba and other state capitals. However, the government demands an army division or brigades to be stationed in the capital. This is contrary to the security arrangements provision,” he said.
“The agreement talks of demilitarization, but the regime wants even more forces in the capital,” he added.
He said the opposition wanted a small size of joint integrated police of all categories and armed forces to guide the presidency, barracks, bases and warehouses in the capital.
Observers said the government has taken advantage of the loopholes in the IGAD Plus compromise peace agreement which failed to determine the size and composition of such forces as part of the signed document.
It is not clear when the parties will resume the workshop so as to agree on the security arrangements or whether IGAD mediation will try to come in and impose another compromise, as the implementation of the agreement will likely run behind the schedule.
(ST)
Deutschland steht bei der EU seit Jahren am Pranger wegen zu hoher Stickstoffdioxid-Werte in Städten und muss womöglich mit einer EuGH-Klage rechnen. Die Bundesregierung begründet das mit "viel zu hohen" Emissionen neuer Diesel-Autos.
Durch industrielle oder landwirtschaftliche Emissionen verursachte Atemwegsleiden töteten 2012 670.000 EU-Bürger. Männer waren stärker betroffen als Frauen. EurActiv Frankreich berichtet.
Am Wochenende gab es noch Differenzen, zu Wochenbeginn zog die österreichische Regierung wieder an einem Strang: Nach dem Vorstoß der Österreichischen Volkspartei für ein "Asyl auf Zeit" schließt sich auch die sozialdemokratische SPÖ diesem Vorschlag an.
September 21, 2015 (BOR) - Forgiveness, trust building and reconciliations were among the key pillars for peaced discussed during this year's international peace day marked in South Sudan's Jonglei state capital, Bor on Monday.
The event, organised by South Sudan council of churches with support from the United Nations Development programme (UNDP), was attended by several government officials, humanitarian agencies' representatives and the local residents.
The international peace day, is globally celebrated on 21 September each year. In South Sudan this year, South Sudan council of churches organised peace day celebrations in the provincial capitals of Torit, Yambio, Malakal, Kuajok, Rumbek, Juba and Bor.
The United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in a statement, called for human rights to peace, demanding an end of impunity that prevailed around the world.
He urged South Sudan's warring parties to lay down their weapons and observe global ceasefire.
Alois Sikuka, a security specialist at UNDP, conveyed Ki-Moon's message to the public.
“Stop the killings and the destructions and create space for lasting peace”, partly noted the UN secretary general's statement read to the public gathered in Bor.
Sikuka also urged the people of South Sudan to work for sustainable peace collectively.
“Here in South Sudan, that we now have peace agreement that has been signed, the observance of international day of peace provides valuable opportunity to remind ourselves that only join efforts can lead to sustainable peace in the country," he said.
Further added the UN official, "The task of implementing the agreement and working toward lasting peace can only be achieved through long term collaborations among all South Sudanese citizens and institutions across existing device”.
The governor of Jonglei state John Kong, advised the public to desist from words likely to derail peace, citing the use of hate speeches and comments capable of slowing down the government's efforts to achieve total peaceful co-existence among communities.
“This problem started with a words, bad words that brought people to fighting”, said Kong, in reference to the start of the South Sudanese crisis in mid December 2013.
"Even when there is ceasefire, if bad words are being used, ceasefire will not work. That is why we are here to support our president, in his efforts of making peace”, he added.
Kong advised the population to work for the interest of South Sudan and not individually.
James Aguer, a council of churches official, said peace would transform South Sudan's negative culture of war.
“We have great concerns about fundamental challenges that could prevent us from achieving the nation we desire, let each and every one plays his or her role in making peace, transforming the negative culture of war, hatred and mistrust into culture of love, forgiveness, reconciliation, peace and unity”, Aguer told the gathering in Bor.
“Peace is the most precious thing in the life of every human being. We people of the RPSs, we were having and still have so many definite ideas about the nation we hope to build. We have a vision that our nation shall be a country of peace, unity, togetherness and love for all and not tribalism”, he said.
(ST)
September 21, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – The director of Emergency Management & Humanitarian Work at the Sudanese Ministry of Health tendered his resignation and withdrew from a committee tasked with receiving wounded Yemenis after verbal altercations between the health minister of state Sumaya Idriss and staff at southern Khartoum hospital following the arrival of a second plane carrying Yemenis injured in the ongoing conflict.
Sudan has so far received three planes carrying 285 wounded and 130 of their family members amid reports on a fourth one in transit.
According to an informed source who spoke to Sudan Tribune the crisis erupted last Wednesday between the state minister and senior officials at the ministry and medical personnel at the hospital who were called in after the take-off of a civilian plane carrying new batch of wounded Yemenis without coordination with Sudanese authorities.
The source said that the medical staff rejected the manner by which the state minister addressed them and a clash ensued after which Idriss directed all the medical staff to be thrown outside the hospital.
But the director of Emergency Management & Humanitarian Work Ahmed Mohamed Zakaria and director of the hospital management at the Ministry of Health in Khartoum state Youssef Tibin rejected the order saying it goes against the rules and regulations.
The staff eventually left the hospital on their own and were joined by the hospital director Dr. Mahjoub Fudaili in an act of solidarity.
On Thursday morning, Zakaria who heads the ministry's largest department, officially announced his resignation and withdrawal from the committee on wounded Yemenis.
The source said Zakaria's resignation will negatively impact the process of receiving wounded Yemenis as he was handling this dossier since its inception and worked through the challenges of accommodating the injured and requesting private hospitals to take in some with the Saudi government picking the tab.
(ST)
By Juma Mabor Marial
Sometimes, one gives up on public affairs when the nation has ended up on a road to nowhere. This is the conclusion I made when I stopped writing and concentrated on my private businesses. I deliberately stopped writing to avoid putting myself into loggerhead with those who thought I might have been infringing on their authority.
But even as I was busy with my private businesses, I didn't neglect my civic duties of sharing with colleagues and other like-minded intellectuals the challenges and wrong path our nascent country was taking. I didn't however shared a lot on the on-going conflict and it dynamics or the peace negotiations basically on the assessment I had made and against the experiences and the difficulties those who contributed faced as most of them were easily branded as rebels sympathizers or government mouth-piece. It was and it is still a risky venture to undertake and that is why I decided to remain neutral at least until the objectivity and rationalism is restored.
This may not be the topic of discussion but I thought about this disclaimer because I wish to once again share with the public my reaction to the recent State of the Nation/Union Address by the President of South Sudan, General Salva Kiir. For some of us who may not be familiar with the meaning and objectives of the State of the Nation/Union Address, I want to share a little bit on the theory before we could move on to the content and analyst the strengths and weaknesses of the recent State of the Nation/Union Address by the President.
A State of the Nation/Union Address (SoN/UA/) is a political model in which the President reports on the status of the nation. The address not only reports on the condition of the nation but also allows the President to outline his or her national agenda and national priorities. It is here that the President can recommend any measures that he or she believes are necessary and expedient.
The SoN/UA is often broadcast to inform the nation about its present economic, political, and social condition. It is also a vehicle for the President to summarize the accomplishments and plans of his/her programme of government both for a particular year and until the end of his/her term of office.
In the United States of America, the President address a joint session of the United States Congress, typically delivered annually. The address not only reports on the condition of the nation but also allows the President to outline his or her legislative agenda (for which they need the cooperation of Congress) and national priorities. The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically give Congress information on the "state of the union" and recommend any measures that he or she believes are indispensable and convenient. During most of the country's first century, the President primarily only submitted a written report to Congress. With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live across the country on most networks.
In several countries, state of the nation address are criticized by various sectors for being too ostentatious and flashy, with politicians and media personalities treating the event as a red carpet fashion show. One Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago blasted the organizers and called the event a "thoughtless extravagance" where "peacocks spread their tails and turn around and around, as coached by media in a feeding frenzy."
This criticism is too heavy to be replicated in South Sudan or one risked other consequences, but let us now moves back to the situation and critically looks at the state of the union address of our President. Unlike in the United States of America and many other countries of the world, the State of the Nation/Union Address of the President of the Republic of South Sudan is not delivered through the legislature or given on a specified calendar date. This may be by design or default.
It is unfortunate that, the few technocrats that controls the timetable of the President sits and decides any weekend that the President should address the nation on this date and rush the announcement to the media thus obliging everyone to anxiously wait for what the surprise state of the nation address would deliver. This can of course not be blamed on these secretaries in the office of the President but it should be blamed entirely on the framers of the Transitional Constitution and the legislators for not having thought it important to incorporate a specific calendar date for the state of the nation address as an integral provision of the supreme law and other enabling legislations.
Their attempt to cater for this event is vaguely articulated under article 78 of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 which states that ‘the President may personally or by a message, address the national legislature or either of its houses. The national legislature or either of its two houses shall accord priority to such request over any other business. The President may also request the opinion of the national legislature or either of its two houses on any subject matter'.
This is the highest ambiguity that any constitution would allow because the letter and spirit of this provision is to the extent that, its gives the President the privilege and the freedom to call on parliament any time he deems fit and appropriate to address the nation, i.e. If the state of the nation address is to be given through the parliament. Again, if one look at article 101 (t) of the Transitional Constitution on the functions of the President, this is where you would find the proviso on the annual state of the nation address but whether this one is being implemented is another glaring question because for instance, how many state of nation address did the President made since South Sudan gained independence, one would likely suggest four on approximate but whether they were four or more is another area that need research. But that is not the issue of contention here; the question is the substance of what the context of the State of the Nation/Union Address that the President has been giving and is yet to be giving entails.
Having said this, one would not be surprise by the substance of what the content of the address entails as it is prima facie a rush and unplanned event where some note takers thinks it is just but a bullet point exercise that is not worth wasting time to prepare. Throughout his state of the nation address, the President has continued to keep the nation (citizens) glued to the televisions and their ears fixed on the radios waiting for something that never come at the end of the day.
In his recent state of the nation address, the President was expected to inform the nation (citizens) about the relationship with the foreign and diplomatic community and affirm whether the gaps that were apparent have been bridged after he signed the peace agreement, people were also eagerly waiting to hear the security status of the country and what are the developmental and infrastructural plans for the country, the commitment to peace agreement and the challenges and achievements that the government is able to report. He was also expected to talk about the economy.
The President didn't do much in all the above areas except that he spent his entire time talking about the Compromised Peace Agreement that he had signed and reiterates his insistency on a number of reservations that he made when he signed the pact. This is not a bad elaboration to have been made by H.E. because, as the head of state, he must share his commitment on the peace by enlightening the citizens on the deal and ask them to support him in the implementation in order to have a sustainable peace in the country.
The President scored highly on this item and he was applauded crossed the country and around the world for this statesmanship. Those who assisted him from his office on the literature and philosophy in giving the world and the people the assurances of his commitment to peace were equally appreciated. However, it was unfortunate to realize that, the state of the nation address was only organized to talk about the signed peace agreement and left out other crucial issues like the state of our foreign relation as a country, our development master plan, the achievements that the President and his government might have made despite the strife in the country, the infrastructural plans, the economic status and the challenges that the nation faced as a result of the conflict and other external factors.
Precisely, the President was expected to assure the citizens that his decision to append his signature on the Compromised Peace Agreement (CPA) has improved the foreign relations of South Sudan and her international friends, he was also expected to give a rough summary of what his government has achieved despite the on-going conflict, talk about the northern corridor project, the EAC engagement, the cooperation agreement with Sudan, the implementation by his government of the GPAA peace agreement, the improvement on the healthcare, education and infrastructural development. The President should have also taken it as his government achievement the declaration of cease-fire even if it is being sabotaged by the enemies of peace. He should have informed the nation of his government short and long-terms plans. The recently pasted vision 2040, what it entails in terms of development, infrastructure, education, healthcare systems, democracy, security and other well-fare issues.
After that the President should have talked about the challenges that his government is facing in its attempt to deliver services to the nation and this is where it would have been convenient for him to justify his calls for the nation to support him in the implementation process so that the country can return to stability and redefine its destiny. Again because the organizers of this event thought it was just a breakfast activity, they made the President, someone I have always considered a Wiseman and hold with highest respect repeat himself over and over again on one item called the implementation of the peace agreement.
My ultimate discontentment came about when the President came to the end of his address with regard to the state of our economy and informed the nation that and I quote; ‘I know some of you wanted me to talk about economy, but I decided not to talk about it purposely because I know, even if I talk about it [economy], we will just be discussing it here, but there is nothing that can be done about it'. This is where he scored NIL, as a President, you are like a doctor, a teacher, a father in the house and everything. You may be aware of the difficulties and the challenges just like all of us knows that the economy of the country has nearly collapsed but the last person to declare that is the President because like a doctor, you cannot tell the patient that the disease is incurable less you risk them taking their lives before you leave that room, as a father, you cannot tell your children that, I know you are hungry but there is no food and therefore, you have to live with it.
I know the President was giving this statement from the position of honesty but what he should have known is that there is more to his office than just being honest, he didn't have to express himself in the negative but rather, he should have turn it positive by informing the nation that, he is aware of the economic difficulties the country is facing as a consequent of the conflict and the only way out would be for all the citizens to join him in implementing the agreement that he has signed with the rebels as this will enhance improvements in the economic sector.
This statement would not mean doing something about it but rather, it will help in restoring hopes among the citizens and that is why the Presidents are called the fathers of the nations because they are the symbols of hope for the nation even in situations where the people are in despair. The President should have realized what his actions and his statements could do when he signed the peace agreement on 26th August, 2015, the market reacted positively to this development and a dollar that was exchanging at 17 SSP in the black market lowered to 11 SSP just in a matter of hours, this is doing something about fragile economic situation because economy usually reacts to political developments. His statement that there was nothing that could be done about the worsening economic situation open flood gates for unscrupulous business practitioners to abuse the market and after that day, the dollar that was trading at 14 SSP shot up to 16 SSP while the local shopkeepers increased their prices by 40 % and when asked about why they are doing that, they would simply reply, ‘there is nothing we can do about it'.
It is not surprising though that our President is not known for motivating the citizens in the situation of despair for instance, when the first graduation ceremony was made in the University of Juba early this year, the President told the grandaunts that they should not hope for being absorb into the government since there are very few positions in the government. This was not to encourage them to be job creators because he felt short in declaring that aspects, instead, he was telling them that there was nothing his government could do about the high rate of unemployment even as most of them graduates into the job market.
Summed up together, it is unfortunate to conclude that, the recent State of the Nation/Union Address by the President just like many other statements that he gives in public occasions failed to meet the threshold requires by an ideal state of the union practice. Most importantly, the President and those who organizes these functions with him must also understand that the hopes and expectations of the people of South Sudan are usually anchored upon their office and anytime they come out to say something in form of the state of the nation address, people eagerly anticipates a solution to a number of challenges that are facing them and for the President to declare that there is nothing that can be done about something like economy is suicidal and to some larger extent an absolute declaration of despair.
Finally, I can't blame the President so much because he cannot do all by himself but my disappointment goes to those who are in his office, they should be the ones to read the minds of the public and advice the President to tailor his state of the nation address in such a comprehensive manner as to cover all the aspects regarding the country's political and socio-economic situation. They should also advice the president to usually gives assurances and guarantees where the citizens are about to give up. These are the tasks for which they are being paid and maintained otherwise, if they allow the President to speaks the way he did in the recent state of the nation address, then, they could be deliberately sabotaging his relationship with the citizens or altogether ineptitude. I don't know which one of these is relevant but a serious investigation must be made on those two scenarios.
The author is an advocate. He is reachable at jummabor@gmail.com