Home | Comment & Analysis    Monday 28 January 2008

UN inaction persists and Darfur crimes too


UN Inaction Persists & Darfur Genocide Continues with Impunity

By Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman

January 27, 2008 — Is it a ZIONIST CONSPIRACY or GENOCIDE what has been happening in Darfur? This is a perpetual enquiry. The atrocities exercised against the people of Darfur are genocide. Genocide has taken place in Darfur. The recent developments by Professor George J. Andreopoulos of Department of Government, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York Author of Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions and others) outlines the criteria for establishing that genocide has happened:

During the first 50 years after its ratification, the genocide convention lacked effective enforcement mechanisms, despite the fact that it contained provisions to enable the UN to enforce it. Although the convention stipulated that persons charged with genocide should be tried before an international penal tribunal or a tribunal of the state in which the crime was committed, no permanent penal tribunal existed at the international level until the early 21st century, and prosecutions at the domestic level were unlikely except in the rare case where a genocidal regime was overthrown and its officials were prosecuted by a successor regime.

The genocide convention was first invoked before an international tribunal in 1993, when the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina argued before the International Court of Justice that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in breach of its obligations under the convention. During the 1990s the international community became more vigorous in prosecuting alleged crimes of genocide. The UN Security Council established separate tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), both of which contributed to the clarification of the material elements of the offense of genocide as well as of the criteria establishing individual criminal responsibility for its commission. The Rwandan tribunal, for example, stated that genocide included “subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement.” It also ruled that “rape and sexual violence constitute genocide…as long as they were committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group, targeted as such”—as was the case in the Rwandan conflict, where the government, dominated by the Hutu ethnic group, organized the mass rape of ethnic Tutsi women by HIV-infected men. On the critical issue of intent, the Yugoslav tribunal also ruled that genocidal intent can be manifest in the persecution of small groups of people as well as large ones. According to the tribunal, such intent may consist of desiring the extermination of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the group as such. This would then constitute an intention to destroy the group “selectively. On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998 in Rome by some 120 countries, entered into force. The ICC’s jurisdiction includes the crime of genocide, and the statute adopts the same definition of the offense as found in the genocide convention. The establishment of the ICC—though without the participation of the United States, China, and Russia—was another indication of a growing international consensus in favour of vigorous and concerted efforts to suppress and punish the crime of genocide.

Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic Cleansing is the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, was widely employed in the 1990s (though the term first appeared earlier) to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups in the conflicts that erupted upon the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These groups included Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia, and ethnic Albanians and later Serbs in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The term also has been attached to the treatment by Indonesian militants of the people of East Timor, many of whom were killed or forced to abandon their homes after citizens there voted in favour of independence in 1999, and to the plight of Chechens who fled Grozny and other areas of Chechnya following Russian military operations against Chechen separatists during the 1990s. According to a report issued by the United Nations (UN) secretary-general, the frequent occurrence of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s was attributable to the nature of contemporary armed conflicts, in which civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure are not simply by-products of war, but the consequence of the deliberate targeting of non-combatants…. [I]n many conflicts, belligerents target civilians in order to expel or eradicate segments of the population, or for the purpose of hastening military surrender.

Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide.

Another major controversy concerns the question of whether or not ethnic cleansing originated in the 20th century. Some scholars have pointed to the forced resettlement of millions of people by the Assyrians in the 9th and 7th centuries BC as perhaps the first cases of ethnic cleansing. Among other examples cited are the mass execution of Danes by the English in 1002, attempts by the Czechs to rid their territories of Germans in the Middle Ages, the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 15th century, and the forced displacement of Native Americans by white settlers in North America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Others argue that ethnic cleansing, unlike earlier acts of forced resettlement, is the result of certain uniquely 20th-century developments, such as the rise of powerful nation-states fuelled by nationalist and pseudoscientific racist ideologies in conjunction with the spread of advanced technology and communications. Examples of ethnic cleansing understood in this sense include the Armenian massacres by the Turks in 1915–16, the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews in the 1930s and ’40s, the expulsion of Germans from Polish and Czechoslovak territory after World War II, the Soviet Union’s deportation of certain ethnic minorities from the Caucasus and Crimea during the 1940s, and the forced migrations and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s. In many of these campaigns, women were targeted for particularly brutal treatment—including systematic rape and enslavement—in part because they were viewed by perpetrators as the “carriers,” biologically and culturally, of the next generation of their nations. Because many men in victimized populations left their families and communities to join resistance groups once violence began, women and children were often defenceless.

The precise legal definition of ethnic cleansing has been the subject of intense scrutiny within various international bodies, including the UN, the two ad hoc international tribunals created in the 1990s to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY] and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR], respectively), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which began sittings in 2002. In 1992, in reference to the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be “a form of genocide,” and in the following year the Security Council, citing widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established a tribunal to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing. In its examination of the capture of the town of Kozarac by Bosnian Serbs, the ICTY described the ethnic cleansing that took place there as the process of rounding up and driving “out of the area on foot the entire non-Serb population.” In a subsequent case, the tribunal recognized similarities between acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, noting that both involve the targeting of individuals because of their membership in an ethnic group. The significant difference between the two remains, however: whereas ethnic cleansing aims to force the flight of a particular group, genocide targets the group for physical destruction.

The establishment of the ICC reinforced the links between ethnic cleansing and other offenses such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In its finalized text on the elements of the crimes in the court’s jurisdiction, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made clear that ethnic cleansing could constitute all three offenses within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Genocide, for example, was defined as an act that may include the systematic expulsion of individuals from their homes; the threat of force or coercion to effect the transfer of a targeted group of persons was recognized as an element of crimes against humanity; and the “unlawful deportation and transfer,” as well as the displacement, of civilians were recognized as elements of war crimes.

Despite continuing controversies over its definition, the concept of ethnic cleansing has become firmly anchored within international law. It remains to be seen how mechanisms to prevent and deal with ethnic cleansing will develop and be implemented.

Additional Reading
Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (2001), argues that ethnic cleansing is primarily a 20th-century phenomenon; Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, Ethnic Cleansing (1996, reissued 1999), takes the contrary view. The position of the United Nations is presented in Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (September 1999), and Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (March 2001). The elements of the crimes included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are described in Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, part 2 (2001).

Eric Reeves (SudanTribune Tuesday 1 January 2008: What Alternative to UNAMID Will Provide Security for Darfur?) said out of his frustration on the inaction of the International Community in deploying a robust peacekeeping force in Darfur for the protection of the civilians: “Laurie Nathan, an advisor to the African Union during the ill-fated Abuja peace talks, has put the matter with such force and clarity that it seems important to repeat his largest conclusion:

“The UN and the AU insist there is no military solution to the Darfur crisis. They contend that any solution has to be political, in the form of a negotiated settlement. At the very least, the long anticipated deployment of a peacekeeping force requires a ceasefire agreement so that there is a peace to be kept.”

“While this argument might be correct in principle, it is tragically wrong in practice. A negotiated settlement for Darfur is out of reach. In the absence of clear political agreement, there are only two strategies that hold any prospect of providing relief to the people of Darfur: a robust peace operation that vigorously provides protection to civilians, and concrete pressure on Khartoum to abstain from violence.”

Professor Reeves continues: “How do we answer the question posed by Nathan and Muggah? Do the UN and its member states, along with the AU, “have the stomach to pursue” the required strategies? and on an urgent basis? Sadly, the Darfur genocide, in its various forms, has required robust responses for so long that there is apparently little left that can add to a sense of urgency. If more than 2.6 million displaced persons, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of rapes of women and girls cannot create the international will to act, what can? If previous large-scale ethnically-targeted destruction and slaughter have not moved us, how can current human destruction---less violent, but savagely deliberate---move us now? Perhaps we must simply accept that there is no catalyst for any action other than more vigorously unctuous hand-wringing. But it must be clearly understood that in the absence of urgent, robust measures, cataclysmic human destruction becomes inevitable.”

“It is not in the interests of Sudan, Africa or the world “for us all to stand by and see genocide being developed in Darfur.” This statement was attributed to former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Juan Mendez noted that the Sudanese government “relies on the disunity in the Security Council to avoid the imposition of sanctions.” Ernest Harsch reported in Africa Renewal, Vol.20 #3 (October 2006), “on 17 September, a day of solidarity with the people of Darfur brought protesters into the streets in locations around the world. In London demonstrators rallied outside the Sudanese Embassy, while Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders delivered a plea and said prayers outside the residence of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people rallied in New York City. In Rwanda, survivors of the 1994 genocide called for action to halt the Darfur crisis, while other events were held across Africa, from Dakar to Sudan’s Juba Mountains. President George W. Bush speaking at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on April 18, 2007 stated “All of the people in this room and people in this country have a vital role to play. Everyone ought to raise their voice. We ought to continue to demand that the genocide in Sudan be stopped.” He added “No one who sees these pictures can doubt that genocide is the only word for what is happening in Darfur — and that we have a moral obligation to stop it. Unfortunately, these agreements have been routinely violated. Sudan’s government has moved arms to Darfur, conducted bombing raids on villages, they’ve used military vehicles and aircraft that are painted white — which makes them look like those deployed by humanitarian agencies and peacekeeping forces. Just this week, Sudan’s government reached an agreement with the United Nations to allow 3,000 U.N. troops and their equipment into the country to support the AU force. The world has heard these promises from Sudan before. President Bashir’s record has been to promise cooperation while finding new ways to subvert and obstruct the U.N.’s efforts to bring peace to his country. The time for promises is over — President Bashir must act. During my tour of the Darfur exhibits this morning, I was shown a photo of a one-year-old girl who had been shot as her mother fled the Janjaweed. Although the mother had tried to protect her baby, it was to no avail. When the photo was taken, an observer nearby began to shout: "This is what they do! This is what happens here! Now you know! Now you see! Thanks to the efforts of people in this room, the world knows and the world sees. And now the world must act.”"

It has been reported that the Government of Sudan (GOS) instead of stopping the ongoing genocide and the killing in Darfur, it was shamelessly asking the Rwandan National Party (RNP) to build up ties with its National Congress Genocidal Party (NCGP). What a paradox and ironic setting. The intentions of the GoS in this act are clear. It aims at blunting the images of its genocidal acts against the people of Darfur. This is a Defense “Mental” Mechanism referred to as Reaction Formation, a psychological strategy brought into play by individuals, groups and even nations to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. A defense mechanism in psychodynamic theory is the process by which we protect ourselves from awareness of our undesired and feared impulses.The visit to Rwanda by the Master Génocidaires is also a type of behaviour commonly observed by Criminologists and Forensic Medicine Specialists in which the offender of a crime such as murder tends to return to the site where he/she committed the crime or disposed the victim’s corpse and roam about to uncover what is happening!

The former apostle and a disciple to Hassan Abdullah al –Turabi, who changed allegiance of his godfather, Mustafa Osman Ismail, presidential (Rasputin) or advisor (De facto foreign affairs) to Field Marshal Omer Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir, has visited Kigali, Rwanda, recently. He is reported to have met with the officials to enhance Cooperation between their ruling parties. It was learned that the two parties have expressed appreciation over developed relations. This happens when the Government of Sudan [GOS] stepped up its military presence in Darfur and intensified its attacks on civilians supported by the air force. Moreover, the visit was at a time when more alarm and concern is being expressed by governments around the world over the deteriorating situation in the Darfur region of western Sudan. One would have thought the Rwandan officials rather abhor these senseless acts and regret the violence that violates and undermines the ceasefire agreements with resultant loss of life in Darfur. Rwanda in which genocide had claimed an estimated 800,000 lives in 1994 the officials there are not expected to support the GOS in the aftermath of the Darfur genocide and mass atrocities. However, it may not be terribly surprising given the earlier visit Omer al-Bashir made on the 10th June 2005 to Rwanda. That visit was reported in the media, at the time, under the banner: Genocidal Dictator Commemorates Genocide. On June the 10th 2005 Sudanese Dictator Omar Bashir visited the Kigali Memorial Centre in Rwanda, during an African economic summit being held in the capital. He was accompanied by Mustafa Osman Ismail, the then his Foreign Minister, together with other officials. Bashir, whose government is presiding over an ongoing genocide against the people of Darfur that credible independent estimates indicate has already claimed the lives of 200,000 – 400,000 people, viewed a memorial to the hundreds of thousands of children killed in the 1994 genocide, and laid a wreath on mass graves containing the remains of 250,000 victims of the genocide killed in Kigali alone. “We followed closely the painful events of 1994,” Omer al-Bashir stated during his visit. “We are very glad to see that the Rwandan people have overcome this tragedy. We hope that in the future the Rwandan people will reconcile and live in peace and stability.” Omar al-Bashir who had the dubious distinction of being one of Parade Magazine’s "10 worst Dictators" in 2006, seems to be displaying the Defence Mechanism of PROJECTION in which the attribution of his undesired impulses onto another. Thus, he is denouncing the painful events of 1994 caused by the Hutus against the Tutsis. This is similar to the popular parable that “The killer attending the funeral of his victim!” Genocidal National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) in Khartoum should not have wooed ties with and sought the custom of the genocide survivors in Rwanda in the first place: Beggar Belief! It is incumbent on President Omer Ahmed al-Bashir to protect the survivors and end the genocide instead of escalating the fighting in the region of Darfur. However, it is no coincidence that Rwanda’s current government was quick to send its soldiers. They understand more than anyone about the need to protect in these situations.

The world has heard these promises from Sudan before. President Bashir’s record has been to promise cooperation while finding new ways to subvert and obstruct the U.N.’s efforts to bring peace to his country. The time for promises is over. Will the President Omer al-Bashir act this time and to stop the genocide and the mass annihilation in Darfur? That is the Sixty Four Dollar Question that defies the answer. We may reiterate, sadly, Professor Reeves’ sentiments “Perhaps we must simply accept that there is no catalyst for any action other than more vigorously unctuous hand-wringing. But it must be clearly understood that in the absence of urgent, robust measures, cataclysmic human destruction becomes inevitable.”

Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman is the Deputy Chairman of the General Congress for Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). He can be reached at mahmoud.abaker@gmail.com

The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysis' section are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email it to comment@sudantribune.com

Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information and political affiliations.
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 28 January 2008 17:57, by Mou

    Episcopal Church’s mess continue in Aweil under Bishop C. Riak.
    Dear greater Aweil citizens, I would kindly like to request all of you to bear with me to officially make known to every one in a lengthy document, the caused of mental illness characterized by profound and persistent feeling of sadness or despair, or a loss of interest in spreading Gospel fairly in Episcopal Church of Wau and Aweil in particular. Without doubt I am aware that every Aweil citizen experiences feelings of unhappiness and sadness or chaos persisting in Episcopal Church ever since, but each of you wonders what’s going on in the church, however, I am here to highlight some major causes of our church’s hold-back in Aweil and Wau as whole.

    First of all, I’d like to give Sudanese full coverage particularity Aweil people about situation that had faced Wau Diocese in the first place and unattractively getting worse in Aweil even before the said Diocese of Aweil has been agreed who to lead it in the nearest future. In the year 2002, Henry Riak had been chiefly fortunate in receiving an unusual large amount of rejection letters as a result of Church abuse, but Henry Riak’s leadership is shamelessly continues destroying the church for his own personal interest. Bishop Chuir Riak was imprisoned in 1994-1999 with money related crime in Wau until he was released from prison shortly to attend a meeting in Nairobi, where he met young Sudanese pastors (especially pastors from Aweil, Gogrial and Tonj who were studying in Nairobi) who persuaded him not to go back to the prison.

    They had accepted him to lead their Diocese hoping that he would change, unfortunately he has never changed his old colours ever since. Pastors’ refusal to let him return to his deserved prison was done with high expectation that he would change his old ways of living in the church to avoid embarrassment of the imprisonment. The expectation was that his repentant would change Wau Diocese in a better way; unfortunately things turn out to worse after he assumed Diocesan powers. His worse leadership was uncovered Dated 3rd August 2002, when a number of Wau Church leaders were saddened to see that Henry Riak had so abused his office and they took strong and decisive action against Riak’s misleadings. In their document, they had accused Bishop Henry Riak with 5 serious office abuses plus many others I have considered minors:

    1. Of embezzlement of $ 60,250 donated by Christian Solidarity International, (CSI), presiding Bishops Fund of USA (PBF) and Salisbury Diocese. (SD)
    2. That Henry Riak is the secretary, treasurer, head of departments and everything in the Diocese giving no voice for other leaders in decision making.
    3. That Henry was practicing Nepotism in Wau Diocese by appointing his clan’s men to position like Maker Anhiem and gave some of his clan’s men Diocesan scholarships like Andrew Ater when it is illegal constitutionally.
    4. Henry Cuir Riak entertains no reconciliation with clergy who differed with him in administrative matters. instead he encourages those who differed with him to leave to other Denominations
    5. He demoted Thiet Archdeaconry, and the reason for demotion was that the Christians in that Archdeaconry refused to give him cows he demanded from them.

    In late December 2007, Bishop Riak held a meeting in Wanjok, Southern Sudan, the meeting he called Diocesan Synod which I doubt if it was a Synod. Reason behind my suspicious is that there was no freedom of speech in the meeting; things turn dark in the house of meeting. Bishop protected the meeting with two loaded AK47; moreover, he was the starter and the finisher of the meeting. He did not want priests to choose someone they trust to lead Aweil Diocese claiming that what he did underground in the previous year was legitimate. He was wrongly courageous enough to refuse any kind of election as if the church is in his pocket but indeed he deliberately said it last year that he has something (name of someone to be elected as a Bishop) in his pocket and unless pastors abide by what he wants he would take it back in the pocket.

    Another serious violation of Church’s meeting is what I perceive to have never happened in the history of the church in the whole world for Bishop to bring armed soldiers with loaded guns into Spiritual meetings and call them chaplains. I know that Chaplains are the ones that dress with chaplaincy uniform and some times carry guns but not towards the meetings. It was not surprising to me of course because that is how Riak translate the work of chaplaincy in his diocese. He is only good for messing things and interfering where he has no business at all. It is very true and firm that he only survives through creating confusion in the church as if he has no other source of survival. Early last year one of contenders emailed Henry to inform him that he wanted to contest for the position of Aweil’s Bishop to be, I couldn’t believe that Riak asked this person to send him $1,000 first before he considers his letter of contest valid. After a friend of mind failed to send him suggested amount, his document was in fact considered invalid. I can provide evidence if he deny this fact later since I know he is well known for denying the real facts

    Two AK47 were hidden under cartons in the house were meeting took place. The said chaplain’s were in wrong uniform but pure military uniforms. I shouldn’t be fool when I taught and have been taught by chaplains in the church many times.
    These soldiers that Bishop Riak called Chaplains were behind pastors where they had hidden their loaded guns at their back under cartons. They have fully dressed with military uniform and within military uniform, priest’s collar shirts where there. He pretended to have brought priests but not at all even God knows. See pictures below where they were located in the meeting. They were serious and alert for whatever Riak would tell them to act.

    Almost every body was scared in the meeting. The door of happiness was shut up; no one was allowed to speak freely. The fact is that there was the plot to silence opinion of others who want fair election with justice.
    The author was just recording the meeting with video camera and digital camera as well, when Bishop saw him taking and recording his synod which he knew was not right, he dismissed him from the meeting despite the fact that he was part of the meeting. Bishop used strange voice and term which a bishop who respects his jobs cannot pronounce. The author would like to underline the fact that every one served with this document including the media will soon hear Bishop’s voice from video film which was recorded in the meeting when he had not yet sent the camera man out of the meeting.
    Bishop Riak knew that this camera man would not let him vomit out his waste without telling him boldly to justify his point correctly. When he realized that he was running the risk of failure, he got rid of the man so harshly so that he could act freely without someone to question his falsehood.

    Thank God that camera man was able to record most of Riak’s plan to fail Aweil people in Episcopal Church of Sudan.

    Aweil people must wake up at this time round, whether they’re in different denominations, whether in the community based organization or in the government sectors to see together with us what is happening in the church of Episcopal and stop it. We need Aweil to have a bishop who listens to the need of his people, we need Bishop who will not be there just to protect his position only but doing nothing to strengthen church’s spirituality and material part of it. We need a bishop who is trained, faithful and reliable but not just self-centred one, we need a bishop who knows the grievances our people went through since 1947-present and to be able to start healing process instead of fuelling trauma our people already have sustained. I’m convinced that Riak is hundred miles away from these qualities of leadership we need in the church.

    If our priority as Church leaders is to turn most difficult phase of life to this young church, I opted, we better leave it to others who have undecided to risk the life of the church.
    The real Chaplains
    On the 3rd Dec. 2007 – 6th Dec. 2007, we conducted a workshop in Wanjok with an invitation of Zion Christian Church under Friend of Sudan Organization founded by Garang Athian Athian. William Mou Deng, who is the pastor incharge of Wanjok Church, had invited the real chaplains, and therefore you can see how they were located, without loaded guns.

    In contrast, Bishop Riak feels threaten to see competence church leaders coming up in Aweil, Gogrial and Tonj. His best way to deal with such pastors is to dismiss them to other different denominations to pave his way for his interest.

    Ven Santino Bol Akook
    Riak tried many times to kick out Rev. Santino Bol Akook, of Aweil West E.CS, to different denomination but Akook strongly withstands his attempts. Akook who sometimes help him out of problems became his enemy. in 2002 Rev. Santino B. Akook refused to sign a petition written by 56 priests who rejected Bishop Riak as a Bishop of Wau Diocese, Akook’s refusal to sign the petition was a clear indication to urge Riak to accept round table discussion with pastors which would resolve dispute between Bishop and priests and to give room for suiting the interest of Wau diocese rather than empty conflict. Akook had finally succeeded in bringing the two groups together (56 priests and Bishop) to discuss the issues and it was done successfully. Not very long after reconciliation between Bishop and 56 priests who signed the petition, Akook launched his duties he felt call in the Church as Archdeacon of E.C.S in Aweil West under Wau Diocese. All his initiatives of Development both spiritually and materially were quite successful. It is proven by the increase of the followers of Christ in number as well as material evidences which appears below. His projects are moving into its major phases of activity supported by the team of co-workers who are building up competence and experience needed. This commitment has threatened the leadership of Wau Diocese under Riak greatly. And as a result, this led to un-thoughtful attempt to kick Akook out of the Church several times by Bishop Riak alone. This failing leadership of Wau, without doubt is lacking the ideas of sharing agendas, or cooperation inclusively or seeking to facilitate change of desirable kinds that Akook has.

    On 28th Dec. 2007 during the Synod, Bishop Riak called for replacement of Santino Akook with someone else. This idea caused high tension between him and Aweil West pastors. Nevertheless after he realized that his suggestion has been opposed and finally rejected by Aweil West priests, he sent them away by force and announced the name of a certain priest as Archdeacon for Aweil West to replace Santino B. Akook. In my conclusion, Riak does not need active people to challenge his weak leadership such as Bol Akook who has started the construction of clinic as shown below.

    Santino Bol is characterized with good leadership which gives community clear goals for it to function well. He has managed to identify a suitable project leader, motivated, trained, and supported by the community to avoid future rejection of the project by the community. He has brought out two young men to Kenya for medical training that will run this clinic after three years of their training.

    Furthermore, Akook is working hard to start the construction of Bible School and community guest house. The influence of Ven. Santino seems to have produced jealousy to the leadership of Wau Diocese under Bishop Riak but it has marked the peak of Akook’s popularity with the population of Aweil West. Those who are seeing his work want him to remain their Archdeacon, but those who feel threaten by his creativities wanted to do away with him. May almighty God live his vision regardless of controversies, conflicts and crisis he faces!

    Ven. James Baak Nhial.
    This priest is the former Wau Diocesan Secretary who later became victim of mismanagement of the things he is not responsible with. Nhial like Akook is a very creative young priest who managed to complete the construction of Primary school and High school in Gogrial. The community guest house is half-way constructed. Baak has been rejected many times by the church leadership for his qualification to deliver appropriately anything church expected him to do. This produce severe enmity on himself, but Baak Nhial did not make a mistake to seek for revenge or abandon his call, although the more he perform his duties the more hatred increase. Nhial who is a graduate of St. Paul Theological College and Development, Kabari, Kenya continue his faith and his work with out fear of anything.

    1. Rev. Moses Deng
    Deng Bol is another visionary young clergy who was once a Tutor for Timothy Training Institute (TTI) in Aweil, as well as a Student at St. Paul University in Limuru, Kenya. Bol, during his teaching hours he had burdened to share with pastors what he called “holistic approach to the ministry” which combines both spiritual and physical development of the community. He illustrated his points by using other denominations which have initiated this kind of development in Southern Sudan such as Roman Catholic Church which has built Primary schools, Primary Health Care among others. But E.C.S leadership which feel comfortable with unlearned priests accused Moses Deng of apostasy. E.C.S leadership rose against Moses D. Bol and sent letters of suspension to Open Doors organization which offers TTI courses that Moses teaches. Other institutions were served including Moses Deng’s sponsor so that his sponsor could cancel his scholarship.
    Nevertheless school administration disregard the letter of suspension written by the Bishop and Sponsor also refused the cancellation of Deng scholarship.

    Although Deng was disappointed with false accusation levelled against him by the church leadership, he did not give up his determination to serve his church and community. Instead he decided to use his talent else where and continue with his commitment to serving both the church and the wider community. Immediately after his graduation from St Paul’s in 2006 he was appointed as a coordinator by a local NGO to implement a project known as recovery and rehabilitation programme in education, health and good governance sectors which he did very well. He joined another Christian International Organization as a Christian Commitments Program Officer a position he holds to date. Deng continue serving both church and the wider community in what he called “Transformational Development” with an extra ordinary determination and commitment to improve the living conditions of the Sudanese communities which have devastated by 21years civil war.`

    All knowledgeable church leaders are being scattered away from the church and I call upon citizens to question the ongoing malfunction of ECS in Aweil, Gogrial and Tonj. Riak has already caused confusion between Tonj’s priests. Again, he caused serious confusion in Aweil West and particularly Marial-bai Archdeaconry. I appeal to Aweil citizens that if Bishop Riak want us in Aweil to make Bible say what it doesn’t really say, than we should be able to attend those areas strictly with bold heart to correct him.

    Those who might have been behind the plot by Riak will appear when I push this document to the media.

    Bishop Henry C. Riak
    Cc: Archbishop of the Province of Episcopal Church of Sudan
    “ “ “ “ GOSS
    Aweil State Government
    Six County Commissioners of the greater Aweil
    Aweil communities in USA
    Aweil communities in Canada
    Aweil communities in Australia
    Aweil communities in some parts of Africa

    Stephen Mayuen Mou
    Pan Africa Christian University
    P.O.Box 56875 00200 City Square
    Tel: 0720 230 453
    Email: stephenmou@yahoo.com

    repondre message

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.

Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis

Perspectives on Kiir and Machar meeting 2018-06-20 22:48:12 By Santino Ayual Bol IGAD which has been facilitating and mediating the slow-heel Agreement to Resolve the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan shortly abbreviated as ARCISS has unilaterally (...)

SLM’s al-Nur’s response to Troika countries about violence in Darfur 2018-06-20 22:02:28 Response by the Sudan Liberation Movement to statement by the United States, United Kingdom & Kingdom Of Norway on cessation of violence in Darfur By Abdul Wahid al-Nur Dear President (...)

Another electoral farce Sudanese should expect in 2020 2018-06-18 02:08:16 Sudanese Elections Scheduled for 2020 will be Fraught with Dangers andCounterfeiting like its predecessors By Mahmoud A. Suleiman The National Congress Party (NCP) regime’s Elections Scheduled (...)


Latest Press Releases

The Suspension of Hurriyat Online Newspaper 2018-04-29 07:04:37 Sudan Democracy First Group 28 April 2018 The Sudanese civil and political circles and those concerned with Sudan were shocked by the news that the management of Hurriyat online newspaper has (...)

Petition on the Deteriorating Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in Sudan 2018-04-22 10:01:20 UN Secretary-General, New York African Union Commission, Addis Ababa UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva Petition on the Deteriorating Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in Sudan (...)

Abyei celebrates Mine Awareness Day 2018-04-05 08:52:03 4 April 2018 | Abyei - The United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) and the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) commemorated the International Day for Mine Awareness and (...)


Copyright © 2003-2018 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.