I beg to completely disagree with the writer. He suggests the dominance of one group over another as if this is a virtue. In fact, I am shocked and will give the writer the benefit of doubt as to what he means by “group” and those “groups” dominating others.
Editor,
RE: Kiir and Riek can fight, on one condition (The New Times, July 17)
I beg to completely disagree with the writer. He suggests the dominance of one group over another as if this is a virtue. In fact, I am shocked and will give the writer the benefit of doubt as to what he means by "group” and those "groups” dominating others.
Why would there be a need of any group dominating another? Doesn’t this go straight against a democratic society under Rule of Law, a society adhering to and respecting Human Rights, regardless of being a member of the "right group”? (that is if I assume he meant group as an ethnic group).
The problem in South Sudan is that all powers have been concentrated in the hands of a single person, and the fact is the person with all these powers, in his own words, "is being pushed around like a child” and has no vision for the betterment of the nation at all.
This leaves us stomping in the mud of war and unrest with the result of getting bogged down further and further.The solution is to create space where peace can be implemented and the hardliners sent into exile or wherever such people should be sent.
Perhaps then the child wearing the presidential hat would start acting like a statesman and finally start to listen to those who wish peace to return.
It appears that the opposition side has hitherto taken a very restrained stand in the conflict but they will no doubt snap eventually, plunging us into chaos.
President Festus Mogae and his JMEC (Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission) should immediately start to publish adherence (or non adherence) to the peace agreement.
This, I believe, would show the people of South Sudan the real colours of the signatories to the agreement.
Deng Luak