Evaluation and Response to SPLM FDs Exit Strategy

Prepared by Bol Jok Jek,

Members of the former Detainees meeting Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in the past(Photo: file)
Members of the former Detainees meeting Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in the past(Photo: file)


Nov 25, 2017(Nyamilepedia) —- Historical background of Crisis – The historical background of South Sudan crisis is similar to any Country with post independent political outstanding issues which caused civil war whether in Balkans region in Europe or Africa, such as Rwanda, Central Africa Republic, and DRC. The conflict in Republic of South Sudan was started within SPLM party in which SPLM FDs were part of, and had played and framed conception of which to become SPLM monopoly or lack of political participation in nation building process. It had started political and deviated ethnic by one who supposed to be President but it never went without response from ethnic Nuer whose members got murdered by President’s Bodyguards arbitrarily in Juba. With regard to SPLM FDs exit strategy summary, before to evaluate exit strategy, first let’s critically recognize the rights and wrongs in six summary points.

  1. We agree on point number one in summary in SPLM FDs exit strategy position which aimed to present what they have call seven scenarios in which they think to supposed to be solution. We appreciate their recognition of anarchy state in which the Country is sinking into, in terms of security and political responsibility by Government towards its citizens. For sure, there are famine, economic collapsed, random killing and burning of villages and rampant abused of rights within capital and outside Juba. SPLM IO is considering the suffering of people of South Sudan more than SPLM FDs evidenced by coming of SPLM IO to Juba for the purpose of implementing peace accord without enough and proper security arrangement as stipulated in ARCISS’s security article. Most of the actors to agreements knows the details of what was happened without unnecessary reiteration.  SPLM FDs had run away to cities such as Nairobi, Washington, and Juba, leaving behind innocent civilian in villages of South Sudan under pillaging, plundering and savaging from bandits who supposed to be their Government.
  2. In second point of SPLM FDs point, we partly agree with the fact that Salva is an illegitimate president that rule only Juba city similar to any Mayor, and therefore dully ineffective to lead the whole Country from disorder and chaos that he had created in 2013 to date. We also recognize the fact that the Chairman of SPLM IO Dr. Riek Machar was solitarily confined by region and with blessing of former US secretary of State John Kerry who intended to resolve the crisis by diversion of August peace agreement by using exclusive policy, but what we did dispute is the fallacy of unfounded propaganda and opportunistic political orchestration that equally described Dr. Riek Machar as divisive figure with corrupted Salva Kiir. The idea that there is a need to devise an exit strategy for Kiir is good plan because his regime was over but what seem weird and absurd is the hairsplitting and faultfinding carefully creating position of possibility.  Dr. Riek Machar is not ethnically targeting any ethnic group in South Sudan as Kiir did in 2013, until now. We considered this as opportunistic orchestration for the reason of using desperate condition for one interest rather than solution to the Conflict.  The reason we disputed it is because the crisis started politically within SPLM party in which SPLM FDs were part of, and that it shall be solely resolve politically as it is a political crisis. We all agreed on that base that South Sudan crisis is political, and because of that base, this crisis could be resolve and resettle only through political bargaining between the parties in conflict.
  3. The Exit strategy is not actually effective strategy because its focus is on the short term and remedy of consequences instead of long term political solution of the crisis. It is based on conception on distanced sources away of context of the crisis, it was on American former Congressman who does not know more about the social, culture, economic and political factors that instigate and escalated into what we currently would want to resolve.
  4. The point number four here is a mysterious conclusion to resolve this crisis by just using force asylum, force financial incentive and a force amnesty, this can represented a clear underestimation of the pain, price paid and suffering endured by other communities, who had paid the price of freedom to fight back ethnic based ideology of Kiir. It is absurd and bizarre to simply overstate your case and solution by undermining the whole context of crisis and the majority supporters who work to restore their freedom through fighting backing and others living under UN protection site. The result cannot be handling over all the effort and the Country under the rule to mere technocrats who had ran away leaving innocent people behind and went slept in Washington DC, and Nairobi. The DISPLACED majority population in UN protection sites and those in neighbors Countries who are supporting SPLM IO, are indeed under estimated by this exit strategy. The strategy is not only undermining but embellished the painful wound, abstracted and distorted the whole process which was intended for participative and inclusive solution. The SPLM FDs safe Exit of force asylum, force financial incentive and force amnesty is not safe anymore but greedy plan that is dangerous, bizarre, ridiculous, weird and political absurdity in political history.
  5. The concept in which SPLM FDs built their Exit strategy is based on the deterrence and exclusive policy as adopted by colonial powers in Rwanda. They evasively and purported the unfounded feared that if SPLM IO took power the ethnic based regime will revolt in what they called reversed role against new Government, this evasive claim is wrong because ethnic based regime has lost control and support of people of South Sudan. This claim is meant to create a hairsplitting evasive ethnicity based feared to beguile and misinformed the distanced influential.  if SPLM FDs succeeded in influenced the stakeholders, then this would give them a chance to reinstate themselves and reverse the motion backward to first condition that bring people of South Sudan to abyss namely lack of political participation. They are trying to construe the ethnic based fear, and build the case that would allow them to adopt the approach that centered it is concept on ethnicity as a cause of crisis using the fallacy of fear to resolve the problem. This remind any person who knew very well how the crisis was unfolded, because in 6th December 2013 SPLM FDs were the champions setting on the first seats in the press conference, now pretended themselves innocent in war. Believing in ethnic approach itself is a fallacy that cannot resolve the political crisis. It would mean to claim that all parties in conflict are wrong and that nobody right despite the fact that party A has better policies to bring the Country together than party B. There are two argument here: first, suppose there was tribalism as exaggerated by SPLM FDs, why was First Vice President John Garang the Dinka deputized by Salva Kiir the Dinka. This will lead you to read the sources rather than focusing solution on simple and naïve ideas without going to history of South Sudan and well research views. The question would be why Salva Kiir turn against Nuer people in 2013 incident.Why Salva turn against ethnic Nuer was not an agreement between Dinka with Salva Kiir rather than arbitrary personal decision. So based exit strategy on ethnic based claim rather mission and vision of the party is deem mere political opinion and opportunistic orchestration to obtain the opportunity. The second argument is what I called blame game approach which blaming Dr. Riek Machar and Kiir together for ongoing crisis in the Country. The blame game by SPLM FDs and so called former Congressman that described Riek Machar as divisive figure would shows naivety of FORMER Congressman and subsequently the exit strategy itself. There are number of precedencies and interdependencies to scrutinize before best use of blame game that goes back to post incident of 2013, and responsibility of August 2015 collapsed peace agreement along this line there will be concrete based to build the argument for better safe exit strategy for the conflict of South Sudan. Check report of United Nations in South Sudan so that you know whether the crisis instigated by ethnicity or Kiir himself and his team. The president in position is Salva Kiir and so putting blame on mere politician called Riek Machar is a lack of confident on Salva Kiir capacity and just a mere scapegoating not a strategy.
  6. The people of South Sudan expecting SPLM FDs to propose and design an exit strategy that easy Salva Kiir out of power and hold him accountable and responsible to crimes committed against the Nuer people and ethnic cleansing in Equotoria, Pertit and Shilluk and furthermore the division of people South Sudan.  
SPLM FDs six point summary

  • SPLM FDs recognize the fact that the Government had taken the Country into ANARCHY
  • SPLM FDs stated that Government lost CONTROL
  • ARCISS is IRRELEVANCE and that some of it require to be fix
  • To resolve the crisis there is a need for INCLUSIVE roundtable

The contradiction of SPLM FDs  

They never stated any of those point above aganst SPLM IO leadership and yet proposed:

  • Exit strategy to equally EASY Riek Machar and Salva Kiir out of power although of these figure is already out of power
  • The exit strategy contradictory require STAKEHOLDERS to agreement or calling inclusively solution

  Sources of Crisis


The sources of conflict of South Sudan are not ethnical in principle but political one, such as political monopoly by SPLM party introduced the system that has no political critic or political competition. Because of that many mistakes let go unsolved. Lack of political participation demonstrated by proportionated in CPA as a comprehensive political solution to the conflict of Sudan. The saying that history repeat itself was fulfilled in South Sudan by SPLM which has followed the same footsteps of Sudan Unionist party in Sudan by the time of independence. Monopoly of SPLM to Republic of new born STATE resulted of majority of (Yial Garang) an Arabic word translated Garang’s good Boys with Riek Machar merged with Garang, and Dr. Lam Akol without good Boys and therefore end up marginalized within the party, with Lam Akol bullied early. Those who have voices and saying were what turn SPLM FDs of today. As a result of SPLM controlled over all affairs of the new Republic, the new Republic was just a mere property of the single party like Nazi or Fascism used to be in Germany and Italy. With Germany and Italy, better because they were founded early with well-established institutions.  

The political outcomes of SPLM golden era was:

  1. Political corruption evidenced in 2010 election, which was just a mere concert of show orchestrated by SPLM, and so we have seen the Government that supposed to be Government of representative became a mere SPLM caucus without debate on real political issues such as issues like governance system, civil rights, civil liberties, transitional period and constitutional making, parliament functions, justice and judiciary, President responsibilities, political parties and pressure groups and executive checking and balancing of powers.
  2. Rampant corruption went to whole Country level instead of within the party, but it appeared in terms of economic, political, administration and in security sector.   
  3. The Country was hijacked by individuals in the party and what was remained undone was to rename the Country, as the Republic of SPLM.
  4. Single and isolated voice of Dr. Riek Machar who was calling for reform was being intimidated and suspected for parallel Government within the Government by majority within the party, and was only got supported finally by the group that currently called themselves SPLM FDs, that political process caused the real political debate which caused crisis that lead to ethnic Nuer massacred in 2013.
  5. The party who own the Country turned deaf ear to voices of people of South Sudan, and after crisis when Kiir dispatched his rival, both the party and Country becomes the real property of Kiir and his ethnic group especially small ethnic based clique known as Jaang Council of Elders.

These are the sources that fueled crisis up to date, any solution that based its argument on ethnicity and innocent based approach which I meant for SPLM FDs wearing the innocent face would only not promote continuation of status quo but bringing in the instigators into power again and that will increase crisis in the Country.     


Description of SPLM FDs scenarios


These SPLM FDs seven scenarios or what they called exit strategy could simply be described as simple, overstated, exaggerated, and not critically evaluated factors that lead to ARCISS collapse. Hence, it is not objective to examine factors that fuel the problem and moreover the reasons that caused the agreement to collapse. In reading it thoroughly one could simply describe it further to mean a mere subjective political off siding. Everything in this proposal seem to merely putting on innocent face to remove guilt rather than taking responsibility. The proposal never left the room for evaluation of pre-peace and post peace agreement factors that may lead to better conclusion, therefore they intentionally choose to evasively creating lack of possibility for solution that may subsequently influent supper powers to come in forcefully. to import and install technocrats Government without well-established evaluation of pre-peace cause of conflict and factors that to lead collapse will be a solution but more invitation of resentment and long term crisis. Everybody expecting proposals that are either calling for total change of setting Government who advancing ethnicity or resuscitating a well evaluated ARCISS to achieve a fully implementable restorative peace. A restorative peace is a peace that will achieve justice for those whose resources and lives lost instead of reciprocal peace for perpetrators. Putting SPLM IO away in favor of technocrat Government leave trusteeship as another problem there is high probability to randomly bring back the real perpetrators namely the good Boys of Garang to continue ethnic based agenda. The Case of Rwanda can rightly fit in here, Rwanda was handed over under trusteeship of Belgians, after subsequent anti-Hutu policies pursue for so long by colonial power of Germany from 1899-1916. The population of Rwanda is 85% Bantu Hutu and 15% Tutsis originally from Ethiopia. The farmers Bantu and pastoralist migrants Tutsis live side by side peacefully before the coming of European colonial powers. By the late 19th century Tutsis’S Kings began to centralize power and enacted anti-Hutu policies with support of German colonizers in 1899-1916, and subsequently under Belgian trusteeship those policies was continued and in 1959, Hutu revolted against those policies which lead to thousands of Tutsis massacred. Thousands of Tutsis fled to neighbors Countries such as Burundi and Uganda. After some decades later Tutsis organized armed group known as Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) that took incursions into Rwanda in 1990. That civil war was resulted to 1993 Arusha peace accord that was signed and were never implemented as August 2015 South Sudan peace agreement. Subsequently in April 6, 1994, both Hutu Presidents from Rwanda and Burundi killed at the same time in the plane that caused the third genocide in the age of human right in the present of United Nations deployed forces. 800, 000 Tutsis souls lost just in hundred days while caused 2.1 million people leave their homes as refugees in Goma or what was known as great lakes refugee crisis. With this lesson one can learn that trusteeship government always never know significant aspects about the Country whom they come in to resolve its problem. The important aspects I meant are such as political, social, culture, economic, and root causes that led to crisis, nevertheless many UN solutions never bear any fruits. With this, one can conclude that United Nations forces in regions with crises never resolve any political crises like cases of Balkan region, Lebanon, Congo, Central Africa Republic, Darfur in Sudan and the Rwanda and unconcluded contesting case of South Sudan. The living case is South Sudan itself where half of Country population displaced by its Government. Many civilian got killed within United Nations protection site leave alone those who were murdered in side their home including international staff. ARCISS or August 2015 peace agreement was violated by Government in present of IGAD, UN, AU, EU, Troika, China and other international witnesses. The unconcluded case of South Sudan crisis is hard test to United Nations and international community in 21 century because all signed as witnesses in the compromise agreement and yet the peace was violated by Government in heavy present of UN in South Sudan.  UN confessed in their report that government was responsible for violation of peace agreement, and hence what is call regional and international community response to confine innocent instead of holding the spoiler responsible. Always most of the genocides were being committed in 20th century because of lack of proper security arrangement for signed peace agreements for example Rwanda peace agreement signed in Arusha, Tanzania. The problem of South Sudan peace agreement was when peace guarantors support the spoilers, Salva got green light to cook the plot to assassinate Riek Machar. The SPLM FDs exit strategy was just a repetition of the past and the result would be any better rather than worse.              


  • Evaluation and responses to SPLM FDs Exit strategy
  • South Sudan Quagmire (bad situation)


The idea that there is quagmire or bad situation is true, and it was so bad by the time SPLM FDs still in Government. The idea that there is senseless civil war is absurd and cannot be rational because that will lead to illogical rubbishing of the sources of crisis as mentioned above. If someone consider SPLM political monopoly as evidenced in transitional constitutional making, rampant corruption, economic injustice and finally ethnic based massacred rubbish and senseless demand, I believe one could conclude that it is insanity, derangement and political hysteria. There is nothing call senseless civil war, there should be a need to investigate the instigator of war by thorough study of sources of crisis to uproot the problem. There may be reasonable causes of civic disobedient as most of those causes were well-known under leadership of SPLM.  There was no basic services, freedom of expression, financial transparency, which was consolidated by political monopoly and dictatorship since the time of SPLM FDs were still in the Government.  What so-called Government used Nuer oil to kill the Nuer and abused their dignity in 2013, if this is what three persons called SPLM FDs nicknamed senseless this should be up to them. Standing for one dignity and cause never been senseless and illogical in human history. The Country was in anarchy, lawless and in the hand of ethnic group since before 2013. The immeasurable abused and massacred against Nuer people is reasonable for one to stand against the perpetrator instead of described it senseless. Described it senseless, instead of standing behind it is more divisive than scapegoated it to Riek Machar. The nation is divided since 2013 incident for the mere fact that existence and dignity are what people are living for, and hypocrite unity without base of political consensus cannot make it rather than worsening it. The civil war that was in United States, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Central Africa Republic and Congo to count are more, was not senseless civil war but reasonable defense for rights, freedom and human dignity. Based on this fact that there is political factors that caused honorable and dignified cause, our evaluation to SPLM FDs scenarios are unfolded as following:


Restoring status quo


SPLM FDs based argument for the fall of compromise peace agreement on the ground of mere Relationship between two men is overrated and counterfactual. The reason why it is anti-facts is that the scenario did evaluate inclusively the most substantial factors to the failure and success of any peace agreement, specifically the South Sudan August peace agreement to be context specific. Always you don’t require romantic relationships between fighting parties for example if we remind ourselves between SPLM and Sudan Government in CPA peace implementation. There were no romantic relationships between El Bashir and John Garang. What people oftentime require is a legal based ground of which peace guarantors signatories would hold the peace spoilers accountable. What we observed in August peace agreement are these following points:

  1. There was no political will and commitment from the side of Government and therefore one sided peace agreement cannot be implement by one party in conflict.
  2. The guarantors turned spoilers to peace agreement that is why most important article that was concerning security arrangement and subsequently reconstituting process also was violated by Government in the present of Guarantors. Festus of JMEC scapegoated the failure to relationships between the two men but the fact is that JMEC was spoiler of peace itself and not represented itself as an objective evaluator of peace implementation.
  3. The process of implementation of August agreement was not properly followed, in fact it seem like there was a plot against SPLM IO. The areas of compromises was very clear in the agreement but one side was not committed to the point that SPLM IO compromised to the point of risk taking which makes agreement seem like an agreement between desperate and powerful.
  4. As guarantors turned spoilers nobody held anyone accountable for what happened in 9th July 2016, instead John Kerry the US secretary of State, in 22 August 2016 as important driver of the region undermined the incident and went forward to designate confinement policy for SPLM IO Chairperson.
  5. Underestimation of Salva Kiir Political ill intention to fragment and ethnic based policies and lack of will to peaceful and democratic based solution, was not only underestimated peace and his commitment but in fact supported by region who was responsible to mediate the accord.
  6. Imbalance of arm forces in Juba gives green light to Salva Kiir to do whatever he wish, this imbalance of arms between two warring parties in security arrangement was facilitated by region and plotted and orchestrated by Salva in July 2016.

Peace agreement like ARCISS or August peace of 2015, is a better option to solution to any conflict of this kind where is no one party won the war or regime change. Based on these six points above we observed that peace agreement had collapsed between both guarantors represented by JMEC and Government cook coup against the Government of National Unity. Despite the fact that this Government does not deserve reform as it is difficult to renovate but at least the peace agreement can remedy the condition and suffering of People of South Sudan. We believe as SPLM IO that if one eager to bring peace to people of South Sudan then, one have  to start to evaluate first how August 2015 peace failed as well as Rwanda Arusha peace accord. Evaluating objectively the factors contributed to collapse of agreement will help in framing the way forward to find lasting political resettlement.               


Retaining one of the two Kiir and Machar


With regard to confined Machar, the SPLM Chairperson and Leaving Kiir alone to continue burning villages, murdered kids and elderly is a policy born failure and cannot bear any fruit in return. It represented a proverb that says that Ant try the rock, and this is the policy similar to exit strategy of SPLM FDs because it undermine, first, the political solution and the people of South Sudan as primary aspirers.

In regard to whether replaced Kiir with Machar as President or retained one of them, the title is wrong, when you said retain it means both are president which is not true. The best argument is to say retain Kiir, not both because both are not president. Kiir is the President now and anything wrong should and must be counted on him as responsible seatting president. Comparing Dr. Riek Machar with Salva Kiir as if both are Presidents is irrational in a principle. In case scenario where SPLM IO took over the power in South Sudan as a political analyst I should recognize the fact that there is a need to analyze factors that are related to SPLM IO’s political program, such as governance and political system, economic and civil rights of which SPLM IO calling for, so that one would have reason to conclusion.

If SPLM IO took the power, it could be able to lead South Sudanese to political resettlement through:

  1. Creating security reform to ensure that everybody is safe in the state of South Sudan and that nobody targeted based on arbitrary factors beyond their control such as ethnicity and religion.
  2. Implemented federal governance system as relevance system of governance to accommodate the diversity of South Sudanese people.
  3. Adopt democracy as political system with term limit for peaceful transfer of power between equally created South Sudanese citizens.
  4. Improve economic reforms through removal of rampant corruption and investing oil money in non-oil sector such as agriculture, energy, mining, irrigation and fisheries and animals’ resources including strong regulation of private sector.
  5. Reconciliation of South Sudanese people to rebuild a damaged social fabric and ensure social harmony.
  6. Orchestrate constitutional referendum for South Sudanese to vote for permanent constitution.  


Maintaining the current status quo Salvatica of Kiir and Taban


The question is not to whether keeping current status quo Taban and Kiir, it is the question, what is the problem is? The problem was a proper failure by SPLM to define the nature of South Sudan which could have led to design a viable state, you would be able to craft sustainable state based on its diversity. What happened after 9th July 2011, instead of SPLM defined the diversity through diverse political participation they ran to make centralized transitional constitution that gave Salva Kiir upper hand to bully everybody who ask question. History repeated itself if any influential actor admitted this SPLM FDs exit strategy, then the same spiral scenario will restart over all together. You can bring anybody else to rule South Sudan but if you don’t define and evaluate this Country very well there will be no success in South Sudan that means the problem of South Sudan is beyond individuals as many claim it to be. The good example is a confinement of Dr. Riek Machar in South Africa, it does not bear any fruit because in fact you did not detain South Sudanese majority who are supporting South Sudanese aspiration for Federalism that people were asking for since 1947. South Sudan by definition is diverse Country, and therefore one should think of what kind of governance system relevance to govern diverse society.  The reason why Taban Deng do not have influence in Nuer and other South Sudanese at large are as following:

  1. There is a need for change in Governance, political, security and economic sector and Taban as a body and organization had just ignored everything many have die for. Majority of South Sudanese in Upper Nile such as Nuer who comprised the Majority in Upper Nile followed by Shilluk, Maban, Bulldit with exception of minority Dinka there are supporters of SPLM IO, including all Equotorians and Pertit in Bahr El Gazelle. Taban did not considered the interests of these segments of society in his own personal interests. Taban did not offer anything politically to resolve the crisis amid social injustice and ethnic based regime, instead he surrendered all reform demand to get the position of Vice President.  
  2. Random killing within the capital Juba, and continued burning, plundering, pillaging, savaging of villages and targeting massacre within Equotoria region had never stop instead it has increased, that resulted to million displaced as refugees to Uganda.
  3. South Sudanese majority supporting SPLM IO that means people trusted and know and choose their cause as majority demanding agenda of SPLM IO the federalism as governance system, democracy as political system with term limit, participative constitutional making and economic reform.    

These are the issues beyond ability of Kiir and Taban status quo and therefore SPLM FDs were right in their conclusion. What was wrong in this conclusion, was the mere simple conclusion that did not stated the real reason why Taban do not have influence over all these groups that comprised the majority in South Sudan. Squeezing the issue on Nuer cannot be the strong reason if he indeed got the consent of other South Sudanese such as Equotorians, Pertit and other ethnicities in Upper Nile region. So the mere lack of Taban influence over Nuer show that there is overstating in this case scenario. Second point, is that SPLM FDs had focused the problem on personalities rather broader political issues.  


Change of bodyguards scenario (ARCISS without Kiir and Machar or security arrangement)


In this scenario, SPLM FDs fear mere continual rivalry between two camp Machar/Kiir in the situation where ARCISS is resuscitated. This fall under previous argument of guarantors turned spoilers in an implementation of 2015 August compromise agreement. In all situation there will be a need of genuine guarantors whether in cases of installed technocrats Government or Government of National Unity resulted of ARCISS. There is a need of parties to agree to certain compromises and the witnesses to that agreed compromises to hold anyone that violated it accountable. Change of bodyguards’ scenario deemed simple view of the crisis itself but the fact of matter is that the crisis of South Sudan is not just simple as change of bodyguards. Reducing it into bodyguards change mean one should cancel and put aside the whole security arrangement that was missed arranged whether before 2013 incident or after in the arrangement of post collapsed ARCISS. In this point I should argue that political rivalry is a natural right that anyone should not prevent, in fact it is part of political solution to any crisis in any Country. Because of that I agree that change of bodyguards of both leaders cannot simply resolve the problem but what can resolve the problem is a genuine commitment of both stakeholders including guarantors to the agreement and the balance of power between warring parties. There is a need to brokering revitalizing balancing security arrangement for the purpose of making instigator think twice especially if Kiir saw SPLM IO forces near to his force in number. If there is balance of arms and numbers of troops in Juba even if near to balance, Kiir cannot try that tradeoff, the only opportunity Kiir try was the 1370 troops instead 2910 for SPLM IO as in arrangement of security sector. Such number of 1370 of SPLM IO soldiers’ equivalence to thousands of Kiir’s troops within the Capital gives Kiir green light as a party who has reservations in the agreement to use that golden chance to assassinate Abraham God given Lamb namely rival Riek Machar.      


Giving war a chance


The SPLM FDs scenario number five that argued the lack of revitalized ARCISS with political discourse that is nationwide across all sections of South Sudanese society can amount to descending downward to long term political abyss. Where they concluded that SPLM IO can be like Tamil Tiger. The response is that the result will not be as outlined below where Sri Lanka’s Tamil tigers would be the suitable case for South Sudan. This is underestimation of population who are supporting SPLM IO and the forces of SPLM IO on the ground in comparison to Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers. The majority population of South Sudanese are tired of Kiir regime hence, backing SPLM IO in Upper Nile, Equotoria with exception of Bahr El Gazelle region where minority ethnic groups supporting SPLM IO besides majority Dinka there, that situation is not applicable in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, majority supporting Government against minority ethnic Tamil so having Sri Lanka as the case in this condition invalidated the whole scenario.  


Salva winning the war scenario


It is the fact that guerillas war fairs are not winnable and therefore cannot be win on battle ground in whatsoever the case might be, they are always settled on negotiating table. In South Sudan case, there are various rebels that talking against the Government with no forces on the ground with exception of one rebel namely SPLM IO that still fighting the Government. Since 2013 to date, SPLM IO fought Government coalition forces comprised of Justice and Equality, SPLA Sudan, other Dinka militias and Ugandan People Defense force (UPDF) and yet they never won the war. So Salva winning war scenario is not possible, not only because of Government force continual abuse, pillaging, burning and savaging villages of Non-Dinka but the reality is that SPLM IO is an enabled force with the patriotic cause which makes them invincible to be defeated. With Government forces pillaging, savaging and burning villages that motivated Non-Dinka South Sudanese people away from Government to fight for their existence rather than nothing. For this reason the only party that has majority in South Sudan ignore it or take it is SPLM IO.    


Riek Machar and other rebellious storming Juba and wresting control from Kiir


The reason given here that there are mini several rebels fighting the Government individually is just mere myth and unfounded on the ground. What is actually founded is the announcement of new several rebels with no military based in actual fact on the ground. There are Non-arms parties who recognize the fact that Government is not able to rule South Sudanese people with their diversities, instead the Government preferred ethnic based approach to protect itself. In regard of whether the rebels groups build a wide based alliance with SPLM IO and overrun Salva ethnic based regime that there will be reverse of role, this will depend largely on new Government activities. We have to remind ourselves that crisis is a political crisis that need political solution to resolve it. The sources of political crisis in South Sudan are political participation, security, corruption, centralized Governance and dictating political systems. These are the bases that generated political crisis and accordingly targeting continual ethnic killing, and so, to address these political issues in which Salva Kiir’s government is not able to do by majority supported party like SPLM IO will lead to stability in the nation. The only way that there could be reverse of role is when the new Government led by SPLM IO pursue the role of revenge base on ethnicity as Salva Government did. SPLM IO can address the root cause of political crisis as it is stipulated in its basic documents and political program such as political participation in nation building, federal as Governance and democratic political systems with term limit, and security and economic reform. So the SPLM IO is looking at the crisis as political which require philosophical and political solution to return the nation in truck. It can take time to attract insecure civilians to trust the new Government although majority are SPLM IO supporters but new political ideas and solution on the right truck can rescue the nation from sliding into abyss. What will bring mini-states as indicated in SPLM FDs document will be the continual changing faces of the same hypocrites. Because this would mean ignoring the root causes of political crisis and continuation of ethnic based government lead by Salva is a promotion of division and subsequently new states. The second is a force technocrat government and stealing of other people effort can deems equivalence to renewing Kiir ethnic based rule on South Sudanese.            


External intervention


Any external intervention started from expanded UNMISS with new role, deployment of regional protection force with a robust mandate to trusteeship cannot and shall not bear any fruit in resolution of conflict of South Sudan. So rubbished the whole philosophy and putting it far away from option in resolving the conflict of South Sudan would be time saving than to waste time on it. Rwanda is a living of trusteeship, Rwanda was under trusteeship of Belgians, after long colonial power of Germany from 1899-1916. The population of Rwanda is 85% Bantu Hutu and 15% Tutsis originally from Ethiopia. The farmer Bantu and pastoralist migrants Tutsis live side by side peacefully before the coming of European colonial powers. By the late 19th century Tutsis’S Kings began to centralized power and began to enacted anti-Hutu policies in line with German policies in 1899-1916, and subsequently under Belgian trusteeship those policies was continued and in 1959, Hutu revolted against those policies which lead to thousands of Tutsis massacred. Thousands of Tutsis fled to neighbors Countries such as Burundi and Uganda. After some decades later Tutsis organized armed group known as Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) that took incursions into Rwanda in 1990. That civil was resulted to 1993 Arusha peace accord that was signed and were never implemented as August 2015 peace agreement. Subsequently in April 6, 1994, both Hutu Presidents from Rwanda and Burundi killed at the same time in the plane that caused the third genocide in the age of human right in the present of United Nations deployed forces. 800, 000 Tutsis souls lost just in hundred days while caused 2.1 million people leave their homes as refugees in Goma or what was known as great lakes refugee crisis. United Nations forces in any region never resolve any political crises like cases of Balkan region, Lebanon, Congo, Central Africa Republic and the Rwanda case of genocide.   


Why exit strategy would not work?  


  1. It based solution of this complex political with ethnic cleansing crisis on mere force asylum, force financial incentive and force amnesty without putting particular attention to real issues.
  2. The exit strategy of SPLM FDs failed to address root cause that caused political crisis of South Sudan instead they intended to ignored the underlined issues such as security, economic, justice, governance, diversity and political participation. The problem of South Sudan is largely depend on SPLM FDs monopoly and control of them of SPLM as loyal sons of Garang. Their control of everything in a very beginning of SPLM golden age and their misused of people’s momentum makes them manipulated and isolated eminent politician personalities like Dr. Riek Machar, Dr. Lam Akol, Professor David Dechand as well as other South Sudanese political parties from participating in nation building. They behaved like Nazis and Fascists in Nation making process.    
  1. Focusing resolution of crisis on individuals such as Dr. Riek Machar and Salva Kiir, and further more equally assuming Dr, Riek Machar with a setting President as equally binding power holders is a mistake that only not distorted the way to think clearly about the problem but creating glow view and another crisis as a result.
  2. The exit strategy seem to be crafted for the purpose of putting on innocent faces to previous perpetrators to them hypocrites innocents floor to fit in cockpit to control the engine.
  3. The exit strategy seem like a “history repeated itself” where Garangists off-siding to reach the goal using innocent face to deceive international sympathizers to chop off the heads of South Sudanese by reinstated and reinstalled themselves to repeat the same monopoly.     
  1. Executive of technocrats

The proposed technocrats composed of professionals and civil Society and trade unions is not bad but there are number of standing questions whose answers would not be relevant to South Sudan context of crisis. Is technocrats Government relevance to our crisis? What kind of situation Technocrat Government usually form and relevant for? The purpose of technocrats Governments is to rescue the concern nation from a specific technical related problems mostly economic crisis. According to Centre for European policy and studies, and the BBC site, the recently technocrats Government formed was in Greece and Italy, Lucas Papademos replaced Papandreou in Greece to fix the collapsed economic to bring his expertise as a Vice President of European Central Bank and European respected Economist Mario Monti replaced Berlusconi. Italy and Greece has similar crisis that require expertise of that kind to handle economic crisis of those Countries. The crisis of South Sudan is not similar to Greece and Italy crises because it is much similar to Rwanda’s crisis with ethnic cleansing and looming genocide. The South Sudan’s crisis is purely political and deviated ethnical by Government, it require first, the political root cause before concluding for technocrats Government. Imagine if the power was given back to Hutu who chop people’s head off and not to Paul Kigame the Tutsi what will happened. Always those who did wrong seek forgiveness, not to insist for being right or be given power.

The reason Technocrats Government will not work:

  1. The purpose of technocrats Governments is usually to fix the routine and in context of South Sudan crisis there is no routine to fix because the nation still on making
  2. Technocrats Government cannot fix complicate political and ethnical crisis committed by incumbent president.
  3. It cannot fix the root causes of the political crisis as the nature of crisis characterized by security, ethnical corruption, and political participation.
  4. Undermined political demands and long term solutions
  5. Undermined security arrangement and compensation of victims
  6. There is no based to form technocrats Government everybody took ethnical line even Universities Chancellors, Doctors, academicians and other professionals as there are no strong institutions to promotes those fields.  


  • Hybrid Executive


There is need more study, there are lack of enough information because one should how did you reach to that conclusion. Will you do hybrid executive without peace agreement? If you do will be like National reconciliation of Salva that’s pursue without peace agreement first agreed upon by parties in conflict.   


  • National Unity Executive


If the parties in conflict agree on this base it can work because this Government is usually form to implement political agreement such as peace. This type of Government was formed and resulted of agreement as it was in Comprehensive peace agreement.


  • A new legislature


Not relevant and cannot be discuss


  • Saving and fixing South Sudan now


Saving and fixing South Sudan’s crisis is needed urgently by SPLM IO to save the life of innocent children, elderly and women. To solve this crisis that was political and ethnical require real solution not off-siding that will repeat itself tomorrow or in short run.  This problem is political that would means it is very well needed political solutions. We standing in position that call for federal type of governance, political system with term limit, security arrangement to stop arbitrary killing that based on one ethnicity and to stop ethnical corruption, and political participation.

The Body of crisis of South Sudan

Before one jump to solution and fix it, you have to know whose crisis is it. It was political and Salva turn it ethnical, Nuer White army responded right from the very beginning to revenge against the Government but now is over. What remained after peace agreement is what is termed as Salva Kiir’s crisis or ethnicity crisis. It is called the body of crisis because to resolve this crisis one should know exactly what the problem is and name it. The body of crisis is what I rather called SALVA KIIR’S CRISIS, the problem of South Sudan and its continuation is a mere creation of Salva Kiir himself. Going around is a mere scapegoating and would not help the suffering people of South Sudan. The incitement of ethnical escalation that was resulted to Juba ethnical based arbitrary massacred of Nuer people and continuation of ethnic cleansing and burning of villages in Equotoria and Bahr El Gazelle regions is a Salva Kiir making.  The evidence of why is an ethnically plan state policy as in African Union report is a continuation of ethnic killing in Non-Dinka states or areas. There is no arbitrary killing in a Dinka populated areas by army. Despite the fact that SPLM party did not work earlier to stop wrong policies but Salva Kiir was a reason to those policies as he created intimidated SPLM caucus puppets. He did not know the fact there is nothing to dictate because the setup of South Sudanese is totally different to compare it to other nation state in Africa. South Sudanese people has short common history as people and that they still has parallel worldviews in terms of Governance systems and political point of views. If you rule them like if they shared your ethnic views that would makes you invalidate to build a good state. Being one people means the people has gone through long common history where they could fought and suffered together and finally rule themselves based on implicit and active consent. In colonial time, instead of South Sudanese fought together alongside each other, others fight alongside British imperial power. Long common struggle as is usual is a secret behind sympathy and sense of responsibility between people towards each other within the state. The good example was Egyptians political crisis, the government touched Egyptian civilians all people found themselves sympathizing with each other and fight against the government. There are many factors that need consideration to resolve this crisis, and objectively to be reconsider outside current crisis. Gingerly doing that would lead to a better outcome to craft a united and strong state. The case of South Sudan’s crisis require objective review, especially the factors that can unite the nation. In my view the factors that could unite South Sudan are few than the factors that could divide it. Put aside current crisis, the mere fact that African Countries are not nation states but just mere leftover of European interests that were curved and slice for the purpose of cake making, hence, could easily slope away from direction. The sickness of all African nations was not avoid by SPLM Leader Salva instead he continue in the same African continuum to enriched and take root of dictatorship through political and financial corruption using ethnicity. The SPLM under his Leadership claim advancing of liberty, justice and prosperity, but in fact, they achieved liberty, justice, and prosperity for themselves and their relatives.

Based on this actual fact Salva Kiir went in contrary to recognize historical, diversity facts, hence he choose to favored his own ethnicity over others majority population. He did not consider the fact that there is no long common historical implicit and active consent to advance the state building through one ethnic view based. South Sudanese are not like people of Israel or French or German that are one national based state but a multinationals state which require sensitivity and new philosophy to put all in the same peaceful truck. In conclusion I called South Sudan crisis as Salva Kiir’s crisis because he placed South Sudan in an ethnic divide line and continued painted himself unacceptable and irrelevance to other South Sudanese people and doing it so seriously. Salva Kiir is irrelevance to resolve this crisis because he’s tribal. Salva Kiir is unable because he’s an ethnic based oriented person, this ethnical ideology stand as setback towards the solution. The SPLM in Government under leadership of incumbent president ignore any solution that comes from people of South Sudan, thus he choose to depend on his ethnic based Council known as Jaang Council of Elders funded through public fund.

The reason why there was no tribalism in South Sudan before Salva Kiir

In 1970s Joseph Lago

From small tribe Madi won over Abel Alier from Dinka

In 1980s John Garang won support of majority Nuer rebels in Bilpam by the time Dinka were minority in rebels in beginning of SPLM establishment In 2013 Salva Kiir massacred Nuer people arbitrarily base on their ethnicity that they cannot control

This diagram shows that blaming colonialism and individual such  as Riek Machar who was already out of power even before incident of 2013 is wrong. Riek Machar is not a right escapegoat from injustice made against innocent civilians by the order of Salva Kiir. The SPLM as a party failed to craft a responsible system to facilitate the building of viable state, hence handled it over to a wild and unable tribal person.   

To think of resolving South Sudan crisis, one should put equal attention to both root causes represented by historical and current unfolded crimes and the one who fuelled them. This kind of equally putting attention thinking would help in finding long term solutions rather than fine-tuning. Ask questions such as what happened in interim and transitional period, and then to what one should called Salva Kiir’s crisis.  There are almost three problems contributed to crisis in which one of them is usual in all African Countries while two of them are unique in nature of South Sudan problem.     


PROBLEM ONE-the mere fact of history


  1. South Sudanese people has short common history with around 57 years to 2013 incident. South Sudan common history started recently in 1960s by the time of liberation called Anyanya one, long before South Sudanese people were not one but mere inhabitants in the same demarcated land by colonial power.
  2. They never fight colonial powers in one accord instead they were divided along colonial line rather than to die together since Turkish to British rule.
  3. 57 years history together as people with one cause is too short to compare to unknown years back, it means our unified worldview together which could to one coherent identity was less.
  4. South Sudan is like any other African Countries who slice and curved by colonial power for purpose of resources, hence, we were not nation state but mere collection of unconsented nationals, identities and cultures, languages and different worldviews.
  5. They have different way of governance systems, some of them are ruling themselves as Kingdoms, Chiefdoms, and organized anarchy.  


PROBLEM TWO-the SPLM monopoly of Nation building   


  1. The SPLM monopolized the nation making that caused by creation of single puppets SPLM caucus of Salva Kiir
  2. The SPLM shifted from unity vision to separation and the continued rivalry between unionists or Garangist versus separatists within the party cause lack of coherent views
  3. Lack of political participation of other political parties created a lack of political equilibrium
  4. Salva appointed his ethnic members in most important posts in the Country such as Judiciary Dinka, Finance Dinka, Central Bank Dinka, Foreign Affairs Dinka, Defense Dinka, Inspector general of Police Dinka and all states police inspectors Dinka that caused more ethnic tension, enmity and antagonism
  5. Preaching history of lie that painted Dinka in public media as the only people who had fought for independent of South Sudan show a clear picture that there will be civil war even right before 2013 incident
  6. Training army from one ethnic group whether with or without permission of SPLM reflect the lack of responsibility
  7. Nuer were the only group suspected to respond to that situation, hence a solution has to be design to silence them the result was 2013 incident


PROBLEM THREE-Salva Kiir’s crisis in South Sudan


The crisis is that people did not realize the fact that the crisis of South Sudan is a Salva Kiir’s crisis. The problem is that Salva took it personal and ethnical to keep him in power and avoid to lose tasked benefit of ethnic based corruption. Many of Salva Kiir ethnic group got rich in just few days. Most of South Sudanese businessmen and women are Salva Kiir ethnic group.   

  1. The crisis of South Sudan was just Salva Kiir making to avoid democratic political competition within the party to perpetual single state party policy.
  2. The ongoing ethnic cleansing is a mere provocative strategy to divide people on ethnic line so that he could fit himself in African Dictators continuum.
  3. Where people will be busy killing themselves in ethnic line divide while poverty will continue creating immoral puppets warrior lords to protect his ethnic based Government.
  4. Recruitment of ethnic based army in the Capital and targeting of people arbitrarily based on factors beyond their control, especially in ethnic line.  
  5. Salva Government inability to turn crisis to political crisis intentionally instead he focus on ethnic based conflict
  6. Salva ability and commitment to violate peace agreement and continue burning villages, pillaging and arbitrarily killing of innocent children, women and elderly is indeed setback
  7. Regional and international partners failure to recognize the fact that South Sudan’s crisis is a Salva Kiir’s crisis


PROBLEM Four-Both IGAD, all Oppositons including SPLM IO Imprisoned themselves in ARCISS  


  1. Lack of knowledge of Salva ill intention imprisoned peace partners to within the box of solution that keep Salva Kiir as a leader of solution. This is a real myth all people will be disappointed later on due process, and therefore will be a mere due process.
  2. SPLM IO as the champion of change should think outside the box of ARCISS to create useful solution for what I termed as Salva’s crisis in South Sudan
  3. Other parties should think outside that box to unite the tank against organize ethnic based system

The Bible of Solution for Crisis of South Sudan

The crisis of South Sudan is a political problem that require political solution. This verse number in the Bible of solution of the crisis. The solution of political crisis is always political evidenced in pre-crisis and after crisis issues such as the crisis of governance system, political system, political participation, economic, corruption, diversity and judiciary.

Salva Kiir is a crisis by himself who is not unable to address highlighted issues above, nevertheless fueling ethnic tension in South Sudan by doing the opposite of the real issues to build a better state. The solution remove the obstacle Salva Kiir to let people of South Sudan go forward. Ignoring this verse will entirely underrated these facts:

  1. We are not created by God as one state, one people but mere voluntary consent that should be based on agreed values, thus, there is a need to reconsider values such as liberty, freedom, civil rights, governance system and democratic political system, accepting the fact that we are created equally as human being.
  2. Considering historical fact that we are merely curved and slice to be one and therefore to make one state need remaking and a political participation
  3. A work that can resulted to best fitted type of Governance and democratic political system that is suitable for the diverse society.

This would mean mere exit strategy that is based on arbitrary idea of asylum, financial incentive and amnesty undermined historical background and factors that might in one way or other contributed indirectly to current crisis. Reconsidering of these three points although there might be more would help in addressing root causes that usually caused each African Countries to painful crisis normally. The consideration of these historical facts will aid any solution whether in case of Salva removed by force or through ARCISS.      


The RCISS solution for the conflict of South Sudan is remained outstanding for the mere fact that it is still the best solution at hand. According to SPLM evaluation of ARCISS, it was observed that collapsed of ARCISS was merely depend on biasedness of guarantors. The SPLM FDs based collapse of ARCISS on bad relationship between two leaders is not less than arbitrary scapegoating. To us the claim of SPLM FDs that ARCISS is irrelevant based on that fact is distorted of facts and it shows the under evaluation of factors that led to ARCISS collapse. This claim shall always remained subjective political opportunistic, orchestration and political off-siding.

Evaluation of ARCISS

Issues addressed by ARCISS

  1. ARCISS had addressed some political standing issues such political participation through power sharing which involve other parties rather SPLM factors alone as it was before crisis
  2. It addressed economic reform and social injustice through formation of financial Authority commission and reparation of victims including reconstruction of war most affected states.
  3. It addressed security problem through security arrangement article that based security arrangement on trust building approach by recognizing two armies until proper transformation of two armies into professional army and then amalgamate them
  4. It addressed the public service in a limited extend by stated public service review which deemed unclear as South Sudan public service was ethnically based after 2013 incident.

Issues ARCISS did not addressed   

  1. Lack of proper security arrangement and reconstitution prior to implementation
  2. Lack of objective mechanism of monitoring and evaluation as IGAD Countries take side in the war before peace and its JMEC after
  3. Unclear two armies situation in national budget
  4. Lack of power sharing in other two region will lead to Salva Kiir up hand in nation building process
  5. Instead of public service review it can be better be public service sharing   

In case of solution through revitalizing ARCISS

  1. Evaluate ARCISS for purpose of finding better ground to revitalize peace will lead to restorative just peace for South Sudan and that could resulted to avoidance of long term crisis
  2. Balancing forces between warring parties to avoid upper hand to one party to peace agreement.
  3. Proper security arrangement to avoid spoilers damaging implementation stage as it was in previous ARCISS.
  4. Putting strong mechanism in place to hold the spoilers accountable to any violation occurred which could involve the change of head of JMEC
  5. Revitalize security sector which will include clear armament, and financial budgeting of the two armies during the period of transitional of Government of national unity
  6. Broad based power sharing which shall include national, public services and two regions Bahr El Gazelle and Equatoria as current public service is ethnic based
  7. Clear stated reparation for victims of 2013 would help in sustainable peace and reasonable reconciliation

The option of ARCISS is bad for people of South Sudan not because of bad relationship between two leaders but the mere fact that it keeps the criminal Salva Kiir in power. The incumbent illegitimate President had massacred people based on arbitrary factors. He inserted ethnic divide into South Sudan people and he still has that ill intention, hence to keep him is reward for kill or the idea that one should kill to be rewarded.

Scaling of ARCISS

  1. We can scale ARCISS solution as the best solution to resolve the crisis quickly than any of other approaches
  2. The probability of achieving long term solution is limited and not guaranteed, and therefore we can scale it as immediate remedy, although it can lead to long term solution. It could guaranteed term solution only if security arrangement is balancing.

  PROBLEM THREE-Salva Kiir’s crisis in South Sudan  

The crisis is a Salva Kiir’s crisis that he had made and he still doing currently so to resolve the problem of South Sudan once and for all. There is need to remove Salva Kiir from power to rearrange and remake South Sudan based on people’s consent. Therefore, the SPLM FDs exit strategy could be a solution if they did focus on removal of Salva Kiir from power through formation of broad based opposition’s coalition government of National Unity instead of technocrat government. Why? It is because the crisis was fueled by standing political issues and Salva Kiir inability to address them. Second, the personality of Salva Kiir as a crisis by himself he cannot resolve national political issues, nevertheless, he focus attention to ethnicity policy, How can we solve Salva Kiir crisis then,  remove Salva Kiir crisis through this process:  

  1. Recognized Salva Kiir as real threat to South Sudan unity, hence he is the real obstacle to peace
  2. Isolate him politically in region and international community by not wondering around political philosophical views and theories of conflict resolutions
  3. Remove Salva from power through formation and support of broad based opposition’s coalition.government of National Unity.
  4. Formed and train professional army from all sections of South Sudanese segments
  5. Formed a government for the purpose of transition that shall be task and mandate to conduct census, constitutional referendum and election
  6. Conduct reconciliation and healing
  7. Ensure security for all and discouraging of ethnic based arbitrary killing in the nation
  8. Carry out economic reform and recovery of people life

This is the best option if to resolve the crisis of South Sudan once and for all but it is a time and life consuming, if there is no support from regional and international community. This solution can lead to quick forgiveness and reconciliation and resolve the problem without nation sinking into abyss.

Compare with ARCISS solution it is better than ARCISS in term of long term solution while ARCISS is long way to go process.

In ARCISS is difficult to change ethnic based system that was installed and subsequently will increase ethnic resentment

We can scale removal of Salva Kiir as long term solution as it could remove chronic ethnic based regime and therefore it shall deems relevance to sustainability

South Sudan would be able to return to normal life without crisis that’s based on ethnicity. Rwanda case was resolved when the power given to people whose people got massacred rather than opposite. Taking power from Salva Kiir and giving it to responsible leaders whose families members got massacred arbitrarily can be part of restorative justice for them not to revenge.

The majority of South Sudanese who are supporting SPLM IO and whose villages burned and their children, mothers and elderly killed would only listen to their supported Government.

SPLM FDs in summary

  1. SPLM FDs are right to recognize Kiir anarchy but wrong to contradictory blame others for it
  2. SPLM FDs are right to truly stated that the Government lost control to keep laws and orders
  3. They were rights to think of exit strategy but wrong to equally contradictory blame both those who are in power and those who were out of power like SPLM FDs themselves
  4. They failed and refused to recognize that majority of South Sudanese people are supporting SPLM IO, hence they proposed a solution that invited foreign force
  5. They are trying to wear innocent face to make them look good at international political forum
  6. They want to use the opportunity by making SPLM IO dirty or arbitrarily blaming Riek Machar equally with crime Kiir so that they will holiest. 

You can reach the author for more information at boljokjekn@gmail.com

Related posts

Will South Sudan’s New Peace Agreement Last?




In A Nutshell: Kiir Baptized SPLM Party With Blood As Mission to Rule For 100 Years Begins

Editorial Team.

Tell us what you think

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: