Dr. Riek Isolation, Is It A Logical Solution To Solving South Sudan Crisis?

By Bol Ring

Dr. Riek Machar Teny briefs over 10, 000 South Sudanese opposition members in Omaha, Nebraska, in  2016(Photo: file)

Dr. Riek Machar Teny briefs over 10, 000 South Sudanese opposition members in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2016(Photo: file)

Oct 23, 2017(Nyamilepedia) — Since many people agree that South Sudan Crisis is a man made, it make sense to start targeting individuals that may possibly be potential variables to the problem. Given the propaganda Juba regime practice in Washington and the fact that the regime spent millions of dollars in PR campaign to lobby U.S officials in Washington DC, one can see why the U.S would think Dr. Riek is the first problem. Presented with false narrative, the Obama administration proposed that isolating Dr. Riek may solve the South Sudan crisis.

But here why that is not logical. Of course the Juba regime will naturally blame its opponents for something that is negative. But a logical Independent person or entity would look for Independency in story presented to them before they run with it as the truth. With South Sudan crisis, there are plenty of Independent bodies to get a clear view of what’s the problem is and then draw accurate plans to solve the crisis. Many Independent bodies will put the blame on two main players, Dr. Riek and Salva Kiir. However, many experts will point out that the majority of the crisis is generated by Salva Kiir, but Dr. Riek mostly get blame from his reaction to Salva Kiir’s actions. For the sake of argument however, let’s just say both men are to blame equally.

How can we solve such problem?

First options would be to confirm that the two variables (Dr. Riek and Kiir) are actually part of the problem. Put both of them together and see if the problem still exists or increases. With a J-1 fighting, we can confirm that the two, when combined together, bring even more problem to the crisis. It’s confirmed that at least one of them, if not both, is part of the problem

Second option is to remove one of the variables and see if that increases the crisis or decreases it. If it decreases the crisis, then we can say with validity that that variable was part of problem. If the crisis remains the same or getting worst, then one has to conclude that that variable was not part of the problem or it was the positive part of the problem. We have tried this option by isolating Dr. Riek for over a year. It increases the crisis when Dr. Riek was put on house arrest in South Africa for year and continues to be there. The crisis continues to worsen with the removal of this variable (Dr. Riek). Given such evidence, one has to admit maybe this variable is not the problem.

Third option would be to remove the second suspected variable (Kirr) and see if it fixes the problem once and for all. If the problem decreases, then one can conclude that variable two was for sure part of the problem that elevated the crisis. If the crisis gets worst, then that variable was not the problem. Have we tried this option and why aren’t IGAD and Troika looking into this option?

Fourth option is to remove both variables. If the problem is fixing, then the proposed premise was correct and the problem is solve, again, why aren’t IGAD and Troika exploring this option?

Fifthly however, if the problem is still exists even after you removed the two, it may be a times to look for other variables to solve such problem or else it’s not getting solve ever. This is the option where you start introducing other players, i.e. Thomas Cerilo, Lam Akol, etc. Why are IGAD and Troika introducing other variables before confirming or denying that the two known variables are part of the problem and will this approach adds more complexity to solving the crisis?

Now, to answer, the question of if it’s logical to isolate Dr. Riek to solve South Sudan Crisis. At first, it was logical to try that option given the false narratives whispered on the ears of Obama administration; however after a year of worsening crisis without him, it’s no longer valid to still believe his presence in South Sudan was the driving force of the crisis. Because, if it were so wouldn’t the crisis decrease during the year he was in isolation? Did the crisis worsen or got better on his absence?

Right now what is left for IGAD and Troika is to admit they were wrong on their initial option to try to solve South Sudan crisis by isolating Dr. Riek and release him from house arrest in South Africa.

If IGAD and Troika are serious about stopping the suffering of South Sudan people, do not let your own ego become part of the crisis for South Sudan by continuing to pursuit proven failed initiatives.

Advertisements

One comment

  • Hi dear! Yes, I have never said anything regarding Machar confinement, yes, I have to say that I am not a confused guy anything that i see and hear understand its root, it doesn’t matter who make it. Some country make a decision base on what they have been provided, the information they got and collected is always the base for their making a decision. The other things is a decision make out of confusion, it is the assumption that that might be the case or you favor one over the other which is the case more often. The point I am making doesn’t base on any information getting from you it is my own and reliable one can believe as true. With help or without your help this guy you are trying to reject will be a leader in that nation. I am saying this because without your assistant I see the guy on the pose. If you realize the reality of this well and fine he will move ahead through your assistant otherwise stay right there and see my point in coming years what will be the turnout of this situation. You might say maybe I favor him yes, sometime if I see someone right has been violated including you I begin to intercede on his/her behalf. On other occasion I can see where a person’s life is heading. Let alone mine as individual.

Leave a Reply