Talk:Riek Machar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I have put a {{NPOV}} tag on this article as I find it whitewashing Riek's history. Here's the way it happened: Riek tried to overthrow Garang as head of the SPLA, who was admittedly an authoritarian figure, though I'd have to see a source for it being communist. In order to do so, he took the help of the government and, when his rebellion didn't take hold, he ended up being coopted by the government. He did not force the government into a new constitution, though I have no doubt that some figleaf was signed. The split between SPLM-Mainstream and SPLM-Nasir led to some of the bloodiest fighting of the entire war. However, that didn't go anywhere so Riek jumped ship again, leaving Paulino head of the Khartoum-aligned rebels before jumping back into the Garang camp. There's obvious a lot of detail and political-infighting involved, but the current trend of editing on this article is just misinformation. - BanyanTree 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no mis-information here.

The SPLM Communist Manifesto is a fact, I have seen it. The communist Mengisto of Ethiopia was one of the main benefactors of the early SPLA. It is still common today for older SPLM/A members to refer to thier co-members as "comrade".

As the SPLM, the SSIM and the Government of Sudan are all Sudanese, making alternate alignments in order to achieve a certain end (self-determination, democracy, respect of human rights, equal rights) makes more sense then can be understood from a distance. Although you see this as bias, it is not, however 25 years of war and suffering and nitty gritty politics aiming to a seemingly impossible end is very hard to explain.

You want it to be said thawhich makes your contributions st the reactions of the Nasir faction - SPLM split caused extremely bloody south on south violence. I acknowlege this fact, however I do not see how that changes the truth of any of the facts. It is a horrible, tragic part of the history. It was not the intent or even a predictable outcome of the Nasir Declaration. The civilian population of Lau had seen themselves as being neglected by the SPLM while they thought the Bor dinka (Dr. John's hometown) were getting all the benefits of the war. They attacked Bor civilians without mercy. Dr. Riek Machar did not order the masacre and he and his British wife Emma spent much of the next year trying to restore the Bor area as much as they could. Nothing could make up for the destruction that happened, however they did what they could.

Clearly you are showing your bias by words like "jumped ship" as if any of the ships were going in the right direction. You also seem to assume to know Dr. Machar's motives for the political decisions he made. The idea of leadership has never been a motivating factor in any of his actions. Political objectives have always been his motivation. the Khartoum Peace Agreement gave Dr. Riek Machar the highest position ever held by a Southern Sudanese in the government of the Republic of the Sudan previous to the CPA. Dr. Machar resigned these positions. Although you call it a figleaf, the constitution of the Sudan (adopted in 2000) began serious debate in Sudan regarding the rights of the people and how they wanted to be governed. It also brought the issue of multi-party politics to the forefront.

Polino was left as a Military General who chose to continue on with the Khartoum Peace Agreement while there were many Southern Sudanese politicians (Riek Gi Kok, Moses Machar, etc..) who stayed trusting in the 14th Amendment to the 2000 Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan which was the Khartoum Peace Agreement. It was that failed Khartoum Peace Agreement which held the right of self-determination up before the people making it a requirement for any negotiated settlement agreed to by the SPLM.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs)

Proof of Intensions to move to democratic process:

10 STEPS TAKEN FOLLOWING THE NASIR MOVE

  1. To open the doors of the Movement wide for all to join and contribute, according to his/her ability and aptitude, towards the achievement of the movement’s objectives.
  2. To draft and adopt democratically a constitution for the Movement. The constitution will be accompanied by regulations, rules, code of conduct, etc., to specifically define the powers and duties of each member and organ of the movement.
  3. To organize the structures of the movement on a democratic basis. In particular, a wide participation of the population in the running of their affairs to be a cornerstone in any administrative policy to be adopted.
  4. To strengthen the SRRA and to delegate authority for it to function effectively as a purely humanitarian organization.
  5. To pay greater attention to the provision of services, especially health and education in the liberated areas.
  6. Strict adherence to the respect of human rights, in particular justice and the rule of law must be upheld.
  7. Immediate abolition of the present officers’ ranking system and to revert to the conventional ranking system. In the civil field a separate ranking system will be adopted.
  8. On the peace process, the movement will continue to explore all venues that may lead to a peaceful resolution of the present conflict. Whereas the movement is committed to realizing a united secular Sudan, the SPLA will neither imposes unity nor will it fight to the last man to achieve it. It takes two to tango. Politics being the art of the possible, the movement rules out no option provided it can lead to a permanent peace.
  9. As part of the organization of the structures of the movement, the offices abroad will have to be strengthened and given sufficient mandate to accurately and promptly present the movement’s position in the countries they are in.
 10. Establish and implement a commitment to multi-party democracy in the post-war era.

This is an excerpt from Southern Sudan Vision published in September of 1992 Issue no. 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that a politician's proclamations should be taken at face value? - BanyanTree 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
While I respect your opinion, I want proof of your facts. I am using Douglas H. Johnson, The Root Causes of Sudan's Civil Wars, 2000 as my source for the following. I'll itemize my points of contestion:
  • The article states that he and the SSLM split from the SPLM "in an attempt to democratize the then communist SPLM". First, while the SPLM had adopted the Marxist discourse of its Ethiopian backers (who in turn adopted it after the superpower flip-flop around the Ogaden War just a few years prior) in public proclamations (such as the Manifesto of 31 July 1983), it had not actually implemented Marxism in practice nor did Marxist discourse play a role in statements made to the Sudanese people themselves. (p. 64)

Banyan, I have removed the word communist from the text because you take offense to it and because you have quoted Douglas Johnson (who has been a great friend to the South Sudanese, however, that does not make him un-biased). Let me explain to you why the communist manifesto, which as I stated, I have seen was important. As a side note, the copy of the little book which I read consequestly has a bullet hole in it as it was retrieved from the pocket of the late Uncle Joseph Oduhu. You may want to read about his death in a book called Til the Sun Grows Cold, written by Maggee McCune. Anyway, The Manifesto was one of the few written documents that governed the actions of Commanders in the field. It gave Commanders the right to kill without a trial "people" or "people groups" seen by those commanders as "enemies of the people". They were then required to notify the SPLM high command of which Dr. Riek Machar was a member. This "communist" document gave commanders the right to abuse the human rights of not only innocent civilians, but whole people groups of innocent civilians. The Nassir declaration was intended to change the ideology of the revolution. You may want to get a copy of the book "SPLM/SPLMA: The Nasir Declaration" if you are interested in both sides of this story. The ISBN is: 0595284580. It was written by Dr. Lam Akol who is the SPLM contributed Foriegn Minister of the Sudan in the current Government of National Unity. After you read it, we can discuss further your concept that the Nasir Declaration was a plot from the government.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your modification. As noted elsewhere on this page, Lam Akol was also one of the founders of the Nasir faction, so while I'm sure it would be interesting, I am not sure that I would believe his own interpretation of his own rebellion. In any case, I am beginning to find the fact that this discussion is many times longer than the actual article rather ridiculous. Why don't we simply agree that we have differing viewpoints on this and see how much content we can agree on? I hope to free up some personal time for this article at some point and contribute to it from the Johnson book. If either of us have a problem of basic interpretation, let's bring it back to this talk page and hammer out a compromise, rather than get into another tedious war.
Also, please please sign your posts on this page, and any other talk page with four tildes (~~~~). This will place the date, time and account name (in your case, an IP address). They are the symbol in the upper left of most keyboards. Thanks, BanyanTree 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am really uncomfortable with your one-sided approach to sources. We are not arguing about Dr. Lam Akol's Bio. We are arguing about Dr. Riek Machar's bio who as you said co-founded the Nasir Declaration. If you can not consider the viewpoint of Dr. Lam, who gives much insight into the actual discussions and happenings of the day, then you are not interested in the truth. I am not asking you to take only Dr. Lam's word for the facts of the situation, but I am asking you to consider all the viewpoints before you argue for one. You are arguing for the propaganda put forward by Dr. John at the time to turn world support from the Nasir group. You need to see both sides not only one or we can not have an honest discussion. 24.26.178.121 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for signing your post.
I agree with you about the need to respect for multiple viewpoints, but I don't think anyone should be required to read every possible source before adding information from one. I rely on you, as is common on the wiki, to fill in holes in knowledge and challege what you feel is inappropriate.
The reason I propose just seeing how the editing turns out is that it's not clear to me that my edits would diverge all that much from yours. At this point, rather than endlessly discussing what we think the other wants to add, why don't we see what the actual edits are? It's a wiki and if something is seriously disagreeable and cannot be adequately sourced, then it can always be reverted and thrashed out in discussion. I was actually thinking I would get back to this article over the next couple months as, hard as it is to believe, I actually have limited time these days. However, I'll try to get around to it sooner rather than later so you aren't kept in suspense. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Continuing this point, the attempt to overthrow Garang was made from legitimate concerns that he had overly centralized power around himself, as well as (as you note) the movement of troops from Bahr al Ghazal and Upper Nile to the Equatoria fronts. Lam Akol and Riek were afraid that they were being left out to dry without enough troops and with no way to make a meaningful protest. Anti-communism had nothing to do with it.
    (How do you presume to know thier motives?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs)
    How do you? I've given sources that the SPLA never was communist in practice, despite their Marxist rhetoric, but you're version of the article still cames them communist, without any qualifiers. How do you presume to know their motives? - BanyanTree 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the Nasir faction had begun collaborating with the government before the declared coup on 21 August 1993. (wrong date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs) ) Johnson notes that Garang took evidence of this as proof that the entire coup attempt was a government plot, but that Riek's faction originally thought they could take Khartoum's support, declare they were fighting to give the South independence against Khartoum, and that the subsequent mass support from discontented SPLA officers and units would cause Garang's overthrow and let them disengage from the Khartoum. When the support, Riek, Lam and Gordon Kong Cuol were expecting didn't materialize, they ended up being overly dependent on the government and thus increasingly directed by it. (p. 99) The current wording, in which Riek is portrayed as forcing the government into a democratic agreement and then being betrayed, is nonsense. He had a small number of bad options and he took one of them.
    (Garang took evidence where and to whom?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs)
  • I would like to have thoughtful ambiguity, such as you express above about the resulting violence, in the article, but you appear to be removing any such ambiguity.
  • We can leave further discussion of his return to the SPLA to another time, as I would like to get your response to the above regarding the actual split. Note that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia so please state your sources as I have. Also, this conversation would be easier if you signed your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and created an account so we didn't have to recognize you by a string of numbers. Thanks, BanyanTree 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    I see that you are quite willing to argue that I am wrong, but unwilling to give proof that you are right. And you're still not signing your posts, making it impossible for other readers to figure out who said what. I have tried to refactor for clarity. We are not having an argument about who had the better SPLA; we are attempting to see what is citable. Though if you believe that the Nasir faction came out cleaner than Garang's faction during the war of factions, then we do have to argue over basic facts. - BanyanTree 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • | BanyanTree is absolutely right, this is complete whitewash of Machar's past. His present is another matter, his change seems genuine, however there's still the past. Whatever anyone says here has to be backed up by facts. I have a book written by Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba who was initially involved in Riek Machar's and Lam Akol's plot, so it's first-hand information, I will share details soon if this page isn't cleaned up quickly. la gaie 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

I've seen this page claim he has various degrees from various schools. Yet, not one has been cited, and they range from good schools to diploma mills. In the interest of fairness, I removed the mention of his education and it should not be added back without proper WP:RS. Arbusto 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, this Dec 2005 Sudan Tribune article states Machar "Received Doctorate from University of Bedford, England in 1984." The problem is no such school exists called University of Bedford, which was a diploma mill operation that would predate the degrees it sold. No campus or classes ever existed. Arbusto 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info on Riek Machar from Deborah Scroggins' "Emma's War"

There's a fascinating book (I'm about two thirds of the way through it) which focusses on the life of Emma McCune, a British aid worker who was married to Riek Machar in the early 1990s. McCune ended up dying in a mysterious car crash not long after her marriage. The book traces her journey from aid worker to second wife of a rebel leader, and in doing so gives a lot of detail about the SPLA and the Sudanese civil war. Scroggins interviewed a wide range of people in writing the book, including Lam Akol and Riek Machar himself. The book examines Riek's alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings, the recruitment of child soldiers, the misappropriation of UN food relief intended for starving Sudanese refugees, and the Bor massacre. There's a review here: http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2002/12/11/scroggins/print.html Rcameronw 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing... according to Scroggins, Riek's degree is from Bradford University - the book makes no mention of Bedford. A quick google search returned a number of sources that back this. My guess would be that the reference to Bedford is erroneous. 80.41.30.235 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bedford v Bradford

BT,

Why does everyone want to continue to leave this false information out there about "bedford" There are no less than 70 sites out there that directly say the guy attended Bradford which I found was a legitamate school in England. I don't have time right now to cite the references but our own instructions tell us to delete erroneous information about living people.Tedward07 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody proved that it was erroneous. Here's the hierarchy of content: unsourced - sourced - better sourced. You removed sourced data with an unsourced assertion, and were reverted. I just found a report by a Harvard project that supports your assertion, which I consider to be a better source than the Sudan Tribune, and corrected the info rather than removing it, with a note about the conflicting sources. Arguments that "I know better than the article but don't want to prove it" tend to have low credibility.
Also, I assume from your placement of this post that you are 80.41.30.235, which was not at all apparent from your edit. Please use the edit summary box so other users can tell what is going on. - BanyanTree 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BT,

I am not 80,41,30,235. I have signed my comments. Tedward07 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for that. I have put this conversation in a new section so it cannot be confused with that started by Rcameronw. - BanyanTree 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion - 80.41.30.235 was me - I was in a hurry and unaware that I was no longer signed in! Rcameronw 14:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for supplying the link. Arbusto 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)