CAN ISSUES AT HAND BE HANDLED SOBERLY
With Odongo Odoyo
Protocol in the diplomatic circles demands truth and only truth can bear witness to any situation within and without. My class and skull of ideas and ideologies dictate that these should not be cooked to suit any individual or group’s interests. It is healthy and appropriate to always remain so. I am saying this because somewhere in the known and unknown sources some information are being peddled to depict a diplomat as citing with the government in matters of sovereignty and internal interests. It took me time to come to terms and in search of the audio that Amb. Joram M. Biswaro is said to have pointed a finger to a particular political party to the peace agreement. Indeed l have come to establish that the Ambassador’s message was so general that there was no mention of a particular political party or any individual. What baffles all is that the fingers are being pointed at him at a time when the peace agreement is being propagated and articulated by relevant key players, African Union included. May we not misconstrue my opinion and personal feeling on the on-going round-about of the diplomatic and political take that can be avoided at all cost? It is the belief that as a representative of the continental body and the on-going issue at hand which is for the citizens and national interests in the name of restoring sustainable peace for now and in future. I stand to be corrected by the leader of the SPLM/IO who clearly stated that those residing in hotels were not party of the security arrangement delegations should vacate and go to their former bases or join the party’s cantonments. His message was very clear and should be taken with the proven token it deserves because he equally understands the financial constrain. This is not to mean that it is only SPLM/IO members who are residing in hotels in Juba. There are even some government officials who have been living in such posh hotels for more than two years. The Ambassador’s message may have included such cases and instead of taking it personal, there should be consultation within the parties and the diplomatic missions in the country. It is with this that instead of rushed judgment, tolerance and understanding should be given a chance in any situation, volatile or not. At the moment we need one another to achieve our goal which has been extended by another 100 days through collaboration and agreement within the main signatory parties. The 100 days might seem to be long but true it is not and all energies should be directed in handling pertinent issues that resulted in the extension. It would be meaningless if the main issues are not tackled and instead matters outside the context are given prominence over and above the issues at hand. This kind of approach just creates uncertainty and should be avoided at all cost.