In
my last appearance on Lagos based TVC news, I sounded a little more optimistic
regarding the prospect for ‘peace’ in South Sudan, a position that’d sound
naïve to anyone who’s familiar with the intransience and job-focused nature of politicking
in South Sudan. Anyone, who takes what South Sudanese politicians say
literally, risks falling into the unforgiving side of history. That is a good
thing to remember when it comes to South Sudanese political mechanics. However,
that shouldn’t mean a good step taken shouldn’t be acknowledged despise the
constellation of obstacles facing the peace process.
The Obstacle: Jobbization of National
Agenda
The
talks in Ethiopia are indeed about the future of South Sudan. However, they are
by no means tailored towards the future of the average South Sudanese. The talks, mostly about jobs and not peace, are
purely about personal ambitions and political positions. What Dr. John Garang
De Mabior saw as jobbism disguised as
patriotism among the Anya Anya II leaders is what’s characterizing the current
conflict. Almost everyone in the SPLM in opposition has grievances about a job
lost or a job one didn’t get. On the government side, it’s about protecting
one’s job not necessarily about standing up for the people of South Sudan. This
is a great obstacle for peace in South Sudan. As long as both parties don’t see
something written down, something that guarantees them government jobs and
ensure job security and longevity, we wouldn’t see the peace signed soon.
The Obstacle: IGAD, Medley of Incompetence and Dictatorship
Inter-Government
Agency on Development (IGAD) is credited as having successfully mediated the
peace process that culminated in Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005;
and eventually ended with the peaceful secession of South Sudan from Sudan.
However, a number of things have to be considered before that assumption takes
hold in history as having a definitive Truth Value.
CPA
was realized because of a number of factors we don’t see now in Ethiopia (Addis
Ababa and Bahir Dar).
-
The documents aren’t
drafted by the very people who know why the war started in the first place. The
warring parties just receive IGAD drafted documents.
-
IGAD isn’t mediating
but dictating the terms. A credible mediator doesn’t threaten but convinces the
warring parties. The fact that IGAD threatens the warring parties is a clear
indication of mediation and mediators’ failure.
-
The key players in
Sudanese war took charge of the peace negotiations in Naivasha and no great
consultations were required outside the peace venue.
-
When Dr. John and Taha
took charge of the talks, the world knew that the ideologues behind the
Sudanese religio-military, socio-economic and politico-racial dimensions were
at the table and could adequately reconcile the war paradigms and dimensions.
-
Taha and Garang struck
a cordial working relationship that, to everyone, indicated that the language
of peace was here and that ‘peace was coming.’ We don’t see that now in
Ethiopia.
-
CPA wasn’t about who
gets what job-wise, but the security of the agreement, fail-safe mechanisms for
referendum, resources sharing and everything that was in the interest of the
people of South Sudan. Now, in Ethiopia, it’s all about JOBS.
IGAD
has proven itself to be an utter failure. Garang and Taha were the ones who
brought the CPA. The leadership, moral courage and patriotism shown by Garang
and Taha have been replaced by self-interest driven talks meant to secure one’s
political survival. Mediators should create an enabling atmosphere for peace to
blossom. Instead, IGAD has created a poisonous atmosphere where the warring
parties don’t trust it. How can an organization mediate between two parties
that don’t trust it? This is a fallacy IGAD isn’t ashamed to maintain.
But
what did we expect from the likes of Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame, Omer
Al-Beshir, Ismael Guelleh, Isaias Aferweki, Haile Mariah Desalegn …among
others? These are leaders with a sorry-state human rights records. How can we
possibly expect them to care about South Sudanese if they don’t even care about
their own citizens? Anyone who checks the human rights records of these leaders
and their political control mechanisms would just feel sorry for the people of
South Sudan. How can these leaders give
South Sudanese something they don’t have in their own countries?
Why
would they allow President Kiir to stop what they actually cherish: Absolute
Totalitarianism and Unquestionable Leadership for Life?
Lack of Accountability
South
Sudanese leaders aren’t accountable to anyone. With no doubt they can do what
they want and when they want. It’s regrettable that they have extended this
state of mind to regional and world leaders. They duped South Sudanese, plunged
them into perpetual misery and poverty, and proved to the world that civilians
don’t mean anything. The Cessation of Hostilities agreement was signed on
January 23 and Cease Fire agreement signed on May 9 by the two Principals, all of
wish were violated with no consequences. The leaders recommitted themselves in
June to sign the agreement and end the war by August 10. That day came and
went. Then recently the leaders of IGAD (naively, I think) conditioned the two
Principals to sign the agreement in 60 days. This day came and went on October
9.
Despite
the threats of sanctions and the threats of famine on the people of South
Sudan, the two warring parties refused to sign the agreement. And they have
done so without any consequences.
One is
left to ask: Why would these people sign any agreement if they face no
consequences. They treat the people of South Sudan like dirt and insects and
get away with it. And they are doing the same thing with world leaders. Like
South Sudanese, the world and regional leaders are just as helpless.
Why
would the regional and world leaders expect leaders to comply when they aren’t
accountable to anyone but themselves?
Glimmer of Hope
Despite
all the dishonesty and lack of concern, South Sudanese leaders seem to have
taken a small step towards peace and that is something worth noting. Federalism
and creation of the position of Prime Minister were dismissed outright by the
South Sudanese government side. Accepting these controversial issues is a step
in the right direction.
I
have come to realize that South Sudanese leaders say a lot of things they don’t
mean and even things they wouldn’t do. Michael Makuei Lueth, the South Sudanese
minister of information and the current spokesperson of the government, talks
in a manner that makes it hard for people to believe him. I have ceased to take
him seriously. A man with no sense of courtesy towards others, doesn’t care
about the consequences of what he says, is not someone you can take seriously.
He
says a lot of things that are not only detrimental to the government but to South
Sudan as a whole. However, I’ve come to realize that it’s what is signed in
Addis that matters rather than what the perpetually disgruntled Makuei says.
And
in an equally annoying manner, Mabior Garang De Mabior, the opposition PR
person, says a lot of things that are dangerous for peace in the country. Mabior
has great potential to positively contribute towards socio-economic development
in South Sudan; however, the young man is filled with mysterious bitterness and
anger that undermines the supposedly national interest he’s fighting for. I have therefore started to see these two men as talkers rather than men whose ‘settling of scores’ statements mean anything. My glimmer of hope therefore rests with the papers signed rather than what these two men say. They are meant to talk and propagandize ad infinitum and so far their talks mean nothing.
And US’s Stephen Rapp beautifully summarises, while speaking in Juba recently, the risks of focusing on the elite power-sharing while excluding the needs of the average South Sudanese due to lack of accountability.
“But the point is if this conflict will end just with some kind of deal between elites, or some kind of power sharing, that will not bring peace to this country. It will indicate that in the future, acts of violence could be rewarded. And so genuine peace requires that accountability element...”
There are indeed on-and-of talks in Ethiopia; but they aren’t necessarily talks about peace or the well-being of South Sudanese but jobs, simple callous quest for jobs.
