South Sudanese ‘Peace Talks’: what we need to know

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.

EAST AFRICAN SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AND UNCALLED FOR POLEMICAL RESPONSE

We all agree, even with some staunch government supporters in South Sudan, that the September 12, 2014 circular (No. 007 /2014) signed by the minister of  Labour, Public Service and Human Resource Development, Hon. Ngor Kolong Ngor, was ill-conceived and dangerous for South Sudan. And it’s with that understanding that the government, a few days later, released a press statement (RSS/MOLPS&HRD/J/33) on September 17, 2014 ‘clarifying’ what was written in No. 007/2014.

The September 17, 2014 PR was dubbed a ‘clarification’ but it was rather a ‘correction’ because what was written in the circular was crystal clear and dangerous :(...all aliens…in all positions…) If South Sudan was a ‘normal’ country in peacetime; the minister should have resigned immediately because his action was actually a national security disaster on many levels. It endangered the lives of South Sudanese in other African countries, jeopardized our economic and diplomatic interests and reflected South Sudan as a nation of leaders who act first and think later.

The parliament, useless as it is, should have summoned the minister to explain himself. What do we know? It’s South Sudan anyways!

However, the point of this article isn’t so much about the gross error of judgement by the government of South Sudan because the government has admitted the error and corrected it.

This article addresses the unrealistic, childish and uncalled for response our East African brothers and sisters meted on South Sudanese nationals as a function of that infamous circular.

With no doubt, the government of South Sudan made a gross mistake; however, I don’t understand why Ugandans and Kenyans were gravely harsh to South Sudanese nationals even after the government corrected the error! And why react with such negative air to a blunder, first of its kind in South Sudan? Is that the essence of brotherhood and sisterhood our East African brothers have for us? Couldn’t our East African brothers wait for clarification before reacting? Would one consider that reaction as a sign of maturity?

However, the most disappointing part of this isn't the reaction by the average citizen of the two countries and some mindless musicians like Bebe Cool! It’s the reaction of the leadership! There’s no doubt that South Sudan has benefited from the generosity of our East African brothers and sisters; however, it’s ridiculous to rub it on our faces ALL THE TIME. Even the Kenyan chief diplomat, Kenyan foreign secretary, Amina Mohammed, reminded us of the help Kenya has given South Sudan.

Such generosities should be uttered in a way for others to just imply them. But for a seasoned diplomat to remind South Sudanese of the help Kenya has extended to South Sudan in the media in a condescending tone leaves a lot to be desired. It made me question whether Ms. Mohammed has any genuine regard for South Sudanese!

For those of us who did our High School education in Kenya, we know how ‘brotherly and sisterly’ Kenyans can be. And those who’ve been to Uganda know how they treated and still treat South Sudanese. I have had money extorted from me in both Nairobi and Kampala! And I was told to ‘go back to your country’ many times!

Kenyan and Ugandan police extorted money from us, jailed us, beat us up and treated us like dirt. That was such a sign of brotherhood, right? However, we couldn't do anything about it for we had no choice and we also saw other trade-offs such as allowing us refuge in their countries!

For those of us who were in refugee camps, we know Kenyans and Ugandans found employment through various NGOs working in South Sudan and with their headquarters in Nairobi and Kampala! In Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenyans were paid almost 5-10 times what we were paid and some Kenyans went to schools in Kakuma Refugee camps for free. There were many Kenyans employed in various South Sudanese offices in Nairobi. I know of a number employed by my aunt and uncle in their offices in Nairobi. Kenyans and Ugandans benefited economically too from expensive houses rented by South Sudanese commanders and civilian workers.