Pass this resolution and impose sanctions

The United States delegation at the United Nations circulated a draft resolution this week to work out a possible, targeted sanctions against South Sudanese personalities seen to be impeding the peace process being mediated by IGAD in Ethiopia.

This is a good step since previous warnings were mere lips-service meant to show us that something would be done. We still know that countries like China and Russia will oppose any possible sanctions against South Sudan given the way they present themselves as natural opponents of US’s indiscriminate wielding of power. While this resolution has a long way to go, it’s a needed step in the right direction because South Sudanese leaders have shown during this 10-month long war that they only care about power.

However, the most appalling thing is South Sudanese government’s response to the threats of sanctions. Dr. Marial Benjamin, the foreign affairs minister, argues that any sanctions would negatively affect the peace talks. What these leaders need to understand is that these sanctions aren’t going to be aimed at the whole nation to cripple whatever economic breathing space is left. These sanctions are merely targeted sanctions aimed at forcing naughty officials, both in the government and in opposition, to get their heads straight and start thinking about their people.

No right-minded leader in any part of the world would impose economic sanctions on a country that’s teetering at the edge of famine. The sanctions will only be aimed at obstructers of the peace and at a possible ‘Arms Embargo’ in order to prevent the continued on-and-off war in the country.

I don’t know how the minister thinks these targeted sanctions would negatively affect the peace process. If the parties renege on their promises or refuse to negotiate because some of their officials have been sanctioned then such action would actually give impetus and authentic ground for the imposition of sanctions. These sanctions would not be imposed because United Nations Security Council fancies sanctions. The sanctions are a function of the intransient and insensitive attitude of South Sudanese leaders; leaders who see little rationale in alleviating the suffering of their own people.

Unless the minister believes the government is obstructing the peace process, I believe there’s nothing he should be worried about. The government made very reasonable concessions, however, it’s the final result that counts. If these concessions don’t bring peace to ease the suffering in the country then a lot needs to be done.

It’s common knowledge that the rebels want to indirectly negotiate their way to power. That’s a reasonable concern; however, the two parties are locked in a meaningless power quest that leaves none of the parties blameless. Even more painful concessions need to be made to avoid the imposition of these sanctions.

President Kiir, being the head of the government, needs to take charge of the talks and stop giving us an impression that he’s incapable of bringing peace to South Sudan. In his recent interview with Qatar-based Aljazeera TV, the president sounded very pessimistic, helpless and unpresidential. He sounded like a clueless fellow just handed power and has no idea what to do with it.

The president should be the voice of the people. He should be positive and come up with innovative strategies to bring peace to the country. The pessimism the president portrayed reflects so much  what’s wrong with South Sudan. He should stop asking people to go an ask Riek Machar about the peace talks. Riek isn’t the president of South Sudan. We’d expect more from the president of the country.

I therefore believe that these sanctions are warranted to accelerate the signing of the peace agreement. If South Sudanese leaders don’t want sanctions then peace is the only way out.

 

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.