It
is a general knowledge in South Sudan that Inter-Governmental Agency on
Development (IGAD) successfully mediated the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
in Sudan between 2002 and 2005. The advent of relative peace in Sudan and the
eventual succession of South Sudan from Sudan can be credited to IGAD. However,
this point of view is being put to an awful test as IGAD’s negotiators seem
lost and confused…or even grossly incompetent. The modalities IGAD is using are
mediocre at best and uselessly circular at worse.
In
January this year, South Sudan’s Assistant minister for foreign affairs, Peter
Bashir Bandi, told one SSTV host that IGAD plays down any initiatives generated
by South Sudanese themselves. Anytime South Sudanese made headway in
negotiations, Bandi argues, IGAD would postpone the talks without any
explanation. And when the talks are resumed, IGAD would give new discussion
guidelines and all parties start from scratch. This raises many questions as to
why IGAD doesn’t give South Sudanese a greater role in drafting negotiation policy
positions.
If
IGAD successfully mediated Sudan’s CPA then why is it so heard now for IGAD to
do so when the conditions of belligerence between the two warring parties are
different? The conditions that led to
the current civil war are by far less problematic than the conditions that
caused South Sudanese to take up arms against the Sudanese government in
Khartoum.
General
Lazarus Sumbeiywo, who helped bring peace to South Sudan and is now part of the
mediation team, knows this. The differences between SPLM-IO and SPLM-IG are
ideological, personal and slightly tribal. They are not as grossly divergent as
the racial and religious differences between the then South and North. What
exacerbates the difficulty in the mediation process now in Ethiopia is the
mechanics IGAD is applying. The modalities are meant to force peace, claim
credit for the job well done and then
blame the warring parties should this peace unravel. South Sudan doesn’t need a
myopic process as an easy way out of this war. Any short term solution is going
to be a long-term political and security nightmare in the country. Is IGAD
planning to destroy South Sudan?
Why
is it the IGAD that drafts the negotiation substance and blueprints? This is
not peace mediation but peace enforcement. South Sudanese leaders are the ones
who very well know the problems that led to this crisis; and they are the ones
who will lead South Sudan should peace come. It is therefore prudent for IGAD
to allow all policy positions and negotiation contents to be drafted by the
warring parties. IGAD should only be there to actually do its job: mediate.
This draft-and-reject, draft-and-accept process is a waste of both money and
time; and it continues to endanger lives of South Sudanese. The only hope for South
Sudan has been placed in the hands of IGAD for South Sudan credit IGAD with
CPA. This hope is being betrayed by IGAD.
This
article might appear like it’s excusing the originators of the problem. Far
from it! South Sudanese leaders have shown little to no practical compassion
for the suffering South Sudanese. Neither SPLM-IO chairman, Dr. Riek Machar nor
President Kiir Mayardit, sees the need to call a press conference to address
the grievances and needs of South Sudanese who were killed, bereft or displaced
by forces under their commands. They hear humanitarian agencies constantly
warning about famine but these leaders show little interest in the suffering of
the people. Internally displaced civilians are living in squalor conditions in
UNMISS camps yet none of the leaders shows interest. They only pay lip service
about being the one fighting on behalf of South Sudanese.
So
what will it take for IGAD to realize that South Sudanese leaders should be
held more accountable for the current crisis? IGAD needs to put South Sudanese
at the centre of the negotiation process. And if sanctions are to be imposed
then practical measures need to be taken instead of constantly warning the
warring parties without actually putting in place punitive measures. Both Cessation
of Hostilities Agreement and the Cease Fire have been violated with no
consequences. Monitoring and Verification Mechanism is a complete joke! So why
would people who face no consequences be serious about peace talks they are not
even meaningfully part of?