Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:38:31 +0200
South Sudan: ending the bloodletting
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/john-onyando> John Onyando
30 April 2014
The international community has a responsibility to end the bloodletting in
South Sudan. And neither of its factional leaders, with blood on their
hands, can be part of its future.
The recent <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27102643> killing of 200
people, mostly civilians, by rebels in Bentiu in South Sudan should have
been a "game changer" for the four-month-old conflict. Or so hoped Toby
Lanzer, a top United Nations official in Juba with long experience from the
frontline of armed conflict.
But save for condemnations of the act by global leaders, the game in South
Sudan remains the same-killings on a colossal scale by pro-government forces
and rebels. The UN says that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, have died.
Many more have suffered grave human-rights violations, including sexual
violence and starvation.
Much of the progress this underdeveloped country had realised over nine
years of self-rule since the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Peace_Agreement> Comprehensive
Peace Agreement has been severely damaged. The economy has ground to a halt.
Roads and buildings have been destroyed, oil is no longer flowing and
international investors who created jobs and provided the services behind a
burgeoning urbanisation have packed up and gone.
Tribes are back to the days when they quarrelled almost at the drop of a
hat; national identity, which was a challenge even before this war, will now
be harder to forge. The two institutions in which the whole country had
confidence, the ruling party (the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement) and
the army, have lost their universal appeal. It is a country of military
forces, where only the armed have a fighting chance. Even UN camps
universally recognised as safe havens in war have been attacked. Democracy
is a long shot but still the only solution to the madness.
Neutral broker needed
In a country with no independents, the president, Salva Kiir and his former
deputy, Riek Machar, now lead factions nearly equal in size. They have blood
on their hands, but can only make peace work if the international
community-which immediately means the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) of eight east African states, including Sudan and South
Sudan-can guarantee a peace agreement.
As the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, said ahead of the resumption of
IGAD-led talks in Ethiopia, this is the time for an agreement. The talks as
currently constituted may not however yield durable peace and IGAD's hand
should be strengthened by the involvement of the UN, possibly through an
additional mediator with broad international backing.
In particular, IGAD leaders-especially the Ugandan president, Yoweri
Museveni-have given open support in the talks for Kiir's preferences. This
has hardly encouraged him to negotiate in good faith, while allowing Machar
to use the talks as a cover for his raw push for power. A former president,
such as Thabo Mbeki (South Africa) or Benjamin Mkapa (Tanzania), would bring
political clout to the talks and address not just Kiir but also the other
east African presidents as equals.
Mediation framework
The parameters of such mediation should at a minimum include an interim
power-sharing agreement between Kiir and Machar, with a government mandate
to organise free elections in 2015-which both men should be banned from
contesting. Individuals responsible for such terrible violence should not as
a matter of principle exercise enduring legitimate authority. In practical
terms, the duo would not co-operate in the long term and their sour
relationship would hold up reconciliation and anyway challenging democratic
reforms.
A transitional government led by Kiir and Machar would not require
constitutional change but it would need the stewardship of the international
community. All top political leaders in South Sudan are now beholden to
either man, so the country risks entrenchment into two blocks associated
with the ethnic affiliations of Dinka and Nuer and meshed with the
aspirations of members of other communities.
The UN has a good experience of running elections. Its staff on the ground,
led by Hilde Johnson and Lanzer, have been remarkably courageous, reporting
atrocities not just by rebels but also by the government-such as the
shocking
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/south-sudanese-soldiers-protec
t-un-base-48-killed> attack by pro-Kiir militia on the UN camp in Bor, which
the UN said might constitute a war crime.
The officials have however filled the space of the political UN, whose
powerful countries have been reluctant to call Kiir to account, perhaps in
deference to Museveni and his Kenyan counterpart, Uhuru Kenyatta. There is
no doubt that Africans need respect in international relations-but respect
is not cosying up to leaders ruining their countries.
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_
preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/550590/south%20sudan%20refugee%5D_0.jpg> Refugee
woman breastfeedingThe human cost: South Sudan refugees in Uganda. Flickr /
European Commission. Some rights reserved.
(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)