This policy brief is an attempt to explain the millipede speed of the
IGAD-led peace process for South Sudan. After an indefinite closure of the
peace talks on 24 June 2014, there is cloud of doubt surrounding progress of
the peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the people of South Sudan are
left in continuous dilemma of who to believe between the government and the
SPLM/A oppositional leadership in their counter-accusations over stalemate
of the peace process. As an eyewitness, I am left with no choice than to
break a silence on what I know was contributory factor to the long awaited
political settlement.
At the outset, one must appreciate the regional leaders particularly that of
Kenya, Sudan and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, who
immediately sent their foreign ministers to Juba on 19 December 2013 for
consultation with the political leadership after unfolding and deadly
violence which occurred on 15 December 2013 and spread to the states of
greater Upper Niles along ethnic lines largely between the Dinka and the
Nuer communities.
On 27 December, 2013 the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IGAD held its 23rd extraordinary session of the IGAD Assembly of Head of
State and government in Nairobi, Kenya where the IGAD mediation team was
appointed in the persons of three renowned military and diplomatic officials
namely Ambassador Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia as Chairperson of IGAD Special
Envoys for South Sudan and membership of General Lazarus Sumbeyo of Kenya
and General Mohamed Ahmed El Dabi of Sudan respectively.
In an attempt to execute their duty of mediating the armed conflict between
the government and the SPLM/A in Opposition under leadership of former Vice
President Dr. Riek Machar, a lot of difficulties aroused in the trend and
modality of approaching a peaceful settlement since the beginning up to now.
However, a little progress has been achieved so far as the cessation of
hostilities agreement, recommitment for humanitarian delivery and agreement
on status of the former detainees were concluded and signed.
July 3, 2014 - On procedural aspects, the SPLM/A in Opposition first wanted
an inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to the mediation in order to
have full ownership and legitimacy of the agreement itself while the
government wanted the bilateral talks to reach a permanent ceasefire alone
and subsequently discussed issues of governance at home in an inclusive
manner. The call for inclusivity was later ego by South Sudanese
stakeholders and international community based on the conclusion that the
SPLM-led government has failed to control its internal political spectrum
which resultantly thrown the world newest nation into jeopardy and therefore
cannot be trusted to bring stability without collective efforts.
On 9 May, 2014, the principal warring parties represented by the president
Salva Kiir and the SPLM/A in Opposition leader Dr. Riek Machar signed
framework agreement to resolve crisis in South Sudan that call for inclusion
of all South Sudanese stakeholders in the peace process including SPLM
leaders (former detainees), political parties, civil society and faith based
leaders. Subsequently, multi-stakeholders symposium was convened in Addis
Ababa from 4 to 9 June, 2014 to serve as a platform to generate ideas for
consideration and to help parties and the mediation teams formed an agenda
item. Indeed, the dialogue was informative, educative and contributory to
the conflict resolutions.
After the end of stakeholders symposium pending the opening of the fourth
session of second round of negotiations, the government and the SPLM/A in
opposition both boycotted the opening session on the accusation of an insult
by IGAD Executive Secretary to the President of the Republic of South Sudan
and undermining of sovereignty of the country on the other hand, while the
later group argued that the selection of the stakeholders as not been
consultative and broad based. The SPLM/A in opposition claimed that whoever
comes from Juba is a pro-government stakeholder which we have denied.
This claimed is unfounded and baseless and the SPLM/A in Opposition is
filled with fear of unknown when in fact such stakeholders are neutral. Few
days later, the government dropped its idea of boycotting the peace talks
and avail readiness for negotiation while the opposition maintained its
rejection of the stakeholders calling for representation of all stakeholders
to be drawn from both sides of the warring parties. This deadlock brought an
indefinite closure of the peace talks by the IGAD mediating team.
Therefore, the principal parties to the armed conflict must educate the
people of South Sudan about what will they benefit if this war is delayed
when 4 million people are in need of humanitarian aid; 359,000 people
displaced to neighboring countries while 1.3 million people are internally
displaced according to the latest reports at the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The moment peace delays, the increased
humanitarian disaster throughout the country as hundred of thousands of
people are dying of hunger, diseases and being killed.
The second dilemma is about credibility of the IGAD mediating team. The
peace processes including the previous agreements were negotiated out of
good faith by the parties without rule of procedures. These rules are
important in any mediation in order to bring parties to common ground and
committed them to respect it in their engagement. If the such a complicated
peace talks is done in a loose manner, one must expect very little to
achieve.
In other words, people are beginning to lose hope in the IGAD-led mediation
process unless a new strategy is quickly developed including mandating the
IGAD Special Envoys with powers to decide on certain substantive matters.
The IGAD Special Envoys are truly vulnerable and cannot bring parties
together as far as I have seen the experience for the last six months. This
is clearly manifested at one time when Gen. Lazarus Sumbeyo said that he can
only take cows to the river, but cannot force them again to drink.
In conclusion, it is to be noted clear that the peace process is delayed by
contributory factors as IGAD wasted a lot of time in procedural aspects than
on substantive issues while the parties to the armed conflict particularly
the SPLM/A in Opposition withdrew from its initial position of inclusivity
to a bilateral talks. The leaders of this country must rise above personal
and political interest and put the interest of the people first, otherwise,
history shall not forgive us. The international community particularly IGAD
member states should speed up urgent deployment of monitoring and
verification mechanism to ensure implementation of this cessation of
hostilities agreement and urge the parties to return to the negotiating
table.
Beny Gideon Mabor is Executive Director, African Centre for Peace and
Humanitarian Dialogue and a member of Civil Society Delegation to the South
Sudan peace process in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His research interests include
governance, human rights and social accountability. He can be reached at
benygmabor_at_gmail.com