On July 9 country marks independence day, but millions of people who suffered from conflict will not be celebrating.

About the Author

Catherine Wambua-Soi

She's about 65 years old. Her face has distinct traditional markings of the Nuer, South Sudan's second largest tribe.

We find her seated pensively in a bare traditional hut they call "Tukul" in South Sudan. "This is not home," she tells us when we visit. "My home and food was burned and my cattle stolen".

She has been at a UN camp for displaced people in South Sudan's administrative capital of Unity state, Bentiu, for a couple of days. Sitting around her are a dozen or so children - moulding dolls, cattle and guns using clay.

hey are her grandchildren.

She finds it difficult to find words to describe what happened at her village in Koch county, south of Bentiu.

She claims to have been raped by who she remembers as young boys dressed in military gear.

Stigma of rape

There's a lot of stigma attached to rape, so she asks us not to reveal her identity.

When she and her family finally escaped, two of her grandchildren, both below 10 years old, had disappeared. She told me she wants to go back to look for them.

She's still clinging to the hope that they could be alive, afraid and hiding somewhere in the swamps that surround her village. But she's also not ruling out the fact that they could be dead. She told me she can't live without knowing.

Her family is among more than 11,000 freshly displaced people who are seeking shelter at the UN camp, which was already crowded with roughly 50,000 others who never left since 2013 when the conflict broke out.

Many of the stories of those just arriving are consistent that government soldiers attacked them, killed their loved ones and burned their homes.

Blame on crossfire

I asked Upper Nile's acting governor Peter GathKuoth Chuol about the accusations. He said that South Sudan's armed force is a "national military and cannot attack its own citizens.

If houses were burned, it was because of the crossfire, not that soldiers deliberately set them on fire". He also said that it is difficult to tell for certain who exactly is carrying out the atrocities.

What is certain is that people have been fleeing a government offensive against SPLM - the rebels led by former vice President Riek Machar in Unity State. The offensive started on the same month that peace talks were meant to resume.

There's also been heavy fighting in neighbouring Upper Nile – the State with the only functioning oil fields. On May 21, the rebels took control of Malakal, the capital. Government troops took it back a few days later. South Sudan's military accused the Sudanese government of aiding the new rebel offensive. Khartoum has denied any involvement in the fighting.

SPLM in opposition in Upper Nile State gained strength from the defection of a key general, Johnson Oloni, previously allied to the government.

He controls a (Shiluk) tribe militia in the region and had just received weapons and ammunition from government before his defection.

The fighting in both oil states has left many people homeless, hiding in swamps and trying to get to UN protected areas. Doctors without Borders have described the situation as alarming.

Peace talks

All this comes as the stage is being set for a new round of peace talks in Addis Ababa. Consultations to draw up a proper frame work for the resumption of talks are ongoing with negotiating teams drawn from SPLM (in government), SPLM (in opposition) and SPLM (former detainees).

The agenda will pretty much be around outstanding issues like the structure of the executive, a power sharing formula, integration of the military, federalism and the composition of parliament.

East Africa's regional body IGAD (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya, Uganda) led talks collapsed in March.

The organisation is now calling, sensibly, for an expanded mediation team – or IGAD Plus, which may include the AU, US, UK, Norway (TROIKA), UNSC, EU and China.

Analysts we spoke to said that the priority for IGAD Plus must be to also engage with hardliners [military commanders] from both sides of the conflict to avoid chances of their undermining the process.

They will not be at the Addis Ababa talks, but are very influential and can easily further destabilise the country.

That the final agreement must include governance reforms and reconciliation and there must be better coordination between IGAD Plus and the warring factions.

"The mediation partners must listen more and impose less," one of the people who was present in previous talks told me. There's also the controversial issue of sanctions. IGAD Plus must weigh very carefully how to use the pressure at its disposal.

Solid mediation strategy

According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, preparatory consultations are crucial and IGAD Plus must utilise the pre-talks period to come up with a solid mediation strategy, pay closer attention to the conflict's regional dimension, prioritise dialogue particularly with hardline military commanders, enable the SPLM (in opposition) feel comfortable enough to rejoin the political leadership and accept a deal.

IGAD Plus must also work out a way of identifying individuals, not just armed groups, responsible for violations, so that the security council can better justify potential individual sanctions.

Many ordinary South Sudanese who have suffered so much don't really understand the complexities of peace talks. They just want the fighting to end so that they can go back home. And they know for that to happen their leaders must somehow find a way of working together again.

The recent fighting - worst this year - has deepened mistrust between the warring factions and will likely make the talks more difficult. IGAD officials party to the preparations say this is the last chance for peace.

On July 9, South Sudan marks its fourth independence day, but millions of people who have either been displaced, lost loved ones, been unable to farm, had their homes burned and property looted will not be celebrating.

*********************************************************************************

S Sudan conflict: Can Sudan play a role?

About the Author

Mohamed Elshabik

Mohamed Elshabik is a Sudanese blogger, International aid worker, and a socio-political analyst.

Nearly five months after fighting broke out in South Sudan on December 15, making sense of the conflict is still problematic. The fighting, which apparently started as a political squabble between the president's guards and soldiers loyal to the former deputy president, Riek Machar, has developed into an acute ethnic division that threatens to destroy the world's newest state.

To date, neither side can articulate a purpose for the conflict. In a recent interview, Machar referred to the idea of democratising South Sudan. Unfortunately, this debate on democratisation may take a long time to reach a conclusion.

During the past five months, the fighting has resulted in an estimated tens of thousands of deaths, 1.4 million internally displaced persons, and thousands of refugees dispersed to neighbouring countries. About four million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. A recent UN report reported gross human rights violations. In addition to the casualties, the situation is also severely affecting the social fabric and economic backbone of the country. From the outside, the prognosis is that of a failed state: tribal friction, fractured army, devastated communities and destroyed towns.

On May 9, the South Sudanese rivals met and signed a peace deal. The deal highlights the immediate end of hostilities, the opening up of humanitarian corridors and the formation of a transitional government.

The fragile deal is likely to fail, mainly because the international community's approach is haphazard and the key influential actors, who maintain great leverage and understanding of the origins of the conflict, are absent.

Quick win mentality

The peaceful divorce of southern Sudan from the northern part has been internationally celebrated but with little understanding of the complexity of South Sudan with its deeply rooted ethnic and tribal enmities.

External priorities have subjugated the country's priorities. In the years following the separation from the north, UNMISS has usually been regarded as a parallel governing body and has frequently been accused by GOSS of internal interference. Western diplomats wrote splendid reports including all the development and peace buzzwords.

USAID and other international donors embarked on bilateral agreements with international NGOs best serving the interests of their own countries. With reduced operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the insertion of development projects became easier. However, a wider reconciliation process necessary for a country emerging from a half-century of war was given minimal attention. Combining the country's priorities with those of the international community resulted in the conflict that began on December 15.

The body language of the South Sudan leaders who signed the recent peace deal suggested little enthusiasm for genuine peace. In fact it was reported that South Sudanese President Salva Kiir stated that he and Machar were forced to sign to avoid arrest. Nevertheless, immediately after this, there were calls to meet the new prerequisites of the agreement by the international community. 

The peace agreement ending 22 years of war in greater Sudan was brokered by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The regional mediator with the legacy of involvement in Sudan's previous conflict reacted first after the recent outburst last December.

Nevertheless, IGAD's ability to broker a lasting deal ending conflict in South Sudan is difficult to accomplish because of regionally entangled political and economic ramifications.

IGAD's neutrality is already in doubt because, during one of the ceasefire talks, Taban Deng, head of the rebel delegation group questioned the deployment of Ugandan troops in South Sudan.

In the early days, Uganda came to the rescue of its ally, Kiir, but the deployment of Ugandan troops greatly threatened others in the region. This resulted in IGAD requesting that troops be withdrawn and participate in a united mission.

The involvement of Ethiopia and Kenya is linked to their associations with SPLM, and most importantly by growing political ambitions in the region. Both countries represent themselves as rising powers although the recent unrest in Kenya may provide an advantage to Addis Ababa over Nairobi.

Egypt and Rwanda have offered contributions to the proposed Peace Enforcement forces. Neither country belongs to IGAD. Egypt seeks South Sudan's support in its forthcoming confrontation with Ethiopia regarding the River Nile Renaissance Dam. Rwanda contributes significant numbers of troops to UNMISS and seeks political advantage by advocating its reconciliation model.

South Africa's President Jacob Zuma has appointed his own special envoy; Cyril Ramaphosa, the ANC deputy president who is a prominent and experienced negotiator. With the other envoys from the US, UK, Norway, China, African Union and the European Union, this reflects the increasing regional and international dimension of the conflict. Cautious coordination will be needed to avoid competition and the risk that South Sudan could easily become a proxy territory for different intersectional power interests.

Better coordination

The president of South Sudan highlighted this development at the launch of the independent platform for peace and reconciliation when he requested better coordination to avoid any disruption of negotiations.

Sudan arguably has the most understanding and leverage over the South Sudan conflict. Sudan's role, so far, has been limited in terms of direct political involvement compared to neighbouring IGAD states. However, Sudan's passivity has been positively interpreted by the international community. Due to unresolved issues between the two countries, it was expected that Sudan, internationally regarded as devoid of credibility, would take advantage of the conflict to settle border issues and further its oil interests in South Sudan.

Sudan can play a positive role although this may be deterred by some factors, such as increasing internal problems, the international community's claims about Sudan being regarded as a "party spoiler", and ironically, the very fact that Sudan doesn't realise how much leverage it could have in the conflict.

Research into Sudan's successful 1965 roundtable discussions on the south Sudan problem revealed that it took longer to agree on who would represent the south, than it took to make the agreement. Sudan can provide the expertise and history of the root causes of the problem, past efforts, failures and achievements. Sudan's role should not be limited to those in government. Reputable figures who have worked closely with South Sudan, such as Mansour Khalid can use their leverage over South Sudanese politicians. In light of all this, Machar visiting Khartoum may, after all, not be bad news.The international community must not underestimate the influence Sudan has on both parties in the conflict. 

Sudan and South Sudan still have many unresolved problems and the present conflict presents an opportunity to embed them into a larger peace-building process that will help to restore trust between these two countries. Sudan and South Sudan's outstanding issues, if ignored, will jeopardise the effectiveness of any individual agreement that excludes Sudan. Sudan has been part of the problem; it's time for it to be part of the resolution.

Mohamed Elshabik is a Sudanese blogger, international aid worker and a freelance socio-political analyst.