Building a Case for South Sudan

Often times we succumb to the temptation to conceive of an imaginary spare continent and spare countries somewhere. But that is if I am mot in the “we” for indeed I am always convinced Africa is our continent; our home; the only one that we have. We either construct this continent or we all suffer and die. Many countries in Africa are either in active violence or recovering from one or worse even preparing to enter into one. Many are the people who are actively fighting wars across Africa whose owner they know not. South Sudan is the youngest State on the continent but since its independence the country is raved by active violence. South Sudan has emerged to record one of the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. But do those actively fighting in South Sudan have any idea whose war they are fighting? I doubt if many do.

The region through IGAD has always pretended to seek a solution for South Sudan but then again the same people that we expect to help South Sudan come to her feet are in business. They are warlords cum business men cum African leaders. All that matters to them is not how many women and girls are raped but how much money can war generate. They never get alarmed by statics on death and rape. They have been in this endless negotiations designed to fail. I followed the negotiations for the Sudans since the so called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). I have not seen much change over time. In fact, the script remains the same. If you doubt me go and read the CPA and read the 2015 Peace Agreement compare them then return to me. If the CPA failed what makes us believe the latter agreement will hold? I am not in the “us” again. I always choose safety.

Something has often impressed me during these bloated negotiations. They are often timed. Negotiations must never be timed. You cannot negotiate by saying that by tomorrow you must have reached an agreement. That ceases to be negotiation. Whereas it is important to operate within the confines of time; it is equally important to take as much time as it is humanely possible to ensure the success of negotiations. If our leaders have other urgent commitments, why take part in negotiations? When will we learn this simple lesson? Strict following of timelines have been one of the upsets to the success of the said talks. Until now we have had many instances where the parties to conflict have failed to meet the deadlines; they will for sure continue missing them out. Until we decide to realize that it is more important to get to the bottom of the issues than following imposed deadlines.

To restore peace in South Sudan it is critical to attempt creation of a nation out of the shambles that it is. Stakeholders both state and non-state must be strong enough to suggest outright dismantling of what is otherwise called a State in South Sudan and restructure it afresh. Anything short of that will surely fail at some point in a line that is yet to be drawn. South Sudan does not have any necessary infrastructure of a State. The negotiations for South Sudan should not center on power sharing and meeting dubious deadlines but rather on state formation. This is a comprehensive process that might not require immediate known deadlines. Let deadlines emerge with time as the state formation commences but as it were nobody is really talking about state formation in South Sudan; all what is going on is negotiations for power sharing in order to ensure calmness so that looters can take as much as they can.