Why the South Sudan Peace Process is a Lost Case
In the just concluded but failed round of talks
on the revitalisation of the South Sudan peace agreement convened by the High-Level
Revitalisation Forum (HLRF) of Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD)
in Addis Ababa something stood out. This round was led by religious leaders. When
I heard that the HLRF had adopted the so-called South-South approach to
negotiation led by religious leaders from South Sudan, I thought to myself that it was a brilliant idea. Having been a critic of track-one summit negotiations
that have largely characterised the South Sudan peace process, the idea of a
South-South approach sounded musical. Little did I know this was a still birth.
It is until I sought to get more information about it by speaking to two people
involved in the process that I formed a different opinion. First, I spoke to a
friend who is part of the process as a negotiator on the side of Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM/A IO). The second person I talked to is part of
the team working for the Joint Monitoring and
Evaluation Commission (JMEC) of the Peace Agreement on South Sudan. The
responses I got from these two individuals quickly dampened my hopes. So, I
knew, for a fact, that nothing was going to come out of this last round of
talks. I expected them to collapse and it came to pass.
Having gathered that the SPLM/A IO was
questioning the impartiality of the religious leaders, I posed the following
question to my friend. Do you think it is necessary to proceed with talks
anyway or should there be sought some consensus between the parties on the mediator
first? I do not recall him responding to this question directly. He, instead
argued that the SPLM/A IO was not aware of the role of church leaders in this
round of talks. He said and I quote “In February the church leaders came
claiming that they were coming to pray for the stakeholders and to find out
what were the challenges. On our arrival this time, IGAD announced that there
will be South to South Dialogue facilitated by church leaders. We are fully
participating in it because we are for peace, our fear is only the manner in
which the church leaders who all live in Juba have sneaked themselves into the
process and the credibility of some church leaders.”
On her
part, the
friend from JMEC argued that this was "too little too late" and even went on to question the efficacy of some of the religious leaders by opining that "even some of the religious leaders themselves have no buy-in into the process." She concluded by asserting that “the
process has been focusing on the elite-people who are rich, their children are
not in camps, they themselves don’t even live in Juba and are completely out of
touch with the pain that the people are going through. Personally, I remain a
MAJOR proponent of a bottom up approach to this process. Let the people
themselves be involved in the peace-building efforts. Otherwise as they say, it
is like doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different
result.”
As the conversation of the peace of South
Sudan went on, I recalled a presentation by Mr. John Katunga from April 5th,
2011 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e2Sqkax-AQ&app=desktop)
on the Independence referendum. I particularly was drawn to his assertion that
South Sudanese should have moved from blood to sweat. Unfortunately, this never
happened. On the contrary, South Sudan, in a typical military victory version,
went on to celebrations that suffocated the opportunity to sit down, organize and
strategize on how to work and make their new nation function. John Katunga talks
of wealth sharing, which is OK. However, I think South Sudan did not and does
not have enough wealth to share. The more reason the conversation should shift
from wealth sharing to wealth creation. For this to happen, the focus of peace
talks should shift from quick fixes such as power sharing and center, instead, on
state formation and nation building.
The more time I took to follow the process
in Addis Ababa, the more it became clear to me that IGAD was in desperate search for quick
fixes. IGAD appeared to be under external pressure to broker a deal at all
costs. So, the proposals on the table had a "take or leave it" label.
This is what Fisher and Ury call the “one text procedure.” I am persuaded to
think that while the one text principle works in some situations, it may not be
appropriate in the case of South Sudan under the circumstances. South Sudan
needs a broader-based, thoroughly inclusive and menacingly consensus-based approach
well away from massaging the political egos of political elite and focused,
instead, on building a state and laying ground for a cohesive 'nation' for
posterity.
I am sceptical that the Addis Ababa
process, no matter its shapes, sizes and frequency will birth peace for South
Sudan. The just concluded and collapsed South-South revitalisation of peace agreement
process as led by religious leaders was just another flavor of the same process
that invites scepticism. IGAD is an inter-governmental body made up of states
who in the words of Zach Vertin (https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1804_Poisoned-Well.pdf)
have made South Sudan a theatre for regional competition. We need spare thought
for the peace of South Sudan. Actors must be ready to innovate and experiment on something new.
We cannot cook solutions abroad, serve them hot to the South Sudanese elite in
the African capital, Addis Ababa and expect solutions that will lead to
stability and lasting peace in South Sudan. External solutions to local problems have not worked anywhere, they won't work in South Sudan.
Why the South Sudan Peace Process is a Lost Case
Reviewed by Ibrahim Magara
on
May 25, 2018
Rating:

No comments: