The deadline that had been given to the warring sides in the South Sudan crisis came and passed without the two parties reaching any agreement. This development has disappointed South Sudanese, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators and the International community, who have been hopeful that finally a peace deal was forthcoming. According to sources that attended the talks, amongst the critical issues that are still outstanding are the structure of the executive of the Transitional Government of National Unity, the power sharing ratios, the composition of the National Assembly and transitional security arrangements. Earlier, President Salva Kiir was quoted by the East African
South Sudan President Salva Kiir (left), and his nemesis, Riek Machar. The two failed to agree on a number of issues, leading to the indefinite postponement of the peace talks that have been taking place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, under the auspices of the regional body, IGAD. (www.umuryango.rw)
newspaper as saying that the IGAD-led process can only bring the conflict to an end if it can differentiate between coup plotters and a normal conflict. “The problem is that IGAD is treating the coup plotters (Riek Machar and company) as innocent people who simply protested against the government, yet there was nothing wrong with the government,” he said. With this kind of mind-set still prevailing at this late hour, it was therefore no surprise to those who have keenly been following the talks in Addis Ababa, when the Ethiopian Prime Minister announced that the two teams failed to reach an agreement. And this brings another question, even if they reach a peace agreement in the near future, what are the possibilities that the peace agreement will hold?
Peace can only happen if there is goodwill Peace can only happen in South Sudan if there is good will among the negotiators. But from the sentiments expressed by President Kiir, there is still a lot of bad blood between him and his former deputy, and it sounds like he has been forced to make a peace deal and will likely bolt out at some future opportune time. It seems like both parties are only using the peace talks to buy time as they prepare themselves for future confrontation. My conclusion stems from the fact that one of the issues that is proving problematic, and to which the President is not willing to agree on, is separation of the two armies (the government of South Sudan army and the rebel forces), the two forces which are currently pitted against each other. According to reports from Addis Ababa, the President is also not keen on having a federal system of government, perhaps out of fear that it may lead to secession if there are disagreements in the future. From the above factors, it seems that there is still a lot of mutual suspicion and mistrust between the two parties. Is this the kind of environment that can breed a long lasting peace solution for the people of South Sudan? I highly doubt. Perhaps it is because of such intransigence and attitudes that the faith-based organizations (FBOs), under the leadership of Bishop Enock Tombe, have been calling for prayers for the peace process, that God may work in the hearts of the two protagonists, for them to agree on a permanent cease fire in the current session while negotiations continue under IGAD. “If not then, the people of South Sudan have to carry out dialogue within the country to reach consensus on the remaining issues of conflict. We believe the country-wide dialogue will lead to compromise and a just and lasting peace with participation of all citizens in the peace process,’ he says in a communication to other stakeholders. The above statement may be out of a realization by some delegates at the peace talks that a peace deal may not be reached as earlier prescribed by IGAD, or that there may be need to extend the period for the negotiations beyond Addis Ababa, and to involve more stakeholders in the grassroots. UNSC resolution This is happening at a time when the UN Security Council recently unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution 2206 (2015) against individuals reasonably believed to be obstructing peace in South Sudan. The US too has issued a strong warning to the two sides, saying that South Sudanese leaders must seize the current and final round of negotiations to deliver a sustainable peace. “We are well past the point where enough is enough. Leaders must put the interests of their people above their own. The violence must end. A negotiated conclusion to this conflict is required now,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in a statement earlier. Earlier on, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, who is the current chairman of the regional body IGAD, urged the two leaders to expeditiously address the outstanding issues and take tough decisions to strike a final peace deal. He expressed the frustration of the international community in relation to the parties in the South Sudan conflict, and their continued intransigence in resolving the crises. “The region is also frustrated. The solution is in your hands. Don’t throw it away any longer,” Desalegn is reported to have advised the two principals. With the deadline to reach a final peace accord now gone (5th March), the wide gaps that still exist between the two sides, and the mistrusts that still exist between the two sides, observers doubt lasting peace will be found in South Sudan even if the two sides finally agree. Also, considering previously failed deadlines, it is now obvious that IGAD must extend the 5 March deadline to allow the two parties more time to negotiate, in order to escape sanctions which have been threatened by IGAD, the AU and the international community. These are anxious moments for South Sudanese wherever they are.
Comments