For a peacefull disarmament in South Sudan

How will SPLA avoid atrocities during forceful disarmament of armed civilians in South Sudan?

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

June 20, 2009 — The President of the government of South Sudan (GoSS) Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit is reported to have ordered the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) forces to forcefully disarm the civilian populations in South Sudan if they resist to hand over arms (Sudan Tribune, June 18, 2009). Many Southern Sudanese who commented on the news about the possible forceful disarmament of civilians in South Sudan supported the President because they are fed up with the misuse of guns by armed civilians in South Sudan. Hundreds of people have been killed in South Sudan this year alone by armed civilians for many reasons, ranging from cattle rustling to revenge.

Even though many people, including me, support the idea of possible forceful disarmament of armed civilians, we are also concerned that good intentions can easily be turned into atrocities in the name of law and order. It is against human rights to maintain law and order at the expense of liberty, and it is also against human rights to exercise liberty at the expense of law and order. What is important is how to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable under the law or orders so that nobody should inject his or her own thoughts into the law.

Disarmament resulted in atrocities in Rumbek in September, 2008 when SPLA soldiers went out of their mandate and beat up civilians, resulting in “at least seven people severely or fatally injured and thousands of Sudanese pounds looted from local businessmen” (Sudan Tribune, September 11, 2008). Both the beating of civilians and the looting of their money was unlawful, whatsoever the reason could have been. Some soldiers even went as far as shooting in the market. It is illogical for somebody who is supposed to restore law and order to resort to lawlessness.

On the other hand, nobody expects law keepers to be killed with their hands folded behind them. Soldiers or police have the rights to protect themselves. But this self-protection must be free from lawlessness.

There must be a distinction between a threat from the armed civilians and a threat from the unarmed civilians. The armed civilians have the potential of harming anybody that they threaten. So they must be stopped in any way that should stop them from harming anybody. On the other hand, the unarmed civilians may harm somebody but to a limited severity. So they need to be deal with in a less harsh manner, if at all there is a reason to be harsh against them.

The above two situations must be spelled out clearly during the disarmament if the atrocities against civilians are to be avoided.

For civilians who use their guns to resist their disarmament, they have declared war between them and the disarming forces. Force can apply to such a situation. However, their innocent wives and children are to be respected in every way. They are always innocent. Any soldier who beats the whole family simply because the man in that family threatens the disarming force must be brought to justice. Any soldier who loots family property must also face the law.

If the unarmed civilian refuses to allow the disarming soldiers search his house, then he should be reported to a local chief in that community so that the chief can explain the reason for the search to such a person. If that person disrespected both the chief and the disarming soldiers, then he should be arrested and taken to court for reasonable punishment. Soldiers do not have the right to take the law into their own hands and punish such a person.

In a situation where the whole community takes up arms against the disarmament forces, the soldiers should follow orders on how to deal with such a community. The situation might sometimes result in fighting. That is the implication of the orders of the President. That would be understandable. What will not be understandable would be the deliberate killing of unarmed innocent civilians in such a community.

Therefore, even though our leaders may have the right not to listen to human rights advocates during the upcoming possible forceful disarmament, they should also remember that the reason why they want to disarm the armed civilians is to protect the unarmed innocent civilians who have now become victims of the misuse of guns by armed civilians. This means that the safety of innocent civilians is the concern now and it should be the concern during the disarmament.

Zechariah Manyok Biar is a graduate student at Abilene Christian University, Texas, USA. He is pursuing a Master of Arts in Christian Ministry and a Master of Science in Social Work, specializing in Administration and Planning. [email protected]