What do we expect from the final South Sudan Peace Talks?
By Luka Biong Deng
As the alleged final and last round of peace talks on South Sudan commenced in Addis Ababa, the people of South Sudan attach little hope and expect nothing as they have been repetitively disappointed by the previous rounds of talks. Despite this pessimism, one would expect that this round of peace talks might lead either to no agreement or with agreement but a bad one. Whatever the outcome of the final round of peace, the type of such outcome will largely be determined by the quality of mediation and the nature of leadership expected from the warring parties.
There is cumulative peace research evidence that shows the critical role played by different methods of alternative dispute resolution in building and sustaining peace. During my lecture on dialogue, negotiation and mediation to the 11th Regional Senior Mission Leaders Course in Nairobi, I used the two cases of Sudan peace talks and South Sudan peace talks mediated by the same organization, the IGAD to elucidate these three concepts. Apparently, the two cases provide different experience with the same mediator. While the Sudan Peace talks that resulted in CPA were more of negotiations with IGAD providing facilitation, the current South Sudan peace talks are primarily mediated by IGAD.
During CPA talks Dr John Garang and Ali Osman, the principal negotiators of CPA, were in most cases negotiating directly, while the current South Sudan talks are in most cases mediated by IGAD with limited direct negotiations between the warring parties. Although the methods of alternative conflict resolution are not by themselves enough to determine the outcome of peace talks, negotiation stands better opportunities to produce good peace with full ownership of the peace agreement by the conflict parties. Unlike mediation, negotiation allows conflict parties to resolve their conflict by themselves without assistance from a neutral and impartial third party.
Besides the choice of methods of alternative conflict resolution, the character of mediator matters a lot in determining the outcome. Using the Swiss Peace’s Ten Tasks for Mediators to compare the quality of mediator in the two cases of peace talks of Sudan and South Sudan, it is clear that the mediators of South Sudan peace talks have failed to adhere to these tasks. With regard to the first task “listen, listen, listen”, the mediators in the CPA were effective listeners with no much assumption about their knowledge of Sudan and they started from the basis of ignorance. The mediators of the current South Sudan peace talks seem to start with assumption that they know South Sudan better than the warring parties. This knowledge assumption by mediators led them to become passive listeners and that limits their effective communication with the warring parties.
The mediators in the South Sudan peace talks have also overlooked the second glaring task of mediator to build trust between the conflict parties. This has been clearly manifested in the lukewarm attitudes shown by IGAD mediators towards the Arusha Agreement. Besides addressing the root causes of the current conflict that started from within the SPLM and then it became a national crisis, the Arusha Agreement has laid a solid basis for building trust among the various factions of the SPLM and a political vision of addressing the national crisis. IGAD should have been the first user of this trust building Agreement to resolve the outstanding issues such as power-sharing. As the different factions of the SPLM have agreed to reunite and given the fact that these factions are the main conflict parties in the IGAD-mediated peace talks, IGAD could have asked the three factions of the SPLM to resolve the issue of power sharing in the spirit of Arusha Agreement. For example the choice between the position of prime minister or to have two vice presidents and the power-sharing among the reunified SPLM and other political parties should have been left to the SPLM rather than the IGAD proposed formula for power-sharing. As IGAD continues to propose allocation of portfolio of national government along the three factions of the SPLM or even along regional and ethnic lines, IGAD as a mediator is failing to build confidence between the warring parties.
Other task of the mediator is to build confidence in the mediation process itself. IGAD as mediator has not been successful in building confidence in its mediation process. It has become apparently clear that the main members of IGAD (Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya) who are mediating the South Sudan peace talks are not neutral or impartial mediators. Apparently Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia have strategic and economic interest in the alternative pipeline for the oil of South Sudan.
Sudan is heavily engaged in supporting militarily and diplomatically the SPLM-IO and subsequently it cannot be termed as neutral mediator. With its strategic security interest largely shaped by Renaissance Dam and coupled with its assumption as emerging regional supper power, Ethiopia is becoming increasing intolerant to any initiative that would undermine its supremacy in the region. Arusha Agreement is seen by Ethiopia to undermine its power supremacy in the region. Guided by its economic interests and particularly the alternative pipeline for the oil of South Sudan, Kenya has been sending mixed signals to the warring parties with increasing interest in building good relation with SPLM-IO.
Some members of TROIKA believe that the division in the SPLM is a blessing in disguise, as that would weaken the political dominance and monopoly of power of the SPLM. Some members of TROIKA see Arusha Agreement may reinstate the political monopoly of SPLM as that may not promote any healthy democratic transformation in South Sudan. As the main funders of the IGAD peace talks, some members of TROIKA might have directly influenced the lukewarm attitude shown by IGAD towards Arusha Agreement.
Taking other tasks of mediator such as “No lecture nor preach” and “Not threaten nor bully”, the IGAD has been doing exactly the reverse of preaching, threatening and bulling the parties to the conflict. On the basis of their knowledge assumption that they know South Sudan better than the warring parties, the IGAD has been subscribing solutions to the warring parties with repetitive threat of sanctions and unilateral intervention. Institutionally, it is known that IGAD is a “paper tiger”, impotent and has no power to impose sanctions except through the AU Peace and Security Council that would seek the UN Security Council to act on Chapter VII of UN Charter to impose sanctions.
Besides these characters, a mediator is expected to “be fair and supportive”, “be patient and persistent”, “ensure parties own the agreement” and “be ready to withdraw”. IGAD has failed to exhibit such traits during the South Sudan peace talks. In particular IGAD is so impatient to conclude peace even at the expense of the quality of peace to be agreed upon by the parties. For example the current round of peace talks is termed by IGAD as final round and the last opportunity to conclude peace agreement.
There is no way to put an end to peace talks because the choice between war and peace is obvious and peace in particular is indispensible. The failure of mediator to conclude peace is not a justification to end peace talks. As the parties are becoming increasingly doubtful of the integrity of IGAD mediation, IGAD may need to learn from its experience with CPA by encouraging the parties to have direct negotiation. The direct negotiation between the conflict parties will ensure not only the ownership of peace process but also its outcome will be respected and implemented in good faith by the warring parties. If this round of peace talks fails to lead to a peace agreement, IGAD may need to seriously consider the option of withdrawing from the South Sudan peace talks.
With the decision of the Chairperson of the SPLM to take concrete actions towards the implementation of Arusha Agreement and the positive meeting in Nairobi between President Salva and the SPLM former detainees plus Madam Rebecca all indicated that SPLM is putting its house in order. The joint position adopted by the delegation of government and SPLM former detainees to use Arusha Agreement as the basis for the current talks is a right decision as that will not only consolidate the trust within the SPLM but it will help the mediators to conclude quickly the peace deal. One would expect the three factions of the SPLM to ask for direct negotiation in the same spirit of Arusha Agreement and Nairobi meeting. If this final round of peace talks failed to conclude any peace deal, the Chairman of the SPLM in the spirit of Arusha Agreement should take the lead in initiating a national dialogue to be facilitated by the church leaders with the aim of reaching a home-grown peace agreement as shown before in the Greater Pibor Peace Agreement.