What next after the IGAD-Plus deadline of 17th August?
By Luka Biong Deng
The people of South Sudan and friends of South Sudan are waiting impatiently to know whether peace agreement will be concluded on 17th August 2015 as set by IGAD Plus? Apparently, there are only two scenarios either the parties agreed on the proposed compromised agreement or opted to continue with the path of war. On the basis of the way negotiations are going on in Addis Ababa, the chance of signing peace agreement seems to be less likely.
While the leader of the SPLM-IO clearly stated that he will not sign the new proposed compromise agreement agreed upon by IGAD in its last meeting in Kampala, the Government decided not to let its President to go to Addis Ababa to participate in the last round of peace talks. This position was taken by the Government largely because of the split of SPLM-IO as that undermines the legitimacy of the leadership of Dr Riak Machar and as well as the uncalled statement by the IGAD Chief Mediator that negotiators will not leave Addis Ababa until they signed the peace deal. Given the division within the SPLM-IO and the new proposed compromise agreement by IGAD, the Government is in a far better position to show its commitment to peace process by allowing its President to take part in the current peace talks.
Despite the fact that the parties may not be ready to sign peace agreement on 17th August, there are signs that they may conclude it in the last minute. In his press statement, Dr Riak has implicitly accepted and ready to sign the previous proposed compromise agreement and the Government would be ready to sign the new proposed compromise agreement initiated by IGAD in Kampala. From the two proposals of IGAD, the areas of difference have been now reduced to power sharing arrangements in three states of the Greater Upper Nile region and security arrangements, particularly the demilitarization of Juba and speed with which the forces of the warring parties could be integrated. These issues are directly or indirectly resolved in Arusha Agreement and they can easily be overcome.
If peace agreement is signed on 17th August, the real challenge would be how to make peace agreement known to the people of South Sudan and to allay the fears of those who may see themselves as losers in the peace deal. In particular, those who broke away from SPLM-IO may pose a real threat to the implementation of the peace agreement. As people of South Sudan are fed up with war, peaceful efforts rather than confrontation should be pursued in convincing them to see value in the peace agreement. Sudan of NCP seems to be continuing with its old strategy of fueling conflict in South Sudan. Regional and international diplomatic efforts must be exerted to convince Sudan to support the peace deal and to use its leverage over those who broke away from SPLM-IO to accept the peace deal. Also South Sudan and Uganda must take active role in helping Sudan to reach peace deal with the warring parties in Sudan.
Besides those who broke away from the SPLM-IO, there are those in the areas of the government and SPLM-IO who have been benefiting from the current conflict and they may become losers with peace agreement. This group of people needs to be identified ahead of time and to be targeted with direct or indirect engagement of making them to see peace as of great benefits to all South Sudanese including them. With more than 41% of people of South Sudan showing symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the recent survey conducted by South Sudan Law Society, the peace deal may be seen negatively and as such South Sudan may need a nationwide counseling and healing campaign to be led by all South Sudan churches. Importantly and based on the experience of CPA, monitoring the implementation of peace agreement should not be left to the signatories of peace agreement. The civil society organizations and academia should proactively adopt a research-based peace agreement monitoring system that would be the basis of their advocacy and for holding the signatories of peace agreement accountable to what they have agreed upon.
If peace agreement is not signed on 17th August, the people of South Sudan may need to come together to discuss how to deal with the looming but imminent national crisis. In particular, how the warring parties should be discouraged not to continue with war but to explore options for getting a home-grown conflict resolution as happened before in Wunlit and Greater Pibor. Also people of South Sudan should also prepare themselves of how to deal with the expected regional and international isolation, particularly targeted sanctions and the report of AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan that may be released during this month. Above all, the people of South Sudan should prepare themselves for more severe economic conditions and deteriorating humanitarian and food security situations that may force more South Sudanese to take refuge in the neighbouring countries. Also the territorial integrity and sovereignty of South Sudan will be at stake as some of the neighbouring countries may take advantage of the fragility of South Sudan.
In order to discourage the warring parties not to continue with this senseless war, the church leaders have an uphill task to come up with a comprehensive peace talks initiative as the basis for convincing the warring parties to recommit themselves to continue with peace talks under the auspices and mediation of church leaders. The church leaders of the neighbouring countries could also help in this home-grown peace initiative. Also the former SPLM-FD, Madam Rebecca, other prominent elders and women leaders will be expected to support and be part of this church-led peace talks initiative.
If peace agreement is not concluded on 17th August, the SPLM under the leadership of President Salva would be expected to continue with his efforts of implementing Arusha Agreement. The former SPLM-FD will be expected as well to exert more efforts in building bridge between SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO within the context of Arusha Agreement. Also the SPLM under the leadership of President Salva should initiate a national dialogue with all stakeholders (other political parties, women, youth, academia, civil society organizations and religious leaders) of how to collectively face the looming national crisis if peace is not signed. On the basis of this national dialogue, President Salva would be expected to immediately form an inclusive government of national unity that will be tasked to manage such national crisis including achieving a home-grown conflict resolution and improving diplomatic relations with all the neighbouring countries.
As Sudan of NCP will continue to pose a real threat to stability in South Sudan, the new government of national unity should take the diplomatic relations with Sudan as a top priority. Also as Troika, EU and UN may take tougher diplomatic actions against the government of South Sudan if peace agreement is not signed, the new government of national unity should be strategic in smoothing its diplomatic relations and to convince the international community to continue with their current level of assistance, particularly humanitarian assistance and support to civil society organizations in delivering service to the people of South Sudan through their local institutions (traditional authorities, churches, civil society organizations, youth, women and local government).
Whatever the outcome of the peace talks on 17th August, the people of South Sudan have moral and national obligation to shape their destiny through their own home-grown efforts. The findings of the perception survey conducted by South Sudan Law Society on Transitional Justice are so assuring of how much we have in common as people. In achieving reconciliation, most respondents (about 1,500 in six states) in this survey expressed preference more for restorative forms of transitional justice such as forgiveness (40%), confession (33%), apologies (25%), over more retributive forms such as criminal punishment (19%). Interestingly, more than 62% of respondents expressed that they can trust other ethnic groups and about 35% and 17% of respondents respectively trusted national courts and community informal courts as the most appropriate courts for achieving justice inside South Sudan (57%). These findings show that the people of South Sudan do have solid common values upon which home-grown conflict resolution could be achieved.
The author is the Director of Centre for Peace and Development Studies, University of Juba, Global Fellow at Peace Research Institute Oslo and Associate Fellow at Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. He is reachable at [email protected] or [email protected]