Pagak’s Conference: Resolutions, Contradictions and the Prospect for Peace in South Sudan
7 min readBy Kachuol Mabil Piok, Juba, South Sudan
“we cannot reward an enemy of this nation who killed thousands of people to remain in power. He must be removed by force if IGAD can’t find a way out for him” said Peter Gatdet.
May 6, 2015 (SSB) —- The recent Pagak’s conference convened by the leadership of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-In-Opposition (SPLM/A-IO) to build consensus around the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD+) Plus proposed solutions to end over a year conflict in South Sudan has just been concluded. Measurably, it recommendations are significant steps toward attaining peace in South Sudan. Unlike the preceding conference, the second conference underscores the need for peace in the newest nation.
Among the outstanding recommendations include the acceptance of the (IGAD+)Plus’s to partake in mediating South Sudan conflicts; calls upon the African Union (AU) commission of inquiry to make public the reports on the perpetrators of the human right violations in South Sudan, and establish an independent judicial body to prosecute persons found to have committed gross human right violations; appeals to the AU and the International Community to declare Salva Kiir’s regime as illegitimate and demands its dissolution to give peace a chance; recognizes the need to institute compensation and the reparation for the victims of the current South Sudan crisis; recommends immediate adoption of federalism as one of the core agenda for reforms demanded by the SPLA/M-IO to enhance full participation of the citizenry and expedite development, and reiterates the commitments of the SPLA/M-IO to peaceful settlement of the current South Sudan conflicts among others.
On the Arusha Agreement signed on 21st January 2015, between the various factions of the SPLM, the conference endorsed prospects for the reunification of the warring factions of the SPLM. However, the SPLM/A-IO remains indifferent to the reunification of the SPLM/A before attainment of peace. The conference also recommended the need to engage other parties such as SPLM-Former Political Detainees (SPLM-FD) and opposition parties among others.
Fair enough, at the outset, this author would like to recognize that the just concluded Pagak Conference of the SPLM/A-IO offers some hopes for peace in South Sudan. The SPLM/A-IO has this time round made significant compromises in dropping the demands for separate armies and compensation for debts its has incurred within this one year period of the war. What the author is not privy to is whether the demands of separate armies and for the compensation of the external debts were inadvertently omitted. Nevertheless, there are contradictions that could equally still dash the hopes for peace in South Sudan.
Contradictions and the prospects for peace
The first contradiction is in the Resolution One (c,&d), although the SPLM/A-IO has unequivocally resolved to embrace peaceful settlement of disputes with the GRSS on one hand, but to the contrary, it is also in resolution One (e&f) calling upon the AU and the international community to declare Salva Kiir’s regime as illegitimate and demands its dissolution immediately. This begs the question, how then does the SPLM/A-IO still commit itself to negotiate with an illegitimate government?
The contradictions above do not augur well for the prospects of attaining peace in South Sudan. The extension of the terms of the parliament and that of the president was adopted in order to avoid power vacuum in South Sudan. And this author believes that the SPLM/A-IO do not prefer anarchy to semblance of order because the parliament had no other choice but to extend the lifespan of the government. The opposition still can reach a negotiated settlement in Addis which would usher in new political dispensation that would make the extension of the lifespan of the president and the parliament irrelevant through negotiated settlement rather than making a big deal out of it.
The second contradiction (Resolution1:f,g,&h) is the assertion that incase of no general elections conducted, the only legitimate alternative for establishment and constitution of recognizable national government is through a negotiated peace agreement and settlement. How about in the absence of a negotiated agreement and the terms of the legislature and president are due to expire, is anarchy preferable to de jure authority?
The transitional constitution of South Sudan (2011) authorizes the National Assembly to consider and pass amendments to the constitution (Art 55: Part 5, Chapter 1(3-a)). And Art 57 (e) of the same part and chapter also gives the National Assembly power to adopt resolutions on matters of public concern. And this author believes, the constitutional crisis that was about to loom following the expiration of the term of the Office of the President and that of the parliament was indeed a matter of public concerns, hence the National Assembly acted within the ambits of the law to safeguard public interests.
The third contradiction is the resolutions (i & j) which call upon the Olesgun Abasanjo’s AU Commission of Inquiry to make public its findings and further asks the AU to establish a judicial body to prosecute the perpetrators of human right violations. Does the SPLM/A-IO understand the implications of the release of the AU Report on the prospects of attaining peace in South Sudan? How committed is the SPLM/A-IO to abide by the recommendations of the AU Commission of Inquiry? How about if the two principals are massively indicted by the report, will the warring parties implement the AU report?
Making public the Olesegun Abasanjo’s commission’s reports is not a priority before the attainment of peace. Most analysts have expressed fears it may pose profound impediments to attainment of peace in the country because both parties are still holding arms. Moreover, the investigations are still not concluded. There ought to be an environment conducive for apprehending the persons identified as the perpetrators of gross violation of human rights.
The fourth contradiction (resolution One: m) is the demand to recognize institution of compensation for the victims of the current South Sudan conflict. The puzzle here has a lot to do with, who qualifies as the victim in SPLM/A-IO perspective?
The SPLM/A-IO is not clear whether the victims in their perspectives, refer to those uprooted, maimed, or killed as a result of government attacks on their positions or including those who were murdered, uprooted, or maimed as a result of their attacks on areas they perceived as sympathizers of the government. What about those combatants who were killed because of their ethnic identities despite surrendering to either side in the wake of the conflict, aren’t they victims? That is entirely against the International Laws of Warfare which say ‘when combatants have ceased to resist and surrender their arms, they ought not to be killed as their killing constitute a violation of human rights.’
The fifth contradiction (Resolution n) is the demand to adopt federalism as a system of government in the Transitional Government in order to enhance full participation of the citizenry. Since the SPLM/A-IO has categorically stated in their resolution that sovereignty is vested in the people of South Sudan and therefore no any other persons or institutions have the power to extend its lifespan, how then would federalism be adopted without the participation of the citizenry through a referendum? Thus it is the people of South Sudan to choose the system of government they think would appropriately accommodate their aspirations.
The sixth contradiction is Resolution 4 (e) which encourages South Sudanese to join the SPLM/A-IO, in an armed struggle to rid South Sudan of Salva Kiir’s atrocious regime. This also negates the commitments of the SPLM/A-IO to peaceful settlement of the South Sudan crisis as mentioned above. Negotiating with the GRSS on one hand, and calling for it forceful removal on the other, is inappropriate demand. This constitutes the lack of commitment to peace settlement of disputes as claimed above by the SPLM/A-IO. Such statements are likely to perpetuate mistrust between the warring parties.
By and large, those contradictions notwithstanding, the opposition ought to be appreciated for moving an inch closer to the need for negotiated settlement of the current conflicts. To engender peaceful environment for attaining peace, there is a great need for both parties to be very flexible on their demands. It is high time the opposition ceases calling the Salva Kiir’s regime illegitimate and rather tries to strike a deal through a peaceful means such that sanity can be restored to the war ravaged South Sudan. The issue of legitimacy should be left to the people to address it in open political processes.
On the other hand, government has to reciprocate some compromises made by the opposition including adopting conciliatory tones or language during and after the negotiation. For meaningful negotiation to happen, it is time to shun propaganda, blackmailing, and war of attritions by both parties, and get down to the nitty-gritty aspects of peaceful settlement of disputes.
Kachuol Mabil Piok is a political commentator on South Sudan political issues. He can be reached via these email addresses: Kasiimab@gmail.com or kachuol1@yahoo.com. You can as well get more articles on my blog: http//kachuol’spoliticalthought.blogspot.
About Post Author
