The Misguided Revolution: An Empirical Analysis of the Current Crisis in South Sudan

The Inconsequential war and misguided revolution: An Empirical Analysis of the Current Crisis in South Sudan

*By Mabior Atem Mabior and Mawut Achiecque M. Guarak*

1. Introduction

The nascent State of South Sudan started unraveling on Sunday the 15th of December 2013. The national governing council of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) was meeting to discuss proposed changes to its governance structures including an election scheduled for 2015. Among the attendants was Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, the President of South Sudan. Suddenly, the council was interrupted by gunfire outside the conference. Delegates including the President had to scurry for cover. The painful unraveling of South Sudan had started. Four months later, tens of thousands of innocent people are dead, hundreds of thousands displaced and billions of dollars in treasure destroyed. Worse still, the end to this conflict does not seem to be in sight.

It is therefore out of this confusion that we came to provide our analysis of the situation, and offer possible approaches to end the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.

As living witnesses to the conflict, we intend to give a reader an in- depth background analysis into the recent national tragedy, and its impacts on the country. We also discuss diplomatic efforts and interventions from regional bodies such as Inter-governmental Authority on Development and Drought (IGAD), African Union (AU) and the neighboring countries which include Uganda, Kenya among others.

Aware of the fact that South Sudan belongs to all her citizens, we re-examine some action plans that President Salva Kiir Mayardit has taken to reunite and reconcile the broken dreams and aspirations of the noble citizens of South Sudan.

2. Background to the Conflict

Whereas the proximate cause of the current rebellion goes back to December 15th, 2013,it is imperative that one goes back to the town of Nasir, on the 28th of August 1991, in South Sudan’s present Upper Nile state to understand it—the so-called Nasir declaration when a faction of SPLM / A clique led by the same Riek Machar split from the main SPLM/A and formed SPLM – Nasir. On this day, Riek Machar announced over the radio that he was overthrowing Dr. John Garang de Mabior as the head of SPLM.

The desire of the 1991 coup was tribal in nature, with Riek Machar attempting to increase Nuer representation in the leadership. Thereafter, Riek Machar led his tribal rebels into Bor, the present capital of Jonglei State where he and his Nuer tribesmen massacred thousands of civilians in what came to be known as the Bor Massacre.

This same scenario was to be replicated again on December 15th, 2013 and the first quarter of 2014. On the Sunday of December 15th, 2013, the former Vice President and Deputy Chairperson of the SPLM staged a military coup as a means to topple the legitimately elected government. The fighting lasted for two days in the capital and Dr. Machar escaped with a handful of his supporters, mostly from Nuer tribe. Other coup suspects were hurled behind bars in Juba.

The Riek’s failed coup attempt got its new name—a guerrilla war—when his forces attacked and captured Bor on Wednesday, December 18th, 2013. That evening, Riek Machar sailed to Bor and docked his boat at 6 PM at the State Secretariat General. The war spread all over the country and innocent Dinka government employees and business people in Nuer areas were slaughtered, including those taking refuge in the United Nations’ compounds in Akobo and Bentiu. Dr. Riek misled innocent

Nuer tribesmen and gathered untrained civilians called the ‘White Army’ to attack government positions in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity States while
the former servicemen and women from South Sudanese Army carried out attacks in other parts of the country. By the year end, Second Bor Massacre [1] had started in earnest.

Unlike previous rebellions, the current armed rebellion, needless to say, has the capacity to threaten peace and security for the people of South Sudan. This is already seen as it has, so far, led to massive displacement of the civil population, loss of lives in thousands and complete destruction of property and towns in which the current conflict has been taking place. Thus far, the three state capitals of Bor, Malakal and Bentiu have been utterly razed down to ashes and untold number of innocent civilians have been dehumanized and killed.

Our intention at this juncture is not to elaborate the chronological history of events but to give a vibrant understanding of the causes of this senseless war and possible paths to resolution.

This war cannot be condoned. It is clear that war is destructive and deadly; therefore, anything that could bring it to an end must be embraced and deployed for the common good and benefit of this magnificent country.

3. Actors to the Conflict

Who are the actors in South Sudan’s conflict? This is the question that every citizen must answer before proposing solutions to it! The current war is already four months old but most people either lack information on the true genesis of the conflict or are not aware of the responsible person/party. This remains so because there are many silent actors opposing the government of which some remain active. This was the same
scenario in 1991 when foreign actors wrongly convinced Riek to stab the SPLM in the back when victory against the common enemy was certain.

This brief exploration of scenario tells us who the actors to this conflict are: Riek Machar and his group against the legitimate government of South Sudan. The third actor is the International Community (UN, AU, IGAD, Neighboring Countries and World Supper Powers).

Peace talks under the auspices of the IGAD have been underway since December 2013, but nothing has, so far, materialized, except for the fragile ceasefire that is flagrantly ignored by the rebels. Instead, the war has escalated further and more innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis.

4. Analysis

Few would deny that what happened on December 15th, 2013 was a coup d’état under the leadership of Riek Machar Teny. Hence, the current crisis in South Sudan is a sole responsibility of Riek Machar and his tribal cliques. But not only that, it was a planned change of government and its structures. However Dr. Riek Machar was senseless enough to underestimate the consequences of prolonged bloody coup! Instead of accepting the defeat, he took off to the bush and mobilized Nuers (from South Sudan Organized Forces as well as untrained armed civilians called the White Army).

Riek’s decision to mobilize his tribesmen against the government is a low road that a person of his character would do. The plotters of the coup were not only Nuers—they came from all corners of South Sudan. But those that understood the real meaning and purpose of a coup declined to fight the government when their coup failed on the night of December 15th, 2013. This is exactly what happened in 1991; when the Nassir Declaration failed, Riek declared war against Dinka, massacring hundreds of SPLA officers and civilians from the Dinka tribe in Akobo[2] followed by Bor Massacre.

Dr. Riek Machar’s repeated decision to use his tribesmen has, thus, dragged the country back to war and mass killing of innocent civilians in urban centres, lynching of Dinka employees that were working in Nuer territories and destruction of wealth.

The December 15th, 2013 coup attempt was short-legged and would have fizzled out were it not for the international community. The International Community have made peace difficult to attain in South Sudan. The supposed role of the International Community is to maintain peace and stability in any given country. However, in the case of South Sudan, members of the international community (the IGAD, the UN and the United States[3]) have taken a regrettable position with the UN, the US and other members claiming that there was no coup attempt on December 15 2013.

In their mediating processes, the IGAD was quick to blame the government instead of the tribal rebels and suggested some complicated blueprints that may be less helpful in ending the current war in the country. But instead of blaming and pointing figures, is significantly urgent that permanent solution is found for this crisis. We discuss these possible scenarios under the following subheadings.

2 Dr. Riek slaughtered hundreds of Dinka SPLA officers in Akobo in 1991; he also murdered Nuer patriots such as Peter Panom Thanypiny

3 The United States Ambassador to South Sudan, Susan Page ruled on SSTV that what happened in Juba on December 15th, 2013 was not a coup

5. Possible Scenarios out of the Crisis

Five months of deadly and destructive war is a long time for all citizens of South Sudan regardless of which side one supports. Hence, we now look at all the scenarios that have been mooted out of the crisis. Some of them have found their way to the official crisis documentation while others have been raised in various public forums. These are:-

Formation of an interim government without the participation of the two principals;
Forced resignation of President Kiir by the region and the international community;
Accommodating the rebels back to the government with Riek Machar as the first vice president;
Negotiating a speedy cease fire to the conflict, complete both the party constitution and the national constitution and then run elections in 2015;
Gentlemen agreement by the SPLM leadership and especially the two principals until the country is ready for competitive elective politics;
Government to wage war to defeat the rebel group at all cost;
Riek Machar goes to exile for the sake of peace to prevail in the country
All the other detainees are pardoned and join hand with the government to restore peace;
UNMISS Mandate;

5.1. Formation of an interim government without the participation of the two principals

What will happen if a new national government is formed without the participation of the two principals? The two principals in this scenario are the incumbent President Kiir Mayardit and rebel leader Riek Machar. Our view is that this view is reductionist and ignores the democratic tenets as well as realities on the ground. Regardless of what is reported in popular press, President Kiir enjoys legitimacy and popularity in South Sudan that is unmatched by any other politician alive. This is evidenced by the support that the President enjoyed when the army and the ordinary citizens of South Sudan repulsed the tribal rebellion in the first bloody days of the failed coup. He is thus a natural rallying point for any post conflict Sudan.

Dr. Machar, on the other hand, has a sizeable number of followers of his Nuer tribe and thus poses a potent challenge to any artificial construct that possibly comes about devoid of him. Thus, our position is that any settlement has to use existing mechanism for political competition in South Sudan, possibly with some institutional tweaks. These mechanisms include total cessation of hostilities, embarking on the amendment of both the party and national constitutions and the preparation for general elections comes 2015.

5.2. Forced resignation of President Kiir by the region and the international community

President Kiir is the people’s choice. He was democratically elected in a popular election that brought all South Sudanese together. Therefore, the most unhelpful scenario that has been bandied revolves one requiring President Kiir’s resignation. President Kiir has the moral and legal legitimacy to lead South Sudan. He enjoys an unparalleled level of confidence from his people given that he was the second in charge of SPLM/A during the fight for liberation of South Sudan. Thus, if there is one person in a position to rescue South Sudan from the hole it finds itself in, it is Kiir Mayardit. Moreover, this scenario would set a very bad precedence by rewarding unconstitutional power grab. Regardless of how it is spun, the fact remains that President Salva Kiir is the democratically elected President of South Sudan.

5.3. Accommodating the rebels back to the government with Riek Machar as the first vice president

The Republic of South Sudan is home to millions of citizens. Each and every citizen has all the rights to be president, vice president etc.; Dr. Riek
Machar is one of these citizens and he has enjoyed his privileges despite his bloody background since the inception of SPLM/A. He has got used to senseless rebellions and subsequent reinstatement. He previously rebelled against the SPLM/A in 1991 and was reinstated in 2002 despite his countless destruction to the people, land and properties of South Sudan.

Dr. Machar has been a Vice President for nine years and was known to openly have severe presidential ambition, part of the reason he took up arms against the government. Thus, Vice Presidency would not be particularly attractive to him as a person. We do not hold brief for President Kiir but we doubt, he would regain his trust in Dr. Machar, with the latter having tried to violently overthrow him. Thus any accommodation for Dr. Machar has to be within the ambits of democratic competition for power and subject to the laws of the land as stipulated in the constitution.

5.4. Negotiating a speedy ceasefire to the conflict, complete both the party constitution and the national constitution and then run elections in 2015

Any approach that will bring this war to an end is noble. Negotiating a speedy end to the war and having a comprehensive constitution in time for the 2015 election is a laudable and noble objective, and only if Dr. Machar and his foreign aides value the stability of South Sudan over turmoil. Nevertheless, it is remarkably ambitious. We are not optimistic on the prospects of speedy settlement given entrenched interests (especially
foreign) that are encouraging hardening of positions on the side of the rebels.

However, if due to some unforeseen externalities a speedy settlement is achieved, one year is hardly enough to build a broad consensus on a new constitution, laying down the ground rules of elections, organizing party and/or primary elections. The experience of our regional sisters, Kenya and Tanzania, point to a drawn out process. Thus, we ideally recommend minimum changes, if any, to the constitution that would enable free and fair elections come 2015; then a comprehensive permanent constitution shall be completed within timetables as it requires experts and neutral bodies and academicians.

5.5. Gentlemen agreement by the SPLM leadership (especially the two principals) until the country is ready for competitive elective politics

What of a gentleman’s agreement between the Two Principals to cease hostilities and steer the country until such a time for competitive politics? This is in reality a variation of the preferred scenario by ourselves where we foresee strengthening of institutions and democratic competition for power within the laws of the land.

This is a plausible scenario but requires an overwhelming level of trust in the principals, which in our opinion is lacking. This scenario accords a great deal of faith in the principals, which is its inherent weakness. After 11
years of the Nassir Declaration, the then Two Principals (Dr. John Garang and Dr. Riek Machar) had a gentlemen agreement, resulting into the Nairobi Declaration of January 6th, 2002. There, we would rather put our faith in institutions rather than individual given the historical record of Riek Machar.

5.6. Government to wage war to defeat the rebel group at all costs

Can peace and stability be restored if the government wage war against the insurgents until they are defeated? This scenario can be theoretically possible but virtually impractical! The cost of such war can literally bankrupt the country with regard to social, economic, political and possibly, security disruptions. It would be a pyrrhic victory at best and defeat in victory at worst. Thus, in our opinion, prosecuting the war for its own sake should be considered to be one of the several pillars of solving the crisis and with an objective of getting the rebels to negotiate from a position where they understand that war is not an option.

5.7. Riek Machar goes to exile in order for peace to prevail in the country

The scenario that sees Dr. Riek Machar going into exile is fraught with difficulties. True, Dr. Machar has committed several war crimes including massacres in Bor, Malakal and Bentiu; his loyalists raped, displaced and dehumanized thousands of South Sudan not forgetting that he recruited minors as child soldiers. All these have been documented by respected international outlets such as AFP and New York Times.

However, we are firm believers in restorative justice as opposed to punitive justice. Thus, our preferred option would be full pardon to Dr. Machar and his rebels as long as they repudiate violence and give them the option to seek power within the confines of democratic competition in accordance with the constitution.

5.8. Presidential amnesty for all detainees that are connected to the coup and the President’s 8-Point blueprint

President Kiir had willingly and unconditionally pardoned a sizeable number of coup plotters. He did not even bother to arrest Mama Rebecca Nyadeng de Mabior despite evidence connecting her to the coup. Within days of the coup, he ordered the security organs to release Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba and seven others respectively. This is a show of will by the president to safeguard this young Republic. The decision to pardon all the detainees could be looked through the prism of the President’s 8 point plan, which forms the basis of our strong recommendation as a path to a peaceful and prosperous South Sudan.

5.9. The Role, Mandate and Presence of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)

The people and government of South Sudan requested deployment of a United Nation forces in 2005 to safeguard a peace accord between Juba and Khartoum. In this war, UNMISS is perhaps causing more turmoil and unrest than Riek Machar and his tribal supporters.

The UNAMISS firstly renounced the government position in December that what happened was not a coup and that those accused of staging the coup must be released without conditions. This position supported lawlessness and gave Riek and his supports encouragement that Kiir’s administration will be forced to resign by foreign actors[4]. Worse yet, the UNMISS has been smuggling arms and military hardware to rebels in Greater Upper Nile region[5]. Thus, it is our considered opinion that UNAMISS has outlived its usefulness in South Sudan. Security guarantees in South Sudan rests with strengthening of South Sudan security institutions

6. Analytical Observations

It worth repeating that this war is senseless, aimless and needless! Why would one kill of thousands and causes incurable pains in the lives of millions? We strongly ask our audiences to take a neutral position and judge Dr. Riek on his action. How many lives has he ruined or ended over the last 23 years?[6] How does he intend to rule if he becomes the president? Who is he going to rule, the graves? When is he going to learn from the exotic special interests?[7]

Dr. Machar is relying on demonic imagination that are pulling him down rather than pushing him up the ladder of presidency. In the last 23 years, he has killed more people than any other dictator in the history of the former Sudan. Before staging this past failed coup, Dr. Machar had a lot of options that he would have used to attain power. These options include the following:

6.1. Impeachment of the president through the parliamentary vote of no confident

4 There has been regimes change in different countries through international community; some of these countries include Egypt, Libya among others in Africa and several others in Asia.

5 Several vehicles of the UN have been apprehended by government authorities going to rebel controlled areas with arms. The UN has continuous denied that they are delivering these weapons to rebels but they are yet to make the world understand their purpose of delivering landmines and other equipment that UN Personnel had never use. At the time of this writing a barge full of military equipment is stationed in Bor while trying to sneak to rebel controlled areas in Jonglei State.

6 This is since his first failed coup against the late Chairman of SPLM and Commander-in-Chief of SPLA, Dr. John Garang de Mabior.

7 He was deceived to rebellions by his former foreign wife, Ms. Emma who later died in a car accident in Nairobi and now by those of Hilde F. Johnson whose purpose is yet to be known.

It is instructive to note that Dr. Machar remains member of South Sudan parliament to date and is thus eligible to originate a motion of impeachment against the President if he believes as is often quoted in press sympathetic to Dr. Machar that President Kiir has lost legitimacy. If he was sincerely democratic, and that he believed President Kiir does not deserve to end his term in office, he should then raise motion to impeach him. But because he had no confidence in parliamentarians, he ignored the will of people and turned to violence! What type of democracy is he supposed to install in this country if he becomes president?

6.2. Running against President Kiir as Chairperson of the SPLM

The second option that might have put Riek to power without bloodshed would have been party election. Even after he was dismissed from the government, Dr. Machar remains the first chairperson of SPLM; this means he still had the chance to contest against President Kiir and if he won, he would have become the SPLM flag bearer in the 2015 elections. Again, Dr. Machar ignored this golden chance and turn to violence only to waste thousands of innocent lives across the country.

7. Recommendations

President’s 8-Point plan lays the ground pillars for restoration of peace and stability in this country. These points make room for everyone to accept responsibility, reconcile for the sake of peace, stability and progress. As stipulated earlier in this paper, the current war can simply and easily be stopped if Dr. Machar accepts the challenge of time, and if the foreign elements cease supporting rebels. It is therefore, our recommendation that:

1. The International Community, especially the IGAD and other mediating actors, must stop its pro-rebel mandate and work for genuine peace in the country by standing neutral between the government and the rebels; the IGAD team should not propose slants that encourage rebellion and instability in the country
(such as calling the President to form a coalition government, resign etc.);
2. The IGAD member states should adopt the NATO policy of ‘attack on one member-state equals attack on all.’ This policy will deter rebellions in the region; more pressure should be put on Riek Machar and his tribal rebels to quit fighting in lieu of peace and development—no country belongs to a tribe; hence, IGAD should urge Riek to abandon the rebellion and return to Juba within the parameters of the President’s amnesty as shall be laid out;

3. UNMISS should be asked to stop giving logistical and military support to the rebels and their leader (Riek Machar) e.g., transporting the rebel leader and his commanders from-and-across to rebel-controlled areas. This policy reinforces the rebels’ stubbornness to object or frustrate any prospects of peaceful settlement of the crisis;

4. South Sudan is a sovereign nation with her own system of governance. It is not a territorial protectorate of the United Nations. Therefore, it is imperative that the government in Juba review the
UNMISS’s contract and terminate renewal of its mandate when it expires in July 2014 because of its negative role that it plans in this bloody war;

5. The government of South Sudan is advised to step up measures to review and scrutinize all other UN agencies and non-governmental organisations operating in the country. This is owing to the fact that most of these NGOs and UN agencies seem or have proved to be operating contrary to the government policies and/or against the government. Anyone organization found at ought, supporting chaos and instability should be expelled from the country;

6. The people of South Sudan must understand the consequences of war and accept unconditional coexistence, paying no attention to hollow support and promises of unfriendly foreign actors to this conflict;

7. President Kiir should remain true to his 8-Point plan as the basis for forgiveness and national healing;
8. The people of South Sudan must stand in support of their legitimate government must not accept destructive proposals from mediators that will cause more harm than good to the future stability of South Sudan (creating a coalition government to accommodate rebels, remove the president from power);

9. The world super powers, particularly the United States, should offer incentives in lieu of the conflict instead of threatening with sanctions. It is only ordinary citizen of the country that suffers when a sanction prevails and the elites continue to enjoy their savings. In this regard, the issue of sanction should be eliminated altogether because it does not help at this juncture;

10. Riek Machar should abandon the rebellion, forms his own party and then challenges Kiir in the forthcoming elections if that is what will give him power;

11. South Sudanese government should stop consulting with the foreign firms on what should be done to arrest the current situation prevailing in the country, as these foreign firms do not work for the interest of South Sudanese;

8. Conclusion

The on-going conflict has brought South Sudan to her knees. Innocent lives have been lost. Properties are destroyed. Economy has been paralyzed and the future, bleak. It has taken South Sudan back to several years, 1991, to be specific. Hence, it is important that our people should come back to a sense of collective responsibility.

Tribal fighting does not solve the problem. In 1991, Dr. Riek fell out with the late chairman of the SPLM, Dr. John Garang de Mabior, thereafter leading the destruction and killing of innocent lives. A Massacre was carried out in Bor simply because the late chairman hailed from there. But that destruction and killing did not catapult Riek Machar to the Movement headship.

South Sudan is a wealthy country that belongs to all her citizens. Anyone that desires and shows a sign of capability can lead through consultation in elections, not through tribal mobilization, killing and destruction. Hence, we request all actors involved in this war, particularly Dr. Riek and his tribesmen to lay down their guns and return home. Fighting does not help as Riek is a sole witness. What happened on December 15th, 2013 was unsuccessful coup attempt that should be admitted by those who planned it and they should accept their defeat—they are not needed by the people of South Sudan to lead them and that is why they were not supported by the masses.

Our people are finishing themselves and our economy is deteriorating! What is all these war about? What is the benefit to those that have lost their lives in vain? And what is the pioneer of the coup attempt thinking of himself given his record of 1991 and 2013? Is this fight worth doing? Was that of 1991 successful or beneficial? The war of 1991 failed the SPLM/A in a sense that it gave the former oppressor an upper hand and the same
is true of this war.

This war can easily be brought to an end if all the actors are willing. Precisely, the rebel leader must call up on his supporters to lay down guns and return to their normal lives. These people are dying in vain without knowing the purpose for the fight. It is also important for the international community—IGAD, UN, the USA—to support the government find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Their stand with the rebels is against the will of South Sudanese people, and cannot help in the realization of peace and stability.

This country is not a UN sanctuary and must not be governed by SRSG or any other UN personnel. It has its own name, system of governance, geographical position on the world atlas etc. The UN and all the other actors whose interest remains unclear can either join the government of South Sudan in finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict or pack their things and leave the country.

Finally, the noble citizens of South Sudan must not accept the deceit by politicians or the international community. Life is lived once. It is on this token that we want to reemphasize that tribal fighting is not a solution. The best option is to put down guns, apologize to each other for the wrong things done and embrace each other as brothers and sisters; then, the Republic of South Sudan shall flourish.

*Note:

1. Mabior Atem Mabior lectures Business Administration, Finance and Accounting at Dr. John Garang Memorial University of Science and Technology, Bor.
2. Mawut Achiecque M. Guarak lectures Public Administration & Policy and Political Science at Dr. John Garang Memorial University of Science and Technology, Bor.

About Post Author