Addis Ababa Peace Talks: Little Reasoning Suffering the Nation
7 min readBy Dut-machine De Mabior, Kenya
March 7, 2015 (SSB) — In any political bracket, if you always think partisan to what you political constituent will feel if you take a course of action, then you have no national outlook in the mind. Good politics should always pay attention to both sides of the divide because after all the services generated by any course will service the whole country. This is what we lack in our negotiators in the peace forums in Addis Ababa, unfortunately the two principals inclusive. Since the peace talks have stalled again on the matters of contention, what exactly should they have done to overcome the devil and beat the dateline set by IGAD to avoid the looming UN sanctions? Let’s take a look on a few issues on which they differed and how they should have been agreed in accordance with my thinking.
- Federalism
The rebel’s side has called persistently for the declaration of the Republic of South Sudan as a federal state upon the endorsement of the peace accord. The proposed federal system will use the British demarcated twenty-one districts as states. This has been an issue of debate on the peace talks table as the government side demands for the public participation.
Indeed the rebels must know that we have a constitutional body that is responsible for demarcation of borders. It should not be a one man show in which you leave the capital, download historical documents and the federal system is in place. No! Any system of governance is not unto the politicians to decide but rather the general public of South Sudan must be involved. System of governance should not be imposed through a peace agreement but must come in the awaited permanent constitution of the Republic in which the general public will vote it in through a referendum.
The rebel supporters could be happy with the demand but here we are talking about South Sudan; including the SPLM-IO and all the other South Sudanese, should we agree to have this federalism, what of the other South Sudanese who are not conflict partisan? The idea of federalism is not connected to this war and must be avoided by all courses. To me, this war began as a failure by the SPLM to agree to critical reforms within itself. Besides, the war is being fought solely by the SPLM party yet the system of governance is not an SPLM agenda, it’s binding on the other parties and the party-less citizens.
The reunification of SPLM agreement underscores all the reforms that made the country to fight, if we are reasoning beyond our political sycophancy, this war should have stopped on the day the Arusha document was inked. Let me totally disagree here on this issue that federalism will come in place when South Sudan so decides, not SPLM, not any particular tribe.
- Security Arrangements.
The big issue around this topic has been the status of the two armies. In reference to the CPA between the SPLM/A and the NCP of those days, the armies had different commands to allow for the speedy implementation of the agreement. Let’s not forget that, between us and Khartoum was the looming secession, the referendum results were as good as not released if the SPLA was not on the standby to defense. The idea of commanding two armies in our Sudan was the best at the time to protect the interest of the many Southerners.
Coming to this conflict, the status of the two armies is being maintained by the rebels as compulsory. Seriously, looking at the agreements, what is so complex in it that must be guarded by a different army? This must be treated as a brotherly war and agreeing means we can solve the problems agreed on. Taking it back to the SPLM inter-house case, the reforms agendas in the party which caused this stir need not an army to be implemented. The matrix of their implementation is already out and the presidency has promised to abide by that so is the SPLM-G10 and too should the leadership of the SPLM-IO. So the issue of two armies during the transitional period is a nullity.
The human right abuses will be addressed by the African Union through the report that is pending publication. This too needs not an army to oversee its implementation.
The second question on this is whether to integrate the full army of the rebels in totality or be sectioned to accommodate a few. To serve the national interest, SPLA is the national army that there should be. The national army must and should only accommodate the SPLA soldiers who rebelled. As for the WHITE ARMY, their duty should end immediately the peace accord is signed. They were fighting perhaps for a good course but their self-attained-training as they were from the cattle camps is not fit enough to guard South Sudan as a national army.
Someone should not quote me wrong! When I talk of SPLA being the national army in the post-conflict period, the chief of staff, Gen. Paul Malong Awan Anei should pack with Mathiang Anyor, Doot Ku Beny and any other militia that emerged during this conflict to guard political interest in this war. Only the known SPLA of the pre-independent South Sudan and the post-independent recruitment prior to this senseless war remains. And therefore, WHITE ARMY, MATHIANG ANYOR, DOOT KU BENY, BAR BER MOR BEN have no spaces in our public pay role. Their duty is up if the peace is signed. I don’t recommend their inclusion in the national army because they are only militias who pay attention to commands from their masters. White Army is only commanded by Gatdet Yakka, Mathiang Anyor is only loyal to Awan Anei and the rest of the story is valid. We need a national army that can be commanded by any president not an army that has allegiance to personalities.
- The War Debts
This is a very complex issue to discuss but as I have been saying in my previous articles, compromise is paramount in achieving peace. It should not have been in the best interest of the South Sudan citizenry to cause a war so that their resources are wasted through the payments of military debts.
Let’s me appeal to whoever that is concern to take up the national debts as a unit and the-would-be government of national unity pays it off. We know that the debts are almost solely on ammunition which the national army will be using to guard our territories. There is no shame therefore in paying what will be usable by the general public of the republic.
- Power Sharing
Power sharing must be addressed very well in this conflict. As much as we talk about executive powers, they can’t be shared to quell rebellion. Why? These powers were negotiated through the public votes and should anyone one person sit down somewhere and decides how they partition them, it could cause confusion because we must invest in one central power.
This does not contravene the spirit of compromise; the premier can be exercising many other created roles but must not definitely be the head of government. This amounts to the general public again deciding whether their system of governance is going to be of that structure.
Sharing the government between the two parties is something eminent and this will be the case whether we want or not. But the topic of the talks here is in what ratio? As much as I want peace to come, it should not be shared in the 0.5:0.5 ratios. This will imply that indeed the rebellion has taken a big share of the national cake considering its composition.
As I conclude my countrymen, this is just how best I thought the issues at hand would have been resolved if we were reasoning using the national brain. It’s unfortunate that our two principals have clung to the views of their insiders not to the good of the nation. We must act fast and expedite peace because that is what South Sudan needs. I therefore will agree with anything that alleviates the suffering of our needy population.
We must compromise for peace to be restored else we will be wondering like a lost spirit in the midst of confusion.
The Author is as student of Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Kenyatta University, Nairobi Kenya
About Post Author
