LIFTING THE VEIL OF IGAD IN SOUTH SUDAN
9 min readLIFTING THE VEIL OF IGAD AND EXPOSING ITS WEAKNESSES IN SOUTH SUDAN PEACE MEDIATION
By Mayol Aleng Reng, Panyagor, South Sudan
March 15, 2015 (SSB) — The Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) created in 1996 is made up of Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda and Djibouti. South Sudan later joined it following her independence from Sudan in July 2011. Initially, the main objective of IGAD was to combat drought in Eastern Africa.
Although it was partly involved in CPA mediation between the SPLM/A and Khartoum, IGAD does not have a programmatic and pragmatic system in place to resolve conflicts.
The United Nations formally endorsed it as the main mediator in providing peace and stability over the crisis in South Sudan that has rocked the country since December 15th 2013 between the government and opposition.
The UN endorsement of IGAD for the mediation of the current crisis in South Sudan is one which has never existed in theory or in practice in an attempt to resolve the conflict stemming from political rivalry and mistrust among disgruntled SPLM members. This is because IGAD is involved not only in the mediation, but also in the fighting and the negotiation process.
The role of IGAD as a mediator in securing the peace of South Sudan has been characterized with much skepticism and controversy and the aged-long political problems over the country’s governance and resources still remains unresolved despite much efforts by IGAD to bring both parties to the dialogue thus, leaving the hopes of the nascent nation fracturing.
Although IGAD succeeded in many occasions in persuading the two camps into signing cease fire agreements last year, these deals were very short-lived and since then no cease fire has been reached in the country and the process has not made any substantial progress despite many meetings. This article therefore seeks to answer the question, ‘’Why is the IGAD peace process failing?’’ By analyzing the IGAD peace initiative, showing out the motives for breakdown and the criterion for success.
The IGAD peace process is failing because, first its weakness in the mediation process, secondly its inability to address power sharing and security issues, thirdly conflict of interest among the countries that IGAD is made up of, and last but not the least, its inability to instill trust between the belligerents.
There is loss of credibility and bias in the IGAD led peace talks. Credibility has been lost by the mediators either for reasons of technical deficiencies, loss of secrecy, challenges to status and charges of impartiality. Can mediators be strictly impartial and sympathetic of one party but not all the disputants?
Neutrality is one of the main and most characteristics of intermediaries in peace resolution.
Bias mediation in intrastate conflicts like the case of South Sudan presents to us two unequal actors, that is the government that is internationally recognized and sovereign and the rebels or opposition which is not. In this case then, mediators may choose to be bias to favour the government or simply turn subversive to the government and sympathize with the rebels for their various interests at stake.
The utmost threat to peaceful resolution of conflicts stems from spoiler-armed and unarmed parties or groups in a conflict who doubt that the result of dialogue would not provide their long desired benefits. This situation poses a very difficult obstacle to any negotiated peace settlement.
The IGAD mediation team is made up of three well known military and diplomatic officials in the persons of Ambassador Seyoum Mesfin of Ethiopia,Gen. Lazarus Sumbeyo of Kenya and Gen. Mohammed Ahmed El Dabi of Sudan with Seyoum Mesfin as the chair of the mediation team, all of whom have no known record of successful conflict mediation. Their mediation has been surrounded or met by many hurdles, especially in the advancement and method of approaching a peaceful resolution with little progress being made.
The weakness of IGAD’s emissaries in bringing the two main parties involved in the conflict has greatly been seen and even its members declare that there is nothing they can do to maintain a permanent ceasefire as Gen Lazarus Sumbeyo complained that ‘he can take cows to the river but he can’t force them to drink’. At one point during the mediation, IGAD mediators went ahead as far as labeling President Kiir ‘stupid’ which the government sees as subversion of South Sudan sovereignty.
It is worth noting that power sharing issues concerning the Presidency, and the Prime Minister/Vice president, the issue of form of government and the integration of the military still holds down IGAD in forming an interim government. The IGAD peace process has thus been unsuccessful to bring permanent solution to a more than a year long violence that plagued South Sudan in December 15th 2013. Mediators in any peace are third party actors influencing the peace process by playing an overriding role in process’ success or failure. The incompetence of the mediators is obstructing the IGAD peace process on its own.
First, Sudan as a member of the mediation team as well as Uganda lacks mediation experience and impartiality. More so the tilting of IGAD mediation towards the Assembly of Heads of States gives room for more than third party role wherein, countries of IGAD regional bloc, Uganda and Sudan who have much interest in South Sudan will press for decisions to be taken by IGAD that of course favour their interest. This means that IGAD mediation team is largely dependent upon decisions of heads of states of the bloc!
Worth of note again is the fact that IGAD past mediation roles in countries like Sudan and Somalia never yielded any benefits. Recall that peace talks between the SPLA/M and the Sudan Government was brokered with Western intervention. This led to the subsequent inking of the CPA restoring peace in the Sudan. This means that without the involvement of the US and the Troika, IGAD has no good records of successful third party role in mediating a conflict. IGAD is therefore unfit to mediate in the South Sudan conflict.
Sudan mediating the South Sudan crisis presents a case of another warring factor in the violence and this is because of the percentage deal in oil that South Sudan produces Sudan benefits from, and other interests. It is important to note that Sudan will under normal circumstances press for judgments that will favour its interests in South Sudan, which had earlier in 2011, broke away from them.
The incompetence of IGAD can also be seen at the level of imposing sanctions on South Sudan and its leaders because IGAD have persistently resisted and pulled their feet on imposing sanctions on South Sudan due to their economic interests in the country. But in order to see into it that the peace process ends or yields fruits, IGAD members have to ‘feel economic pain’.
IGAD’s lack of skills is further revealed by the regional bloc’s members composed of Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan itself, and this is seen from the fact that these neighbouring states have their interests at stake and while Ethiopia and Kenya who primarily lead the mediation efforts have been trying to see the conflict ends, Uganda and Sudan continually offer direct support for the opposing sides in the conflict, thus undermining the peace process.
IGAD has been pursuing a misguided strategy in mediating the conflict in South Sudan. The use of deadline diplomacy has partly undermined the IGAD peace process. Inconsistencies coupled with the stubbornness of the warring parties have led to the mediators’ deadline, most of which have never been respected by factions in the violence which limits their time of consultation.
The implication of deadline is that it represents an apparatus used in obliging time costs on the mediators , as they face a time limit, the options they have slim down or narrows down to just two; either to agree to the offer or refuse it. That is, it becomes more of a take it or leave it case. This partly explains why the factions in the South Sudan crisis have been boycotting negotiation meetings or refusing to sign agreements.
Deadline diplomacy as used in several cases in IGAD peace process has failed as also seen on the time given for the two camps to come to compromise or else face sanctions. The strategy has greatly undermined the peace process which is characterized by mistrust and fear among the rebels and government. Enough time has to be given to secure a qualitative settlement, one that will deal effectively with the main issues in the dispute, once and for all, failure to which, hasty and devastating consequences may arise.
IGAD again has been faced with the problem of addressing to resolve the conflict without addressing its root causes. The first step in problem solving is identification of the problem. Identifying the root causes of a conflict is very essential in conflict resolution as it is always said, ‘there can be no peace without justification’ meaning that IGAD ought to have first sought out the various positions of the parties in the conflicts and then look into their cases before moving forward to arrange for peace.
IGAD suggestion of joint appointments be carried out by the government and Prime Minister has also been greatly contested, for this suggestions in itself creates point of fracture in the peace process. This elucidates how unpredictably the IGAD peace process creates proposals that delay the peace process.
Not only have the mediators proven inconsistent in the IGAD peace process, but also the stakeholders have been more inconsistent. It is worth mentioning here that the importance of the motives to accept mediation relies on the readiness and willingness to look into the conflict, thereby accepting the aid of a third party or mediator predetermines the success of a mediation process.
Numerous boycotts of mediation meeting by the warring parties, is a result of the fear that mediation will not provide a favourable settlement to the conflict to them. For the peace process to yield any good results, it is of great necessity that all stakeholders are present. The IGAD mediation has witnessed a lot of boycotts, especially for the main parties to the conflict who at time, none of them even show up for the peace summits.
There is inability of IGAD mediators to address power sharing and security issues. This has been the major drawbacks to the peace process. There should be careful consideration to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Power and resource sharing and the issue of security dilemma of the warring factions in a conflict are very crucial.
The triumph of an all-encompassing and sustainable resolution to conflicts needs to take note of these points first. Ending violence in a way which removes this security dilemma has to be part of any settlement, and without the parties being secured, subjectivity and objectivity, a peace agreement is unlikely to be sustained. These issues of power sharing and security dilemma especially have not been properly addressed by IGAD, between the government and Opposition.
The writer, Mayol Aleng Reng is an aid worker in South Sudan. He can be reached at his email address, mayolaleng@gmail.com
–
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
