Chaos and Tyranny: What does the IGAD plus Peace Mediation Team Intend to Achieve in South Sudan Really?
What is really the IGAD plus Peace Mediation Team intended to achieve through their chaotic and tyrannical peace compromise draft proposal?
By Eng. Valentino Akec, Juba, South Sudan
August 12, 2015 (SSB) — With reference to the last proposed compromise agreement by the IGAD Plus mediation team, there are some of the most glaring and staggering points in the draft proposal, I for one reason became surprised to the notion that, IGAD plus mediation team see themselves, as if they are the most entrusted by the people of South Sudan to do whatever they could on their behalf even if it infringes the constitutional legitimacy and the sovereignty of the Country.
These glaring points in summary are mentioned bellow as follows: –
- Power sharing ratios including giving away the Greater Upper Nile Region to the Rebels of Riek Machar as an appeasement and a reward for his rebellion.
- Demilitarization of the Capital city of the Country (Juba by 25km radius) and the mandate given to the foreign troops to guard the city as well as giving the proportional numbers of soldiers to guard both, the President and the 1st Vice President while the Vice President has none.
- Collegial structures of two parallel equal powers with the obligatory consultation on decision making mechanisms for the two (the president, & 1st Vice President) in the executive, (in the event that, they do not agree, it becomes a total paralysis to the government and its daily activities.
- Hybrid Courts over sighting over the Judiciary of the Country of The RSS).
- Foreign Bodies such as the World Bank, the IMF, the Monitoring and evaluation Commission dictating the terms of the implementation of the compromised Agreement.
- The issue of AU, UN, forces deployment in south Sudan to be the ones providing security and the protection of citizens in the republic of South Sudan, (a sole responsibility of any Government in any independent Country over the world).
Analyzing the anomalies and probabilities of what the agreement could bring during the implementation phase in the short term period rather than the long term one does not essentially needs a rocket scientist to arrive at its far reaching and targeted objectives, goals and quick outcomes the agreement would be expected to yield. The drafters of such an agreement designed it to undermine and do away with the legitimacy of the Government and the sovereignty of the Country, by putting the President versus the Rebel leader as equals in power sharing methodology was not by a mistake, indeed such body, the IGAD Plus drafters, by design drafted such a problematic, chaotic and tyrannical solution to the conflict in south Sudan in such a way that it ignites a lot more ethnic based violence’s among various communities across south Sudan, making the Country ungovernable, the drafters of the document have keenly and carefully studied and evaluated all the avenues of possible takeover of the south Sudan by the UN at the end of the day, so that it becomes a UN protectorate entity in the long run as recommended by AU commission of enquiry headed by former Nigerian President Gen. Obusanjo, because they knew the solution they have prescribed will not stand its ground in South Sudan.
Starting by the point number (1) above, there is no rationale in giving the Rebels 53% in the States of Greater Upper Nile Region, rather than the wrong perception that, the war affected States are inhabited by Nuer ethnic groups, even if so, are all Nuer ethnic communities supporting the rebel leader Dr. Riek Machar? Of course not, the Majority of the Nuer community members are still supporting the Government and there are huge numbers of forces from the Nuer ethnic groups from the three States in the SPLA army fighting the rebel forces all over the Country. Therefore, such a proposal should be rejected out rightly because it lacks the logic.
Again the second point has a lot to be desired, the demilitarization of the capital city is not a practical solution, first and foremost, UNMIS forces cannot be trusted on protection of civilians, experiences has shown that, civilians were slaughtered and killed in Churches, Hospitals, Mosques, and even at the UNMIS protection sites in broad daylight while at the watch of the UNMIS forces in Akobo, Malakal, Bor and Bentiu, the UNMIS cars were looted by the rebels but, there was not even a mere condemnation from their side against the rebel forces for their barbaric actions.
The preposition is that, the IGAD plus Peace Mediators, have considered the Country as an entity that has no sovereignty, that they took the lead to establish what they think would be a way forward for them to achieve the primary objective of regime change in south Sudan, regardless of the fact that, none of these IGAD Countries have consulted with the south Sudanese people to know the popularity of the Government they wanted to change in south Sudan, it had reached to a point that, the American Presidential envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, Mr. Donald Both was quoted nullifying the issue of legitimacy, saying that, the legitimacy lies squarely with the people of South Sudan, in his remarks marred by words of intimidation and threats of sanctions, he seems to be ignoring the fact that, it was the same people of south Sudan whom he speaks on their behalf, were the very people who elected the incumbent President to his current position as President for the Country in April 2010, a scenario that is akin to the position of the US President Barack Obama who cannot be threatened by outside diplomats what so ever their political weight may bear, then, the question is, what is wrong with the south Sudan as a Country? Is South Sudan less of sovereignty and independence to be intimidated by Americans? Then, what did America do with the tyrant called Omer Albashier of Sudan who is continuously erasing the African black races in Sudan? Or is it a double standard policy that is at play?
With regards to the point number (3) the collegial structures that made the duo (the President and the 1st Vice President) to be of equal powers cannot stand the test, as it jeopardizes the powers of the President according to the Article (101) in the transitional constitution of the Republic of south Sudan (2011), shall we assume in this case, that, the IGAD plus mediators have nullified the legitimacy of the Country and have become above the constitution of the Country, so that, their proposals and decisions are unquestionable even if they confer and infringe the Constitutional mandate of the Country in word and spirit? It is mind boggling indeed.
Even in the United States of America, the President has the veto over vital issues of the State, if he comes through a deadlock situation with the Congress, and the example is the looming issue of Iranian with the (5+1) Western Countries nuclear power agreement led by America, President Obama was quoted threatening to use his Presidential Veto if blocked by the Congress! Then how comes in south Sudan that, a President cannot do anything without the agreement of the 1st Vice Present? Paradoxically, the two were working together over the eight years as President and Vice President, there was no team work, no homogeneity, the Vice was running a parallel government, and the result was the violence outbreak on the 15th of December 2013 when he got reshuffled out of the cabinet, would it this time be different given the current volatile situation and vividly divided and polarized society on tribal and regional enclaves that, the two men would work together honestly because of the agreement?. I really doubt that very much, in my own view, it is just an attempt to move the war from peripheries to the Capital City Juba, to say the least.
The points from (4 to 5), I leave it to legal experts of south Sudan to deal with them, because I am just an engineer and it is not an area of my profession, but my simple expression is that, such a scenario was prescribed for Sudan back in 2009, but it was rejected by President Omer Hassan Ahmed Albashier and it was swallowed by the AU, UN and US and did not stand the ground.
For the last point number (6), the deployment of AU and UNMIS forces in the Country is a clear takeover of the Country by the UN, the security of the people in any Country in the world is constitutionally entrusted on the armed forces and its associated other organized forces of that Country, not otherwise, not to the UN whose forces are collected from different Countries around the world, sometimes they get themselves deployed to a destination they have no knowledge of or have no cultural background of the people they are supposedly protecting.
What is happening in Darfur is a clear example, the UNMID failed completely to protect the people of Darfur between the years of (2009 up to now 2015) to an extend that, a massive rape was committed in 2014 by the Sudanese army against the women and girls of African races in the locality of Tabit, and the UNMID forces were present and could not even go to investigate the incident, the same occurred in Nuba Mountains when war erupted in 2011 between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A- N, and the civilians were killed indiscriminately including those working with the UN NGO’s at the watch of the UN forces but there was no any protection rendered to them.
South Sudan is not a land for experiments, to execute trials and errors, it is a country its people paid dearly to the liberation struggle, so that they can be free in their own Country, therefore, it is only just and a sustainable peace that is what we want, not wrong peace that can drag the Country to a mere wider scale conflict in the shorter period to come.
Eng. Valentino Akec writes in Juba, reachable at (valentinoakec@yahoo.com) +211955623595)
–
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
