Why the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) FAILED
7 min readBy Kuol Alberto Makuach, Juba, South Sudan
August 19, 2016 (SSB) — South Sudan got her independence on the 9th of July 2011 and exactly 29 months later, it was shrouded in civil war within itself. That conflict erupted over long grievances that have been shelved for a number of years due to the fact that, all the Southerners in the then united Sudan, were united for the separation that would grant freedom to Southern Sudan.
Depending on whichever side one gets the explanation on what transpired on the 15th of December 2013, which brought about the conflict, one would get a different story. However, a neutral person, would simply conclude that, what happened was just but a normal power struggle.
The group that was not in the cabinet by then, led by Riek, Pagan, Nyandeng and others saw that, it was wrong and unimaginable for President Kiir and his allies to shut them out so soon just like that. So, they fabricated stories on so many things so as to cause that confusion that would make them be brought back to the government. Simply put, it was and still is, a struggle between those that want to maintain their grip of power and those that either need to take part or overthrow the other group.
It has nothing to do with reforms or a tribal conflict as many have wrongly perceived it. The group that is in now and those that want to come in do not have a heart for this nation.
Due to this conflict, the international community, friends of South Sudan and Inter-Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) in particular took the initiative to bring together the disgruntled, which in this case were under the umbrella of SPLM-IO, and the SPLM led government. The talks took nearly two years (Jan 2014-Aug-2015).
Those talks led to the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS). The question is, why did the IGAD led peace talk fail to bring peace in South Sudan? Many have written beautiful articles before giving critical views on the brokered peace, with some suggesting that it will not last, and others on the view that, there is a bright future ahead.
Today, I am tackling the aspect of peacebuilding that covers all the issues related to bringing about peace. IGAD and indeed the world either didn’t know or they intentionally crafted this peace accord so as to return the South Sudanese to war due to their own vested interests.
Peacebuilding as many may agree with me, refers to a long term process that covers all initiatives intended to prevent, manage and sustain peace in any given society. This view goes in line with what was expressed by the former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros- Ghali, when he said, “Peacebuilding consists of sustained cooperative work to deal with underlying economic, socio-political and humanitarian problems.”
In a nutshell, two processes are required for Peacebuilding to happen. First there is a need for the deconstruction of the structures of violence and secondly the construction of the structures of peace. When the chairman of Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commision (JMEC) Festus Mogae came to South Sudan, he only visited areas that have problems like POCs in Upper Nile but he never bothered to deliver the message of peace to places like Torit, Rumbek, Aweil, Kuajok or Bor.
The two processes mentioned above go along with the dimensions of peacebuilding which include, addressing the root causes of the conflict, repairing damaged relationship and dealing with psychological trauma.
How has IGAD, TROIKA and the international community failed in all this? In first place, let us be honest, the world has varying interests in South Sudan and this does not allow for an open, clear, transparent and objective peace process. The negotiators have different opinions on how to get a solution to the problems facing the country and that affects the terms being drafted. However, due to the need to protect their credibility, they seem to be united outside here, but inside, there is infighting.
I heard, but I stand to be corrected on this, that during the negotiation, some parts in the document were drafted before and presented to the warring factions only to sign without giving them the opportunity to discuss themselves and get to a decision. Of course, it is not easy to agree sometimes especially if you are opponents, but then, allowing you to express your views would lead to something closer to a solution.
IGAD and the international community failed to fulfill the core aspect of peacebuilding which is solving the economic hardship of people. South Sudan has witnessed the worst economic situation whereby one Malwa (3 Kgs) costs 400 SSP in Aweil. This 400 SSP in 2008 was equivalent to two sacks of sorghum (180 Kgs). Instead of supporting the Transitional Government of National Unity with cash to alleviate abject poverty, the international community demanded that the government scraps off the 28 states establishment order and revert to the former 10 states before any assistance could be given. Why put all this condition if you want to help?
The international community and especially the UN asked the World Food Program (WFP) in the hunger stricken states of Bahr el Ghazal not to distribute food but rather to support those that have initiated development programs in terms of food for work and food for assets. This exercise is praiseworthy, however, with the economic meltdown and abject poverty, there is need for food distribution to those that are not in the process of doing developmental activities. It was a month ago that WFP resumed food distribution after thousands left for Sudan while others remained behind feeding on leaves and wild fruits but that again was interrupted for reasons known to WFP.
This was a calculated attempt by the international community to make life unbearable for the citizens who will then rise up against the government, thereby intervening in the name of supporting the public leading to the regime change agenda. Thus, failure to support the government financially is one of the failures of ARCSS. But the reality is, South Sudanese will never rise against their own government as others might wish to happen just because of economic hardship since they underwent terrible situation during the 21 years of struggle which cannot be compared with the current situation.
Secondly, the effectiveness of a leader can’t be said to be poor or good unless one puts into consideration the context where one is leading. IGAD and indeed the rest of the world believe that Salva Kiir is weak in leadership. They have shown this by sidelining him in many occasions. When Obama visited Kenya and met IGAD member countries and AU in Ethiopia, the invitation was not extended to him. IGAD member countries at times meet without inviting Kiir. They at times make decisions without putting into considerations his opinions and reservations.
Like I alluded to above, Kiir may be weak, but what people need to know is that, he is leading in a different environment, different people and with so many forces pulling him here and there. Therefore, the conclusion must not be that, he can’t manage. One needs to understand the situation he is in before rushing to accuse him of weakness.
Thirdly, our leaders are traumatized. They underwent and witnessed so many terrible things during the war of liberation. Both Riek and Kiir were senior members of the SPLA and one can’t rule out that they are not traumatized. So, the first thing that needs to have been done by IGAD was the healing process.
One of the theories for the causes of crime is Developmental Life-Course which focuses on human development and how individual and social factors interact in different ways and at different developmental stages to influence individual propensity to criminal behaviour. I am not in any case saying they are criminals, but the reality is, whatever they do is a reflection of what they have been through all these years. So, President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya can’t claim that Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar are fine and that they have to behave like him and others, no they are not.
Finally, the principles of Peacebuilding include reflecting on the values of the conflicting parties, empowering others, innovating and using creativity among others. The values I am talking about here are South Sudanese values. For example, you can’t force these people (South Sudanese) to do what you want them to do unless they are in agreement with your proposal.
IGAD should have allowed them to design their own peace accord with minimal support instead of pushing them against their will in name of people dying and suffering. What have they achieved with the rush peace? These were never put into consideration. IGAD, Troika and others just decided to impose an accord without looking further into the repercussions.
You can reach the author via his email: Kuol K. Alberto <kuolkuol2001@yahoo.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, city and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
