Security guarantees or the revitalized government first: The politico-security dilemma of the South Sudanese leaders?

Should the government to be formed first or security agreement first?

By John Deng D’Duot, Seattle, USA

Tuesday, November 5, 2019 (PW) — Many of South Sudanese are excited and counting down days whereby the Transitional Government of National Unity will be formed. On the other hand, few individuals think that we should first have a security arrangement. Although, many South Sudanese are happy making their Christmas plans to be with their family; in hoping that this will the beginning of new life in South Sudan after this senseless war fought for no reason but only because egoism to promotes hegemony brings democracy rule of law and federalism.

However; our leaders have different plans. Some would have the audacity to argue that security agreement has to be first and then the Transitional Government of National Unity will be formed. One thing we need to understand is that the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) is a peace program by itself that must lead to the formation of the government.     

Although some scholars would disagree with R-ARCSS’s outcome if it would be worked out well. I would argue that it would eventually result in a sense of permanent peace.  As a matter of facts, and as Captain Mabior Garang, well puts it, that the agreement was “an agenda for the unity government during the ‘peace process’. “A negotiated peace settlement is not peace per se, it is a road map – as it were. If we don’t follow the provisions of the Agreement, we cannot hope to arrive at peace.”

He is right. People of South Sudan need peace but should not be held hostage due to the facts that one person has factitial facts if his wills in fulfil then there is no peace in South Sudan. South Sudanese are fed-up of war. They need the government to be formed and everything else with is achieved once the government of form. The issues of security arrange should not a reason why the government is not formed.  

There is no doubt that Security arrangement needs, times, Information, and security risk management, as it is the systematic application of management policies, procedures, and practices to the task of establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and communicating information security risks.

These cannot be done the bushes whereby you can train a few individuals from your homeland and bring to be integrated into the army. It could also be achieved by postponing the government from being form. If this is what our leaders are saying as a security arrangement, then we are wasting times nothing.   

Security arrangement is not something that can be achieved within months or years, but it is a working progress of any government to make sure that the security of her citizens is paramount. United Nation has pointed out that, in contemporary conflicts, about 90 per cent of casualties among civilians, are mostly women and children.

In many cases, women in war-torn societies face specific and devastating forms of sexual violence, which are sometimes resulted from the deployment of systematically arming personal to achieve military or political objectives. So, what argument would it make to say the government couldn’t be formed without a security arrangement?   

Besides, the United Nation has mentioned that to achieve a sense of lasting peace in any war-torn societies, the most daunting of challenges for global peace and security. Maintaining Peace requires sustainable mechanism, international support and many other efforts across the broadest range of activities which includes monitoring ceasefires; demobilizing and reintegrating combatants; assisting the return of refugees and displaced persons; helping organize and monitor elections of a new government; supporting justice and security sector reform; enhancing human rights protections and fostering reconciliation after past atrocities.

All these cannot be achieved within a given time but could be achieved if there is a functional government in the government. Now, how can we keep postponing the formation of the government of National Unity because of security agreement?    

The issue of security arrangement as the main reason to not form the government is weak, and it is a confusing argument. I would argue that it is a weak and confusing argument because the fair security risk is often incorrectly classified as vulnerability. Riek Machar can claim as much as he can that there is a vulnerability of security arrangement in South Sudan.

I would object to that fictitious argument because that argument is risky could lead to confusion. The risk of security arrangement itself is the potential of a significant impact that will only result from, and if the vulnerability of security exploits of by Riek Machar who has latterly been had lost his cadres in a huge number.  

I can also argue that if security arrangement is the main reason to why the government could not be formed, then why are Riek Machar’s closes associates in Juba, don’t they worry about their security arrangement? Also, if the security arrangement is the main reason why the government should not be formed, how come civilians living in the IDPs camps are crying for peace but not security arrangement?   

Furthermore, if the security arrangement is the main reason why the government should not be formed, how come cattle keepers in their cattle need peace, not security arrangement. There is no doubt that people need peace; they are tired of war and go for peace regardless of whatsoever. The formation of the government of National Unity would eventually lead to peaceful coexistence and permanent security arrangement.  

We need to understand that security arrangement is difficulty in any country not only in South Sudan and it is well formulated in terms of international law and standard. This is due to the facts that the state has a right to set up instrumental institutional that can implement a security arrangement.

According to Alexander Johnston, the author of the Weak States and National Security: The Case of South Africa in the Era of Total Strategy, “idea that state has a right to provide for their security is powerfully and it is implicit in the theory of international relation. Without some sort of right like this, the coexistence of sovereign bodies would not be possible but in practice. It would not be easy to codify the condition and limits of such rights.”   

It is with this idea the coexistence of South Sudanese must be acknowledged through the formation government and security arrangement be worked out by the Government of National Unity stipulated within the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan.

About Post Author