Deadlock over the Status of States: IGAD Proposes 21 States for South Sudan
3 min read
Do Not Confuse a Camouflaged Call for Confederation for Call Federalism
32 vs 10 vs 23 vs 21: Warring Parties reached a Deadlock on the Number and Boundaries of States in South Sudan
Wednesday, December 04, 2019 (PW) — For the past two Days, IGAD has engaged Parties signatories to the R-ARCSS to agree on the number of States and boundaries in South Sudan. The Number of States and Boundaries is one of the sticking points which led to the extension of Pre-Transitional Period to 100 Days.
During the deliberations, the following three options were tabled:
1 – 32 States by the Government
2- 10 States by the SPLM-IO
3 – 23 States by the SSOA
The deliberations took a day and half without any solution and compromise; but yesterday evening, the facilitators pressured the parties to compromise and come up with a possible solutions to address this issue.
The government delegation was asked to state their position of compromise; they say let the SPLM-IO first agreed to compromise, which the SPLM-IO said it was willing to do for the sake of peace and suffering civil population in the country.
The SPLM-IO stated that the Party will move upward from 10 States to a midnight and also suggested that the government must move downward from 32 States.
In this regard, the government was only willing to move upward – to increase the number of States to 40 even 55 States. When the government delegation was asked to explain the rationale of moving upward, they failed to give sufficient answers rather than the false narrative of taking towns to people without any reference to the states’ boundaries, governance structure and their economic feasibility.
SPLM – IO delegation explained their rationale of sticking to 10 States – that it’s in the agreement and that the country is facing eminent economic collapse or has collapsed and does requires more states. More importantly, the 10 States have clear marked boundaries and will take people of South Sudan war over land issue.
When things go tougher at around 6PM or so and without any solution on sight, the facilitators decided to strike the balance by reconciling the two positions of 10 and 32 States.
They added both numbers, 10 States +32 States =42 and then divide 42/2= 21 States.
The facilitators informed the delegations that we can go with 21 States as a midpoint.
The SSOA agreed and say we can only add 2 more to make it 23 States.
The SPLM-IO also on their part agreed with the formula and accepted 21 States.
The government on their part disagreed and stick to 32 or it could only accept moving upward up-to 55 States.
Then, the deadlock is reached. The discussion was adjourned for today, December 4th, 2019.
@nyoldit
About Post Author
I agree with what honorable cabinets minister Martin Elia Lomoro said, “The warring parties are actually playing a political game on determining the number of states” of the republic of South Sudan.
Creation of 32 states wasn’t the root cause of the current civil war, what made it to be the key issue of this peace agreement?, some people claim that 32 states has resulted in to border dispute which I totally disagree with, because the current states were former administrative areas and counties with their respective borders since the time of British government, if this is not true, let them (those who claimed that creation of 32 states has resulted in to more disputes) tell the world any single former administrative area or county that has been divide apart, nothing has changed completely the same greater counties have now been made states, politician are just mobilizing community to cause instability only just to blindfold the international community that there’s state borders disputed in South Sudan, and if there are borders issues then such cases can possibly be solved with consultation from local authorities of the respective disputed state borders and also along with consultation from the former British colonial government, these local authorities knows the truth but they have been politically motivated not to accept the facts but to claim. let our politicians drop this crazy idea of saying this is mine or it is for my people, some of our politicians are working for their political interest and welfare of their tribes and not for the welfare of all South Sudanese , what about those without politicians, where will they go? Now those who supports 21 state are mostly politicians from upper Nile who wants to make sure that they are in oil producing states which I totally termed as “premative believe” because During the Sudan government, it was the Sudanese government that was in control of the oil in the South, did Southerners managed to stop Sudan government from controlling the oil yet oil money was used against us? I think it is the same government of national unity that will be in control of all national revenue not the citizens or the state government.
Why do you want us to remain unstable such for simple things
the fact that you are from oil producing states doesn’t mean that you have a right to own it because all South Sudanese citizens have sacrificed their lives for the sake of liberating This land(South Sudan).
The federal system of 21 states proposed by former vice president Dr. Riek Machar in 2009 Wasn’t favouring everyone, because some of the administrative areas were denied right to be states, I blamed this mess on president kiir’s government for tolerating the issue of number of state to be the main issue of concern in this peace agreement rather than giving referendum a a chance, those who used to take Lion share during the time of 10 state of the republic of South Sudan, marginalizing their respective minorities, are the one causing all these confusions, at least now there is equality, there is no peaceful coexistence among citizens that were
once been mobilize by the same politicians to fight themselves to be combined in one state again because
people learned from the past experience in which civilians were mobilized on tribal line that resulted in to massive killing of civilians in Bor and malakal in 2013 and February 2014 respectively, which can’t be compared to other war affected states,
we have lost trust in our politicians because any political disagreement in the central government has negative impact on civilians, there is need to combine people in one state which give them fear again. “we are in a dog eat dog country” no one care as long as you achieve your goals, you don’t mind about the status of your citizens. At least now civilians feel secure because in case of any tensions with central government, I believe no governor can rebel and kill his own people and there is little bit of equality now compared to time of 10 state, and let them not have negative idea that having many states is economically burdensome to the national annual budget because I believe as long as there is accountability the resources can be enough, I suggest IGAD to give chance for referendum rather than concentrating on the decision of
these rivals because their respective political interest always result in to massive destruction on South Sudanese civil population. They failed to unite citizens, therefore I call on
International community to choose the most perfect medchanism solve the problem of the number of states in the republic of South Sudan. Because IGADI’s calculation of adding 10 states proposed by SSOA to 32 states created by government which gives 42 divide by 2 that’s give 21 states to be confirmed only fulfilled the interest of Dr. Machar’s disputed federalism of 2009
And In Which government will not agree with,
So the only solution is to sideline all their decision and find out from the citizens with common interests being together again.