By Isaac Kiir Geka,
May 24, 2016, If history is ” just one damn thing after another” then for realists South Sudan politics is the same damn thing over and over again: tribal conflict, great power, tribal chauvinism, and the formation of the so called [Jieng Council of Elders ] has made South Sudan history becomes very weird.
On 15th-Dec /2013 the young nation engulfed in a civil war barely two years into its independent. The political disputes within the ruling SPLM party’s leadership turned violent on 15th-Dec thereby resulted in massacred of more than 20, 000 innocent Nuer civilians in the capital [ Juba ], in the watch of the international community.This has not only plunged the country into political abyss, but also proved the incompetency of both the ruling SPLM party’s and the government’s leadership.
The reluctant interference of the international communities, and IGAD in particular to resolve the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan has complicated the situations more than no interference at all, thereby some regional states have finds it as an opportunity to define their own interests and to deploy mean of their own choice in pursuing them. The intervention of Uganda in combat alongside Salva Kiir’s government, and opposing of the UNSC ‘ proposed sanctions on individuals and arm-embargo on South Sudan by Russia, China, and Burundi are the good example of direct regional and international interests that led to the complication of the peace process in the young nation.
In August 2015, the waring parties in the Republic of South Sudan signed an agreement called [ compromise peace agreement ] to resolve the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. The agreement persuaded the opposition ‘ leader [ Dr. Riek Machar Teny ] to compromised as the name suggests to accept the position of 1st vice president, and Salva Kiir to remains as president of the would be Transitional government of national unity [ TGONU ] for the period of 30 months.
The same agreement holds the provision that the capital [ Juba ] should be demilitarised within 90 days from its signature, and before the return of the opposition leader to the capital. And it’s stipulated that the security arrangements that gave SPLM / A – IO the ratio of 2,910 of its troops to be deployed in Juba before the arrival of their leader in Juba as part of the joint security forces that would be responsible for the security of Juba city during the transitional period.
All these arrangements have almost gone down the pan as [ hardliners ] in the government of Salva Kiir increases their intransigence; neither accepting the demilitarisation of Juba, nor the deployment of the SPLA- IO forces, so the deployment of the SPLA – IO forces in Juba is now becomes something very difficult, which of course would be not if the people were realistic. And my naive fellow citizens of South Sudan are pointing fingers at economics fault.
In my view, the difficulties and challenges facing the implementation of the ARCISS have nothing to do with economics affairs; rather than the lack of seriousness from the international community that imposed the peace agreement without addressing the roots cause of conflict. That attitude of imposing peace on waring rivals without addressing the roots cause of conflict, and balance of blame on both sides without a proper judge, explains more about international politics, and the world body as well.
The government of South Sudan is always committing atrocities, and human rights violation on innocent civilians despite the peace agreement with the SPLM / A – IO. And the international communities are just repeating the saying ” we condemn this and that in strongest possible term ” without the needed action. That is not only increase impurity, but has proved the realists view, ” that international political behaviour is characterised by continuity, regularity, and repetition because states are constraints by the international system’s unchanging [ and probably unchangeable ] structure.”
Realists believes that international politics is an anarchic, self help realm. ” Anarchy “, rather than that denoting choas, or rampant disorders , refers in international politics to the fact that there is no central authority capable of making and enforcing rules of behaviour on the international system’s units [ states ].
The absence of rule-making and enforcing authority mean that each state in the system is responsible for its own survival, and also each is free to define its own interest. In this sense, the fate of South Sudan is unknown in the mid of the international’s competitors. Otherwise, the waring parties should abide by their domestic politics to survive.
The implementation of the peace agreement in South Sudan is possible, but is hard to sustain in the face of the tribal chauvinism and competitive pressures that are built in, and encouraged by the genesis of the so called [Jieng Council of Elders ].
The implementation of the ARCISS is difficult because the partners to peace are not certain that the other’s intention towards peace are benign. Consequently, the government’s policy is shaped in response to the SPLM / A – IO’s capability. Unfortunately, in South Sudan politics, fear and distrust of the other party’s intention is becomes normal state of affairs.
For South Sudan to attain a positive peace that would return stability to the country, the government of South Sudan and the SPLM / A – IO should response to the logic of the situation in which they find themselves even though this may result in undesirable outcomes. Should the parties fail to be realistic to situation, then we will all be running the risk of perishing.