The Horn of Africa region is experiencing relative peace after the recent Ethio- Eritrean agreement to end the two decades political impasse. The peaceful political denouements in neighboring Sudan has created more confidence in enduring peace and stability in the Horn. the establishment of a legal state in Somalia has created hope that one day Al Shabab terrorism will come to an end. However the crisis in South Sudan continues to be the thorniest and stickiest point, or a thorn on the side of regional politics. It is becoming a festering sore in the otherwise healthier body politic in the Horn.
Why the crisis in South Sudan has not so far responded
positively to all diplomatic initiatives in the region remains a mystery. While
the Ethio-Eritrean “cold war” has now given way to peace, why does the South
Sudan conundrum still remains unsolvable is indeed baffling. One can say that
at the heart of the South Sudanese crisis lies power struggle and ethnic strife.
Yet, these post-colonial malaise is present in almost all the countries of the
Horn and has been overcome one way or the other, leading to relative peace.
True, politics in South Sudan may be highly personalized or personality-oriented as some observers would say. True, old friends or comrades who were on best terms have now turned into arch-enemies as it is the case in many African countries. Yet, what makes the south Sudanese situation so unique and so intractable remains not only a mystery but also a serious source of high anxiety.
The African proverb that says, “When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers” fits well into a description of South Sudanese politics. And when the two elephants who fight are equally strong, well, the grass is bound not only to suffer but might also be threatened with extinction. Best friends become worst enemies indeed. Both Reich Machar and Salva Kiir fit this profile well. Both veteran freedom fighters with impeccable records, both having their respective followers, both commanding respect but also fear, these two personalities have all the psychological makeup of leaders whose big egos are preventing them from mending the broken fences.
What is worse still, the inflated egos and uncompromising illusions they nurture during the struggle for freedom from their northern neighbors, have also prevented them from overcoming their respective mistrust, and the hostile or contemptuous attitude they nurture towards one another. On top of all this comes the horrendous sufferings and bloodsheds they are allowing to take place among their peoples, is making a bad situation not only bad but also seesawing between the devil and the deep water.
Diplomatic initiatives in the Horn by organizations like IGAD or by prominent personalities have helped broker peace in a number of countries. Extra-regional actors like the UN or the great powers like the US had also proved effective in bringing hostiles sides together around the negotiating table. But why does this well-established diplomatic pattern fails to display its talismanic powers when it comes to South Sudan and its leaders.
There is a deal in place to end the civil war in South Sudan but the problem is that the two leaders are often creating pretexts to torpedo it. According to Al Jezeera reports, “A unity government is a precondition for South Sudan to hold elections after a transition period of three years, and any additional delay will likely torpedo the plan for a vote in 2022. According to the UN, the signing of the peace agreement in 2018 has significantly improved the security situation in the country.
“We noted the reduction of political violence which has contributed to the return of 594,000 displaced people, increased food production, enhanced humanitarian access, and increased commerce among communities,” Jerry Matthews Matjila, South African ambassador to the UN and Security Council president for October, said after visiting Juba last month.
“In a report last week, the International Crisis Group also noted that the warring sides “have largely stopped fighting” and “the South Sudanese enjoy more freedom of movement and better access to their fields and humanitarian aid” since the signing of the accord last year.
But previous agreements have been broken and Machar has warned the ceasefire will be in “jeopardy” if a deal is forced on him.
Ahmed Soliman, a research fellow at Chatham House’s Africa Program, said finding a lasting solution to the conflict will require more than signing an agreement.
“Achieving sustainable peace in South Sudan will be a long-term endeavor,” Soliman told Al Jazeera.
“The short-term emphasis should be on building trust and confidence-building and ensuring that any unity government formed is inclusive,” he added.
Ethiopia is not only a key country in the Horn. It is also the diplomatic capital of Africa where issues of peace, war and economic development are addressed. In the last many years, Ethiopian diplomats and leaders have conducted an indefatigable diplomatic coming and going to address the South African crisis, culminating in Ethiopian PM Abiy Ahmed taking the matter as a priority concern. Nothing seems to work and this is the most worrying scenario. At last there is now a deadline set to address the issue of forming a unity government in Juba within the coming 100 days.
Kiir and Machar have also tried this path that led to breakdowns and the resumption of ethnic conflicts that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people on both sides of the political and ethnic divide. Will the move for unity work this time? There are many reasons to doubt it; the major one being that both leaders are ambitious, still unyielding and indifferent to outside pressure or persuasion. It is not imaginable to remove both sides from power and organize the elections both are armed, have money and followers who are ready to die for them.
The big egos of the two leaders have so far prevented a vigorous push for peace and led to breakdowns of attempted peace talks. This can be traced to the long process of failed attempt for dialogue between the two leaders that failed in the past. According to media reports, “Two years after gaining independence from Sudan, South Sudan plunged into civil war in 2013 after Kiir fired Machar, his vice president at the time. The president accused Machar of plotting to overthrow him, a charge denied by the latter.
“Soldiers loyal to the two leaders then clashed with the conflict taking an ethnic dimension, forcing a third of the country’s 12 million people to flee their homes. The conflict has killed an estimated 400,000 people and left more than 60 percent of the population food insecure, according to the United Nations.
Since 2013, Kiir and Machar have signed several ceasefire agreements, including some lasting for just a few days before fighting resuming shortly after. Now, both sides say they are working towards meeting the new deadline amid pressure from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, a regional bloc, as well as the United States and the European Union to come to a lasting agreement.
One hundred days is enough if the government releases resources and they show political will to ensure implementation of the security arrangements,” Beny Mabor, a political analyst based in South Sudan’s capital, Juba, told Al Jazeera.”
Shall the world wait until the promised 100 days expire and the promised unity government emerge as if by magic? Patience may be a virtue in politics as some say. But it may also bring about despair when the going gets tough and the tough fail to get going. Meanwhile IGAD is adamant in its diplomatic efforts which is good because it may help create the illusion of hope and the possibility of a settlement.
The Associated Press last week reported that the U.S. has called its ambassador to South Sudan back to Washington for consultations as Washington reevaluates its relationship with the country after a delay in implementing a fragile peace deal.
South Sudan President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar agreed to postpone that key step for 100 days. They had faced a Nov. 12 deadline but said security and governance issues needed to be resolved.
But as time goes by and patience, like anything in the world, is exhausted things become unpredictable and even lead to more catastrophe and it would be impossible to save the day afterwards. At least also east for now, all relevant actors should decide that South Sudan should not be allowed to slip back to full-fledged civil war because that would be the end of their efforts but also entail worse catastrophe that would be a disaster for the entire region.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 1 December 2019
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
