Negotiating peace in South Sudan

Thousands of people have been killed and an estimated one million have fled their homes and taken shelter in United Nations compounds since fighting began in the world’s youngest country last year, triggered by a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, the erstwhile vice president whom he sacked in July.Bor has changed […]

Thousands of people have been killed and an estimated one million have fled their homes and taken shelter in United Nations compounds since fighting began in the world’s youngest country last year, triggered by a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, the erstwhile vice president whom he sacked in July.
Bor has changed hands at least three times since December when fighting broke out between SPLA troops loyal to the government and rebel forces.
The raids near Bor followed a rebel assault on Malakal, capital of the main oil-producing Upper Nile region in the north last Tuesday.
The fighting has disrupted oil production and exports, exacerbating the country deep financial crisis and worsening the condition of an already impoverished population, and imperilled ongoing peace talks in Ethiopia, much delayed by rebel demands for the release of four detainees and the withdrawal of Ugandan troops from South Sudan.
The four were part of 11 politicians that government troops detained in Juba. On January 29, seven of them were allowed to fly out and join the peace talks chaired by the Intergovernmental Agency for Development (IGAD) – a body made of east African countries.
IGAD’s negotiating team is led by Ethiopia’s former foreign minister but, in the view of the rebel forces, is fractured by key members, Uganda and Kenya, seen as being sympathetic to Salva Kiir’s government.
 Ethiopia has warned of South Sudan becoming a new theatre of endless proxy wars drawing regional powers Uganda and Sudan.  
 The immediate aim however should be focused on ending the fighting on the ground, and for normal life to return.
But that goal would be hard to attain unless both sides show genuine willingness to compromise and reach some accommodation for the sake of their people.
President Kiir should consider his position as that of president for the entire country and not be seen to be overtly disposed towards his ethnic groups in his official functions.
It is that perception among members of other ethnic groups that gives rise to feelings of neglect, which can easily be exploited to cause further division among the different tribes.
Dr Machar also has responsibility to demonstrate leadership by opting for the democratic route of changing governments through the ballot box, and not by arming his loyalists to forcefully overthrow it.
 Salva Kiir has the potential advantage of building a national army around claims for oil resources for groups in the periphery of oil-rich states. For him to do that he must separate military power from political administration run by an SPLM leader with civilian capacity for negotiated consensus in policy-making and state-building. So far, at least since the current conflict erupted, he has shown that this is not his area of strength.
Riek Machar must appreciate that the war has inflicted severe wounds which would make it difficult for him to seek to unify the entire country under one banner.  Perhaps the most viable option out of the crisis, which should be part of the peace talks, would be fresh elections in which both Salva Kiir and Riek Machar must foreswear participating. The African Union should get involved by convincing both combatants of the need for South Sudan to begin its next phase of independence on a clean slate and better prospects for the future of their country.