South Sudan needs national reconciliation

AS the warring factions in South Sudan’s civil war quarrel over the venue of next round of peace talks, people continue to get killed in horrible levels of violence or die of starvation.

The government side reportedly wants to change the venue from Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, that hosted the previous two rounds, but the opposition sees in this a plot to scuttle the peace process. The second round, held from Feb. 5 to 16, mainly discussed the implementation of a permanent ceasefire, part of the 2015 peace agreement and a timeline for elections.

South Sudan, which won independence in 2011 after a bloody and protracted civil war, plunged into violence in 2013 when President Salva Kiir fell out with his deputy, Riek Machar. What was initially a power tussle between the two soon assumed the character of a tribal conflict because Machar and Kiir come from two distinct ethnic groups. Machar is Nuer while Kiir belongs to Dinka who forms the majority. The violence has killed some 50,000 people, according to the African Union (AU). More than four million people, one-third of the country’s population, have fled their homes. The war has disrupted the economy of what was already one of the world’s poorest countries.

Both sides have committed unspeakable atrocities like rape, castration and burning whole villages. And now famine is casting its ominous shadow over this tortured land. A recent report by the UN and the South Sudan government said 150,000 people could face famine this year. Even with food aid, much of South Sudan could be in the grip of severe hunger by May. International aid agencies have not returned to some parts of South Sudan since a major government offensive in 2015.

There have been several attempts, at regional and international levels, to end the fighting and craft a political settlement. But fighting resumes as soon as a ceasefire comes into effect. It is becoming clear that a political settlement alone will not solve the problem until an extremely aggravated and armed population is demobilized. Equally clear is the fact that a settlement based on power-sharing by the main antagonists, Kiir and Machar, will leave the underlying issues unaddressed. Ordinary South Sudanese who are the worst sufferers of this conflict should have a space at the negotiating table now dominated by those wielding a gun.

This means that any search for a durable solution should proceed on the assumption that Kiir and Machar are part of the problem. If “South Sudan is a young country tragically devouring itself,” as a UN commission observed last month, the blame should go to both. That most of the former residents of Malakal, the country’s second largest city have fled to neighboring Sudan, the nation they fought for independence from so fiercely and for so long is the greatest indictment that can be brought against these leaders.

Even the US which midwifed the birth of South Sudan makes no secret of its growing frustration with Kiir for abrogating or ignoring a peace agreement and a series of ceasefires. Last month US banned the export of weapons and defense services to South Sudan. UN is unable to impose a weapons ban on South Sudan because of opposition from Russia. The US has also sanctioned some top officials close to Kiir including the once-powerful army chief Paul Malong.

This alone will not do. Those involved in horrendous violence should be brought to book. A UN commission has named more than 40 senior military officers and officials who, it said, should be prosecuted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The commission has also suggested setting up a court combining international and South Sudanese judges to try those accused of the worst abuses. Equally important is a genuine national reconciliation process to bring together the different communities that have been set against each other by this conflict.