U.S. withdrawal from South Sudan peace implementation confirms its failure.

(sudantribune.com)

By Lul Gatkuoth Gatluak

This past week, on  Friday July 15, 2022, the United States has pulled out of the systems that monitor the peace process in  the  Republic of South Sudan because of the country’s failure to meet  milestone reforms  stipulated in R-ARCSS  the State Department stated. The United States cited the  “lack of sustained progress in peace implementation as the reason for withdrawing from two peacekeeping organizations monitoring the impoverished country’s path to implement the transition peace agreement  which is the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC) and the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring and Verification Mechanism (CTSAMVM).” The statement called out South Sudanese leaders’ failure to establish a “unified, professional military”; to protect civil society members , journalists; and to enact necessary financial reforms. It  also  lamented  that South Sudan’s leaders have not fully availed themselves of the support these monitoring mechanisms provide and have demonstrated a lack of political will necessary to implement critical reforms.

For example, South Sudan has yet to pass critical electoral legislation in keeping with the revitalized peace agreement’s timetable.  South Sudan still lacks a unified, professional military to serve and protect the population.  Civil society members and journalists are routinely intimidated and prevented from speaking out.  The government continues to divert oil production before they reach the national budget and has not implemented public financial management reforms.

At the moment, we remain for only six months for expiration of 36-months transitional period. We are exceeding  the time for conducting the general elections as specified in the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.  However, the prerequisites for conducting free, fair, and credible elections have not been fulfilled. These include the unification of the armed forces; conduct of a population census; adopting a permanent constitution for the country; judicial reform; repatriation and resettlement of the millions of refugees and internally displaced persons; and enacting laws that are necessary for the process has not yet visited.

These important tasks were not implemented for the lack of political will because there was a deliberate action since 2018 to stonewall the implementation process so as to keep the status quo and get the transitional period extended for those involved to buy themselves a new lease on time. A  extension of the transitional period especially the scheduleed 2023 election will not serve any useful purpose other than to fulfill the designs of those who obstructed the implementation of the peace agreement. The failure to realize the prerequisites for conducting free, fair, and credible elections is not due to lack of time but to lack of political will. Therefore, nothing is likely to change even if the transitional period is extended ad infinitum.

Currentlly. Parties to RARCISS could sit and  deliberate in-depth on how and when the elections should be conducted.  They would work on forming election commission and how  to carry out the elections dealing with the terms, in which case the elections will not be free and fair, or get the transitional period extended under the status quo. The Parties could  offer a realistic and practical roadmap that puts emphasis on preparing a level ground for the conduct of free, fair, and credible elections including the unification of the armed forces and the promulgation of a permanent constitution on the basis of which the elections should be held. This time is not the right time for countries like the United States to withdraw and leave South Sudanese to mess up the peace.

It is a time to  calls for the regional and international organizations and countries to stand up to their responsibilities under the peace agreement which they brokered and signed as guarantors or witnesses. They cannot at this critical time shake off responsibility and say that it is a matter for the South Sudanese to decide. If it were for the South Sudanese alone to decide there would have been no need for mediation to bring about the peace agreement and there would have been no reason to have guarantors. United States of America has been with South Sudanese people in their despair for very long time.  For years, it provides significant assistance to save lives and reduce the suffering of the people of South Sudan.  Rather than withdrawing, United States would double up its efforts to pressure the Parties to RARCISS to implement the peace fully and promote  peace,  national  reconciliation,  and  healing  in  the  country.

The United States could call on all members of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity to take the actions necessary to be seen as credible in the eyes of the South Sudanese people, starting with full adherence to and implementation of the 2018 peace agreement. US support for the peace process lent credibility to the pact and to those who were implementing it. The withdrawal of this support indicates that the entire peace process is in jeopardy for the reason that, US allies in the Troika, namely Britain and Norway, may follow suit and withdraw support as well. This action is worrying South Sudanese people that the country will be plugged to war again.

In summary, the withdrawal of US support for the monitoring mechanisms means attempts to slow the implementation process may not be thoroughly investigated, and efforts to identify the culprits of such violations may be hindered. This ultimately benefits the government, as Kiir’s administration and its forces—holders of the largest share of power have already been identified as complicit in violating the agreement according to several reports.  On July 9, Kiir’s Independence Day speech alluded to the impending move and called on the US to reconsider. A few days later, he formed a committee composed of staunchly loyal senior cabinet members Michael Makuei, Martin Elia Lomuro, and Mayik Deng to come up with a roadmap for what to do after February 2023. That the committee was formed this late illustrates that little thought has been put toward what should happen after February 2023 and that the committee only exists as a response to international pressure. Notably absent from this new committee are any representatives from the SPLM-IO and other political parties. This is already a recipe for disagreement that will further delay implementation. Additionally, two of the committee’s most influential members, Makuei and Lomuro, who have been members of Kiir’s cabinet for over a decade, are among the most hardline supporters of the president. During the peace negotiations in Ethiopia in 2017 and 2018, they led the government’s drive to win significant concessions from the opposition and mediators, a feat that prolonged the negotiations, as they would often take off time from the talks and return to Juba, ostensibly to “consult” with Kiir.

Overall, the move by the US to cease support for the peace monitoring mechanisms is a challenge to the African Union’s reluctance to call out South Sudan’s leaders for delaying the peace agreement’s implementation. Whether the AU will take a similar approach and hold South Sudan’s leaders accountable remains to be seen.

The author should be reach at [email protected] or [email protected]^[1][2]

References

1. ^{^} [email protected] (www.bing.com)
2. ^{^} [email protected] (www.bing.com)