South Sudan: Courts and Justice Are Essential for Peace - a Reply to Mbeki and Mamdani

South Sudan is not South Africa. Thabo Mbeki and Mahmood Mamdani argue in their recent NY Times article^[1] that courts can't end civil wars. No doubt on their own they cannot, but justice is a critical component for long-term peace.

Peace is more than the end of war, and courts are often an essential element in bringing about peace. Using the examples of post-conflict settlements in South Africa (1990s), Mozambique (1992), and Uganda (1986), Mbeki and Mamdani argue that "Big Tent" political settlements, which bring all combatant parties - whatever their role may have been in mass violence - into the mainstream of participatory democracy, are superior to criminal trials.

This approach however prioritizes short-term stability over long-term justice and sustainable peace. Stability without justice is merely a pause in conflict.

Mbeki and Mandani's South African cure for South Sudan's civil conflict is not just out of place, it is out of time. While history can provide an important context, the current crisis in South Sudan has less in common with its predecessors on the continent (and elsewhere in the world) than meets the eye.

Each breakdown has its own dynamic causes. Applying the same approaches, time and time again is illogical; especially considering the spectacular record of failure as in South Sudan/Sudan.

Demands for accountability might have torpedoed previous settlements in the decades-long conflicts within Sudan and South Sudan. In the current case, however, direct accusations of criminality are a core element and catalyst of the conflict so courts of some kind have to be a part of the end game.

The army has already charged^[2] approximately 20 soldiers for crimes of targeting civilians in Juba during operations against rebel forces. So there is already acceptance and scope for the use of courts.

If the fledgling government is attempting to assert itself without being able to defend against threats to the state, any state building process will undoubtedly fail, further guaranteeing long-term instability and no peace.

Not that it is acceptable for a government to act outside of the law and its own institutions no matter how youthful. That is why any court would have to be a part of a show of judicial independence and not just show trials to bolter Presidential authoritarian control.

References

1. ^{^} recent NY Times article (www.nytimes.com)
2. ^{^} charged (www.theepochtimes.com)