None but only South Sudanese can bring peace and reconciliation in their country Posted: August 30, 2016 by *PaanLuel Wël* in Columnists <https://paanluelwel.com/category/columnists/>, Commentary <https://paanluelwel.com/category/commentary/>, Opinion Articles <https://paanluelwel.com/category/opinion-articles/>, Opinion Writers <https://paanluelwel.com/category/opinion-writers/> 0 <https://paanluelwel.com/2016/08/30/transcending-the-shadow-of-violence-only-south-sudanese-can-bring-peace-and-reconciliation-in-their-country/#respond>
Rate This * Transcending the Shadow of violence: **No one else but only South Sudanese people can bring peace and reconciliation in South Sudan* *By Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda* [image: Anataban launch in Juba] *August 30, 2016 (SSB) —-* On Friday, August, 26, 2016, I attended the South Sudanese Dialogue entitled:* Transcending the Shadow of violence: Alternatives for Fostering Inclusive State Building and Sustainable Peace in South Sudan. *The Dialogue was entitled: THE SOUTH SUDANESE DIALOGUE. In that Dialogue, those who attended were expected to give their views of the alternatives on how to bring peace in South Sudan. However, the whole process was not a dialogue as stated in the title. The so-called South Sudanese Peace Dialogue was not conducted in the manner of which the real dialogues are conducted. It was disgusting as it was a kind of mob dialogue which was intended just to confirm certain conspiracy views agreed prior to the conference. The dialogue was in fact intended to confirm the prior view agreed by the moderator and others that foreign troops should be sent to South Sudan. I came to realize this fact during the process of lecture that was camouflaged in the so-called South Sudanese Dialogue. The moderator as I discovered was part of the conspiracy group that was advocating for sending of foreign troops in the country. He was only set to listen to the side that supported the UN proposal to send 4000 troops to South Sudan and not the other. The moderator was bent to use all his powers to ensure that his and others who held the same views should carry the day so he was bent to ensure that those with contrary views are not allowed to make their points. Hence, he could allow those who advocate for the UN intervention to talk as much as they wish and unnecessary interrupted those who contradict their views. I was terribly dismayed by the behaviour of that moderator. It was not the conduct of the scholars as he claimed to be. The scholars are not supposed to come with fixed ideas over the certain phenomenon. But when searching for the truth they (scholars) are supposed to search for the truth with fair and free mind as they listen to people invited to discuss a certain matter in order to have an opportunity to confirm his or her theory or to disapprove altogether and then finally discard it if it is not supported by evidence or others. However, the moderator though he claimed to be scholar, with due respect, his conduct on that day showed that he was biased as he was not searching for the truth but he was searching for the confirming views of sending of 4000 troops to South Sudan as he already agreed with his cliques. As already pointed out above, the assertion in the paragraph above was confirmed by the unbalanced approach he adopted when interacting with some of the people in attendance. He could not even write down what other people with contrary views said. Nevertheless, when those, the people whose views he supported made statement he would even praise them and appreciate them with the words, “NOW HE OR SHE HAS MADE VERY STRONG POINT”. To him, the strong point is the sending of 4000 troops of the UN or the AU under the support of the UN to South Sudan. It was really biased and the dialogue was not dialogue as I know in the real word, it was a conspiracy as confirmed to me later. As it transpired during my discussion with some of the members of his groups, it appeared that the So-called dialogue was intended to assess the people’s reaction towards to the plan of sending foreign troops to South Sudan. Thus, the moderator was trying to rig the views and then later make a report with the recommendation that South Sudanese are in favour in sending 4000 troops, which is not the case. Of course, when I discovered that there was no dialogue but something like it, I made my point clear. I explained to the members that the peace in South Sudan will never be achieved through employing peace keeping force but it could only be achieved through giving a chance to South Sudanese to dialogue over how to achieve lasting peace in South Sudan. My view was that what is needed to be done in South Sudan in order to achieve lasting peace not to depend solely on the views of elites who are looking for the opportunity to go into government but to renegotiate the peace and to come up with the peace model that involves all discontented groups in South Sudan not only rebels and the government. I further pointed out that in order to do that there is a need to understand the underlying factors that act as the source of tension in South Sudan. These factors in my view are: The issues of political representation, failure to give economic reparation to those who were affected by the war, the issues of justice especially between Nuer and Dinka who committed serious atrocities and human rights violation during the war and any other tribes who were affected as well and the issue of political transition. The CPA did not address these issues. The CPA, in addition, failed to address the issue of culture of violence that is an inherent aspect of cattle keeping communities way of life. The culture of violence should have been considered through stipulating in the peace agreement the reformation clause. The reformation clause to reform the cattle keeping as an economic way of life is important for the stability of South Sudan. This is because without cattle keepers being transformed, peace will never come to or prevail in South Sudan as there will always be contrasting economic and cultural practices in South Sudan, hence the cause of differences among South Sudanese and eventually resurgence of conflict. In other words, my argument was that there is a need to approach the conflict of South Sudan in the same way it is being done in Columbia in Latin America. In Columbia, the peace process of which the ceasefire came into effect on 29 th August, 2016, is directed towards redesigning the rules of the Country so as to bring them in line with the actual sense of identity of the majority and with adequate inclusion of minority. Columbia like Sudan which is extended to South Sudan now has been bogged down in serious civil war that began in 1940s. The cause of war in Columbia like Sudan was due to the absence of any proper constitutional model and legitimate procedures in addressing marginalization, which became the root cause of conflict that lasted over five decades. As I pointed out in that so-called South Sudanese Peace Dialogue, the major problem in South Sudan is the existence of multiplicity of conflict layers, which if the peace was to be achieved, there is a need for conceptual framework which defines the conflict and come up with the peace model that encompasses a culture of integration and accommodation of different interests underlying the conflict in South Sudan. In the absence of effective mechanisms that could deal with underlying issues and maintain national unity, South Sudan will always be at war within itself, and moreover, external powers will always find a way to exploit South Sudan and her citizens. The moderator could not give me time to properly explain the foregoing arguments as his concern was on how to bring stability to South Sudan NOW as he and others had prior agreed. As I came to realize later, his main aim was to make sure that everyone agreed with him that the UN should intervene or employ 4000 troops without delay; a point on which I fundamentally disagreed with him. If dialogues were conducted in such a shambolic manner then there would have been no dialogue in proper sense. And the question then becomes: why did the organizers entitle it “South Sudanese Peace Dialogue” instead it should have been entitled it: South Sudanese Peace Lecture. It was misleading, mess or conspiracy as there was no dialogue in the first place. What I discovered later when I analyzed the arguments of moderator and others who held the same view that the only way to bring peace in South Sudan is for the UN to intervene or to send 4000 troops to South Sudan is that without such troops being sent, there would be no peace. This is because according to them, 4000 troops would be entry point for peace process as they would restore peace. The weaknesses in their arguments are that first of all they failed to see the fact that in conflict, people are the ones are involved and it does not matter how many troops are sent unless people are engaged and listened. The history makes this clear. Iraq, Central African Republic, Libya and Somalia should collectively act as historical light that guide our feet as we tread in the path of history. Peace keeping force has never been a solution to conflict in any country and it will never be a solution to South Sudanese conflict unless South Sudanese citizens and their government agree to bring peace. The peace in South Sudan may be achieved even under the minimal pressure. What makes the argument for peace keeping force even weaker is the fact that South Sudan is a vast land occupied by people all over and the force proposed by the UN to be sent to South Sudan is so small that they cannot control even half of the country. Yet there are conflicts everywhere. In such a situation, what is needed is to find a way of how to bring different groups involved in conflict altogether to spearhead the dialogue among themselves under the supervision of a third part which is trusted by all the parties but not an invading force. Another weakness of the group that supported the intervention of foreign forces on that day was that some of them saw it to be an opportunity of removing the government of the day in order to get post in the government while others were arguing based on hearsay that South Sudan is in anarchy and therefore, the UN force should be sent. The people who argued based on hearsay as pointed out in the above paragraph do not understand the underlying multi layers of conflict in South Sudan. As I analyzed their origin during the so-called South Sudanese Peace Dialogue they were born outside South Sudan and only rushed to South Sudan after the Peace Agreement in 2005 hence failure to understand South Sudan and her people. Thus, they do not have much interest in achieving true peace in South Sudan. Their argument is that if South Sudan is ruled by Jieng Council of Elders through the President and there are crisis then the solution is to destroy the whole government: the Biblical argument of on me and my enemy came into play during that discussion. In fact, the above argument underlines the serious flaw in their argument as they failed to distinguish the effect from the cause. Jieng Council of Elders is not one of the causes of the current conflict in South Sudan but it is the product of the weak system which allows a group of people to hijack the national interest through the use of national interest slogan. So Jieng Council of Elders is the product of the weak system. What is needed in South Sudan is the strong system that differentiates the government from personalities and holds everybody accountable in case of abuse of power. This may only be achieved if all South Sudanese are involved in the peace process, which results into writing the good Constitution like that of South Africa. The importance of a good constitution, as fundamental law, is according to *Professor Yash Pal Gai* to provide the framework within which laws have to be passed and policies have to be applied. According to *Yash Pal Gai,* the role of constitution is to ensure the smooth operation of the political system by channeling the expression of politics through prescribed institutions in accordance with clearly understood and valued procedures, as well as facilitating the resolution of the differences and disputes that inevitably arise. The foregoing analysis of the role of the Constitution underlines the importance of any constitution, and a good constitution in that matter. However as *Gai *puts it, a constitution cannot guarantee its own protection but its fate depends on forces outside itself. Hence, it is only through intense negotiation among all the stakeholders to come up with agreed points or values that will form the basis of Constitution and how to protect such common values, is when we talk of a good constitution that address and protect the needs of every citizen equitably. Nonetheless, in relation to South Sudan, it is disappointing to see the international community overlooking the above facts and instead applying wrong methods that is likely to sow further division within the country. Intervention which is not properly intended and that will not achieve the dialogue and set a good system of governance is worse than a conflict. The conflict may take long and even may be costly but if settled in right way the lasting peace will achieved. However, this fact is taken into account by those individuals who attended the so-called South Sudanese Peace Dialogue who only see military intervention as a panacea to the settlement of the South Sudanese dispute. As I understood in the process during that dialogue, the fear of those who advocate for foreign intervention is that the country is in chaos and there is a need for foreign forces to stabilize the security in order to start peace process or implementation of the current peace, which is unfounded. It is unfounded because there is still a room for South Sudanese to negotiate and bring peace to the Country if given a chance to sit down and negotiate freely.The major weakness of the so-called Compromised Peace Agreement is that it was not a compromise among South Sudanese or warring parties but it was a compromised between the UN, the USA, the AU and IGAD. Thus, the compromise needed to bring permanent peace in South Sudan is the compromise among South Sudanese. On the question of entry as many believe that the country is in chaos and it will be hard to get the starting point. What many who hold this fear have failed to understand is that all the militias or criminals that are killing people in South Sudan have central points where they are controlled. The central point may be tribe or militant leaders or even the government and in addition all have political objectives that the groups are trying to achieve through violent method. For this reason, what the international community should do is to reconsider the feasibility of intervention force and instead push hard on the government to have some concession and to go into negotiation with these different groups like what was done with Yau Yau Group and what is going on now with Wau Group. In other words, as Professor Mahmood Mamdani proposed on the conflict resolution in the series of Beyond Criminal Justice and in South Sudan, there should be a political approach to conflict in South Sudan rather than applying the concept of criminal justice. On this point, I agree with him totally. In the conflict were mass massacres have taken place there is a need for some political concessions in order to achieve peace and stability. In fact, peace and stability will never be achieved without touching on the issue of justice which means that the issue of justice will come into play automatically though in different form. This implies that we need to understand justice different not in the concept of English common. Justice should not be understood in narrow sense as understood in the West because understanding it in that way reduces the concept of justice into the relationship between the state and individuals hence leaving out the victims, which is the other form injustice but legitimized one. In addition, looking at the solution to conflict in form of criminal justice may make the culprits shy away from the truth and instead engage in a prolonged conflict that will further lead to more bloodshed and sufferings as seen in the case of Joseph Konyi, the leader of LRA aginst Uganda. Joseph Konyi was initially willing to negotiate with the government of Uganda but due to the indictment that led to the issue of warrant of arrest in 2005, he refused to negotiate the peaceful settlement and instead preferred war to peace, which further contributes to more bloodshed in Central Africa and Democratic Republic of Congo up to date. Thus, as *Professor Mahmood Mamdani* discussed in Beyond Criminal Justice Evaluation Workshop in 2015, in political violence that has led to mass killings, there is a need to prioritize political justice that leads to the reform of political system. On this issue, *Mahmood Mamdani *is of the view that in such a situation, there is a need to balance between the past and the future, between redress for the past and reconciliation for the future and instead of pressing for the victims’ justice the whole process should be aimed at addressing the justice for the survivors, which is a correct view. In summary, intervention by foreign troops per se is not the solution to South Sudanese conflict. What needs to be understood is the interaction between the ethnicity and nationalism which cause intra-conflicts that are characterized by protracted nature that are a potential or actual extreme violence that always results into atrocities committed against civilians. In the case of South Sudan, the growing political significance of ethnicity we currently see today is not new but its absence may sometimes be attributed to the occurrence of some major events like liberation war and independence of South Sudan, which frosted the whole differences among South Sudanese. However, as soon as the external uniting factor has disappeared and the vacuum is left, such void is filled up by political sentiment, spiritual struggle and then physical struggle over politics and limited resources. In order to bring peace under such circumstances, there is a need for dialogue not force. The international community should aim at encouraging dialogue and political justice in South Sudan not force. Otherwise, no one no matter how strong he or she may be can bring peace in South Sudan but South Sudanese are the only ones to bring peace in South Sudan. *The Author is South Sudanese Lawyer in Uganda and can be reached through: +256783579256; or [email protected] <[email protected]>* *The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to [email protected] <http://gmail.com>. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.* -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob View this message at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South Sudan Info - The Kob" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14op5M2G-ytky-KBGnqM%2B%3DZGXE82T6Q0y7JyfafsR_U62Wg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
