---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "John Ashworth" <[email protected]>
Date: 13 Apr 2017 17:27
Subject: [sudans-john-ashworth] Aly Verjee: Fragmented fighting: is calling
for a ceasefire a bad idea?
To: "Group" <[email protected]>
Cc:

Why calling for a ceasefire in South Sudan can be a bad idea

Even a seemingly uncontroversial demand can have complex, and
potentially adverse, implications.

BY ALY VERJEE
APRIL 12, 2017
African Arguments

On 23 March, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, speaking to the
United Nations Security Council, declared: “There can be no real
dialogue for as long as South Sudan is ravaged by fighting.”

“All parties must respect an immediate cessation of hostilities,” he
said. “As President, Salva Kiir is responsible for taking the first
step – and others must follow”.

In his own Security Council remarks, UN Secretary-General Antonio
Guterres made a similar call for an immediate cessation of
hostilities.

Two days later, the South Sudanese government duly responded. At a
meeting of regional leaders in Nairobi, Kiir declared that his
government was to “announce a unilateral ceasefire and grant amnesty
to those that renounced violence”.

The governments of Norway, the UK and US promptly welcomed the move,
expressing their “strong support” for the “recent calls on all armed
parties, including the Government of South Sudan, the Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement in Opposition, and other armed groups, to commit
to a ceasefire.”

However, despite Kiir’s announcement and all its international
backing, violence continues across South Sudan. From Pajok in the far
south to Wau in the northwest, the proclamation of a national
ceasefire has done little to stop civilian populations being
indiscriminately targeted, leading to widespread misery and further
displacements.

Fragmented fighting

The merits of calling for a ceasefire in South Sudan seem
unquestionable. The war that has engulfed the country has left 5.8
million people in need of emergency humanitarian assistance, of whom
1.9 million are internally displaced.

However, an end to hostilities is no easy feat. And, crucially, such
an outcome cannot be achieved without the slow and deliberate work of
convincing those fighting – at the level of individual commanders and
officers – that it is in their interests to stop. Without this
preparatory work, simply lobbying for the declaration of a ceasefire
is at best ineffectual and at worst counterproductive.

Understanding why this is the case requires an appreciation of the
deeply fragmented nature of South Sudan’s conflict dynamics. Back in
2014, the government’s armed opponents – most of whom eventually
identified as the SPLM-in-Opposition – had a degree of cohesion, even
if it was fractious, riven by personal rivalries, and struggling to
maintain a common political umbrella. But today, that cohesion is
almost entirely absent.

Today’s armed opposition is fragmented. There are third, fourth and
fifth groups that have little affinity for the SPLM-in-Opposition.
Even within what remains of the movement loyal to former vice
president Riek Machar, the political and military leadership is
disconnected.

This means that even if Machar were to follow Kiir’s lead in declaring
a ceasefire, the fighting would not end. Instead, given the state of
fragmentation of armed groups, obtaining a ceasefire today would
require the consent and acceptance of all the relevant individual
commanders and factions. For this strategy to succeed, these
commanders would need to be persuaded that local ceasefires –
involving the specific armed groups, government forces and allied
militias of that area – could be durable despite the broader national
circumstances.

A hollow distraction

The disunity and disparate objectives of opposition forces at the
moment means that a universal ceasefire applying to all of the
relevant groups is, for now, out of reach.  And in the absence of work
to establish conditions for opposition forces to meaningfully
participate in such an initiative, the declaration of a ceasefire is
little more than a hollow distraction.

In fact, what has happened repeatedly is that the South Sudanese
government has declared a cessation of hostilities unilaterally, but
insincerely, all the while continuing its blunt campaign of
counterinsurgency. This has been seen again in recent days as
government troops have fought in the vicinity of Wau and Pajok,
leading to more deaths, reports of house-to-house reprisals, and
thousands more displacements.

However, while government forces may seem more cohesive than the armed
opposition, it is important to carefully assess their complex and
sometimes contrasting motivations too. On the one hand, for example,
thebattle for Baggari, near Wau, was almost certainly directed by the
SPLA general command in Juba, as evidenced by the use of tanks and
helicopters. But it is less clear that the reprisals in Wau, in which
witnesses allege that dozens of people were killed as government
troops stormed houses and looted property, were similarly centrally
authorised. Some believe the attacks were retaliation for the deaths
of two senior officers, but that is only conjecture.

Legally and morally, the government bears ultimate responsibility for
its forces. Of that there is no question. But that does not mean that
commanders in Juba could necessarily have prevented the violence in
Wau, even if they were completely sincere in their desire for peace.
Until the day that government forces, wherever they are in the country
and of whomever they consist, believe that their mission is to protect
and not oppress the communities with whom they live, abuses and
atrocities will continue – with or without the complicity or direction
of central command.

The achievement of peace in South Sudan is not, and has never been,
dependent on demands made from New York, Washington, Addis Ababa or
Nairobi. It has always depended on the South Sudanese. But as the
fighting in the country continues, international actors should be
aware that even an apparently uncontroversial policy such as the
demand for a ceasefire can have complex, and potentially adverse,
implications.

http://africanarguments.org/2017/04/12/calling-ceasefire-
south-sudan-can-bad-idea/

END
______________________
John Ashworth

[email protected]

+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile)
+211 919 695 362 (South Sudan mobile)
+44 787 976 8030 (UK mobile)
+88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone)
Skype: jashworth1

PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya

This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the views of any organisation

--
--
The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's
views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author
of the content and the source is always cited.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sudan-john-ashworth" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sudan-john-ashworth-
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.za/
group/sudan-john-ashworth
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sudans-john-ashworth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sudans-john-ashworth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/CAJb14orrMhMnp_AV_05KU3yuTb-tkozpPbm6bU%2BTjV2%2Bqt%3Dg9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to