Last Sunday, with the help from regional and international mediators, opposing South Sudan parties once again agreed to implement the 2018 peace deal. But many wonder if this will be the final move to usher in peace. The experience since South Sudan came to being in 2011, has been such that, contesting groups in the youngest African nation have no problems with signing papers.
For South Sudanese Ambassador to Ethiopia, James Morgan, the Sunday agreement is not new but an extension of the 2018 peace treaty. He believes both parties are committed to continue to implement all the accords reached.
“Chapter two of the peace treaty signed in September 2018 contained the whole process of implementing security arrangements. What was done on Sunday is we embarked on chapter two of the agreement,” Morgan told The Reporter in a phone conversation.
The new agreement allowed the government to have 60 percent of the security forces, while the main opposition led by Riek Machar and the opposition alliance, and share the remaining 40 percent of membership and leadership roles in the police, defense and security forces.
“The new agreement will allow the country to have five Vice Presidents and a competitive election,” added Morgan.
Unlike Morgan, many doubt the political wounds created by South Sudan’s warring factions are easily curable, mainly because of the behavior of the warring factions. Historically, South Sudanese people fought in unison to liberate themselves from suppression, segregation, inequality, social and political injustices of almost 50 years.
But critics say the liberators who led the country’s independence, have failed to manage the decisive period of a new state formation. The country’s few political elites prefer their political gains to nation building, resulting in a fratricidal conflict.
Many blame the South Sudanese leadership’s unlimited political greed for the country’s predicament.
However, Bitsihit Alemu, research department head with the Ethiopian Political Science Association, called the recent agreement a good development but doubts its sustainability and implementation.
“They have envisaged eight stipulations to be implemented in the next six months for the agreement to remain viable. But, a few days after last Sunday’s agreement, Machar accused the government of reneging on the agreement. If they fully implement the deal, it would be a good step for peace-building in South Sudan,” said Bitsihit.
“If South Sudan becomes a peaceful nation, the refugee crises in the region, terrorism, illegal arms trading, and human trafficking will be substantially reduced. Neighboring countries can establish good relations with each other and secure their national interests. We have restive regions bordering both countries. The peace and stability of our regional states like Gambella and Benishangul Gumz will substantially be improved by the success of South Sudan’s peace process. We have had enough problems internally,” added Bitsihit.
Instability in South Sudan could foment additional problems in Ethiopia, according to Bitsihit.
A South Sudanese PhD student in Addis Ababa who spoke to The Reporter on the condition of anonymity shares Bitsihit’s perspective.
“The reluctance of the Salva Kier government, practically aborted the 2018 agreement. The government still lacks the commitment to implement the peace agreement. South Sudan’s conflict is a war triggered by few political elites,” said the PhD student.
The recent peace deal was brokered mainly by Sudan, a role hitherto undertaken by Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s diminished role is apparent, as Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) was not present during the peace deal.
Observers may draw conclusions that Ethiopia’s previous active diplomatic role in East Africa is declining. Many note that there has been a marked reduction in visits to neighboring countries, meetings with leaders, peace treaties, not to mention the apparent shelving of dreams of regional integration, which were being bandied about during Abiy’s early days in office.
Abiy’s government recently tried to showcase a diplomatic coup by hosting the AU summit as well as paying visits to few African countries by high-level officials. However, the recent South Sudanese peace deal in Juba is one sign of an apparent state of doldrums in Ethiopia’s role as a regional anchor.
According to observers, countries like Sudan and Uganda took over the role of peacemaker mainly because Ethiopia has been mired in internal conflicts.
“Ethiopia’s role in Horn regional politics may seem diminished a little bit due to internal problems. We are an IGAD member state and the seat of the AU and also many UN agencies. We are supposed to play active diplomatic role in the South Sudanese peace process and on a regional level as well. But currently, it seems our internal instability slowed our active involvement in regional and international matters,” said Bitsihit.
The student also agrees that Ethiopia has been losing its diplomatic gravitas due to internal conflicts within its borders.
But Morgan totally disagrees, saying Ethiopia is still an active player in both South Sudan and on a wider regional level.
“We don’t have problems with both Sudan and Ethiopia. That is why Ethiopia’s delegation was there to witness the Sunday agreement in Juba. Ethiopia sent its Minister of Defense. There has never been a situation in South Sudan that we have solved without the involvement of Ethiopia. You can refer to history since 1972. The first South Sudanese agreement was concluded with the help of Emperor Haile-Slassie I,” said Morgan.
The Ambassador concluded saying, “Ethiopia’s presence in South Sudan’s peace efforts only increased during the reigns of the Derg, PM Meles Zenawi, Hailemariam Desalegn, and Abiy Ahmed. In 2018 when Prime Minister Abiy came to power, he was the first person to meet face-to-face with Riek Machar and Salva Kiir. He was the one who hosted Machar upon the latter’s return from South Africa. These are facts of history and there is no gap or Ethiopia missing. Those who say Ethiopia’s role is insignificant should be reminded of this fact.”
