South Sudanese take refuge in the Malakal Catholic Church on January 21,
2014 fleeing fighting between rebels and government forces. Photo/AFP
By PETER KAGWANJA Special Correspondent
In Summary
- Under the agreement, both sides in the conflict promised to lay down their arms. But they have also said that a cessation of hostilities would be a temporary measure, short of a formal peace agreement, and that negotiations would have to continue.
- Despite the signing of the ceasefire agreement, there is no consensus among stakeholders on the exit plan from the conflict. The international community is hoping the negotiated solution to the rebellion leads to a power-sharing agreement.
- Voices calling for a new political leadership in South Sudan as the only way of restoring order are growing louder.
South Sudan’s government and rebels on Thursday signed a ceasefire agreement after talks in Ethiopia.
Under the deal, signed in a hotel in Addis Ababa, the fighting was due to end within 24 hours.
But on Friday, rebels in South Sudan said government forces were attacking their positions.
Brig Gen Lul Ruai Koang, a spokesman for the
opposition, said that government forces were attacking rebel positions
in oil-rich Unity State and in Jonglei State.
Brig Gen Koang called the attacks a “clear
violation” of the peace deal signed in Ethiopia on Thursday. He said
rebel forces would defend themselves against attacks.
Military spokesman Col. Philip Aguer said he was
not aware of any new violence but said there was fighting in Jonglei on
Thursday. Col Aguer said if new fighting has occurred, “it is because
rebels have attacked” government soldiers.
Under the agreement, both sides in the conflict
promised to lay down their arms. But they have also said that a
cessation of hostilities would be a temporary measure, short of a formal
peace agreement, and that negotiations would have to continue.
The talks have been adjourned to continue on February 7.
Few observers of events in Africa’s youngest
nation were surprised when the conflict erupted hardly three years after
Independence.
One account is that the conflict stems from a
long-drawn-out elite power struggle between rival camps within the
ruling Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM) and allied elites in
the military.
Another version is that the rebellion is a
conflict between Sudan’s two largest ethnic groups, the Dinka (15 per
cent) led by President Salva Kiir and the Nuer (10 per cent) led by his
former vice president Riek Machar.
More broadly, the conflict signals the
disintegration of the nationalist consensus that undergirded South
Sudan’s liberation struggle, leading to intense politicisation of ethnic
identity in the context of competition for scarce resources and
opportunities in the country.
In addition, the flare-up unveils a failure of
state formation or nation-building in South Sudan. The SPLM seems to
have failed to transform itself from a liberation movement into a
governing party
No comments :
Post a Comment