US Charge d'affaires to South Sudan Michael K. Morrow.
As South Sudan prepares for political talks in the first
week of February, the US Charge d'affaires to South Sudan Michael K.
Morrow discusses the peace process.
He spoke to The EastAfrican's Fred Oluoch.
He spoke to The EastAfrican's Fred Oluoch.
------------------------------------------------
What is the Trump administration’s approach to the conflict in South Sudan, now in its fifth year?
What
has not changed is the commitment of the United States to South Sudan
since the days of the liberation struggle. We have a stake in seeing
this country succeed.
What has changed is our sense of
urgency. The Trump administration is losing patience with the fact that
the parties have been unable to resolve their differences. After the
billions of dollars we have invested in South Sudan’s economy, it makes
us question whether this is a fair return on the investment.
We
rallied behind South Sudan’s independence aspirations, but today, the
people of South Sudan are worse off than in 2011 when they attained
independence.
It is disappointing and behoves those in government and the
opposition to set aside their narrow political interests and make the
difficult compromises needed to bring about peace.
The US threatened sanctions and an arms embargo, but has done nothing. Is it fair to call out the USA’s inaction?
We
have gone beyond threats because sanctions are already in place. In
September last year, we sanctioned three officials, including a Cabinet
minister, for their role in fuelling the conflict, and froze their
assets in the US. We have also prevented US citizens from doing business
with them. This was under the Executive Orders started during the Obama
administration and continues in Trump’s.
In December,
we imposed sanctions against corrupt South Sudanese businessmen that
have close ties with the government in Juba. This is a signal that the
time for hollow words is over in favour of punitive measures.
But isn’t sanctioning a few individuals ineffective since they merely transfer these businesses to their families and friends?
We
are considering new measures, together with the Igad and the AU, so
that we can take resolute steps. We are disappointed that the cessation
of hostilities agreement continues to be violated by both sides due to
lack of political will. This could affect the February talks. More
political pressure is needed to end the violence because it appears the
leaders are fairly comfortable with the status quo regardless of the
suffering of the masses.
We have to take steps to make
the leaders’ situation increasingly unbearable and untenable. Right now,
we are not sure that either side is prepared to move forward. The US,
the AU and the UN are ready to implement more drastic actions to force
the parties to negotiate.
What is the general direction South Sudan is taking?
Certainly,
the economy has deteriorated alarmingly. National income and the
national budget are shrinking as well, which is why the international
community is working so hard and investing a lot of money on peace. It
is for the government to look for means to resolve the crisis because it
is unclear how much longer the country can sustain itself as its
economy shrinks.
Politically, there is pressure because
the three-year mandate of the transitional government expires in
October and if a deal is not struck before that time then the legitimacy
of the government comes into question, because there was no provision
for governance beyond October 2018. The February talks must come up with
a tangible compromise.
It is clear that the
2015 peace agreement collapsed in July 2016 when fresh fighting broke
out in Juba, leading to the flight of Dr Riek Machar, but the Kiir
government insists that the implementation is going on smoothly,
regardless.
I do not think that holds water
and that is why Igad has worked hard to bring all the parties together
once more. We commend Igad’s intensive diplomacy during much of last
year.
That they were able to pull all the parties
together to Addis Ababa last year was a great accomplishment and a good
start. Yes, the cessation of hostilities agreement is not going very
well but you must start somewhere.
There are
indications that all the parties are committed to February date as none
has threatened to pull out of the talks. But we cannot also just pretend
that the 2015 agreement is being implemented since Chapter One on
security arrangements and Chapter Two on governance need to be adjusted.
All the parties recognise that the status quo is not working and
something needs to change.
Do you think Igad’s revitalisation programme will make a difference?
Yes.
We as well as the UN strongly support it as it is the only opportunity
to move forward to solve the conflict. There is no other initiative out
there and that’s why the international community is putting its hopes
and efforts behind the programme.
The US has
failed severally to push through a motion for an arms embargo against
South Sudan at the UN Security Council. Does the US still believe that
such an embargo will make a difference?
We do.
People are dying at an alarming rate and South Sudan is awash with
weapons. An embargo could be a positive thing as it can nudge both sides
to the negotiating table. The key question is when and how Igad and the
AU will support an arms embargo, because it has to be global,
multilateral.
Washington, Igad and the AU are losing
patience. If the talks do not go well, we might see some AU initiative
towards a global arms embargo. But if the talks go well, there might be
no need for such drastic measures. Besides the people of South Sudan,
Kenya, Uganda, Sudan and Ethiopia are also bearing a burden in terms of
refugees, insecurity and shrinking business and it is, therefore, in
their interest to resolve the South Sudan conflict.
Do you think there can be peace in South Sudan without Dr Machar’s active participation?
It
is up to the 14 parties to the talks to decide. The international
community will not stand in the way if the feeling is that Dr Machar’s
participation will bring about the desired progress. It is about making
compromises and deciding what is best for the people of South Sudan.
Some
say that the chairman of JMEC, Festus Mogae has failed point out the
violations of the agreement and clauses that are difficult to implement,
and have demanded his replacement and restructuring of JMEC. What is
your take?
We are pleased with the work that
the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC), overseeing
implementation of Agreement on Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan has
done under the leadership of Mr Mogae.
I think the
missing piece has been resolute action by the international community.
We have not been tough enough in enforcing implementation of the 2015
agreement. The first line of implementation lies with the parties to the
talks. The international community now needs to demand results.
President
Kiir has always stated that the 2015 peace agreement was imposed on
South Sudan by outsiders, and more so the Troika. Comment?
Our
focus should be on the revitalisation programme. It is an incredible
opportunity for the government and opposition around which to work.
The
status quo does not benefit anyone as the economy is collapsing, four
million people have been displaced and nearly half the population of 12
million faces severe food insecurity. That’s the reality.
Is there credence to President Kiir and his associates’ concerns that the international community’s end game is regime change?
No
one has talked about regime change. We are discussing four things:
Stopping the fighting and killings, creating a better environment for
humanitarian assistance, charting a clear path for a transitional
government and elections sometime down the road. If these things do not
happen, we should be prepared to impose harsh measures against the
spoilers of the peace process.
It is and never was
about regime change, rather, charting a path towards peace and ending a
conflict that it now in its fifth year.
No comments :
Post a Comment