Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks during a meting after the two
South Sudanese arch-foes President Salva Kiir and rebel leader Riek
Machar agreed in Khartoum on June 27, 2018, to a "permanent" ceasefire
to take effect within 72 hours in their country. AFP PHOTO | ASHRAF
SHAZLY
While media outlets in the region went to town with uplifting
stories of how the main protagonists in the South Sudan civil war were
eager to sign a peace agreement on Wednesday in Khartoum,
behind-the-scenes events were not that simple.
It all
started two weeks ago when the new Ethiopian Prime Minister Dr Abiy
Ahmed Ali gave President Salva Kiir and rebel leader Dr Riek Machar a
one week “ultimatum” to appear in Addis Ababa for a face-to-face
meeting.
When the two leaders arrived in Khartoum on
June 25, they realised that not only had the Intergovernmental Authority
on Development (Igad) prepared a ready-to-sign document, Sudanese
President Omar al-Bashir had injected fresh angles clearly meant to
buttress his country’s flailing economy and reassert Khartoum’s’
influence over South Sudan.
These clauses included the
immediate resumption of oil production that had been significantly
affected by the civil war, a provision for Sudan to provide security to
oil wells, and for South Sudan to have three capitals — Juba, Wau and
Malakal (in the south, west and northeast of the country respectively).
This did not go down well with almost every South Sudanese group vested in the talks.
The
first to react was Dr Machar’s Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement in
Opposition (SPLM-IO), which issued a message through its director of
communications Mabior Garang de Mabior that they would only sign the
agreement with amendments.
The party made it clear that it rejected the division of the
country into three regions; the idea of foreign forces coming into South
Sudan and also he resumption of oil production prior to a comprehensive
negotiated settlement.
Sources in Khartoum told The EastAfrican that President Kiir also rejected the three proposals, forcing the mediators to make adjustments.
In
the end, the security of the oil fields was left to the South Sudan
government, while there was a compromise to allow joint rehabilitation
of the oil fields affected by the war.
“All the
outstanding issues related to the oil sector particularly on the cost of
the oil field rehabilitation, shall be technically assessed and
economically valued by the relevant authorities of South Sudan and Sudan
respectively,” said the Khartoum agreement.
Opposition
South
Sudan civil society and the political opposition which have been
sidelined from the talks, protested, accusing President al-Bashir — who
has ruled Sudan for 29 years — of taking advantage of his deep knowledge
of South Sudan leadership and its powerplay to push Khartoum’s
political and economic agenda.
“It is an insult to
believe that President al-Bashir will protect our oil fields. There is
no way we can reunite with a country we tried to get off our backs for
50 years to protect our oil fields,” said Peter Ajack, chairman of the
South Sudan Young Leaders Forum when the details of the Framework
Agreement became public.
John Pen, who represents South
Sudanese civil society in the Igad High Level Revitalisation Programme,
said that Khartoum was attempting to gain control over South Sudan’s
oil sector yet the country has just paid off a $3 billion debt in oil
transportation costs as part of the transitional financial arrangements.
Pen
also accused President al-Bashir of trying to reintroduce the three
original regions of Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr-el-Ghazal that were
created by Khartoum under Jaafar Numeiri.
But the
boldest opposition to Khartoum’s machinations was from Dr Luka Biong
Deng, a South Sudanese global fellow at the Peace Research Institute in
Oslo who has called for mass protests against the Khartoum Declaration
Agreement, saying it is bound to fail.
"All the
signatories of this agreement have not only accepted their inability to
govern but have also surrendered the sovereignty of South Sudan to one
of the most fragile, repressive, corrupt and failing governments in the
world, the government of the National Congress Party,” said Dr Deng (in
reference to al-Bashir’s regime).
Pressure
President
Kiir and Dr Machar were also under pressure from the main sponsors of
the peace talks, the Troika – then US, Norway and UK -- that there will
be punitive financial sanctions on top political leadership should the
talks fail.
President Kiir who had a week earlier
refused to work with Dr Machar in a transitional government, later
rescinded his decision after realising that he was likely to be singled
out by the international community as the main obstacle to peace.
He has also accepted the Igad decision to free Dr Machar from a two-year house arrest in South Africa.
Dr
Machar on the other hand has gone easy on the two army arrangement and
accepted the ultimate reunification of the forces, while also playing
down his principal demand for a federal system.
“Despite
the known vested interests of Khartoum, President al-Bashir has made
progress compared with Igad that was just going round in circles,” said
Gervasio Okot, a South Sudan political analyst based in Kenya.
Rebecca
Nyandeng also said that she was happy with the role of President
al-Bashir because he is the “elder brother” and most qualified to
mediate the South Sudanese peace process.
—Additional Reporting by Joseph Oduha.
No comments :
Post a Comment