Opinion piece by Mukoni Ratshitanga

 

Armed conflict broke out in the South Sudan capital of Juba on December 15, 2013. The precipitant for this conflict was deep divisions among the leaders of the ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). The conflict soon developed into a protracted civil war.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the East African inter-state organisation, intervened immediately to encourage and facilitate negotiations to end the conflict.

Mindful of the intra party dimension of the conflict, three African political parties, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and the African National Congress (ANC) also intervened to support the IGAD process.

The IGAD intervention ultimately resulted in the conclusion of the ‘Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan’ (ARCSS) on 17 August, 2015.

One of the important provisions of the ARCSS is the establishment of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) which includes the armed belligerents and other unarmed political players in South Sudan.

The leader of the armed opposition, Dr Riek Machar, returned to Juba on April 26, 2016 and was immediately sworn in as the First Vice President in the TGNU as contemplated in the ARCSS. The TGNU was constituted on April 28, 2016.

Some of the billboards put up in Juba to welcome Dr Machar read – “United for Peace, Prosperity, Reconciliation and Healing”.

In his welcoming statement President Salva Kiir said: “I have no doubt (Dr Machar’s) return to Juba today marks the end of the war and the return of peace and stability to South Sudan.”

Dr Machar echoed President Kiir and said, among other things: “I am committed to implement this Agreement (ARCSS) so that the process of national reconciliation and healing is started as soon as possible.”

Just over two months after these conciliatory remarks by the leaders of the erstwhile armed belligerents, armed conflict broke out yet again on July 7, 2016 in Juba between the forces led by President Kiir and Dr Machar.

So far, more than 272 people, 33 civilians, included, have been killed. More than 36 000 people had been driven out of their homes, with 5 000 taking refuge in the UN compound in Juba.

The IGAD Foreign Ministers held an emergency meeting in Nairobi on July 11, 2016 to discuss the new situation in South Sudan. At its end, the meeting released a Communiqué which read, in part:

“(Underline) the importance of the leaders’ assertion of the command and control over their respective armed forces and passing of continuous messages to the general population for calm and reconciliation.”

On the same day, July 11, 2016, the AU Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) also held its own emergency meeting at the end of which it:

“Call[ed] urgently upon the parties to the ARCSS to embrace mutual trust, put the interest of their country and its people above everything else and to scrupulously implement the Agreement.”

The renewed armed conflict after the finalisation of ARCSS begs the important question: What must to be done by the leaders and members of the SPLM to respect and implement the ARCSS in order to achieve unity, peace, prosperity, reconciliation and healing as proclaimed on the billboards which greeted Dr Machar’s return to Juba only three months ago?

South Sudan and South Africa

During and after the struggle against apartheid, the ANC supported the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), as a fraternal liberation movement.

Veterans of the struggle point out that as part of this support, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) donated the bulk of its heavy weapons to the SPLM/A when it had to leave Angola in 1989 as part of the international agreement on South Africa’s withdrawal from Nambia.

Since then up to now, the ANC and later democratic South Africa, paid close attention to what ultimately became the Republic of South Sudan. Former President Thabo Mbeki, was and has been involved in the Sudan processes as an ANC leader, as President of South Africa, and as the Chairperson of the AU High Level Implementation Panel for Sudan and South Sudan (AUHIP).

After the December 2013 conflict broke out, President Jacob Zuma appointed Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa as his Special Envoy to South Sudan to support the IGAD mediation process.

As with the rest of the continent, South Africa remains deeply concerned about the deadly and destructive conflict in South Sudan.

The nature of the South Sudanese Conflict in brief

Perhaps unlike other conflicts, the unique feature of the South Sudanese civil war is that it is essentially as a result of a split in the leadership of the governing party, the SPLM.

This followed President Kiir’s suspension of party structures and senior members of government and organs of state, including then Vice President Machar, in November 2013.

The ARCISS prescribes that the same leaders who split in 2013, with disastrous consequences, must constitute a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) to undo the damage that their divisive politics imposed on millions of ordinary and innocent South Sudanese.

This is despite the fact that the civil war which broke out in December 2013 did a great deal further to entrench and widen the differences which manifested during that fateful December month.

So, what does the fact of the renewed conflict a mere two and a half months after the signing of the ARCISS and the constitution of the TGNU mean, if anything?

The Rumbek Emergency Meeting

One way of attempting to answer this question is that the leaders of the SPLM, as it was before the 2013 split must conduct a frank and historical assessment of the SPLM, and their own conduct in order to be able to implement the ARCISS.

As part of this assessment, the SPLM would be well advised to reflect on the proceedings of an important Emergency Meeting of the SPLM/A leadership which took place inside South Sudan eleven years ago in November-December, 2004.

This was a month before the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005, by the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A. (The CPA ended the armed conflict between North and South Sudan which had begun in 1955, ahead of the independence of Sudan in 1956.)

Attached below are extracts from the Minutes of the Rumbek Emergency Meeting. They deserve careful study in order to understand their historic and strategic importance to the conflict that broke in South Sudan in December 2013 and its continuation at present.

With the exception of the late Dr John Garang who unfortunately and tragically died in a helicopter crash in 2005, many of the personalities identified in the Extracts were involved in the disastrous conflict which started in December 2013. The Extracts tell a tragic story of a Liberation Movement in Crisis.

The Rumbek Emergency Meeting illustrates the disfunction of a liberation movement caused, among other factors, by a Chairperson/President who treated the movement as his personal property. This in turn calls into question the essence of the movement’s very being in terms of its politics, values posture and overall conduct.

And so, the Extracts inform us of how the Chairperson/President was abusing his powers to ensure his personal control of the Movement, including by placing his relatives and fellow-‘tribesmen/women’ in position of authority.

Thus, the constitutional structures of a Liberation Movement can be maintained in form, but rendered ineffective through the establishment of parallel structures accountable only to an office bearer/s.

The Extracts explain the use of lies and fabrications to perpetuate the domination of the movement by a self-interested clique led by the Chairperson/President. This includes the misuse of intelligence agencies to produce misinformation to target opponents of the Chairperson/President.

They also show that depending on the depth of the crisis within the movement, the assassination of people who honestly differ with some in the leadership can be an eventuality which can afflict the liberation movement.

To the extent that they reveal the privileging of guns, brute force and repression, over the strength and commitment of the conscious and risen masses as the most reliable motive force of the struggle, the Extracts point to the all-time relevance of Thomas Sankara’s words:

“When you are bearing arms that can spit fire and death, and when you can receive orders standing to attention in front of a flag, without knowing who will benefit from this order or this arm, you become a potential criminal who’s just waiting to spread terror around you. How many soldiers are going around such and such a country, and bringing grief and desolation without understanding that they are fighting men and women who argue for the same ideals as their own. If they knew! Children of workers who see their parents going on strike against reactionary regimes accept to fight for the reactionary leaders since they joined the army. So a soldier without any political or ideological training is a potential criminal.”

They point to the aversion of the leadership to honour the duty to engage the masses of the people to implement the right of the nation to determine its destiny. The leadership similarly has no particular concern for the welfare of the forces for national liberation, including armed liberation fighters.

The liberation movement can also serve as a vehicle for the corrupt accumulation of personal wealth by some of its leaders which makes them both unwilling and incapable of fighting against corruption.

They speak of a leadership which has no concern about the number of lives of ordinary people lost during the course of the struggle, except those of its ethnic group, as long as the sustained conflict serves its interests.

They tell us that these leaders will readily market themselves as the liberators rather than, as any leadership of a liberation movement inevitably is, part of those who made sacrifices to bring about freedom.

The Extracts reveal how leaders of the liberation movement can use their engagements with recognised global leaders or the interest of global players in the relevant liberation struggles to sustain and legitimise themselves as indispensable assets which the liberation movement is, by hook or by crook, forced to sustain.

The Extracts of the Minutes of the Rumbek Meeting provide an important assessment and clue of the factors that led to the deadly civil war in 2013, nine years after the Meeting. More or less the same tendencies identified by the SPLM/A leadership at Rumbek, this time without the person of John Garang, lay at the base of the conflict which broke out in 2013.

It is for these reasons that the South Sudan SPLM leadership would be well advised, among others, to revisit the strategic matters raised in the Rumbek Minutes in order to ensure the success of the vision spelt out in the ARCISS.

The three factions of the SPLM which emerged after the outbreak of the conflict in 2013 signed a Reunification Agreement in Arusha, Tanzania in January 2015. Among others, this Agreement says the signatories:

“(Deplore) the culture of militarism and sectarianism that have stunted the transformation of the SPLM from a liberation movement into a vibrant and democratic political party”; and are committed to

“(Combat) the culture of tribalism, militarism and sectarianism in the political life and open up a space for achieving a political environment that promotes genuine political pluralism.”

These positions emphasise exactly the observations which were made during the 2004 Emergency Rumbek Meeting, as reflected in the Minutes.

The people of South Sudan, Africa and the world, expect the SPLAM to sincerely to address the ills it has identified after the adoption of the Reunification Agreement. If not, it risks the recurrence of the destructive conflict which broke out in December 2013.

Properly to play their role as honest builders of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous South Sudan, the historic political leaders of this sister country must understand that they serve as national leaders only on the basis that they are truly committed to serve the people of South Sudan, with no expectation or attempt to secure selfish personal benefit at the expense of the people.

EXTRACTS FROM A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ON THE SPLM/A SOUTH SUDAN RUMBEK MEETING of 29th of NOVEMBER to 1st of DECEMBER 2004.
In the opening of the meeting the Chairman, Cdr (Military Commander) Dr John Garang, thanked members of the SPLM/A national leadership Council and welcomed all the participants who travelled to Rumbek.

Chairman Cdr Dr. John Garang. ‘I thank you in the name of the Almighty God. To begin with I wrote two messages:
One on 14/11/004 (No. 001/11/004) to address the following accusations/rumours; 

• That there was a meeting held in Nairobi under the Chairmanship of myself where Cdr. Salva Kiir would be replaced by the Chairman with Cdr. Nhial Deng.
• That I went to Kampala and met with Cdr. Pieng and ordered him to arrest Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit.
• That Cdr. Malual Majok went to Ramciel to collect forces to go and arrest Cdr. Salva Kiir Mayardit at Yei.

They are all lies and a big propaganda initiative.

Cdr Salva Kiir Mayardit. ‘I confirm the two messages read to you by the Chairman are all true. The rumours came from Nairobi and around the leadership of the SPLM/A. The second message I got was through Cdr Pagan Amum who was visiting the liberated areas with friends from friendly countries. I requested Cdr Mabior Kuer to ask the HQs why I am not talking directly to the Chairman. I spoke to the Chairman when he was in Kampala and he told me that I should meet him in Yirol, which I didn’t reply to in the light of the rumours.

The rumours implied that I will be arrested at Ramciel where the Chairman was, so I decided not to go. When I received that rumour, I called the security personnel in Yei and discussed the issue in length with them. I also informed them to find out where the sources of the rumours from Nairobi were coming from, which they did.

After I spoke with the Chairman, I also met Cdr Pieng in Yei for the whole day and he was advising me to join the Chairman in Yirol, which I refused. After that I met Cdr Kuol Manyang and Cdr Deng Alor. They came from Nairobi with information that I should go to Nairobi for reconciliation between the two of us. I considered the word reconciliation as something very serious, and therefore decided to tell them that I will not go to Nairobi. The HQs of the Chairman complained that they were calling me and that if I recognized their number, I would switch off the telephone. That is not true; I never received any call from them and switch off my telephone.

I assure you that the allegation that I am against peace is not true. I am really for peace so that the International Community could rescue our suffering people. People of Bahr El Ghazal have suffered too much from repeated famine and from the Arab militias – and for these reasons I am the first to embrace peace to relief them from suffering. Peace efforts such as the Wunlit Peace Conference have up to date ceased hostilities between Western Upper Nile and Bahr El Ghazal; and that is good. So I need peace. There are those who want to create confusion in the Movement and fabricate such things. I don’t have personal problem with the Chairman.

If we are National Leaders, which I don’t believe we are because we have no cohesion within our leadership structure, let us be sincere with ourselves.

There is no code of conduct to guide the Movement’s structures. When the Chairman leaves for abroad, no directives are left and no one is left to act on his behalf. I don’t know with whom the Movement is left with; or does he carry it in his own brief case?

The Chairman seems to have taken the Movement as his own property.

The Chairman killed the National Executive Council (NEC) by creating the Leadership Council. But there is no provision in the Convention for a Leadership Council.

The Leadership Council creates a situation where all are directly reporting to the Chairman – including SPLM County Secretaries.

The Chairman is everything, from a finance officer to one at the lowest level.
Corruption, as a result of the lack of structures, has created a lack of accountability which has reached a proportion that will be difficult to eradicate.

I would also like to say something about rampant corruption in the Movement. At the moment some members of the Movement have formed private companies, bought houses and have huge bank accounts in foreign countries. I wonder what kind of system are we going to establish in South Sudan considering ourselves indulged in this respect.
The Chairman concentrates on his Headquarters forgetting the rest of the Army. It is only his Headquarters, which has military uniforms, boots and other supplies.

Cdr Dr John Garang. Before the UN Security Council Meeting, I received a telephone call from President Bush who said that he now had those who will work with him during the next four years and that I am one of them. President Bush said, “John don’t let us down. We want peace before the end of the year”.

Cdr. Garang Mobil. The question I want to discuss today is that there is a problem but the Chairman (Garang) keeps saying there are no problems, only a ‘gap’ between him and Cdr Salva (Kiir). He will not accept there are problems in the New Sudan. But if the problem is not solved, there will be no peace. I also want to say that the movement is in the hands of a few and many are alienated. National resources must be shared by all, no matter how small it is. The structures are controlled by a few minority groups, and this must be sorted out now in Rumbek. This minority group is the problem; hand picking people must stop now because it is creating problems.

Justice Ambrose Riny. The Chairman dissolved legally instituted organs of the Movement as contained in the National Convention of 1994, but unilaterally established illegal institutions which are not supported by any legal provisions of the convention thereof.

Cdr Oyai Deng. I want to add my voice of being happy to participate in this meeting. When the Movement started, you were seven (7) and now you are only two (2) remaining. Some said that you conspired against those who died and now you are conspiring against yourselves.

I am shocked to hear Cdr Salva talk here only about Bahr El Ghazal and not the South in general give he is a leader for all.

I strongly agree with Cdr Salva that when the Chairman goes away, he locks the South in his bag. This is wrong.

Cdr James Oath. I greet the gathering. When the movement started you were seven (7) and now you are only two (2) – five died having problems with you (Dr. John Garang). Why do you have problems with your colleagues? The leadership has disabled the movement, so why keep it?

Cdr Oboto Mamur. Greetings. The Chairman always had problems with his colleagues. Now you are two (2) and you are turning against yourselves. Chairman you have been lying throughout since 1983. A Chairman should trust his deputies because there is a big problem here. I ask the Chairman whether he has mandated us to judge him? And if so, we will pass our judgment on him now. We don’t want to talk for the sake of talking.

Cdr George J. Deng. There is no longer any army.

Cdr Santo Ayang. You, (Dr Garang), tell the world that you brought peace to Sudan, but the reality is that peace was brought about by those who fought for it and died. Those around you only please you and do not tell you the truth.

Cdr Elias Wai. There is fire so we need it not to burn further. Cdr. Salva is not convinced. All are not convinced with the reaction of the Chairman towards issues raised by Cdr. Salva Kiir. The Chairman is placing his relatives in key positions including Elijah Malok, too old, for example, to hold the position of Governor of the Central Bank. Note, there might be popular uprising one day and the army will join the public.

Cdr Jadalla. You, (Dr Garang), think you are the founder of this Movement, and as such, that you can do what you want without consulting people? The public is not ready for more problems.

Cdr Dominic Dim. The Chairman has locked the NEC in his boxes. Dr John’s response to Cdr. Salva was neither good nor sufficient. For me, there is still a problem as people still remain suspicious of the Chairman’s intentions. I reiterate that if the problem in question is not resolved, there will be a bigger problem in the Movement. I suggest that the Chairman be clear on resolving this conflict.

Cdr Simon Kun Pouch. The formation of a committee to work out functions for our structures is not really a priority because they already exist, we need only to share power and prepare job descriptions for all the institutions of the Movement.

Cdr. Michael Makuei Lueth. I assure the Chairman that as we are entering a new era, and if we remain in an unprepared manner, we will eventually be finished. The immediate establishment of our structures is necessary. The distribution of powers is also necessary. The army must be organized. There is also the importance of speeding up South-South dialogue before we enter the forthcoming era. The other issue is corruption. I am saying that the leadership is not committed to fighting corruption.

Mr. Kosti Manibe. On policy issues, I suggest that a lot remains to be done to build confidence in our system and institutions.

Cdr John Luke. Why is the leadership avoiding South-South dialogue? The Chairman refused to accept dialogue, but claims it after others implemented it.

Cdr. Marc Nyipouch. On the issue of Governor Deng Alor, Cdr. Marc said that Cdr. Deng collects money from abroad, banks it with the Chairman’s or his (Deng’s) bank account, and that is why Deng Alor was taken away from the region – just to do that. Something Nhial has failed to do but what Deng is able to do. Deng should either be a Governor of Bahr el Ghazal or be replaced.

Mr. Arthur Akuien. On the structures, there are structures. But the Chairman after appointing someone to a position does not work with him, but he will appoint someone else to do the work, which is wrong. The Chairman creates all these problems within the system, and this is why he is being blamed. I also point out when a senior person tries to discipline a junior, the Chairman always fails to solve the problem among the staff and instead interferes. The leadership style of the Chairman’s work is bad and cannot be corrected. The Chairman has not been doing well in his job and he may be forced to leave his office before six years.

Dr Justin Yac. The Chairman is good for external contacts but within his own institutions he is not good. The Chairman is good in talking but poor in doing things. The Cdrs condemned him the day before and I quote Cdr. Salva who said that “Dr John does not forget and does not forgive”, and who ever quarrelled him ended up dead.
Many people know the Chairman’s abilities and weaknesses for the last twenty-two years. The Chairman can impress people when he talks, but lacks action. The commanders the day before gave the Chairman Grade F because he failed to adequately answer the issues raised by Cdr. Salva. The Chairman should not think that he is always right; rather he must admit his mistakes. The Chairman must work with a team and not be a leader of the NLC and Chairman of SPLM. Leadership must be collective.

I repeat what Cdr. Salva said that Dr John does not forget and forgive. So I want to say that those without guns are vulnerable. The Cdrs are secure because they have guns to protect themselves from the Chairman, but I ask, who is going to protect those of us without guns?

Cdr Malik Agar. The current issue of the differences between the Chairman and his deputy is surprising in that I was aware of this even ten years ago. Whenever it is about to be addressed, each of them says there is ‘no problem’. The big problem is trust among yourselves. This needs to be rebuilt and you will be the ones to arrive at sound solutions to the existing problems.

The issue of reorganizing the army is a burning issue as most of the soldiers are now in an unorganized form and this will work against us. As monitors will verify, we don’t have the army. The distribution of powers is the vital issue to avoid future misunderstandings.

Cdr Pagan Amum Okech. Even though we did not defeat the enemy, what we had achieved will make the enemy coincide with what we tell them. At this crucial moment we must think thoroughly of what we should do to enable us go forward… The establishment and building of structures at this particular time is vital. Our priority is now to finalize the peace talks.

Cdr James Wani Igga. Problem No. 1, we are not working as a team, which results in disgruntlement.
Structures are our No. 2 problem, including the official management of office institutions.
3: The existence of a Kitchen Cabinet is deplorable and creates doubts and mistrust.
No. 4: The geographical imbalances found in the movement. If this is not addressed, we will never be in harmony… When I talk about regional imbalances, all I need to say is that no Equatorian was even allowed to be a signatory of the six protocols. We are making history and this history should involve all the people of New Sudan. The protocols are only signed by individuals from Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile, Nuba Mountains and Funj!
No. 5: Poor chain of command.
No. 6: Spread of rumours. 
Problem 7: Lack of implementation of resolutions and the lack of a follow up body. Our resolutions always die on the paper.
Problem 8: Corruption which remains rampant in the Movement. Corruption must be fought for example, some years back the Chairman in a meeting informed us that Cdr. Deng Alor brought some money from Nigeria, but how that money was spent had never been explained to us again. I ask the question where is the transparency and accountability we talked about?
Problem 9: Lack of cooperation, accompanied by sabotage. Some work for the downfall of others without any accountability.
Problem 10: Neglect of the army and its welfare.
Problem 11: Absence of job description, which cause confusion.
Problem 12: Nepotism. It should be fought.
Problem 13: Neglect in the chain of command, which has led to indiscipline.

Cdr. Wani proposed a way forward… Let’s avoid ‘Kitchen Cabinets’ and combat corruption. We need a mechanism to be adopted to fight corruption. Let’s respect the chain of command. Let’s avoid any regional misbalancing. Job descriptions must be effected. South-South dialogue advanced. The convening of the second National convention requires additional money. The reaction of the Chairman to all the listed problems is necessary. As a sign of true reconciliation, they need to warmly greet themselves in front of us here, then follow that up with a joint statement…. Let us reconcile so that we defeat our common enemy.

Cdr Riek Machar. The army is the most important element to protect the gains of the struggle and as such we need to organise it and take care of them and their families… In addition, we should be privileged that the UN SG visited Africa to discuss the issue of peace in Sudan – The first time it happened was during the decolonization of Africa – making the achievement of peace highly likely this year.

As for South-South dialogue, we can start now. We should be prepared to negotiate with whatever party is ready to dialogue. If we wait until the government is formed, they will be the ones to undermine the GOSS. We must achieve consensus. Let us not delay south-south dialogue. The lack of dialogue can be a source of disunity, but if we handle it properly, it can also be a source of unity and this will allow the people to rally behind the leadership.

Cdr Salva Kiir Mayardit. I know that rumours are dangerous. Rumours must be treated as rumours, but there is no smoke without fire. I don’t agree with Cdr. Wani that these rumours were created by the enemy. There are people among us who are more dangerous than the enemy. I must warn the Chairman that (former Sudan President) Nimeiri was made to be unpopular by his security organs. Those who are misleading you and giving you false security information about others will suffer with you together or leave with you.

The government, which is going to be led by you, must include all. Without unity, the agreement will be a source of our disunity. We are not organised in all aspects, and as such will be exploited by other political parties that are more organised. The lack in our structures and political guidance will lead us to a very serious political defeat.

Mr. Chairman, you have talked about people eating the boat while we are in the middle of the river. Let me add this; the issue is not eating the boat in the middle of the river. The issue is that there are a few who have already crossed to the other side of the river and when the remaining ones asked them to bring the boat, they refused to return the boat. This is the problem.

Written by Mukoni Ratshitanga, assistant to former President Thabo Mbeki. He has worked with the former President on the Sudan and South Sudan files since 2009.