By Tor Madira Machier,
Opinion.
November 28, 2014(Nyamilepedia) — In all the ages of human history, the idea of eternal and everlasting peace has been the goal and content of utopias and philosophical systems. The practical results have been rather depressing but the spiritual energies that were devoted to this idea have nevertheless not been squandered and since without these energies, there would not be some of the moral principles that inspite of all these significant tensions masterminded by the government in Juba have remained alive.
A peace policy before it became too late in our life-time must apply itself to the host of problems in the sequence of realizability of their solutions. To achieve peace in South Sudan, peace effort must move on from simple stage to difficult one. The decision in favor of peace lobbying is not novelty in the history of peace efforts, but we must only make it to light in execution of plans to unite the South Sudanese people as a one society leaving behind their ethnic and regional dimensions.
Inspite of all their differences, they only have one objective; they must set up in South Sudan an enduring peace order. But they all share the fate of either setting up a South Sudanization policy in a bid to unite themselves for one nation or else the nation collapse within short period of time.
Beyond its capacity, the regional bloc, the IGAD has failed to convince the two warring sides to reach concensus. Interference of some of the IGAD member states just to take side in South Sudan’s internal conflict with which the government of South Sudan is supposed to be indicted for is the main feature of the IGAD’s failure that can help explains why peace talks in neighboring Ethiopia continue to remain deadlocked.
The idea of national solidarity could not be established. Ethnic antagonism which where and are being pursued by Salva Kiir-led government located in Juba are too strong to contain. Since the government in Juba is mainly dominated by tribal ideologist feeding on tribal agendas, the friction could not allow any space for national ( ethnic ) integration.
Too, the United Nations which was founded in San Francisco in 1945 as an optimistic scheme of western victorious powers over the East and over part of eastern Europe has also failed to subdue the situation in South Sudan. Since it is not a full-fledged or perfect representative organ of all the nations( Nations with the Right of Veto ), it is too far for the UN to pass a resolution as soon as it might be darely needed.
The rivaltry within the UN security council between the West and particularly the United States against the East and especially Russia and China who are among the 5+one countries enjoying the right to Veto has paralysed the council and thus making it vulnerable to execute its mission as the two plus one ( US, Russia and China ) powers compete for sidelining the world.
The UN is too important for us in South Sudan. It played a great role in protecting many innocent lives which would have perished in the country subsequently after Juba massacre executed by Salva Kiir and his malitia-men across the country.
But we must not be too sure to expect more from it in the way of a cure for the division for which we have been incited by a group of people calling themselves the government of the Republic of South Sudan and in a way for the establishment of general South Sudan peace policy.
The task of uniting our people is set for us and cannot in any case be solved by thousands ineffective resolutions in New York ( UN General Assembly ) or by biasing the peace talks in Ethiopia ( IGAD ) towards one man in Juba. As we have already feel the pain, the perniciousness of our division really does not need to be displayed any more. Power bloc established in Juba by Slava Kiir and his sympathizers to keep South Sudanese apart and against each other cannot last very long without lapsing into dreadfull danger of a conflict. That, is the lesson of history.
Here the time is against us to unite our people. A state of collapse with a simillar fate to that of former USSR is possibly expected. People are opting to fight for independence. Those not allied to Dr. Machar and instead against Kiir are considering the war of separation especially in Equatoria.
This state of affairs is to be prefered to balkanization with all its incalculable consequences. The collapse of the historic peacefull co-existence of the South Sudanese tribes without being replaced by a new order would not promise a healthy future.
No one would wish to assert that there are no longer any tribal conflict of interest against the establishment of Democracy in South Sudan. In our country such interests make the peacefull co-existence of our people more difficult to prevail leading us upto now to a considerable insecurity.
Since then, many national and not ethnic questions exist within the ethnic lines of the people of South Sudan that when needs revival leads to disaster. That too is the lesson of history.
Then; we cannot foresee the evolution of the coming decades. We do not know whether the present day ethnic hatred between the people of South Sudan be contained by the future governements in the era to come.
But one thing is certain; it would not be good or sustainable for security and for the consolidation of peace if future South Sudan governments had no other choice then to pursue national ends by national means. It is a commandment of a historical sense to solve the South Sudan problem of present day Republic of South Sudan within the frame-work of general South Sudanese tribe peace order and that the right to self-determination which may pave the way for separatists to achieve independence is the legitimate interest of the neighboring countries.
So, the primacy of our unity is in the interest of peace in South Sudan. The two principals Dr. Machar and president Salva Kiir must try their level best to speedup the negotiations so as to reach a.meaningfull deal.
In Bahir Dar, a little progress of the talks is to be noticed recently as what is termed as a compromise deal granted by the SPLM/A in Opposition is in place. But the intransigent attitude of the SPLM-Juba under kiir has less to do with peace ideology then might always be thought. It is the spirit of crude self-interest that identifies it self as threatened by Democratization of South Sudan.
But if the general interest of our people in an enduring peace order is what put its stamp on our future, then the east Africa and Africa it self as whole will not be able to ignore the fact that a quarterof the South Sudanese people is not pledge worth surrendering security and peace for.
So I deological ethnic interest and thinking interm of region will have to retreat behind these new realities ( Democracy and modernization) and it will be obvious how much the national intetest of every South Sudanese citizen regardless of where he/she come from require a organised peace policy.
Tor Madira Machier is a South Sudanese student pursuing Law Degree at the University Of Ain Shams in Cairo, Egypt. He can be reached at : tormadira2013@gmail.com or @TorMadira
