Advertisement

Challenge of true inclusivity in the search for peace and stability

Saturday December 13 2014

The current crisis in South Sudan began on December 15, 2013, but it can be traced back to July 2013 when President Salva Kiir made a major reshuffle in his Cabinet, reducing the number of ministers and dropping key people including then vice president Riek Machar.

It also led to political rivalries and tensions within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the ruling party.

Inclusivity brings up a few questions that seem to be on the rise as various conflicting groups plan how to mediate the peace process: What does it mean to be truly “inclusive”? Does targeting a particular conflicting group for mediation constitute exclusion? If an event is not open to everyone, is it automatically exclusionary? And what about “safe space”? Is that an exclusionary concept in and of itself?

In this case an oppressed group has the right to remove itself from its oppressor, at any time and for any reason. An oppressed group denying its oppressor entry is not being exclusionary; it is creating safe space.

“Safe space” has to be defined by the people who are creating it; they have to be clear about who is and who is not considered welcome in that space.

Anyone utilising public funds, public accommodations, or public property that is paid for by taxpayer money, must be inclusive. Those utilising private spaces and private funds can exclude whoever they want to. There are exceptions to this, of course.

Advertisement

The difference between “exclusion” and “safe space” is validity. The reasons for establishing safe space should be valid, such as removing oneself from one’s oppressors or defining a population that is at risk of being oppressed or overpowered if those outside of the group are allowed access.

Simply wanting to talk about a particular issue that only certain individuals have experienced and will understand is also a valid reason for creating safe space.

Common sense, reason, maturity, and understanding – as well as the law, in some situations — have to be the keys. Is there a reason why some people should not access this particular space?

In many cases, there is. Is there a reason why no one should be denied access to this particular space? In many cases, there is. Is your argument for safe space or for inclusivity valid?

These questions become pertinent when one considers the alignment and clash of interests in the ongoing South Sudan peace mediation. Who is in, who is excluded from the South Sudan mediation?

The government, SPLM/IO, civil society representatives, religious leaders, political parties and former detainees are included in the ongoing mediation in Addis Ababa.

Other political parties, vulnerable groups who fled the country, the internally displaced, traditional leaders and those outside South Sudanese are excluded.
So who should be included?

First, the mediation misinterpreted inclusion and the mode of participation of other stakeholders. The mediation then adopted multi-stakeholder roundtable without consultation with the two direct negotiators.

The May 9 Agreement on Resolving the Crisis in South Sudan does not authorise Igad mediation to take such decisions without consulting the two direct negotiators. The provisions for inclusion and participation of other stakeholders in the peace talks was drafted ambiguously. As a result, the mediation team coined the term “multi-stakeholder roundtable.” 

The June 10 Communiqué of the Igad Assembly of Heads of State and Government tried to clear the ambiguity, saying “those stakeholders have the explicit right to determine the composition of their representation in consultation with the mediation.” However, who such stakeholders are and the mode of selecting them are not clear.

However, when the SPLM/IO had requested the same representation as that of other stakeholders in the government-controlled areas because sizeable civil society, representative of the victims, political parties and other faith-based groups which have been forced to leave the country are not represented, their request was ignored.

Instead, the mediation team gave additional representation to the civil society and political parties that came from government-controlled areas.

Furthermore, the mediation has rejected a proposal by the SPLM/A that peace talks should continue between two direct negotiators while pending issues would be handled by the mediation and two direct negotiators.

The mediation team has thus complicated the whole process by adopting a “multi- stakeholder roundtable” without consulting the direct negotiators, and by making decisions on behalf of the South Sudan parties in the peace talks.

For peace to be achieved expeditiously, the mediation should adopt a consultative – if not CPA – approach so that unnecessary delays and adjournments are avoided.

What is the impact of this on the mediation process?

The impact will be that the Igad peace process will end in a significant progress in negotiations in Addis Ababa. The peace process and agreement on ending the conflict by resolving the remaining humanitarian crisis will lead to securing the future of South Sudan.

Involvement of all parties will mean progress. The rivals will continue involving other parties on mediation until all outstanding issues are thrashed out.

It means consultations will be held with the former vice president Dr Riek Machar on the key concerns on the outcomes of the Addis Ababa peace process. It will mean participants of the peace process would endorse a draft of the text arising from the August 25 Protocol and Stakeholders’ Positions as a basis for the negotiations.

It will mean that the regional and continental bodies, among them Igad, the East African Community and the African Union, will be able to restore peace in South Sudan.

Veronica Eragu Bichetero is a Kampala based legal consultant and peace human rights and gender expert.

Advertisement