Advertisement

Kiir is happy, Machar is lost, Pierre is still there...

Saturday April 23 2016

The region’s news was dominated by the wait for the arrival in Juba of the leader of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army-In Opposition. Expected on Monday, by the end of the week, there was still neither hide nor hair to be seen of Riek Machar.

Accusations flew back and forth. The Government of South Sudan (such as it is) accused the SPLM-IO of wanting to bring in more troops and heavier armour than agreed. The SPLM-IO, in return, claimed the GoSS had reneged on the numbers agreed upon. And so on.

The South Sudanese — desperate for the formation of the transitional government — were disappointed. External actors, tired of all the nitpicking at every little detail, not to mention the resources they’ve poured into the process, both intellectual and monetary, were furious.

Only the two parties to the conflict — still ongoing, despite numerous ceasefire agreements — seemed unbothered. Salva Kiir appears perfectly happy to go on governing (if it can be called that) on his own. Machar, if not exactly happy, is perfectly prepared to go on fighting as long as it takes.

Farther south, more intransigence.

The East African Community and African Union’s “go softly” strategy of pacifying Pierre Nkurunziza, intended to get his back away from the wall and to the negotiating table, hasn’t worked. All it’s done — deftly managed by Tanzania — is get Rwanda to step back. Resulting in the pressure being off. And the government of Burundi being able to grimly settle in for the long-haul.

Advertisement

Many things have been lost in the processes that led both countries to this place. The focus became, initially necessarily, stopping the civilian carnage and thus the two mediation processes. In hindsight, however, allowing those losses was a mistake.

Both of these crises are political. One having to do with intolerance of dissent within a political party still far too accustomed to war. And the other having to do with a wilful decision to play fast and loose with the interpretation of presidential term limits. So, both crises are about the powers of incumbents.

Our imaginations are limited. Our formulas standard. The failure to address bad political behaviour head on pushes everybody into a corner. Incentivising political violence.

The search for political settlements is all well and good. But that formula too — when the immediate causes of political violence are not dealt with — incentivises that violence.

Maybe our responses do too. Why should either the SPLM-IO or the GoSS care about the civilian devastation they’ve wrought when the pieces are being picked up by everybody else? Why should the GoB care about the grievances of a section of its population or the armed opposition when the balance of power is on its side? When the “go softly” pacification strategy has also legitimised it to the rest of the world?

The parties to these conflicts may delude themselves that we can afford this sort of nonsense. But we can’t. Not the human costs. Nor the years of reconstruction now poured down the drain. Which will, eventually, have to be repeated.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes

Advertisement