BY: Yien Lam, South Sudan, FEB/02/2015, SSN;
To me, it is simple as this, an Igad role in kiir’s mess is to do its business at the expense of South Sudanese as its definition does not purport peace mediator than the business developer. This is the main purpose of it.
By the definition, IGAD stands for Intergovernmental authority on development. If that is so as we all know, why does it mediate peace? Judge it by yourself. In basic reality, should the organization as such make peace in south Sudan?
People, this is a jesting. It will never bring peace at all because its interest blindfolds it to totally expunge the root cause of the war and the organization does not want to hear the word “root cause ” because its members are involved in the war with its knowledge. Namely, Kiir and M7.
Due to that, IGAD will never press Uganda to withdraw from the south Sudan territory because it is a part of the deal that the rest of the world does not know for certain.
As you can see the businesses in action, Arusha agreement was seen as positive step by many, now the organization goes back to square one to reinstate kiir as president and Dr.Riek as the Vice president as well as Wani.
The organization avoided the previous parliamentary system that includes prime minister and the president. What does that tell you?
What brought back the very system that killed the people in the first place? Where is the system that involved the prime minister? Should we go back every gathering when we try to negotiate peace? Be the judge!
In this respect, I am always being irritated by the word “elected president.” Referring to kiir. This word should have no meaning of whatsoever if not because of the business being ran in south sudan.
Kiir could not be revered as elected president while he himself killed the people who elected him. What the hell is going on with Igad? Should someone who killed his own people still be entitled elected president or simply should resign?
This is rubbish. What kind of system should that be rather than the business that is being ran by this organization if not more?
However, in my view, IGAD now imposes itself to be the government of south Sudan than being the mediator. When I saw the copy of the imposing document that says two vice presidents in the country in the newly created system.
This triggers a lot in my mind that this organization has entrenched itself deeply into south Sudan as far as saying “the speaker of the parliament will be from Equatoria” in which nobody has the problem with it.
When I read that, I reminded myself with the article that I wrote on December the 5 last year about the IGAD Titled “Is IGAD a trustworthy organization to bring peace in south Sudan or a dealer in question”. This is exactly what I was portended.
Nonetheless, when it comes to the power sharing in south Sudan, it imposed the ratio giving government 60% and opposition 30% and the rest 10%. If this is the real power sharing, why would the government that openly said 70% of its soldiers defected to the rebels in January last year be given 60% of total share?
Folks, Guinea fowl cannot be tamed as seeing you as such. There is no way at all to favor one side than the other if you are legitimate mediator rather than the business dealer.
This won’t be the case at all because kiir lost 70% of his forces that was why he brought in Uganda. If that is so, is IGAD saying 60% will include Uganda in the government of South Sudan or who is going to be given 60% while majority of the people of south Sudan rejected the specious president?
Moreover, not only that, a legitimate mediator has a system of its own to follow. Now it seems that An IGAD that is given an important role as mediator is likely to have obscure system that is guiding it.
It comes with this today and tomorrow changes it to a different one. Which one to believe in? If the organization has no system as it seems to be the case, why would the parties in conflict refer the case to advance level of the AU or UN to solve the problem?
In my view, this should only be the option now because this organization seems not to be a good referee because its rationality is being compromised by the internal business.
Nevertheless, the organization went even further to create 68 additional members of the south suduan parliament. Why does it add that number to the parliament? Is that to accommodate others minorities or what does that mean?
To be frank with this organization, this problem does not need the increase of the parliamentarians. This one will not solve the problem in my view. IGAD can increase the number to whatever it wants. But will not be the solution of the south Sudan problem.
The Only solution to all this mess is to take the killer out of power. Keeping him as the president of whole south Sudan will never bear fruits of any kind. A killer must be ousted by any means possible.
There should be no reason to leave him hanging on with blood on his hands. The IGAD decision to keep him as president could only be done by toddlers not grown up people ever. It may be a first to negotiate peace without finding the cause of it ever in the history of the peace in the world.
If an IGAD wants to apply logic, it could first ask what cause the war? Was it a coup or not? Then investigate it as the neutral body. But it shows not to be as expected by many now.
In essence, one cannot imposed power sharing and whatever case without finding the cause of the problem. Believe me, you could not achieve peace without investigating the cause of the war or anything in that matter. A good mediator does whatever it takes to find the bottom of the case.
In addition, IGAD is being blindfolded by its business than finding the root cause of the problem. A real mediator always finds a common ground for the parties in conflict.
Does IGAD think that keeping kiir as the president will solve the problem without finding what led to the killing of only one ethnic group in the capital of the nation? This will not be case and the business will no longer work in the months to come if not days.
Finally, unprincipled IGAD will never bring peace in south Sudan instead, will add gas into fire in order to gain. Keeping kiir as the president is otherwise a recipe for more catastrophe that needs not to be accepted by people of South Sudan.
The author is Maverick concerned south Sudanese that can be reached by email@example.com