Contentious issues threaten Nairobi talks – Pagan

Pagan Amum Okiech, leader of the opposition Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and current head of the Nairobi peace negotiation team, revealed that they had differences with the government delegation on the following issues: Constitution-making process and other issues that could threaten the Tumani Initiative.

In the first part of an exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj, Mr. Amum, who also leads a faction of the South Sudan Opposition Movements Alliance (SSOMA), said: “There are other contentious issues that I don’t want to go into detail, but our citizens should know that we are still in negotiations.”

Edited excerpts follow:

Q: Mr. Pagan Amumu, what is the latest progress in the Tumani Initiative negotiations?

A. Thank you Radio Tamazuje for giving me this opportunity to inform the people of South Sudan about the ongoing peace process. The Toumani Initiative, meaning a hopeful initiative, was originally proposed by President Salva Kiir to Kenyan President William Ruto to mediate between the resurgent government of South Sudan and the diehards. We welcome this initiative because the situation in South Sudan requires everyone to work together.

South Sudan is going through a serious national crisis that threatens to tear the country apart and collapse. The country has been in a constitutional crisis and has been under dictatorial rule since independence. We have failed to develop a national constitution, which should be the foundation for a rule of law system of governance. We need a constitution through national consensus so that the people of South Sudan can decide what powers they should hand over to their rulers in order to provide them with basic services.

Q: What exactly did you discuss at the Toumani meeting? When can we expect a final agreement?

A. We have not yet reached any final agreement, but we want to identify some issues that need to be negotiated. Once these issues are identified, we will have discussions to determine the type of agreement. We are facing a constitutional crisis, we are facing humanitarian issues, and a large number of our people are facing a food crisis. At least two million people have been forced to leave their homes due to heavy rains, floods and droughts in parts of the country caused by climate change. There is widespread violence across the country. Our society is divided along ethnic lines. We are facing a security crisis because our security agencies are divided along tribal lines and only support individuals. They are not trained to perform their national duties. We should find lasting solutions to all these crises.

It has been two months since we started negotiations with the government and other stakeholders such as civil society and religious leaders. We have made progress and tried to reach an agreement. However, the negotiations are now between the government and the opposition, focusing on contentious issues to narrow the gap.

We discussed a lot of issues, including humanitarian, social fabric, transitional justice, reconciliation and social healing. We also discussed economic issues and put forward quite a few reform proposals.

We are continuing negotiations on issues such as the constitutional crisis. Some of these issues we have reached agreement on, but others remain controversial.

We reached a preliminary agreement on rebuilding the security sector to create a unified national army that represents the diversity of the country; a professional army that is not politicized but has a mission to protect and defend South Sudan. We also discussed national security and proposed rebuilding this institution that should not be involved in human rights violations.

We are still discussing some other controversial issues, especially a system of governance that is used to oppress citizens. The issue of more freedom is also controversial.

Q: What are the controversial issues at present?

A. There are many reasons, but I am reluctant to go into detail because it might undermine the common interest.

Q: Is there hope that a deal can be reached soon?

A. We are hopeful, as I mentioned at the beginning, this round of negotiations is seen as a golden opportunity to save South Sudan. If we fail, South Sudan will collapse. That is my view.

Q: Why do you think this round is South Sudan’s last chance?

A. Because South Sudan is in the midst of the crisis I mentioned, government institutions have been reduced to only in Juba. The rest of the country is in chaos, violence, lawlessness, and insecurity. Even Juba has become almost a ghost town due to the ongoing economic crisis. Residents are starving and cannot find anything to eat due to the high prices. Juba may soon be in chaos and people will break into stores because they can no longer bear the hunger.

Imagine that the police and military that the government uses to suppress citizens are not even paid. This situation is dangerous.

Q: What compromises has the opposition made so far?

A. We do not see these negotiations as a mutual benefit between the two sides. We are concerned with the common good of all South Sudanese. Our goal is to save South Sudan and prevent it from falling into chaos and collapse. If compromises must be made, it is our common responsibility to save our country. The first compromise we made was to stop opposing the government in Juba and to treat its representatives in Nairobi as our brothers and sisters. We are not negotiating with them to give us power. No.

Q: So you are not seeking power? Please explain.

A: Not at all. That was not our intention. It never was. When the government suggested that we start discussing power-sharing, we said no. We should first agree on a joint national plan to save South Sudan. That was the focus and the goal of the negotiations.

If we agree to save South Sudan and prevent its collapse, we will think about how to implement this agreement and how to share the responsibilities.

The first point we asked President Kiir at the opening ceremony was that we should all consider ourselves as brothers and sisters. The second point was that we should focus our goals and efforts on how to save South Sudan.

We also demand a change of mindset from the government, opposition and all stakeholders. We need a change of mindset towards unity of purpose, consensus and teamwork. These are important compromises that all of us should abide by to save our country.

Q: Stakeholders have complained and expressed concerns about not being able to attend certain meetings. What is the reason?

A. Indeed, as I said before, the mediation team found that there were huge differences between the government and the opposition. They decided to hold some closed-door meetings to narrow the differences. We have made some progress, but there are still some contentious issues that may threaten the negotiations.

Q: Are you trying to say that some stakeholders don’t have access to that room?

A. This is the decision of the mediation team and you should ask them why they are only focusing on two parties. However, to me, they are not excluded. They have been in separate negotiations with us and making proposals to us. They have also been engaging with the government. They have made many proposals to try to narrow the gap between the government and the opposition.

So, instead of being excluded, they were very supportive in making recommendations on the disputed issues. Their recommendations are now before the government and the opposition. Ultimately, all negotiation arrangements were made by the mediation team, and none of us had an advantage.

Q: According to you, there are big differences between the opposition and the government. Can you point out some of these differences?

A. We have a dispute over the constitution-making process, which could lead to a breakdown in the negotiations. We want everyone to work together to resolve this. There is also the issue of economic reform. We have a dispute over the form of the transitional government, whether it should be a lean government or a bloated government.

There are other contentious issues, which, as I said, I don’t want to go into detail, but our citizens should know that we are still negotiating.

Q: Some observers are concerned that the Nairobi talks are not inclusive enough. Why were various parties excluded?

A. Our principled position so far has been to support an inclusive national dialogue rather than siding with the political elite. We have suggested to the negotiating team that we should use the Toumani Initiative as an open and inclusive forum. We have proposed a national constitutional conference that would include domestic and international political parties, civil society, the women’s movement, youth and religious leaders, professional associations and academia.

We have received a positive response from the mediation team and the international community in support of holding such a conference. The government is not too happy about the idea, but we hope that they will eventually agree.

President Kiir’s initial thinking was very narrow. He intended to ask Kenya to mediate between the government and the non-signatories of the 2018 peace agreement. We came and asked that this opportunity should be inclusive. Unfortunately, some of our SSOMA members refused to participate in this forum, although they were welcome. They pointed out that Kenya is not safe and asked that the negotiations should continue in Rome. We are still engaging with them. We met recently at the National Consensus Forum and once again called on the opposition to join the process.

Security concerns have been addressed and the Kenyan government is ready to implement protective measures.

We also call on the government to stop intimidating and arresting members of civil society and the opposition, as it has done in Kenya, arresting some activists and killing them in Juba.

Some opposition members expressed concerns about the lack of credibility of the Kenyan government. This concern was real, but we told them that this issue could be resolved through dialogue with the Kenyan government.

We have engaged with the Kenyan government and invited people who are not in Kenya to participate, but unfortunately, the dialogue has not convinced them. However, we are still trying.