Without Inclusion, No Hope for Peace in South Sudan

When warring parties agree to consider terms for peace, it’s
usually a cause for optimism. But as South Sudan’s belligerents mull over a proposed
compromise agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, hope seems futile. The
mediators have set August 17 as an urgent deadline for ending the conflict.
However, the unfortunate truth is that without participation and buy-in from
the South Sudanese people, peace stands no chance.

South Sudan’s neighbors—in the form of the eight-country
trade bloc known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)—have struggled
collectively to mediate an end to horrific
violence between supporters of current president Salva Kiir and former vice
president Riek Machar since it erupted
in December 2013. Now, joined by regional and international stakeholders,
including the US, they have prepared a draft agreement and warned the parties
that they must forge a deal by August 17. Should the deadline pass without an
accord, the US and other countries will likely impose further sanctions against
South Sudanese leaders.

While these steps—and the urgency with which they’ve been
set in motion—are commendable, the peace process, thus far, has suffered from a
fatal flaw. Like so many attempts to end war, it has focused on the needs of
those who took up arms, rather than those who have suffered at their hands.
Whether the parties agree to a deal next week or not, the success of the next
stage depends on broad inclusion of South Sudanese civil society.

Over the last one-and-a-half years, there have been more
than 10 rounds of negotiations to bridge the political and tribal differences
between the warring factions in South Sudan. During that time, the parties have
broken at least seven
ceasefires, some of them within hours. According to the UN, the latest
violence has reached “new
levels of brutality,” with both sides
accused of raping and murdering countless civilians and targeting villages for
destruction based on tribal identity.

These negotiation efforts have failed, in part, because
women and civil society organizations—the most committed advocates for
peace—have had only token representation at the table. Though they were
allocated some seats, the selection process was co-opted by the warring
parties. It’s unsurprising, then, that the proposed
agreement is based on the interests of the belligerents, not on any
substantive consultation with affected communities. As a result, it overlooks
some critical needs and perspectives of marginalized groups.

For instance, according to the draft text, the body responsible
for overseeing and coordinating a permanent ceasefire will be constructed
entirely of military personnel, excluding the crucial voices of women, youth,
and broader civil society, who would help implement and monitor terms of a
truce. The agreement also fails to outline any confidence-building measures to
encourage the return of internally displaced persons, prisoners of war, women,
or child soldiers to their home communities. And, even though local
organizations will ultimately be responsible for ensuring the success of many
of the agreements’ measures on the ground, the draft text does not call for a
critical mass of civil society representatives in any of the bodies that would
oversee implementation of these programs.

Peace agreements aren’t just terms for ceasefires; they
address a wide range of political, economic, and social issues. The draft
accord for South Sudan is no different. It covers everything from power-sharing
in the new government to transitional justice mechanisms to oversight of land
and oil resources. These issues affect everyone in the country from residents
of remote villages to those who sit in the seats of power. Therefore, the
populace must be fully engaged in determining the way forward.

The best way to do this is by prioritizing meaningful
representation of civil society, especially women’s groups, in all
decision-making bodies related to the peace process. Not only can these
organizations bring the concerns of communities to the table, they are also the
constituency most actively trying to end the war.

Factions from the opposing parties have consistently ignored
their peoples’ calls to put aside differences and renew the hopeful future promised
during the country’s infancy, just four short years ago. Instead, they’ve haggled
over who gets to be vice president and how to split up seats in parliament. Early
reports from the talks in Addis allege that both sides are demanding the terms of the draft agreement be
modified to give them 70 percent of positions in the proposed transitional
government. Their actions demonstrate commitment not to peace, but to the continued
destruction of their country.

Contrast that behavior with the actions and statements of
South Sudanese civil society, particularly women’s groups. In June, The
Institute for Inclusive Security gathered 12 South Sudanese women leaders who
are members of the Taskforce
on the Engagement of Women, a cross-border coalition of activists
from Sudan and South Sudan. Though they’ve each suffered unimaginably during
the recent conflict—almost all have lost multiple family members—these women
continue to mobilize for peace, promote dialogue between the factions, and
demanding meaningful representation at the table. They recently issued a powerful
statement calling for an inclusive process to end the violence. To
the mediators and belligerents, they assert: “We stand ready to support you.”

These women also insist that the negotiations and subsequent
agreement must address the root causes of the conflict and be driven by the
needs of the people. Like many peace processes, they say, South Sudan’s has
lacked transparency, with no formal feedback loop to allow the citizenry to
feel invested or to make their voices heard. As one member of the women’s
Taskforce put it: “What is our interest?
Where are we in the peace talks? Is
that peace going to be sustainable if it doesn’t have the people’s agenda at
heart?”

The need for inclusion is not an exercise in political
correctness; it is vital to the agreement’s success. Globally, evidence
demonstrates that inclusion leads to better results. A recent statistical
analysis indicates that peace agreements are 64
percent less likely to fail when the process of creating them includes
civil society alongside political parties. Additional
research shows that, in peace negotiations where women had a strong
influence, a deal was always reached
and implementation was much stronger.

On August 17, there are two equally likely scenarios: the government
and opposition may agree to a comprehensive peace accord or they may not.
Either way, violence will continue unless the parties and mediators both prioritize
inclusion.

If they emerge with an agreement, successful implementation
will require understanding and addressing the needs and priorities of
communities—a task for which local organizations are uniquely qualified. If
they fail to settle terms, participation in the next round of talks must be
expanded to include those for whom peace is a priority—like the Taskforce on
the Engagement of Women—and restructured to provide these groups with
meaningful, not just token, representation.

Some may claim that any agreement to end this war is a good
thing. Certainly, the mediators are to be commended for trying. But by
prioritizing meaningful inclusion, they will vastly improve the long-term
prospects for peace. Traumatized by decades of war, the people of South Sudan
don’t need just any agreement—they need one that will last.