Mr. Dak Buoth Riek-Gaak, former student leader and civil society activist - Courtesy

On 9th May 2024, the Tumaini Initiative was launched by its Chairman, President Dr. William Ruto in the presence of several African Heads of State, including the outgoing Africa Union Commission Chairperson, Mousa Faki. Two months later, this auspicious occasion was followed by colourful signing and initialing of the declaration of principles and protocols on 16th June and 15th July 2024 respectively.

The rival parties to the Peace mediation were not mere witnesses but active participants involved in the writing of the documents signed on the aforementioned dates. During these historical events, the heads of delegations representing SSUNA, SSOMA, NAS-RCC and R-TGoNU government vowed before cameras that they will adhere to and abide not just by these principles and protocols, but also by the final Tumaini initiative agreement expected to be signed in Nairobi.

Riek Machar’s Letter to IGAD Presidents

On 19th June 2024, two days after the signing of the declaration of principles, First Vice President Dr Riek Machar wrote and sent a letter to Presidents of IGAD member states saying ‘‘the outcome of the Tumaini initiative is expected to be an annexe to R-ARCSS and not a stand-alone agreement.’’

Any critical person who perused this letter would ask these two fundamental questions: One, why would the first vice President want the Tumaini Initiative to be an ‘annexe’ and not a stand-alone agreement, owing that it’s an outcome of the mediation conducted by different co-mediators in a different place? Two, Where and when did parties agree that the ‘outcome’ of the Tumaini Initiative shall be an annexe and not a stand-alone agreement?

The above-mentioned declaration of principles is crystal clear to all and sundry. No part or provision says the outcome of the Tumaini Initiative should be attached or annexed to R-ARCSS. In mediation, all contentious issues are often resolved by way of dialogue and consensus. Thus, if SPLM-IO wanted the Tumaini Initiative attached to R-ARCSS then they could have informed their delegates and negotiators to table it before parties so that the matter could be discussed and considered by parties and stakeholders.

The point that the Tumaini Initiative should be annexed or attached to R-ARCSS is a mere opinion which does not need global attention as if there was a violation of both R-ARCSS and the Tumaini Initiative. Even in the R-ARCSS which the First Vice President is now bothering people about, nowhere it is written that all future agreements in South Sudan must be attached to R-ARCSS. I believe the outcome of the Tumaini Initiative cannot be annexed to R-ARCSS not just because the latter is dysfunctional but largely because R-ARCSS has created a bloated government that does not deliver peace dividends to our impoverished populace. If anything, it is R-ARCSS which should be annexed to the Tumaini Initiative simply because the latter is alive and well unlike the former which is dead on arrival in 2018.

SPLM-IO’s withdrawal from Tumaini Initiative 

In the Nuer language, there is a story of ‘Kun kene Kuot’ (rat and cat). One day the rat sent one of its pups to Uncle Cat on a request to accommodate them for a night after their house was flooded by water; and before the pup embarked on the journey to convey the message, the Rat reminded the pup to remember to catch the first statement when Uncle Cat responded to their request. Equally, on 16th July 2024, when Dr Riek Machar pulled out from the Tumaini Initiative, I soon remembered his first message to IGAD Heads of State in his letter dated 19th May 2024. I knew that his withdrawal from the peace process was imminent and inevitable because his proposal to annex the outcome of the Tumaini Initiative was impossible and impractical.

SPLM-IO pulled out from the Tumaini Initiative in a manner that compels some of us to think beyond the obvious reasons stated and discussed above. The day I saw and read their withdrawal letter, I paused and asked: where does Dr Riek Machar draw his appetite for R-ARCSS that has reduced him into an inmate and invisible First Vice President of South Sudan? Dr Riek Machar’s roles as the First Vice President are limited to the extent that he is left with one single duty to escort and accompany President Salva Kiir to Juba International Airport. Hence, I thought that Dr Riek Machar should be the first person to cheer and celebrate the mass abandonment of R-ARCSS.

The SPLM-IO’s withdrawal is untimely and unwise. It is a manifestation of weakness and a sign of defeat in negotiation; and if that is not the case, then they should resist and return to the negotiation table failure to which they will be labelled as perennial losers in both battle and dialogue. Apart from SPLM-IO being called quitters and losers, they should avoid the risk of losing their domestic and international reputations as pioneer opposition party that made numerous attempts to bring change to the country. Consequently, if they hesitate to rethink and reconsider their abrupt withdrawal, chances are that they will be described as peace spoilers and warmongers.

The question is: why would SPLM-IO like to attract these negative descriptions and names such as anti-peace and warmongers when in fact they are not in a good position to launch and win any armed combat? Whether we like it or not, the current situation in South Sudan points to the conclusion that SPLM-IO is defeated not only in the negotiation of R-ARCSS but also in the implementation of the same. The recurring cases where the implementation of R-ARCSS is done selectively is a defeat; the restriction of SPLM-IO Leaders’ movement both locally and internationally is a defeat; the under-funding and under-development of SPLM-IO-led institutions and controlled areas is a defeat. The silencing of the voices for reforms and justice on the face of SPLM-IO that purports to be clamouring for democracy is a defeat. Unfortunately, if we combined these regrettable conditions with withdrawal then the end result will be nothing but a double loss for the SPLM-IO.

SPLM-IO’s Fear of the Tumaini Initiative

There is a wise saying that ‘‘what you see is not the thing, but what you see behind the thing is the thing?’’ The SPLM-IO’s withdrawal can be viewed from different angles or aspects. I imagined that what we saw and heard as the reason for SPLM-IO’s withdrawal was not the thing. The thing is that they are afraid, worried and anxious. At times, fears are categorized into two namely normal and abnormal fears. Normal fear is short and sudden and comes as a warning of real and actual danger, for instance, when a bomb explodes nearby a person is likely to show fear. On the other hand, abnormal fear is not short and sudden. It can be informed of worry and anxiety. All in all, Fear is common to all people both normal and abnormal human beings. The fears of SPLM-IO are as follows;

Fear of Mediators

The SPLM-IO Leader does not have contact and communication with the chairman and the host mediator President Dr. William Samoei Ruto. The last time I checked on the internet, I found that the duo does not even have a photo. Perhaps these Nilotic doctors of philosophy don’t like each other, for they have never met before. In 2017, when Dr Riek Machar was in South Africa, he wrote a letter saying President Ruto then Deputy President of Kenya and then-Attorney General Prof. Githu Muigai refused to pick up his phone call over the deportation of his spokesperson James Gatdet Dak. In addition, apart from the fact that Dr. Riek is the darling of Raila Odinga who was arch-rival of President Ruto before the duo buried hatchets and formed a unity government on 24th July 2024.

Further, I think President Ruto’s closed relationship with President Kiir pushed and alienated Dr. Riek Machar. In 2022, soon after he was elected president of Kenya, Dr. Ruto visited Juba and returned to Kenya without meeting Dr. Riek who considers himself co-president of South Sudan under the R-ARCSS signed in 2018. Similarly, in January 2024, when President Ruto appointed General Sumbeiywo as chief mediator, the latter went to Juba and failed to meet the SPLM-IO leader. These scenarios made SPLM-IO and their leader feel pessimistic about the outcome of President Ruto’s mediated peace talks. Remember we are negotiating a political crisis, and we are acutely aware that politics is a fishy and muddy game characterized by suspicion and fear of the unknown.

Fear of SSUNA and SSOMA leaders

The imminent return, reconciliation and reunification of SSUNA and SSOMA leaders with President Kiir makes the SPLM-IO Leader feel fidgeted because he sees them as former allies of President Kiir. This point made Dr Riek withdraw from Tumaini Initiative to please the Presidential Advisor on Security General Tut Gatluak and Director of National Security Service General Akol Kor who are alleged and rumoured to be opposed to Tumaini Initiative that is likely to bring their political foes back into the country. In other words, SPLM-IO’s withdrawal is a political strategy meant to attract the loyalty of President Kiir’s emerging enemies created by the Tumaini Initiative.

Tit for Tat

In 2018, SSOMA leaders namely General Pagan Amum of Real SPLM and Paul Malong of SSUF/A withdrew from the peace negotiation in Khartoum on the ground that the root cause of the conflict had not been addressed. Eventually, the duo deserted the peace talk in the eleventh hour together with TRIOKA countries robbing and leaving R-ARCSS without funders and donors to support the implementation process. The R-ARCSS has not been implemented fully partly because the parties did not get sufficient financial support from the International community who now returned to support the Tumaini Initiative.

The SPLM-IO is applying the same political schemes as a ‘‘tit for tat’’, to deny SSOMA and SSUNA the attention and popularity they deserve by restoring peace and rescuing the country from total collapse. Moreover, in 2016, Kenya withdrew from South Sudan Peace talks, following the sacking of Kenyan army General Kimani Ondieki by former United Nations Secretary Ban Ki-Moon based on claims by SPLM-IO, in the wake of J1 dogfight that UNIMISS forces under General Kiman’s command failed to protect civilians in Juba. In protest, President Uhuru pulled Kenya out. Subsequently, Kenya declared SPLM-IO leaders in Kenya as ‘persona non grata’. This declaration saw many SPLM-IO leaders purged and deported to South Sudan in contravention of the International convention that prohibits the deportation of refugees and asylum seekers. This case points to the reason why SPLM-IO withdrew from the Tumaini Initiative, to deny Kenya the regional leadership to mediate the South Sudan conflict.

Solutions and Way Forward

1. The Chairman and host of the Tumaini initiative President Dr William Ruto should invite or visit Dr. Riek Machar for a talk to assure him that let bygone be bygone so that he can earn the trust of SPLM-IO.
2. SPLM-IO and Dr. Riek Machar should be invited to come and negotiate in the Tumaini Initiative as separate political entities within the R-TGoNU Government. The idea to make the government have one single delegation against the opposition groups was designed to block Dr Riek Machar from coming to Kenya to negotiate and sign the Tumaini initiative agreement. In 2015 and 2018 peace negotiations were held in the cities of Addis Ababa and Khartoum, the government and Juba-based opposition parties went to the Peace Talks with separate delegations. In 2019, the same happened during the Rome peace talks mediated by the Catholic community of Santegidio. At that time, SPLM-IO and SPLM-IG went to Pope Francis in Italy as separate entities despite being in one R-TGONU government in Juba. Why don’t they come to the Tumaini Initiative separately to avoid this political rhetoric and shenanigans?
3. If the SPLM-IO and by extension their leader Dr. Riek Machar are afraid of the return and reunification of SSUNA and SSOMA leaders because the trio are former buddies of President Kiir during the beginning of the conflict in 2013, then they should be reminded of the cardinal principle that in politics there is no permanent friend and there is no permanent enemies. Hence, SPLM-IO should see SSUNA and SSOMA leaders as his friends and colleagues in the opposition. The grievances and differences that SSUNA and SSOMA have with Dr Riek Machar are overtaken by events. The political wounds that SSUNA and SSOMA have with the SPLM De facto government are fresh, unlike the ones they have for others. Finally, the crisis we are facing as a country today is a national crisis which should not be mistaken as a conflict of personalities and grudges between individual leaders.

The author is a former youth activist. He can be reached via: eligodakb@yahoo.com

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer. The accuracy of any claims made is the responsibility of the author and not of this website. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or analysis, please email us at eyeradio@eyeradio.org;