IGAD members are good in talking without action

The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) member states are good in talking but have never taken any action in what they proposed and agreed in resolving certain issues based on conflicts management. The IGAD member states have always talked of passing resolutions about the ongoing war in the country yet no tangible results have been achieved in resolving the continuous conflicts affecting the nation and in many circumstances, people have said that the IGAD organization is weak in tackling problems to end the conflicts. For instance, the IGAD member states have been mediating and dialoguing to end the mid-December 2013 war which erupted-out in Juba but upto now, there is no peace prevailing.

The peace agreement signed by the IGAD member states in Addis Ababa and in Juba in 2015 failed to materialize. And in July 2016, another war broke-out again which killed many people and forced millions of people to flee to the neighboring countries looking for safety and hoping to refresh their minds from the war.  All this has happened because the IGAD member states were not following up the signed peace agreement to know whether the two warring parties considerably respect the implementation process. They are too reluctant in implementing the peace agreement and that is why war broke out again in 2016.

The IGAD member states are divided on the issue of South Sudan crisis instead of resolving the ongoing war since then upto today. Some IGAD member states are siding with the government and others are favouring the opposition groups over certain agenda, for example, on the oil production or the diamond South Sudan has. Since that time, the IGAD member states keep on convincing the whole world that they would bring the crisis to an end sooner. They have passed and signed so many agreements on resolving the war, yet the country is incurring crisis of conflicts and wars. What they have agreed earlier on has failed to generate good results to end the war.

But occasionally, the IGAD member states were sitting conformably in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and in Juba talking about this senseless war in the country without silencing the guns. What have been signed and agreed upon remains on the newspapers and in the radio stations after it was announced, it couldn’t go as far as obtaining lasting peace is concern.

Although IGAD member states have been trying to resolve the crisis in this country, little progress has been made to address the ongoing conflict in South Sudan due to lack of political will within the IGAD countries and not only the South Sudanese themselves.  The agenda of IGAD proposals and agreements today is based on passing and signing the agreements however, there is no sign of real peace to be achieved by them. This has made many South Sudanese to argue that, IGAD is unable to resolve the problems and therefore, a neutral body with strong obligations and objectives should replace IGAD to bring everlasting peace. First, they have quoted the failure of the IGAD member states during the collapse of the Anyanya one peace agreement signed in 1972 between the Khartoum government and the movement in the southern region.

Today, the IGAD Council of Ministers has agreed to tackle the current political impasse and this was according to the news which appeared in Juba Monitor newspaper on Tuesday July 25th, 2017. The IGAD Council of Ministries were in Juba to look into the high level of revitalization forum formed by the Inter-Government Authority on Development to re-energize the implementation of the peace agreement signed in 2015 and to address the current political situation. “The forum should examine the process made in implementing the peace agreement; in the context of the current situation determine ceasefire.” The revitalization process should address the current political realities in South Sudan, Mogae of JMEC told the IGAD Council of Ministries during the meeting.

Besides, he said the principle of inclusivity should be addressed by the forum because the turmoil of last year led to disengagement of some of the parties to the peace agreement, and emergence of the groups whose interest are important in the implementation process. “It is equally fair for the revitalization process to seek ways in which key actors can be identified and engaged in the interest of successfully achieving our objectives, more particularly the restoration of the permanent ceasefire.” Mogae stressed. But how many proposals have been made yet nothing came out? What would be different from the revitalization process this time around, that it would achieve any results to stop the war in South Sudan? IGAD member countries should be friendly partners in resolving issues concerning peace and not to waste time talking and passing so many resolutions without making any meaningful results.

The writer is a political analyst reachable via: modijamesladu@yahoo.com

By James Ladu Modi Asuk Gwate



error: Content is protected !!