BY DAK BUOTH RIEK GAAK
The Tumaini Initiative is being misinterpreted by naysayers with a hope to scuttle its cardinal objectives, including but not limited to restoration of national unity, reunification of the national army, restoration of the rule of law, constitutional-making and institutional reforms which are necessary for the conduct of the long-awaited national plebiscite.
The challenges facing the Tumaini Initiative are inevitable owing to the imminent changes that come with it. In any case, change is faced by fierce resistance from the beneficiaries of the status quo. Fortunately, nobody can resist change permanently because there is nothing permanent except change. Therefore, the roaming individuals who are misusing state power to block this change should be reminded that power is transient.
An African Proverbs says “You cannot change the wind but you change the scent.” The least that a retrogressive person can do is to delay the change, but to thrash change forever is an effort in futility.
On 16 July 2024, the rain started beating us when the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO) withdrew from the Tumaini Initiative. This withdrawal aims to keep the nation stagnant with an outdated peace accord that lacks support from both the region and the international community. Their withdrawal came after they wrote to IGAD arguing that the Tumaini initiative should be annexed and or attached to the defunct Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict South Sudan (R-ARCISS).
Accomplices against the Tumaini Initiative
The surprise withdrawal and subsequent walkout of SPLM-IO could have been followed by a strong reaction seconded by an immediate replacement of SPLM-IO delegates to the Tumaini initiative. However, the government failed not just to appoint new delegates, but also maintained silence on the withdrawal of SPLM-IO. The inaction on the part of the government exposed both parties as accomplices in this act of bad faith. Further, their decisions suggested that SPLM-IO and the government were working together in a ploy to prolong the signing of the Tumaini initiative on time.
Provocation
Apart from being an accomplice, their act of withdrawal and complacency was intended to provoke the leadership of the opposition, hoping for a knee-jerk reaction to capitalized on. Unbeknown to them, the revolutionary opposition leaders and their gallant delegates refused to be lured into politics of deception and destruction.
The opposition opted to apply the policy of ‘‘let’s wait and see’’ without losing focus by observing and analyzing the political events as they unfold. This diplomatic strategy of remaining patient left the de facto government with an option, to rethink and reconsider their actions highlighted therein.
On 29 October 2024, after coming out from the drawing board, the parties to R-ARCISS formed and sent a six-man delegation whose mission is not clear to all and sundry. The team is composed of Dr. Elia Lomuro, Dr. Lam Akol, Puot Kang Chuol, and Peter Lam Both to mention but a few.
From what I heard and learned in all social media forums, the formation of this new peace delegation caused disquiet and displeasure, unlike the day when President Kiir fired the high-ranking government spies who were suspected to be anti-Tumaini Initiative.
Beggars cannot be choosers mentality
From the onset, the government came to the mediation table with the “beggars cannot be choosers” mentality. They think that because some opposition parties begged to participate in the Tumaini Initiative, they cannot decide or choose what to take so far as responsibility and power sharing are concerned. I think even if some opposition parties requested to be part of the Tumaini Initiative, that olive branch should not be abused or taken as a surrender.
This unfortunate and unjustified thinking emanated from the false belief that the government won the military and psychological battles by having already confined and compromised many opposition leaders like General Johnson Olony and the like. Mistakenly, they want to celebrate this false victory by offering a peace deal through mere political accommodations as they did in the past. When this archaic mentality was thwarted by our seasonal negotiators like Generals Stephen Buoy, Mario Laku, Pagan Amum, and Malong Awan together with their unwavering delegates, the government resorted to changing goalposts as we continue to witness in South Sudan.
On 23 June 2024, the opposition at the Tumaini Initiative made their stance abundantly clear in their joint press statement that they did not come to renegotiate, amend, or implement the R-ARCISS period.
In view of the foregoing, South Sudanese should accord credit where it is due because the opposition leaders like South Sudan People’s Movement/Army (SSPM/A) leader Gen. Stephen Buoy Rolnyang, for example, came to Nairobi for nothing but to negotiate, rescue and resuscitate the withered and shattered hopes of the impoverished South Sudanese given that the R-ARCISS has failed and died after it was signed in September 2018.
Fortunately, the parties to R-ARCISS, and especially the National Transitional Committee (NTC), are treading carefully to avoid antagonizing and exposing the government and President Salva Kiir as a dishonest leader in the eye of the Kenyan President Dr. William Ruto, whom he pleased and pleaded to mediate peace between the government and hold-out groups in 2023.
It is common knowledge that, President Salva Kiir is the brainchild of the Tumaini initiative. Recently, a comrade of mine in SSPM jotted rightly without mincing his words that “Tumaini Initiative is President Salva initiative.” This is to say that defeating the Tumaini Initiative is akin to self-defeating to President Kiir who initiated it.
Change of guards is not regime change
The ongoing political activities peddled by the NTC are not without sinister motives. The SPLM Party and SPLM-IO appeared to be united in feeling suspicious of the Tumaini Initiative. Their joint diplomatic shuttle whispered that they devised and shared one paranoid stance against the Tumaini Initiative. With the look of things, the SPLM Party appeared to have been radicalized by SPLM-IO. Thus, they are likely going to commit an error in judgment by withdrawing from the Tumaini Initiative unless they sit to analyze the consequences of walking out prematurely.
The unnecessary formation and subsequent release of NTC to the region indicates that the de facto government is on a mission to find ways and means to vacate the Tumaini initiative.
They say a photo is worth a thousand words. On 29 October, I saw and zoomed a group photo of President William Ruto and NTC members in Nairobi, I then concluded by invoking the phrase that says “the writing is on the wall.” The facial expressions of government bigwigs conveyed a worrying sign that they were uneasy. Perhaps, the NTC members are mistaking the looming change of guards for a regime change.
Give and take
An online Oxford dictionary defines the term regime change as “the situation when one government is replaced by another, especially using military force.” However, the Tumaini Initiative is a mere peace negotiation that is defined as “a process of bargain which involves a give and take.”
In any event, a mediation process has no winners and losers. Lawyer Ambrose Otieno Weda in his book entitled The Ideal Lawyer opined “The best negotiation deal is a true draw.”
In a nutshell, how the government is fidgeting is uncalled for. Having stated this, I can assure the NTC members and public that the tripartite opposition leadership has no grudges save for their readiness to work hand-in-hand with their peace partners to achieve the aforementioned objectives of the Tumaini initiative.
The writer is the South Sudan People’s Movement/Army (SSPM/A) National Chairperson FOR Legal and Constitutional Affairs and Delegate to the Tumaini Initiative. He can be reached via eligodakb@yahoo.com.