A Critical Analysis of the Igad Mediation in South Sudan and the August 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (Arciss)

Abstract

This study is a critical analysis of the (IGAD) mediation in South Sudan and the August 2015 (ARCISS). Basically the study is a critique of the IGAD mediation process, as it has been globally applauded for its successful efforts in mediating several peace deals amongst its member states that have been in conflicts. The study examined the flaws and opportunities of the ARCISS and assesses the challenges facing its effective implementation. Moreover, the study adopted two hypotheses, namely that the IGAD has played a key role in mediating the ARCISS through its persistence (several trials) to see an end to the bloody war in South Sudan, and secondly through threats of sanctions from the UN, AU and Troika, the Government of South Sudan was forced to sign the ARCISS; with continued ceasefire violations have undermined the effective implementation of the ARCISS. The study is organized into five chapters, which largely depended on primary data collected through structured interview questionnaires guide, backed up by secondary data in forms of articles, journals and the agreement itself, thematically analyzed using content analysis. The study uses the concept of facilitation mediation as a means of conflict management and presented a graphical conceptual model to depict the dynamics of regional mediation process. The study found out that IGAD mediation in South Sudanese conflict was undermined by divergent interests and entrenched divisions within IGAD member states. As a result, the root causes of the conflict were not fully addressed and therefore, the conflict escalated. The challenges facing effective implementation of the ARCISS were found to related to power wrangling, which resulted from the power sharing arrangements, divided international community, divided regional community, lack of political will from the parties, failure to demilitarize the national capital juba and other major cities, poor supervisory role of JMEC and IGAD, two armies within one country, competing states interests such as Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan, non-adherence to cease fire agreement and the creation of 32 states by Kiir, which escalated the violence. The study recommends that IGAD must adopt a robust model of peace negotiation, be neutral and reliable peace mediation, in order to succeed in the mediation process. IGAD must also barred those mediators found accepting bribes from disputant parties, make them known publically and shame them. IGAD should revive the idea of having a regional army, equips and empower like NATO to protect civilians, preserve peace throughout the region, and capable to enforce peace implementation. IGAD must also have a proper, powerful monitoring and evaluation body to oversee the implementation of peace deal. For sustainable peace, there is a need for institutional and security sector reforms in South Sudan. Also South Sudan needs to form a unified and inclusive national army, delineated from politics of tribalism and ethnicity. The proposed special hybrid court should be established and equipped with competent judges of integrity to prosecute those found to have committed crimes and abuses against civilians. A Commission for Truth, Healing and Reconciliation must be reconstituted to reconcile the divided communities and heal the wounds of the past and that of the current war. Economic recovery, post-conflict development and infrastructure reconstruction should be regionally and internationally supported, among others.