What’s happening with the South Sudan peace process? Nobody seems to know

Making more public information available about the IGAD-led South Sudan peace talks will not solve the disconnect between the Addis process and South Sudan’s citizens, but it is a start.

The collapse of the last round of regionally led peace talks on South Sudan in March this year was the most recent blow to a process that has struggled to maintain its relevance in the eyes of the South Sudanese population. Overseen by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in Addis Ababa, the negotiations have been dominated by a small and familiar cast of South Sudanese elites and come to focus overwhelmingly on power sharing. Despite substantial international diplomatic and financial investment in the talks, attention has not been sufficiently paid to the profound dearth in public information that has marked the talks. This silence has contributed to a significant disconnect between the Addis process and the conflict-affected people whose interests the talks are supposed to serve.

IGAD mediators have not issued a clear, publicised agenda for the negotiations and its member states are reportedly tabling competing initiatives and proposals within the talks themselves. This lack of clarity applies to the latest IGAD initiative to convene parties for a consultative meeting in Addis on 8 June, for which there is no published agenda. There has also been a parallel set of talks led by Tanzania’s ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi, in Arusha, which have an unclear relationship to the IGAD-led initiative. All of this impacts the ability of citizens to follow the basic structure and agenda for the peace process, making it difficult for groups to issue informed interventions to constructively influence the talks. Even established national NGOs in Juba, Wau and Rumbek – many of whom have regular access to national and international media – are unclear on the current state of the peace process.

For most citizens across South Sudan it is challenging to access regular, reliable information on the peace process through the media. Trust in the national media appears to be at an all-time low: a civil society representative in Western Bahr el Ghazal State told Saferworld that many people walk away when televisions in public spaces are tuned to government-run South Sudan TV. Some radio stations, such as UN-run Radio Miraya, and online news sites appear to be doing a better job of providing a balanced picture of the talks. But the space for independent coverage is being challenged. Several reports have emerged of media intimidation and self-censorship; in the past, this has targeted newspapers such as Juba Monitor and The Citizen and Catholic radio station Bakhita Radio. Independent media sources are often not within easy reach of the wider citizen population due to South Sudan’s largely rural population which has limited access to print newspapers, the Internet, and even radio. Language barriers are also an issue; for example, in Lakes State many people don’t speak English or Arabic and information on the peace talks is not available in local languages.

While well-connected members of the church and civil society who have gone to the Addis talks or are based in Juba have some idea of the dynamics in the talks and the agendas, outside of the capital, Saferworld found very little evidence of information trickling down. Incomplete or confusing communication from the mediation to civil society delegates and weak feedback channels from those delegates to their constituencies, have contributed to the failure of the civil society channel to inform the people of South Sudan on the peace process.

Civil society organisations in South Sudan have also raised serious questions about the representativeness of those involved in the talks and the selection process used to appoint them. There have been accusations of co-option as well; a disagreement over how many civil society representatives each party could have was used to shut down negotiations in June 2014. Civil society participation in Addis has become so sensitive and heavily critiqued that many civil society representatives that Saferworld spoke to in South Sudan have largely disengaged from the talks. There does not appear to be much enthusiasm within the mediation to make another push for inclusiveness, nor a clear willingness to directly engage in outreach to the citizens of South Sudan.

This is worrying, as limited availability of regular information shuts down space needed to openly discuss the deep problems affecting South Sudan, make progress on the wide ranging reforms required (constitutional, judicial, political, economic, security sector), and undermines the potential buy-in of the outcomes of any peace agreement amongst wider society. For example, traditional leaders in Western Bahr el Ghazal State told Saferworld that they do not feel comfortable speaking publicly about the peace process without credible information on the talks. Tacit support for secrecy by the IGAD-led mediation further entrenches the perception that this process will produce yet another exclusive, high level peace deal at the expense of inclusive, consultative, and sustainable peace.

Making more public information available will not solve the problem of the pervasive disconnect between the national government, state-level authorities, local administrations, and people at the grassroots level in South Sudan, but it is a start. A concerted effort to provide consistent information directly from the peace process is needed, including through regular press releases from the mediation and direct outreach and consultations through a variety of channels including civil society and faith-based groups. The mediators and their supporters must strive to equip the public with the knowledge needed to engage in discussions about the peace process without fear that they are acting on information that may put them on the wrong side of the authorities. This will also require commitments from the parties to allow for open dissemination and free discussion of issues related to the peace process. In the weeks following the failure of the last round of peace talks, there was a significant upsurge in fighting in Unity and Upper Nile states. The impact of this violence on the civilian population reinforces the importance of having an effective and inclusive peace process.

International donors should reconsider their current approach to funding the talks and:

• Support a coordinated public information platform and citizen outreach channels. This must involve a review of ongoing initiatives in consultation with citizens, civil society, the church, and other actors to identify and respond to the communications gaps from Addis and within South Sudan. It will be important not to focus exclusively on the talks, but build better communication channels as part of a longer-term process of investing in civic education and increasing citizen engagement in national dialogue and reform processes.

The IGAD-led mediation should:

• Provide a rolling flow of information on the structure and content of the negotiations. This will mean setting and publicising plans and issuing regular statements to provide direct updates on the talks. This should start with clarifying plans for the expanded IGAD+ process and the agenda for the next round of talks.

• Go to South Sudan’s states. Launching a consultation tour in South Sudan, engaging a range of actors including traditional leaders, youth groups, women, faith-based actors, and others beyond the urban elite, would go a long way towards establishing a stronger connection between the peace process and the people of South Sudan. This should seek broader views beyond the negotiating parties to inform priorities for the mediation.

Shelagh Daley is Saferworld's UK Advocacy Coordinator.

Find out more about Saferworld's work in South Sudan.

“This silence has contributed to a significant disconnect between the Addis process and the conflict-affected people whose interests the talks are supposed to serve.”

Shelagh Daley