by Peter Run*
Vice President Riek Machar’s call for the international community to help solve the conflict between Lou-Nuer and Murle and reconcile the two communities on January 12, probably hints at the government’s inability and/or unwillingness to settle a major internal conflict in which it is not an adversary. If the government is unable - and I very much doubt that - then the Vice President’s call raises this question: is the international community really the best peacemaker in such a conflict situation?
The inter-communal conflict in Jonglei State has no doubt drawn in national and international voices with its high rate of casualties and a purported genocidal intent at a very critical time in the young nation’s history. The availability of small arms is making military intervention difficult and the civilian disregard for the rule of law is making it seem like a national security problem.
However, at its very core, the conflict between Lou Nuer and Murle sits very much outside the usual conflict resolution domain of government and international “disaster tourists” of the United Nations, to borrow Alex de Waal’s phrase. The nature of the conflict has morphed from cattle-related raids to retributive attacks, and now, it is reported as attempted genocide. This is a critical stage of the conflict and it is very worrying because the same (albeit dormant) type of conflict is known to exist among many pastoralist and semi-sedentarist tribes of South Sudan.
This last point has two implications. First it means that the conflict in Jonglei State exists in a web. The Murle-Dinka Bor conflict cannot be seen in isolation from the Murle-Lou Nuer conflict; ditto for any conflict between Anyuak and any of the other communities. Second, it also means local capabilities need to be developed as early as possible because conflicts of this nature have the potential (and are known to have erupted) between major groups such as the Dinka and Nuer. Countries that fail to develop such capabilities tend to decent into anarchy and are often characterized as failed states. The proud people of South Sudan should be charting a different path.
Inter-communal conflict is a governance challenge that only South Sudanese, through their government, traditional leadership and civil society, can solve. The best way to approach such types of conflict, emerging research on alternation models of conflict resolution has shown, is to allow conflicting parties to own the process of peace and reconciliation. The Wunlit Peace Conference that settled the Dinka-Nuer conflict is an example of how an inclusive conflict resolution can be pursued.
If the African Union’s message of “African solutions to African problems” is relevant at all, I believe it is primarily in the area of conflict resolution. Inter-communal conflicts like this are historical and complex. They need local wisdom that appreciates precolonial narratives. Solving this conflict is likely to start with mutual accusations infused with beliefs that outsiders will be wont to dismiss. Time constraints also pressure outsiders to rush through subtle but key points of disputes. These and many other reasons make the international community the least desirable participant in any inter-communal conflict resolution in South Sudan.
The international community may help, but the Jonglei crisis needs a South Sudanese approach to conflict resolution. It challenges South Sudanese to think critically about diversity and how to go forward as citizens of a republic they designed. Creating an inter-community conflict resolution commission or some such reservoir of knowledge and experience now would be a better way to start than to call for external help that will most likely gloss over the problem and leave South Sudan with their experiences and acquired knowledge. What about planning for now and next time, Mr. Vice President?
*Peter Run’s PhD thesis is on African approaches to conflict resolution.