By Bosco Bush
As Tumaini talks in Nairobi enter second week, a deadlock appears to be emerging, as parties have failed to reach a consensus on contentious issues in the already signed protocols.
The disagreement between the restructured government delegates and the opposition groups over key provisions of the already Tumaini Protocols suggests that little progress has been made, potentially hindering the peace process.
Speaking to Radio Miraya on Wednesday morning, Dr. Ayak Chol, Representative of the South Sudan Civil Society Forum to the Tumaini initiative, stated that as of yesterday, “there was still no breakthrough, and the high-level mediation is still trying to find a viable formula that addresses the concerns, needs and priorities of both parties.”
The sticky issues, she said include, responsibility/power sharing, Tumaini implementation structures/mechanisms, concerns about repetition within the document [Tumaini Protocols], and clarity on the implementation timeline of the agreement.
But there was no disagreements regarding elections and the constitution-making process.
“They do not disagree with the provisions of the previous eight protocols regarding constitution and election and so they did not touch on that,” she added.
Dr. Ayak emphasized that it is the ultimate goal for both the government delegation and the opposition is to return to South Sudan with a peace agreement and build peace while the stakeholders ensure an inclusive and durable political space in South Sudan and shift things for the better.
Opposing views.
Speaking during the relaunch of the talks last week, head of government delegation, Gen. Kuol Manyang Juuk said the team intended to review the protocols within the spirit of reconstruction, reconciliation and peace and should not cause alarm.
“We have reviewed the Tumaini Initiative protocols and recognized its potential to address gaps in the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS). Therefore, we must avoid duplication and fragmentation. To me, it must not be treated as a stand-alone agreement, but rather a complementary to the agreement. This alignment will ensure coherence, streamline implementation, and avoid unnecessary bureaucratic structures that undermine all the existing ones,” he said.
He said integrating the Tumaini into the agreement would ensure a unified approach to peace and governance.
However, the opposition groups rejected the attempt maintaining that talks should restart from without renegotiating the already signed protocols.
In a statement, barely two days into the resumption of the talks, the opposition groups raised complaints, accusing the reconstituted government delegation of exhibiting the position of “anti-Tumaini elements who are hell-bent on dismantling the Tumaini Consensus.”
This position of the government delegation, SSOMA said, rules out any possibility of approaching the negotiations with open minds to conclude the talks with a viable, realistic and implementable framework for peace to exit the troubled and unending extensions of the R-ARCSS.
“By presenting the position of its anti-Tumaini groups, the reconstituted R-TGONU delegation has openly reneged on the Tumaini Consensus, negotiated and agreed by the former delegation of the same government, the opposition, and stakeholders and witnessed by representatives of the Government of Kenya, IGAD and the Community of Sant ’Egidio,” the statement partly read.
“Their actions also dismiss completely the Joint Communique of the two Presidents of Kenya and South Sudan issued in Juba on 6 November 2024, that recognized the completed protocols and called for finalizing the Tumaini Peace Initiative within two (2) weeks,” read the statement.
The group appealed to the Mediation team, the region, and the international community to prevent the reconstituted R-TGONU delegation from jeopardizing the significant strides made by the Tumaini Peace Initiative.
Analyst pros and cons
A political analyst who has been keenly following the trends surrounding Tumaini initiative described the deadlock as a manifestation of the transactional behaviour of the political elites rooted in personal and interpersonal political calculus around the throne of power earned through the elites’ power-sharing.
Prof. Dr. Luka Biong, in an opinion piece seen by this outlet, permeates the pros and cons of the Tumaini Peace Initiative in 3 marginal points namely; new diplomatic shuttling, postponement of talks and breakdown of talks.
To unlock the deadlock, the analyst suggested President William Ruto and the mediation team need to visit Juba again and ensure clear directives to the delegation of the Government about the joint communique, and urge the delegation to accept the parallel discussion of concerns raised by the Government about the eight protocols and responsibility sharing advanced by the Opposition.
However, Prof Biong said the risk of this scenario is that Kenya may run out of patience in continuing to invest in such a futile mediation with no hope for a credible peace deal to be implemented.
Also, he said, the dominant elements of the Anti-Tumaini Initiative in the delegation of the Government may continue to advance their narrow political agenda to frustrate any diplomatic shuttling to unlock the deadlock.
The second scenario, Prof. Biong underscores is to postpone talks and to allow the parties to have more consultation among themselves. The success of this scenario, he said, depends on the first scenario of the diplomatic shuttling.
The risk of this scenario is that Kenya may be reluctant to resume any peace talks if the parties are unwilling to compromise on their positions.
This might lead to the total collapse of the Tumaini Peace Talks. The other risk is that the Opposition might use this opportunity to reorganize themselves into a unified military alliance to challenge the Government in Juba, stated Prof. Biong.
The third scenario, the scholar said, Kenya might consider putting an end to the Tumaini Peace Talks and prioritize on its pressing national issues. Although this scenario is unlikely and depends on the first scenario, this scenario cannot be ruled out.
The risk is that, the opposition might make their own political assessment and opt out of any further negotiations with the Government and pursue the armed struggle. This option will be costly for the Opposition as the option of violence is abhorred by the people of South Sudan and the countries of the region, warned the scholar.
Prof. Biong pins that, Tumaini Initiative is the only mechanism that would restore peace with win-win peace outcomes for all.
Unlocking the current deadlock by accepting the parallel discussion of the contentious issues, he said, will be the only way of moving the negotiations toward the path of restoring peace with win-win outcomes for all – rather than the shortsighted zero-sum outcomes pursued by the elements of the anti-Tumaini Initiative.
Relaunched on December 4, Tumaini peace talks were expected to be discussed within 14 14-day timeframe to seal a deal and present it as a Christmas gift for the people of South Sudan.