Last Friday, South Sudan President Salva Kiir and his former vice-president and political rival Reik Machar signed a peace deal in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. Rather ominously, a similar ceasefire was signed in Addis Ababa in January between Kiir and Machar. It fell apart within days. Will Friday's deal meet the same sorry end? In January, the South Sudanese protagonists were in no mood to be lectured. Now, they seem to concede that it is possible that the international community is worth listening to. The South Sudanese should resist surrender to moral relativism. In the not so distant past they were committed to fighting the repressive militant Islamist regime in Khartoum. Southerners had a common foe. Now, after South Sudan gained independence, their politicians, even within the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), do no seem to have a common denominator. The deal means “an immediate cessation of hostilities within 24 hours of the signing” and “unhindered humanitarian access” to all people affected by the months-long conflict, said a statement by the East African regional bloc known as IGAD (Inter-Governmental Authority on Development). The international community has expressed its outrage and concern at developments in South Sudan. The world is committed to “ending the violence and negotiating in good faith to reach a political agreement,” United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged the protagonists. He underlined that the warring parties should “immediately translate these commitments into action on the ground”. The problem is that there are growing fears among South Sudan's neighbours and Western powers that the protagonists in South Sudan will not keep their promise or heed the words of Ban Ki-Moon. The message is clear enough. Whether the South Sudanese protagonists will adhere to the agreement is another matter. The few years of independence have been fraught with colossal challenges. The West likes to blame all South Sudan's ills on local corruption. The megalomaniac mentality of the warlords who still wield tremendous power complicates matters, too. And for all the smiles and handshakes in Addis Ababa, sure enough fighting erupted once again in the oil hub of Bentui less than 24 hours after signing the latest Addis Ababa peace deal. This is South Sudan's darkest hour, even though it was expected to be its brightest hope since 9 July 2011 when southerners seceded after voting overwhelmingly for independence in a referendum held in January 2011. In spite of its oil wealth, South Sudan has some of the world's worst social indicators in education, healthcare and child malnutrition. Hunger rates are above emergency levels, ironically in the war-torn oil producing regions in particular. Maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the world and life expectancy is among the lowest in Africa and the world. Sidestepping sterile arguments about who is to blame for the sorry situation of South Sudan, it has become abundantly clear that the warlords do not have full control over their fighting forces. The militias in the bush, so to speak, do as they wish. Scores of women were gang-raped by soldiers, again in the vicinity of oil producing areas. Machar marshalled a ragtag army of die-hard supporters, mainly from his ethnic Nuer people. Most, but not all, of the rival Dinka clans rallied behind President Kiir's battle cry in retaliation against Machar's insubordination. The result was mayhem. An estimated 1.5 million people have been displaced, rendered homeless since hostilities broke out. It appears that there is a deliberate policy of displacing the inhabitants of oil-rich areas of the country. Some observers, humanitarian and human rights groups have warned of systematic process of ethnic cleansing in oil-rich regions. How much of this should come as a surprise? Practical problems abound, such as poor infrastructure, probably the worst in the world, which necessitates air transport for logistics and medical evacuation conducted by humanitarian groups, along with surveillance and intelligence, as well as close air support, to monitor the situation in the areas of intense fighting. Few expect an instant termination to hostilities. However, many hope for a slow draw down of combat troops from both the Machar and the Kiir camps. Most of South Sudan's neighbours to the south, headed by Uganda, favour Kiir, which may have weakened Machar's bargaining position in Addis Ababa. An old adage about image is that it takes decades to build a reputation, but only days to destroy it. The South Sudanese political establishment has an image problem. They have not run their nascent nation well. It is important to bear in mind, though, that Friday's meeting in Addis Ababa was the first face-to-face encounter between Kiir and Machar since fighting erupted in South Sudan between forces loyal to Kiir and supporters of Machar. This marks a historic shift of sorts.
