Interview: SPLM-opposition accuse Juba of ‘hidden agenda’ against UNMISS

The SPLM/A-in-Opposition have accused the South Sudanese government of having a ‘hidden agenda’ in targeting the UN Mission in South Sudan, after the government launched a campaign of security searches against the peacekeeping mission.

The SPLM/A-in-Opposition have accused the South Sudanese government of having a ‘hidden agenda’ in targeting the UN Mission in South Sudan, after the government launched a campaign of security searches against the peacekeeping mission.

According to the UN, peacekeepers in South Sudan are experiencing forcible searches and daily harassment in various parts of the country. Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman of the UN Secretary-General, said Tuesday in New York, “movement restrictions of UN personnel continue, as do forcible searches of UN vehicles, flights, and convoys, and threats and harassments against UN and UN-associated personnel.”

South Sudan’s government announced last month that such measures were necessary because of concerns that the UN was supplying weapons to the SPLM/A-in-Opposition. But in an interview, a spokesman of the SPLM/A-in-Opposition said this was not the real reason for the searches. 

Instead, the Juba government has a ‘hidden agenda’ in targeting UNMISS, says James Gatdet Dak, spokesman for the group’s leader, ousted vice-president Riek Machar. He credits the UN mission with protecting thousands of civilians who fear the government and sought UN protection at bases in several towns.

Recent data provided by the UN puts the number of civilians at ‘protection of civilian sites’ at nearly 70,000. Nearly half of them are ethnic Nuers at UN bases in the national capital, Juba.

James Gatdet also spoke about the peace talks in Addis Ababa.

Radio Tamazuj: The two sides have not yet signed an agreement on declaration of the principles for the peace negotiations. What could be the main obstacle? And why did the IGAD suspend the talks until 30 April?

James Gatdet Dak: One of the concerns raised by our delegation was the proposed inclusion of Uganda as an observer in the peace talks. We are saying Uganda has been involved in the war alongside Salva Kiir’s forces. The country therefore does not qualify to sit at the negotiation table as a neutral observer.

Uganda would understandably sit on the side of the government’s delegation since they are an allied force fighting against us. But it should not be allowed to act as the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.

Another point of contention is about inclusion of the seven former detainees that would form a third bloc in the talks. The government’s delegation has refused to accord them representation as the third bloc at the negotiation table. They seem not to recognize the third bloc at this juncture and prefer to engage directly with us at the negotiation table.

They have therefore refused to sign a document that would include signatures of the representatives of the third bloc as suggested by the IGAD mediators. This is what led to the stalemate and the suspension of the talks.

Do you think the G7 members will contribute something in the peace talks, given the fact that the government is calling for reconciliation with them? 

I think the third bloc, or the G7 as you may want to call them, can significantly contribute to the peace process. We share with them our political concerns. We only differ with them in the fact that we have alternatively formed an armed resistance force, which they have shied away from. And I don’t think they would prefer Salva Kiir’s regime-led reconciliation process in Juba over the current venue provided by the IGAD-led mediation or reconciliation process in Addis Ababa. It is however left to them to decide.

Now in case the talks collapse completely, do you think war will be the option? What is the next step?

I believe nobody wants war. We don’t want the war. It was imposed on us. Maybe the genocidal regime in Juba may want to perpetuate the war. But I don’t see the reason why the current peace talks should collapse.

We in the opposition to the government are committed to the peace process. The government in Juba should also understand that a peaceful resolution to the conflict is the best option. However, if the other side will continue to impose war on us we shall also continue to exercise our right to self-defense and resist them until God knows what will happen.

The US, United Kingdom, Norway, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and the European Union strongly condemn the continued obstruction of UNMISS operations and accusations that UNMISS is supporting you, the rebels. Is it true that you’re receiving support from them?

First of all, it is unfair for the regime in Juba to dislike UNMISS despite the responsibilities the mission shoulders in saving lives in our country. Tens of thousands of souls are still breathing today because of UNMISS. It has been providing protection and shelter for the countless vulnerable women, children and the elderly people across our country. They protect them even from the very government which is by constitution supposed to protect its own citizens.

I presume that the government may have a hidden agenda against the UN mission. The regime deserves the condemnation for their recent unbecoming conduct. As for the alleged support to us, this is unacceptable allegation. We have never received any support from UNMISS.

If not, which country is supporting you?

None. We receive our ammunitions from defeated and dispersed government’s troops and their foreign allies.

Most of the developmental organizations are closing some projects in the country, due to continued fighting between you and the government. Why is it hard for you to sign a peace agreement?

We have been always ready to negotiate in good faith and sign peace. It is the government which has been dragging its feet. And by the way, the proposed deployments of regional forces to South Sudan, in addition to the hostile Ugandan troops already in the country, help fuel and protract the war.

It gives false hope to Kiir’s regime that they will survive. It makes them more intransigent. If the countries in the region want peace in South Sudan they should instead put pressure on Salva Kiir to negotiate in good faith. And this is for him to negotiate himself out of the presidency as a failed leader because he is the symbol of the ongoing mess in the country.

Your four colleagues are undergoing treason charges in a court in Juba. What would you say about that?  

It is not a surprise to me that the government was unable to present evidence for the alleged coup attempt which led to the detention and trial of these leaders. This is simply because there was no coup plot in the first place.

On the contrary, I would say that what happened was a reverse. It was an attempted assassination against these falsely accused leaders by Salva Kiir and his colleagues. Now, they were also dragged to that kangaroo court which the regime calls an independent court and a fair trial.

They also demanded maximum sentences, politically preempting the desired severity of punishment. There is no independent judiciary in South Sudan as we speak. It is the desire of the president that is always satisfied. Therefore we have been calling for their unconditional release.

We also expect the regional governments and the wider international community to continue exerting pressure on the regime to release them. Not forgetting that the citizens of this hard won country should make their voices clearly heard in demanding justice, democracy and freedom for all.

Photo: Protesters at a government-organized rally in Juba (VOA)