Puok Both Baluang, the acting press secretary for SPLM-IO leader and First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar has said their stance remains solid and they will not participate in the Tumaini Initiative mediated by the Government of Kenya in Nairobi unless the sticking points they raised are ironed out.
In an exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj, Both also reiterated the SPLM-IO position that they are not ready, as is the country, for elections without the implementation of salient articles of the 2018 revitalized peace agreement. He also hinted at the need for a meaningful extension of the tenure of the government.
Below are edited excerpts:
Q: What is the latest you have on the ongoing Tumaini Initiative in Nairobi, Kenya?
A: Last Tuesday, before the president traveled to South Africa, there was a joint meeting that brought the presidency together and they were briefed by Chief Negotiator General Lazarus Sumbeiywo. He briefed them on the latest about the ongoing Tumaini Initiative. The meeting did not last long and they resolved to continue with another meeting under the leadership of the First Vice President (Dr. Riek Machar).
The meeting was attended by the high-level committee that are members of the signatories to the 2018 peace agreement and the four vice presidents. The participants raised several questions to the high-level committee on many things that were discussed during the negotiation and that were stipulated in the initial agreement which is composed of eight protocols.
They agreed that all the discussions made will be attached to the minutes of the meeting and will be tabled in the upcoming meeting with the president after his return from South Africa. [Ed: President Salva Kiir has since returned from South Africa].
Up to now, we are still waiting for the return of the president so that we as signatories to the peace agreement can reach a consensus as a one-government delegation to the Tumaini talks.
The majority of the members of the high-level committee have also expressed similar concerns to what the SPLM-IO raised earlier. Our stance remains solid that we will not participate in the Tumaini talks unless the concerns we raised are addressed.
Q: What are your concerns?
A: We have several concerns over the eight protocols that have been initialed and we also have some concerns on the first zero draft. We wrote to the mediation and we copied to all the stakeholders and up to this moment, nothing has been discussed. That is why on 16 July, the SPLM-IO Political Bureau met and resolved to withdraw our representatives from the Tumaini talks.
Q: The president is now back from South Africa, so, when do we expect the meeting to take place?
A: We shall wait to hear from the Office of the President because before the president traveled, he expressed his intention to be part of the internal discussions among the signatories to the peace agreement about a unified consensus and a way forward. We are still waiting for that meeting to be announced and if the resolutions of that meeting will meet the concerns raised earlier by the SPLM-IO.
If that happens, we will send our representatives back to the talks, otherwise, we will not be part of the Tumaini Initiative.
We would like to reiterate our commitment to a peaceful political settlement that should be through inclusive participation and not through violations of other agreements. We would like to reaffirm our stance towards the Tumaini talks as a venue for talks and any agreement from Tumaini should be an annex to the revitalized peace agreement and not a new agreement.
Q: As signatories to the revitalized peace agreement, what are you up to, the elections are supposed to be held in December. So what is the way forward?
A: Our stance has been very clear about the elections. We said the current situation is not conducive to a free, fair, inclusive, and peaceful election in the country. We still have unfinished security arrangements, a national census, and the drafting of a permanent constitution in addition to a civil space. All these are missing.
The high committee held a meeting here in Juba and they resolved to have a general evaluation on the implementation of the peace agreement, about what has been implemented, what is being implemented at the moment, and what is yet to be implemented.
According to their evaluation, they said only 10 percent of the whole agreement has been implemented, 33 percent is under implementation but not yet completed and about 57 percent is not yet fully implemented. This report is expected to be presented to the two principals, the president, and the first vice president so that they decide on a way forward.
Therefore, we are saying at the moment, it is difficult to hold any election in the country in December.
Q: Are you implying that the only way forward is to extend the current transitional government’s tenure in office?
A: If there is an extension, we need a regional guarantee from our stakeholders. We do not see the previous extensions being the same. What is well known to all South Sudanese is that there is no political will and that is the main factor that led to the failure of implementing the agreement. All South Sudanese know who is holding and allocating funds for the implementation of the government programs.
So, we expect that the presidency will decide during the upcoming meeting, and probably it (tenure) will be extended. But up to now, they have not discussed the period of extension. From our side, we would like to see that the extension should be decided based on the subject of discussion.
One of the hard topics is about the permanent constitution and according to the experts, if funds are allocated, they can do their work within 18 months. Therefore, we could build our argument for the proposed extension based on such suggestions.
Q: How will you be able to convince the people of South Sudan for another extension this time around?
A: This is a reality but we will rely more on the outcome of the expected meeting of the principals, this is what we are going to implement. But the fact remains that if there is no election, what is the next option? It would be an extension, but, we do not need the same extension as it happened previously without any benefit.
Many have been saying we are supporting an extension to remain in power. The current government is not a government that would extend a period for funds. There is no administrative stability, officials are changed at any time and there is no clear plan for the country. There is no agreed consensus on how to administer government institutions.