Peace Work in South Sudan

After four-hours riding in the back of a safari vehicle over rough roads (sort of like off-roading, but with a destination), it takes a little while to get my land legs when we get to Nimule and St. Patrick’s. Six of us made the trip: Gladys, our trip leader and staff of SCC, Martin our driver, Pastors Simon and James who both work in Juba and Nimule, Wendy, and myself. Gladys has arranged for us to meet with a number of leaders in the peace activities in and around Nimule. They come from different backgrounds and work in the church: Christian Brotherhood, Episcopal Church of Sudan, The Sudan Gospel Mission, the Catholic church, etc. The common ground is working for peace here in Nimule and the surrounding villages.

Simon takes the lead and talks about the trauma, detentions, harassment, and violence that continued after the peace agreement was ratified. Over and over again, the issues of tribalism and how it defines land, loyalty, community, family, and prejudices. Simon explains how during the war many thousands of people were displaced, and since the war, most (but not all) of those displaced persons have tried to return to their homelands and their homes. But, there’s a huge domino problem because so many have temporarily settled someplace and someone has to move first. And, some people have decided they like where they’ve settled, and don’t want to move, even though the land, houses, and buildings aren’t theirs. Commonly known as ‘land-grabbing’ it get more complex as different tribes live amongst each other with different traditions and practices (e.g. farming versus raising cattle, versus business) which are not seen as compatible on the same land. It’s hugely frustrating and humiliating when you have to build a new house within sight of your old one on the land your family has owned for generations. The government seems to ignore the problem, and is widely assumed to be biased because of their own tribal loyalties, and doesn’t have the capacity to provide local law enforcement anyway.

I don’t venture to understand the complexities and subtleties of tribalism. As a Westerner it’s easy to think in stereotypes, and it’s difficult to make the equivalent in our own context, though the effects of it are there in different ways. Suffice to say, people in East Africa identify strongly with their tribe, their homeland (when you ask an African where he’s from, there are often two answers – the ancestral home and the present place he is living). There are strong perceptions about the characteristics, traditions, and roles of different tribes, for example the Kikuyu seem to have the reputation of being good business people, and dominating Kenyan politics.

As each person tells their story, the common theme of land-grabbing, settlement, and tribalism comes up over and over again, each person giving their personal take on it. Dealing with the IDP (internally displaced persons, to distinguish from refugees, who are typically from outside Sudan) has created a lot of division and anger. The SCC helped by sponsoring a large gathering to which hundreds of people came: chiefs, elders, politicians, pastors and imams from the various tribes, including IDPs, in an effort to get overcome some of the barriers. Out of that meeting (and several more like it) arose the local peace committees. These leaders were at that meeting, and the next step is for us to meet with some of the peace workers in the villages.

We leave St. Patrick’s to go to Olikwi, a tiny, remote village on the Ugandan border, with a peace committee. Just as we arrive, the elders are seated in a semi-circle to hear a complaint from a tribes-woman, who is sitting on the bare ground with her child. None of us know what’s going on, but the hearing is either quickly dispatched or put on hold, upon our arrival.

We squeeze into a hut with the elders and our group – about 25 of us in a rough circle, seated on plastic patio chairs. The stories are told of the upheaval during the war, the land grabbing, and the climate of suspicion. This village is within a short walk of its former site; squatters live in their old homes, on their lands. Pretty soon, it comes out that there’s one tribe – Dinka – that supposedly is the source of all the problems, since everyone else apparently gets along. The Peace Committees have brokered some deals and small wins, but it’s clear the hostility is barely under the surface and that any truce is tenuous as best.. The fundamental issue of land-grabbing has not been addressed. Chief John is pretty skeptical, noting that “there really hasn’t been much progress about getting our land back, despite promises from the politicians.” The peace committee organizers agree, but won’t give up, since the alternative, open hostility or war is unthinkable.

The second site is even more remote: the new offices of the Mugali Payam, where we meet up with members of another Peace Committee. Seven members are there, a few having walked miles to join us. While land grabbing is still the dominant issue, they’ve also been trying to address social issues, such as spousal and child abuse. It’s clear they’re trying to fill the gap caused by remoteness and the lack of civil authority, while also walking a narrow line so as not to encroach on the traditional rights and authority of elders and chiefs. Paul is the most talkative of the group, and says their task is to “simply get people to talk and keep talking.” I asked Paul what SCC had done for them in all this, and he said “They gave us power and knowledge – skills to help problem-solve and mediate without getting too involved. We provide a service to the elders and chiefs without stepping on their feet.” Still, as at Olikwi, lots of problems continue to exist; while some social issues are getting better, the problems of land grabbing and settlers persist and are well entrenched.

The Peace Committees seem to be a good idea and there are legitimate, tangible results. At the same time. there are issues that are likely beyond their ability or capacity. The model of reconciliation and dialogue works best (only?) when all parties are committed. From the conversations, it seems that some are more committed than others, and some are simply not interested at all. The so-called “Comprehensive Peace Agreement” sounds like it’s more comprehensive on paper than in reality at present.