The ongoing war in South Sudan is a manifestation of the tribal divide. It is a violent conflict as it revolves around politics over power and resources, which subordinates the ideological aspect of nation-building.
The struggle is only to shape the state of South Sudan for the benefit of some at the expense of others.
Though the situation appears confused, what is clear is that there is mobilization along tribal lines. While some consider the conflict a civil war, others reckon that it is a tribal conflict.
Since the state of South Sudan is still in a crude stage of nation-building, tribal loyalties and principles dictate how it is run. The conflict is highly manifested through the personalities on each side of the tribes, which makes it appear to be personal rather than a national crisis.
The political crisis in South Sudan that has been going on since 2013 persists because it permeates the structures of the communities at all levels. It is manifested through tribal relations and contradictions. The South Sudanese people appear to be quarreling without any particular person in mind, yet they oppose each other along tribal lines.
Human dignity tends to diminish as people view each other through tribal lenses. The conflict is manifested through a struggle for tribal superiority and the quest to subjugate tribal opponents.
The majority of members of each tribe often conclude that the conflict is tribal or a personal crisis caused by greed for power. They argue that the conflict involving certain personalities on either side should not be seen as national but as a personal crisis, which shows that they are living in self-denial.
Due to tribal influence that blurs their understanding of the conflict, the majority on either side fail to learn from history because they do not believe in the ability and influence of their political opponents. This is why action against each other is always easier to start but difficult to sustain, as it affects everyone and the country as a whole.
The conflict has its roots in the liberation struggle. Dr. Riek Machar was at the center of the conflict during and even after the liberation war. This makes the conflict appear to be Machar’s war for power, leading to the belief that eliminating him from politics will help the country achieve lasting peace. However, this is far from the truth.
As a matter of fact, Machar is often seen as the cause of conflict because of his forthright approach to issues. Machar hates injustice, which makes him speak the truth. A system built on fiction does not like such an approach.
On August 28, 1991, scarcely three months after Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam’s fall, two commanders of northern Upper Nile, based in Nasir and headed by Dr. Riek Machar, called for the democratization of the SPLA, the cessation of human rights abuses, and the reorientation of the SPLA’s objective from a united secular Sudan to independence for the south. That was a noble call, but tribal groups on either side hijacked it, leading to the split in the SPLA/M.
The split weakened the SPLA as a military organization since it was consumed by internal fighting. The consequences of the conflict were devastating, as it turned tribal. The SPLA remained split, roughly along tribal lines, especially after the Nasir forces (mostly Nuer) massacred many Dinka civilians in an effort to capture John Garang’s home territory of Bor.
As Human Rights Watch reported, the massacre touched off one of the most violent periods of inter-factional and inter-tribal fighting in southern Sudan’s history. It exacerbated a desperate situation for the civilian population and led directly to the creation of the “Hunger Triangle,” a pocket of famine from Ayod to Kongor to Waat, so named in 1993 when the UN and other relief operations were finally permitted access to the needy in this area of intense factional fighting.
However, the Bor Massacre should not be looked at in isolation. It was motivated by revenge that was carried out against the GatJaak communities in 1983, followed by the killing of Samuel Gai Tut in 1984 over the ideology of war between his Anya-Nya II group and the SPLA of John Garang, which was later followed by the Lou Nuer Massacre of 1985.
The massacres of Gatjaak, in which Samuel Gai Tut, an influential Nuer leader, and the Lou Nuer in 1985 were victims, laid the foundation for the revenge war between the Nuer and the Dinka. The legacy of those wars created tribal fault lines that have always been ready to turn every conflict into tribal violence. This was the reason why the split in the SPLA in 1991 turned tribal. Nuer communities, aggrieved by injustices committed against them prior to the Bor Massacre, found an opportunity to seek revenge.
The hatred between the Nuer and the Dinka became entrenched and has always resulted in killings between the two ethnic groups: in Bor in 1991, later repeated by the Nuer against the Dinka in Akot Payam of Rumbek District, and in turn, the killing of the Nuer people in Bahr el-Ghazal in the aftermath of the Nasir Declaration between 1991 and 1994.
The killings between the Nuer and the Dinka after the independence of South Sudan in 2013 to date stem from tribal hatred. It is normal for the two communities to kill their own members without regret, as reflected in casual talks.
From the above discussion, we can see that the relationship between the Nuer and the Dinka is characterized by hatred and a lack of trust. This kind of relationship reduces human value to that of mere objects in the view of either tribe. It makes the government become tribal, depending on who occupies the highest position. This can further result in dictatorship and indefinite conflict between the two tribes.
Whoever is in charge of the system built on this kind of relationship must understand the nature of the conflict and how to address it if lasting peace is to be achieved. The conflict between the Nuer and the Dinka, which has killed millions of people, must not be approached through criminal justice. The best approach is honest dialogue that will result in reconciliation and recommendations on how to address the damages that have been inflicted.
Currently, the relationship between the Nuer and the Dinka is highly strained. No member of the Dinka community can punish a Nuer without it being seen as an act of revenge.
The failure of Dinka leaders to acknowledge and apologize, as Machar did in the past, makes reconciliation hard to achieve. This is the source of the continuing conflict on a tribal basis, coupled with a political agenda. To achieve true peace, South Sudan needs dialogue and reconciliation at all levels.
The starting point should be implementing the Revitalized Agreement at all levels of government. At the grassroots, there is a need for the government to oversee honest dialogue and reconciliation between the communities, adopting the approach of the Wunlit Peace Conference between the Nuer and Dinka in 1999.
The outcomes of the dialogue and reconciliation at all levels should be implemented in letter and spirit. Prosecuting Machar in court will not address the need for justice on both sides. It will instead exacerbate tribal hatred, injustices, and the continuation of conflict in South Sudan.
The author, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, is a member of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly and a law lecturer at Starford International University.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.