Radio Miraya
2867: Roundtable: Can Tumaini Bring Lasting Peace to South Sudan by Christmas?
[Music] The round table. Welcome to the round table. We are coming to your life from Nairobi, Kenya. Like we just rightly put it. This week saw the relaunch of the Tummani Peace Initiative with the renewed focus on prioritizing the implementation of the agreement once it is signed. The parties involved in the ongoing talks here in Nairobi have reaffirmed their commitments to finding a sustainable peace agreement for South Sudan and has highlighted in the November 6th communique, South Sudan's President, South Korean Mayor the Kenyan President, Willem Gouton, tasked the negotiating parties with resolving all the outstanding issues within two weeks. And the two weeks started counting down three days ago on the 4th of this month. And speaking of the relaunch of the Tummani Peace Initiative in Nairobi, the Kenyan Principal Secretary in the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as Dr. Koryn Singui, and besides that the Tummani Peace Initiative is not intended to replace the revitalized agreement on the resolution of conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, but to complement it and support its effective implementation. I'm joined today by Rajab Mohandis, who is a member of the stakeholder and delegate of the People's Coalition for the Action, the PCCA, and he is also participating in the talks at Good Morning, and welcome to Vladimir around table structure. Thank you very much. And I have Governor Brigitte, who is a women representative from the Human Block, welcome to the around table program. Thank you so much for this time. And we have Dr. Alook Abhyam, who is an academia. And he has also, like I said, the extensive will follow this process at Good Morning, and welcome to around table in Nairobi. So thank you very much, Sally. And right away, let's begin. First of all, Dr. Alook, what is your general observation so far after the launch of the Tummani Peace Initiative on Wednesday? Yeah, my first impression in the opening event was so important, because that opening managed to set the stake very clear. And what is expected from the round of talk. And I was so happy, in a sense, that looking at different views, I would say the mediators, they managed to clarify some of the issues. So that's why I was a bit impressed. But importantly, even from the Tumman delegation, I saw a feeling of recognizing the whole outroof as people with political weight. And these are the historical leaders. I was so happy with the statement from the government. But even importantly, the statement from the opposition, Tagana Mom, emphasizing the fact that the peace agreement is not working, it's got stuck. But I know the principal secretary, and he had to collect it intellectually about the issue of hope, the fact that hope is not a special thing. It is a revolutionary concept that he can bring a change. But I want to make sure that there's something I want to make. What is expected from this round table? And I want you to mention it, but I want really to highlight a clarity of the task is very important. And it is very important to go better than to go in communique of November 6. And I want really to read it out, because that one will define exactly what is expected from this meeting. First, the number three in the communique, is that it very clearly. They're excellent. That is present self and present Bluetooth. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. That the parties have reached an agreement on the nine protocols, which have been initial so far. Appreciate it. So underlines, appreciate it. Analyze, initial, initial so far. Number four in the communique. To finalize-- this is now the two heads of the state-- to finalize the mediation process. Their excellency directed. Excellency, present self, present room. Directed, it's not advised. It's not directed. Directed, directed, OK? Is it an order? Yeah. I mean, you see the cover, man. I mean, if they had to sense that you directed you to do something exciting, it's an order, OK? Directed. The mediation team. And mediation team is consisting of two. The mediation team is consisting. The whole group, the whole group, and then the government team. Directed to the mediation team to convene and resolve-- sir, I want to emphasize-- convene and resolve our understanding, our understanding issues within two weeks. So I want people to be clear about the fact that these are clear directives from the heads of the state. And it's very important we need to discuss this round to emphasize what is the task at hand. The task at hand is to discuss the outstanding issues, as mentioned by the year. Another point I want to highlight-- maybe I'm taking a bit of time. You know, government is government. Present self is the head of state. Is the one representing the national government. The revitalized transitional government of national government. It was the self-initiated this process. Present self-constituted a team. And like Dr. Korel said, it was a semi in December last year. Yeah. So he constituted a team to come and negotiate. That team initially agreed. And I want to highlight few things. One of my colleagues, I know people they have. Michael McQuay is one of the people I work with him for a long time. Yeah. Immediating the CPA, implementing the CPA. I have never seen some political shrewd like Michael McQuay. And in fact, to tell you the truth is one of the best negotiators. And for me, as the one person I know people who detected this government are all expenses. And as the person agreeing and initiate the agreement, on behalf of the president with Albino-- so let us be very clear what is expected from this one. And I will talk a little bit about it. OK. And before we hear from other panelists, I wanted to just make some clarification now because the line was a little bit cracking. I was listening to what you said in the community, appreciated the initial denial protocols and directed. And now, what we are seeing in Irobi is the opposite. Because by now everybody, including myself, we were expecting that when the new team comes, they will begin from wire. The previous team stopped over the government. But this is not happening. Are you surprised by that? I'm not surprised. Because usually, in any negotiation, in any real dialogue, you know, I was talking with her earlier. And it's that bumpy process. And it is good also sometimes to become very bumpy and very controversial. And because it's a give up opportunity for people to tell their views. But I want to highlight, some points, what [INAUDIBLE] say that when coming here, we are not going to start from scratch. We are going to start from-- we are going to build what people are beautiful. I know there will be some discussion about the year. So I am not surprised. But I won't really-- the delegation of government of South Sudan really to adhere to the spirit and to be on a higher moral ground and to the commitment of the president. That they should go back with peace. That commitment is very important. Yes, me, I will talk a little bit about whether they offer a new-- because I talk about-- for the dollar box, you cannot afford it, you know, the dollar box. When you offer it, you can have good things. But you can have also bad things. But I wish if they could be able to adhere to the directives of the president, that they should discuss the outstanding issues, but not really to really appreciate the already initial protocol. It is true for the sake of the implementation. I know I will talk later on now. But this is very important. Let them start with the outstanding issues. That-- the task. And the outstanding issues is the responsibility sharing and the implementation of the entities. And I think-- and that's why in the mind of the two heads of the state, what they said within two weeks, they were mindful. The outstanding issues only two. And it could be resolved within two weeks. OK. And Rajab, you have been inside the room for the last two days. Why are we right now with the mind of this initiative since very long and one is-- Well, thank you very much, Sonny Martin and the listeners of the Iran FM. The process is started with numerous consultations. The government-- I mean, the mediation has been convening consultations with the different delegations, meeting with the delegation of government, delegation of the opposition, and also the stakeholders. And so in the past two days, we have been involved jointly in the consultations. And specifically yesterday, the government was able to share their observations of the protocols and their discussions on that. And so it is a-- and the opposition was also able to share their positions on where the process stands. And so from the presentations of the government, they had a couple of observations that they highlighted and emphasized, particularly the issue of what they call the repetition of the RCS and the too many consensus document. There is also the issue of the institutions of all structures created by the too many consensus that they raised concerns about you. And a couple of other issues that they raised, especially issues, to do with the provisions in the too many consensus that tend to be inconsistent with the RCS. And so from that perspective, they seem to say the RCS should be the basis for the negotiations and the ultimate outcome of this process. So that is where they stand. And from the opposition side, they made their positions clear that they are ready to negotiate the remaining issues, particularly the issue of responsibility sharing or power sharing, and that they are ready to sign the final document once the outstanding issues are discussed. And so the stakeholders listened and took note of the different observations from these parties and requested the mediation to arrange for them to share their feedback on these observations and perhaps recommendations from the stakeholders. So at this point, I think the mediation is trying to put together these different aspects to form the agenda for the workaround of the negotiation towards finalizing the process. OK. We shall be here a little from you later on. Yes, you are the only woman representing the huge women of South Sudan who makes over 50% according to the population estimation survey that was conducted at three years ago. First of all, what are you a general observation on how the talks are going? And I would surprise that there are some kind of challenges because, like Dr. Lukadim said, the expectation was that we should begin from wire. The talks stopped last July, brilliant. Thank you so much. I appreciate and I would like to add my voice to the two colleagues of mine here. Actually, I was so much impressed through with the resumption or the launching of the mine initiative special. It really had to talk to the presentation that was given during the launch. I was so much impressed. And my spirit was lifted high back. The two weeks actually would come to pass very fast as I look at it before back home. Then, just to say something on my presentation for the women, yes, I'm representing, but currently I'm happy. A good number of women have come to join me for this initiative talk here. So how many so far have come? I'm expecting we already 10, maybe two more. OK, 10 women. I think, yeah, from both sides. From both opposition, government, and the stakeholder. So we are a little bit of good number. And I'm happy for that. Now, back to my observation on DC resumption. To my next talk. Yes, I would really emphasize, I'm not surprised. And I would only emphasize the way I look at leadership if our president did two health statistics and agreed and appreciate the work which was done by key government leaders in this sporting act honorable Michael Markey, who is a lawyer among us. And that first team started with a lot of bumping. It was so bad. Until we entered into law and so on. And the cap, which was big, was narrowed. And what we did was appreciate it. And now test the new team only to finalize the remaining two items. So what I'm looking at is if we have the obey or rescind it to the directives of leaders, it would be easier. But if we don't really follow the directives and we want to do our own, sometimes it takes us backward. And we may get a stack not moving forward or backward. That is my first observation. And my second observation is, yes, can we, as we discuss, both sides, look beyond the access. Can we focus on the country and also focus on the citizen? What are their views for too many? They are hungry. They look forward to have that peace in the country. And as they lead out, we cannot do everything for the citizen. But what we can do is to have a platform of lasting peace in which they can be able to exercise their talents. They can be able to do what can really develop or add their ability to their nation building. So to me, that's my observation. It opens ways to everybody, the women, the youth, the age, the younger, the children, if we have the wrong cities. But if we are turning around the directives, we will get the stack somewhere. That may not help us. OK. Let me go back to Raja Mohandisa right now, Raja-- because we were already asking the question that, why don't you assign them? Why don't you ask in the last two days of that grid on a agenda? Is there a common ground because Raja was insane? So you may tell us that there is no way you can explain what's going on inside. That's for our listeners who are very keen, because there are agreements for them, though there are some who will get their kicks in. Yes, well, thank you very much. First of all, there is a common interest that south Sudan meets peace, and that is important. And it has been emphasized by the both parties. In the-- I have recent to General Kollmanyang three times now, and he made this statement consistent. In the opening ceremony in his speech, he said that reading have come to take peace home. And in two consultative sessions that we had that we attended, he also repeated the same message, that they have come for peace. And he continues to-- instead, I mean, suggest that this process should be expedited to be completed within the two weeks stipulated that Dr. Lukad Yom was talking about. And so this is also equipped by the opposition. That, yes, they want to finalize. They want this process finalized. They want the peace agreement. And now, where the difference is with regard to how do we commence the discussions? The government side wants the process to commence with revisiting the protocols, especially with regard to the observations that they have, and the opposition wants the process to continue from where it's stopped with the specific officer focusing on the remaining protocol finalized and get the document signed. So that is where it is. And I think the role the mediation is playing is to bring-- to find a common position as to where we start from. OK. Yes, yes, bring it back. Thank you. Just to add it, because I'm also in the room, yeah. Actually, we have not come to the really point to start with. Why? Because the government, the initial protocols, the government has-- three quarter of it has been water. That means it has been erased by the new team or the government, but the new team. And for them, they want to renegotiate again. And another point is whatever was in the addresses should not, by any means, be reflected into mining. Yet, when it was reflected during the previous one, it was an acknowledgment that our access is very important. We cannot throw it. They have to go by that. So by removing everything from the protocol, which was the initial to the new delegation, means to renegotiate or to start afresh. OK. No, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, very quickly. Ideally, there is no controversy seriously with regard to the content of the RRCs and the content of the, to my any consensus. But now, each party holds one. The government holds the RRCs as the basis and the main agreement. The opposition holds the protocols that have been finalized as it brings. So that is where the way people stand. I don't have to speak on behalf of the government, but from your understanding, why are they, why are these contagious issues of raising some of the initial protocols and say, renegotiating and all, opening up a new chapter? Again, why is it coming from? Because this was done by the government team. That was that they get it, appreciate it. And like you had from my doctor, look at them. And even it is in the community of six November. Yes, we are still struggling to understand exactly why the government delegation would have so much concerns over the protocols that were initial by their colleagues. We assumed that this is one government delegated by one president. And so each one of these delegations, actually the first delegation, worked on behalf of the president. And this current delegation, the revitalized delegation, when the new delegation is working on the same basis of the authority of vesting them by the president. So how they go to these differences is something we-- And where does it leave the negotiation right now? It leaves the negotiation in a state of extreme positions by the two parties. And that is where the role of the mediation comes in to try to find a common ground. And what is the face of the two weeks? Well, it is still a work in progress. We are not sure we can't determine at the moment. But if a lot of time is spent in this argument, then it's likely that the two weeks might be over shot. OK. Doctor, I look again from your vast knowledge. I want you to give your input right now. How can the parties navigate and move forward without going back and forth? Because you were rightly put in the beginning that in the community, the president appreciated, directed. And they were given a duration of two weeks. And now we are hearing that the government, the delegation in Nairobi, have won the reopen, come out, they already missed all the document. And this initial document where, actually, I'm sure before the formal delegation initial, they have to consult back with their people, but with their superiors in Dubai. Now we are finding a different-- it's like maybe these people don't live in the same house. They are neighbors. Yeah. So let me say the following. First, what could be in the mind of the government to renegotiate? I'm just anticipating. And who can answer the question? But let me try to-- there's a likelihood that the government will say the first team was not representative enough of the government. They revitalized, transformed government in the United States. They may say, possibly, only three parties are the one who signed initial documents. And the rest did not, including the I/O. So that could be an argument that it could make-- that maybe the rotation was not adequate. But I think this is a very fundamental question about how you govern. One of the heads of a state appoints a delegation. Appoint the delegation or behalf of the entire government. And you cannot say everything must be reserved. If the president is even addressing your assembly of the United Nations, is the struggle or behalf of the government, the transition government? And that's why this argument that knew the representation was not adequate in the first team. I think the government should ask themselves. It is questioning how you govern. Because you cannot question the legitimacy of the heads of a state forming a team, a delegation team. You cannot come back and say, no, it was not representative enough. Another issue I want to highlight, certainly, is that when you talk about the initial-- the initial protocols, we tend to focus only on the two parties. We are not focusing on the other stakeholders. It is an aprotical initial by academia, representative of the youth, representative of women, representative of civil society, and representative of face-based, in addition to the people's coalition for civil action. I want to-- these are the people representing the entire people of South Sudan, the one who initially-- And also witnessed by the government of India. OK, this initial-- initially, this is by the people of South Sudan. It's not only the two parties. People of South Sudan, they say, we agreed on these protocols. Let me say, why it's very important? Because sometimes we tend to look as if who is representing the government? If these sectors of the society, initial, this agreement, and you say, no, the first team was not representative enough of the people of-- I mean, of the government, we are talking about the people, my own assessment and study. I conducted a survey for such people about how-- what is the feeling of the people about too many? It's about 250 respondents. I use it online. So what are we-- 63% of the people of South Sudan. They say too many is going to be a contribution for the peace in this country. So what are the next-- let me come to your question. What are the options available? Look, if I am a mediator in such a situation, it is very important for the mediator to remind the negotiators about the task at hand. And it is very important for them to be clear on that. What is the task at hand? And the task at hand is to resolve the our investigations. It's not about renegotiating the protocols. That's why I was asking, where is the idea of renegotiating the initial document coming from? Because I am not the government. From your understanding. I saw you shaking hands with some of the government leaders in the hall. These are my colleagues, you know. I know them. So you're talking with them. You know, let me say the following. I think Vice President O'Aniga said something, which I want to echo again. So it is about the people of South Sudan. It is not about position. It is true. These protocols, or in agreement going to come out here, there's a livelihood to be some losers and winners. So it's all about that position? No, I don't want to say that. I don't want to say it actually. Some people are feeling their positions. And when you say it very well, how long are you going to feel your position if people of South Sudan, they won the piece? There's this idea of the power dynamics with K. And that's why it's understandable, okay? But then what most important thing, that could explain what is the way forward. I don't want to. If I were to be mediator, I would really start first with our standing issues. And our standing issues are very clear. The power theory, I think the implementation metrics. Then when you finish from that, there's a possibility. I cannot say the protocols, the initial protocols start, Bible or Quran, there's a possibility there could be areas of improvement. If you discuss it afterwards after you finish, this is now we have the agreement. Give the message to the people of South Sudan. We have agreed. Then the government will come and say, you know, we want to make some improvement. For example, there are two issues mentioned. And another issue we have very much, there are two institutions that they mentioned. It is like that people can't talk. But this issue, the leadership council and the UN implementation and oversight. Because these are two institutions that you may need to look into whether they are overlapping with the year. And the idea of having the leadership council is another way of putting a layer, because what I am seeing in South Sudan, there's no institution you have the presidency. But there's no collective institutions that is actually mandated to oversee the process. They go and oversight. I mean, they oversight. The implementation oversight. You know, there's something that I am not sure, maybe out of my reading, there's a high level implementation. You know, that level, that committee was meant for the pre-interim period. For God's sake. After it was it, because it was replacing the embassy. Yeah. But that's why this idea of having this suggestion of this new institution is actually to fill the gap and to have a very effective mechanism for the implementation. But still, people can discuss, these are two institutions that you can discuss. And I see the opposition should not be quite rigid also. It's about dialogue, it is about being flexible for the sake of having peace. Because if those are sending issues as it's all, I mean, being agreed on, what are the main issues here? And I see. For example, is there really an issue about the trust building and conflict building and measures, is there a problem with the community conflict? Is that about the contours and how? So I see there's an opportunity for the mediators to be firm and to guide the process. All right. And you are listening to the roundtable. We are coming to your life from Nairobi. My name is Sarni Martin and I'm the studio here in our main studio. We have Dr. Lukabiam with an academia, Raja Mohandis, a member of the stakeholders and director of the pre-post coalition for civil action, the PCCA. And we have an abominable brigade who is the women representative, the women block. And we are discussing about the relaunch of the two main initiatives that was done here in Nairobi on Wednesday, this week. And you have heard from my guest, our alliance will be open to you later where you can get in touch or you can visit our Facebook page because you're still alive or we are streaming it live on our Facebook page, drop your comment there, we will be reading some of them. Raja and Brigitte, I want your input here. The Deputy Executive Director of Iga, Ambassador Mohammed Abdi, said that he's not worried about what he's been discussing, an agreement different through the rich, whether you like it or not, whether in two weeks or two years, five years, but his worry is about implementation. Two weeks ago, he was in Japan, he talked to some of the friends, even he says, up to today, there are people who are not happy with the extension, the current one. And he even mentioned something like in alphabet, there's only one R. We have exactly all the R's, there was a R and a R and a R and a relaunch again. So, now, in the discussion inside, are there mechanisms being discussed to ensure that whatever is implemented here will be fully implemented, it will not follow the same footstep of the R answers. Let's begin with the R.A.J.A. Well, thank you very much, you know, we joined, we came to this process and started engaging with the mediation way back in Dublin, when they were the mediation, the mediation secretary was put together to lead this process and one thing we emphasized to them was the issue of failure of implementation of disagreements in our country. And that if there should be, if this process would be different, it should focus on this element of failure of implementation of these agreements. And so, throughout the negotiation of these protocols that have been finalized, the aspect of what would be done to ensure agreement, their outcomes are implemented was key. And there are a couple of things that were done. The first was the issue of lack of trust among the parties. People sign agreement, they go back in, they remain afraid of themselves and each one keeps their forces because they do not trust one another and that complicates the implementation process. So, there was a focus on that which led to the protocol on trust and confidence building that all those issues that cause lack of trust should be addressed. The second very important aspect to ensure implementation is covered is with regard to what has been addressed in the aspect of the issue of the grantors. Now, we have always had external grantors and this time there was a strong suggestion that we should also have internal grantors. We should be the grantors of our own peace because there are moments where the external grantors may abandon us and we have seen this situation. In the Arches, Sudan and Uganda were grantors and, of course, the eager institution. Now, some of these countries have gone into serious crisis and South Sudan is no longer a priority to them and so the role of grantor that they had, they are not playing it effectively. So, we also looked ahead and said if this agreement is signed and should there be a situation like external grantors or not that's effective, do we have to wait until we get them serious? And so, the elements of the internal grantors then led to the creation of the structures, particularly the National Leadership Council, which was in control of us. Yes, that people are afraid about the leadership. Why are they afraid of the NAC? Of course, as Dr. Lukabe mentioned earlier, it looks like this institution, but actually it has been accused of being an institution that is going to use up powers in the country, for example, powers of the presidency and the rest of the institutions. But ideally, the interest in this was that, besides Sudanese parties to the agreement, the signatories and of course, the stakeholders should sit together and focus on the aspect of implementation so that where the gaps, they should be able to effectively address those gaps and to be effective in doing that, they need the support of a very technical institution which once then proposed in the form of the National Implementation and Oversight Commission to be able to do most of the technical aspect to provide support for the implementation. And so, in that regard, they're going to do most of this work on analysis and presenting reports to this institution. But also, we have had challenges with the resources. In effective use of resources have also included implementation of these agreements that we have had before. And so, this also was an attempt was made to address this through some of these institutions, particularly the ANIOC, to be able to manage all of this. So those were attempts that were really made to address this. And if you look at the agreement, these are some of the things that answer a very important question. What is new? Because if there is nothing new, then you better remain with the RRCs. Now, if you want to make progress because you have identified crisis, then there must be something new that helps to implement your agreement. So now, these attacks, really, on the protocols, focus on these aspects that are introduced as new aspects intended to support implementation. So in addition to the internal grantors and for your information, we in the stakeholders, this different, this diverse group of stakeholders, religious leaders, academia, women in persons, civil society, women, youth, and all of us, agreed that a South Sudanese will be grantors to our agreements, whether they are external actors or not, we must be grantors to the agreement. So that is as we think. And therefore, we think that the political leaders and the difference, the congress in the country should actually accept to be in charge of ensuring that we implement the agreement. So that is one aspect of the grantors and the implementation. The other one is that the external actors also create an important role. They provide political, diplomatic, technical, and in some cases, financial support. And so we also need them to be part of this. Because we saw them on the launch, there were many, including Qatar, Iran, and many others. Yes. And it was important that Kenya was able to mobilize the region and the wider international community. Yeah. Quite a number of these international actors actually became reluctant to support us in the peace process because of our failures to hold on to our commitments. Right. Then we are back on these agreements and we get into more complications which reflect itself in the economic meltdown and the issues of humanitarian crisis. And so the burden continues to increase. Okay. Yeah. And, Brigitte, we want to find out from you with all the mechanisms. And now you said some of the initial documents want to be addressed. You are not in the position group, but I want you to give us your input. The summer group are saying that they won't stand alone agreement. That's what they said officially. We even said it on the ready mirror around about three weeks ago. They said they won't an agreement that would be a stand alone. They don't want this to be an annex to the analysis. You have been attending this from day one. I will be tempted to ask, I don't know if I answer, does what is being discussed here all the initial protocol? Does it have a substance to make a stand alone agreement? Thank you so much for that. I will also try to answer it in a way that I understand because it was the someone that said that. Okay. What I think is, to many agreements should be a complement or integrated to the previous agreement. To integrate to many agreements to the previous one, for example, are access. It means none is more important than the other. The equality is same and they have to work together in complement each other as they would be not being implemented in the country. So when they complement together, they agree together for the positive view of the country in order to work it out and achieve it successfully. But if it is annexed, it gives it varies. It doesn't give the same meaning and the same importance of the equal agreement of two mining and access, for me, I see the point here of integrating the agreement and making it one agreement. And both of them can work together in order to achieve what is expected as the last thing is. Okay. Then to take you back a little bit to the mechanism, I would like to say any agreement in the country must be owned by the citizens. Most of the agreement, for example, are access. Go back to our country and to any of the villages and ask, "What is are access?" They will not understand what it is. That means they don't own the agreement. It is remained at the higher level. So any agreement should trickle down to the citizen and it must be owned by the citizen. So as to enable the leaders who send the agreement to implement it practically and that will give something successful for the country. And that's why we, who are stakeholders, we are the voice of the so many people back home. And we are saying, we are eternal garantas, meaning the citizens, the thousands and millions of people. If we own this agreement and we are collectively implemented, we will succeed. But if we only choose at a certain level of the government and say, "It is our agreement, it must not be attached, it will remain like our access." We are many people who don't understand it. Okay. Dr. Lukad Young, the same question, first of all, you have gone through the, I'm sure you have seen all the initial protocol and you have analyzed them. And the government says that at least three quarters of what is in the initial document is copied and passed from 2018 about a respite agreement. That's the argument. I've had that official. And then the opposition are saying, "No, we need a stand-alone agreement. We cannot agree to this idea by the government that it should be an annex to the analysis of 2018." And also, like Dr. Corel says, the principal secretary of the foreign minister of Kenya, he said, "The initial idea of the traumatic initiative that was sometimes backed in December last year was not to replace the analysis. It was to complement it." So given all your analysis, your reading of the document, does it have enough substance to make a stand-alone agreement if you remove away the copy and paste from the analysis? Yeah. I think let me start first about why agreements failed to be implemented. And I think I want to start with that one, I guess what it was used to. Some of us we have written one day, the 2018 agreement was signed, and we say, "This agreement is a test of whether a cohesive, cohesive mediation process can even be implemented." We knew from the beginning it was a cohesive process by Sudan and Uganda forcing the parties to agree on an agreement that is actually alien, unimplementable, unrealistic, not owned by the people of South Israel. In fact, I said at certain point, it was an agreement in marking the minimum of two countries in Sudan. In fact, that agreement rendered the sovereignty of South Sudan to Sudan. So it was one of the beginning, the fact that it was not forced on the people, a very important to highlight. The second one is what you see, what we really say. In fact, it's not about South Sudan. It has been shown why the public policies fail in most cases. Public policies, they fail in most cases, and it's just not in South Sudan. It is one, one the public policy is designed without the people to be at the center. And if the people are not in the center of an agreement and becoming elites agreement, it is slightly not to be implemented. The 2018 agreement was not actually centered on the people, all the elites. And there's this fallacy of the power sharing. This power sharing, because the elites, those with the gun, are going to be rewarded. I mean, this power sharing is accentuating, what my colleague, the gun class, the only way you get to the power is through the gun, it is not through the ballot box. And that's why it's becoming so difficult for you to move to this issue of election. So I want just to highlight that point. Why is it different? Why is it very different from the 2018 and the Moon Initiative? The Moon Initiative for me, it is not only, it is inclusive, and for the first time is as Sudanese, South Sudanese exercise, and with the representation, a genuine discussion. But importantly, I see a very important thing, mechanism for the implementation. To be Sudanese, South Sudanese, led process, led agreement, to be implemented over the years, and you know the difference between the 2018 and the CPA, the comprehensive piece agreement? Oh, put that in five. 2005? It is exactly what he said. We were having what is called joint evaluation commission, and it was headed by an Iranian ambassador, a very credible Iranian ambassador, that's one very keen to ensure. 2018, no any backing from the international community. No any backing from the year, from the peoples, and that's why he's lacking the mechanism for the implementation. But let me come to this issue of the last issue about the issue. For me, whether it should be a dentum, or should it be standalone agreement. For me, these are issues that is just the terms that are not, for me, not that very important. And I'm going to write the signing, the principal secretary made it very clear, the inception of the initiative, not in any way, to sub-lam or aggregate, the 2018 agreement. But what we are saying, what we are saying, and it's good because in the two species, the government of the government position moved away from this addendum to a compliment on charity, and then to implement. And even the opposition, they moved from a stand alone, and they're talking like, that you know, we can have the complimented to. Whatever the case, I think this idea, whether it is, definitely, if you are going to sign an agreement of this initiative, or the tomorrow initiative, you are going to sign an agreement. Yeah. You are going to sign. There's no way you can say, no, this agreement should be a dentum, or should be. No, it's not even an agreement. Why should you wish your time to say whether it is an example, whether it's a dentum, or not? It is an agreement. All right. Okay. We shall be coming back to our panelist later in the second hour, we can also send in your question, and we will be reading all your questions, because there are so many concerns about the other groups, like the likes of General Thomas Sedaro, who is not part of this negotiation. What does it mean to have a comprehensive agreement without him? Because he has the boots on the ground. Those are some of the issues we are going to be discussing in the next hour, plus the many more with my three panelists right here. My name is Anna Martin, and with me, I have a brigade, an alum who is representing the Women's Block, and rather, a member of the stakeholders and delegate of the PCCA to the two main pieces initiative, and Dr. Luca Bium is an academia, and our Facebook page is open as we are also live on Facebook, who will be reading your comments, stay tuned. [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] The Round Table. My name is Anna Martin, and we are discussing about the two main pieces initiative that was relaunched in Nairobi on the 4th of this month, 3 days ago, on Wednesday, and we have been hearing more from my panelists. I have me here in the studio, Dr. Luca Bium, who is an academia, and a member of the stakeholders and delegates of the People's Coalition for Super Action, and the PCCA, and now Gomoro Brigitte, who is representing the Women's Block, and we have been listening to them giving their own analysis. Today, we will not be taking a course, but we will read all your comments on Facebook, as we are also live, streaming it live on our Facebook page, you can log in there and listen to the program or watch live, I guess, right here. Yes, and let me begin with the discussion before I begin reading the questions. Rajab, we are very here right from day one. Many citizens are already, even the question I'm going to ask is among the multiple questions that have been sent about the concerns on the absence of a general promissory in these groups, to manage each initiative, can there be a workable and a practical agreement without the presence of these active actors who have put on the ground in South Sudan, like around the Great Yay, around there. So what is the impact of this, that has been promised? Okay, good. Thank you. This question of absence of some of the partners or, I mean, some of the parties, like General Thomas Rivers party and group and others like Simon McReege, you know, has been a major issue or question that comes from almost everyone who asks about this process. And now, when we came to this process at the very beginning, we made our presentations and strongly suggested to the mediation that all the actors should be part of this process. And the mediation clearly explains to us that, in fact, the first invitation went to these parties, mainly the group that was in Rome, especially the group of Thomas and the others who are not here. From the group in Rome, there are three groups that have not come. We have the National Salvation Front of General Thomas Rivers. There is a National Democratic Movement, NDM, Adriatic Front of Parsa de Manuel and Jabis, and there's also the National South Sudan National Movement for Change, two of the allies. So, this, yeah, no, like Seattle, so these three groups received the invitation together with the sort of General Organa Moon, General Long Awan. It was their decision that they would not come to Nigeria for this course. But we are aware that the mediation and the government of Kenya, particularly the President would have made an effort to reach out to them through the invitation, let us do telephone calls and also the delegations were sent from Kenya to meet them in Rome. So, yes, these are the absence, remains a very big challenge to peace in South Sudan. First, the difficulty is that when an agreement is signed without all of these actors, they will still remain and, of course, post-challenge to any agreement. But what is important really in these aspects is that they need to ensure that the agreements are made attractive, that these agreements deliver, and when the agreements deliver, this process would, I mean, these agreements would be attractive and perhaps they convince them to participate. So, it remains a big challenge that they are not there, and we continue to call them, I mean, to pass away the mediation, to continue engaging them with the possibility of them. So, is there a window of opportunity for them to come and join at the last phase? Is it possible? Yes, it's not just a window of opportunity, in fact, the door, the whole door, the way it's open for everyone, all these actors, which is important, and so we continue to encourage all these actors to join the process. Okay. Yes, Brigitte, the same question still, does it worry you as the women block when you see people having soldiers fighting the government still around the area, are not out of this and the majority of the people who are victims of these women and children. So, what are you saying to the mediators, and we call them, to the mediators to say, "Look, keep talking to these people, they may change their mind and join us midway. It's not legal, like, all the doors are open." Thank you so much. Yes, it's a real concern and a great concern for me, standing for women and children who are the most vulnerable and they are the people who really are so much affected. Yes, all the windows and doors and the sky is open for them to come and join this, when at the last minute, we really need them because if you mean a lasting peace or sustainable peace, and some actors are not willing because all efforts has been made and we wonder why they are not willing to come and join. If they are still out of this agreement, that poses a challenge as my colleagues say it, we still will be hearing some gunshots and women will still continue to suffer and die in so many ways at a level because Nazis are not there to attend to them or directly, you know, direct kind of exchange, they can also become victims of that. So, how would you say, and we have the women on the ground here, have talked so much to the mediator, as the mediator is also working hard, we even wanted to go and meet him physically and talk to him and say, we as your mother's sisters and your wives, because he has a wife who is a woman, and he has a daughter who is a woman, we want to plead, we have come to need them to become so that we can together, sign this and we have peace for us to stay and think positively. Unfortunately, of course, it was not there to allow us to go and meet him, but we are still insisting if he has to come, which all our value has been facilitated to safeguard the protective, nothing would happen if he was to come, the other option we are talking of is, can he join us only? Yes, we can still buy that idea from him and we agree together and then we sign this agreement, so we are still in need of this actor, so our other virtual or physical, let them come and join us, we need our women to be safe, our children to go to school, we don't want more victims and we are the ones on the ground, men are somewhere where they are, and actually when these actors come on, whichever area they appear like the age, they will not get these edits, they are in their offices, they are well protected and guided, but these women, who guides them, it's only good alone, place we need him to come on board. Then what would they join him in to the to mind peace process with regards to timeline, because now we are almost, if the parties have to go to the two weeks, then like given by the two heads of the state, I was talking to one of the members of the Secretary yesterday, he says by the next week we will be finishing one week, so what would it mean for them to join at this last phase, whereby even they are not part of their previous initial documents, does it have a bearing on that, yes, maybe Rajat or yes, go ahead. Okay, to me, it's not too late just because they are full away, what has been going on. Do they have access to the documents, yes, I think they should be having a copy of what we did in the previous one, and they have already gone through it, so if you want to really take them that backward, but the pressing issue, what you are tracking out, is what they would engage in and move ahead, then flash back as Doctor said, we as opposed to the two pressing issues, then maybe do some amendment with the previous one, so to me, it's not too late for them to join us. Okay, yes, Doctor, look, what do you foresee will be, how about the human peace consensus without them, the groups of Simon Karuich, Thomas Azorero, and Basar and Madaraj Awir plus Pieta? Yeah, let me definitely, the good thing about all the parties, whether the government, the opposition and the stakeholders, all that they need to have an inclusive process and to bring them back. Even the head of government education mentioned it, and it was very good, I mean, we mentioned very clearly Thomas and then Simon, although you don't mention that, but I think it's very clear. The consensus among the South Sudanese negotiating here, for them to come, and I think it's a very important message to this group that I'm not in. My personal experience, and why is it very important for them to be around? Let me give you some of the theoretical and conceptual issues about peace agreement, and it's a dilemma of a commons, because it is known whenever you are negotiating, you are most likely to succeed when you have a few people in the room, and especially gets the two parties and then other states. But this concept has been challenging, and that's why it's very important, the more you have inclusive process, it's likely that you can be able to implement peace agreement. This of the peace agreement, the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005, it was very clear it was only two parties, the Sudan government, and the Espelan, the Sudan People Liberation Movement. It was a bit vague about other armed groups, whether to be included or not, but it was a principle that we were saying, let us stick to these two parties and not to include others. When we signed the agreement, it became a big issue when we started implementing the other armed groups. And to the credit of President Sefa, he was the one who actually you remembered, what is called the Juba Agreement. This is the first time for to bring the other armed groups to come. It is through, is it going to derail the process? The way I'm seeing it, it is very important, the intention is there for them to engage. But I think it is important people to continue concluding whatever is being agreed upon. And I think like what Rajab said, it is one you make the agreement attractive, address some of their concerns. And there's a room for later on, I mean, we cannot say it can come a hostage, because not they were worried. So when you talk about the other concerned group, it's not only in the three or four groups, there could be other groups. For example, South Carolina, the people fighting the conflict are different. So but I think it is very important the part, I mean, people to continue, sign an agreement and be flexible. But even I could even urge the mediators and even the opposition and the government to engage them even like what she said, we just said about virtue. And even possible, because I know that you know Thomas Sheerilo is quite a very important in the sense that he is one of the people that absolutely his presence is very important. One thing could be done, I mentioned in my article, a possibility of having a parallel mechanism in a different venue in the region, so that you engage them. Or share with them these are the things that have been discussed, they can do it in writing, but I would suggest having a parallel exercise, although the time is limited, but even for people to engage in all his team, in a different venue. And that could be very important for us, I assume he will not have a lot of different, but definitely engaging them, I think is absolutely very important. Okay. And then now we turn to the questions that we have, a lot of questions coming in here from our listeners via our Facebook page. This is coming from Bola Joe, Jr., and he has questions to all of you. His first question is going to Dr. Alokabion, could you please elaborate how the tea stocks might address the fundamental structures or structural issues, such as the 90 protocols signed by the previous government delegation and how the current team plans to finalize the remaining protocols and the current tea power sharing promote lasting peace in South Sudan. That's from Bola Joe going to Dr. Alokabion. And his second question is to Rajab Mohandis, you have been participating in this talk right from day one. How will it ensure that the voices of ordinary people, especially those in the countryside are effectively hard and consider during the talks? And his side question is going to Nagorno-Bridget as a women representative or the women block. Both measures are being threatened to protect the role of women when it comes to implementation, not here. Because once an agreement is signed here, you go back, the role of women will be done like what's happening right now with the current agreement. How will it ensure that their role is protected and they should be participating in the implementation of whatever agreement is reached here in Irobi. Another question from him is what will be the role of women in the national community in supporting the peace process because we need money to implement an agreement. Remember, our country is going through economic challenges right now, our oil is not flowing because the land is in crisis, that's from a boy, a job. And another one he has from Bolis, Pollak, Bolis is saying, why do you think that the government investigation is trying to reopen some of the initial protocol that were done by their very poor people? What should be the result? What is their major fear? Anybody can answer that. He has not directed a question to somebody. Another question is coming from Mao, a year Mao and his question is going to Rajab. Has you well know that many agreements at this Haunat and how now do you think these two many peace talks will be implemented and not this Haunat has the previous agreement? That's from Mao, a year going to Rajab. This one is coming from Daniel Denfall town and he says that the team organizing the two minuses of really want to bring peace to South Sudan or they are just wasting time. Another question is coming from Manshul Mustafa. He says how do the talks ensure the implementation, okay, how can you ensure that whatever is the agreement would be fully implemented, if you do not have to be like the 10% of the current agreement that has only been implemented and we keep hearing the personal and postponement. What measures have been put in place to subscribe to implementation if you already talked about it? He won't receive still to Rajab the role of the original actors in supporting whatever agreement will be assigned in Nairobi. Another question here is from Amit from Masagara and he says many South Sudanists are suffering at the moment going through a lot of crisis. Can we expect a Christmas present from the team here as we have been hearing that, please we need a Christmas gift which is in form of an agreement. That's going on to Dr. Lokadhyam, from as an outside that you foresee this party signing an agreement within two weeks, Mayang from Mayang got you saying I am not pessimistic on peace, but what if the parties fail to reach an agreement within two weeks? What happens if the parties fail to sign an agreement in the given two weeks? What will happen? This is a cricket or Rajab can answer that question, he said why is there trust deficit within the government? The previous government, the delegation did a wonderful job by the government and now this new government does not recognize what was done by their previous colleagues, why is this trust deficit coming in? I think let's begin answering that, this one says that it's going to Dr. Lokadhyam because we are meeting the government for some time, let's begin with that question. Yes, Raj? Yes, Raj? Yeah, I think that we definitely cannot answer most of the question, but it is good, I am happy you, the people asking those questions and it is important for citizens to be engaged and then to be aware because this is not a responsibility for those who are in Nairobi, it is our collective responsibility. When you have an informed citizen, it helps a lot, because these are one of the pillars of good governance, because sometimes they assume as if they were what we do, we are going to be happy, you are the key in terms of making sure the people in power are hearing to your interests, a conscious citizen is very important. I like that's why the idea of Nairobi FM to make sure that everybody is having access to information, because information is power, and that's why this issue of disinformation, we need to attain the phrase and make sure that we get the right information to the people, and that's why some of your questions will not be saying that we can't be able to answer all, but it's very important just to have that. Let me come to the bowl about the issue of how to address these structural issues facing thousands, and I think this is one of the fundamental questions being raised, and people are saying to me the initiatives seem to be not addressing the core issues of conflict, and that people seem to be suggesting this is the witness that the initiative is having. But I want to refer you to what is the objective of the Tamine Initiative. I think the objective of Tamine Initiative is first to enhance the implementation of the 2018. I think it's very important because, and to complement some of the gaps, it is important for us to understand the 2018 actually succeeded to address most of the core problems facing thousands. What's missing the implementation? Always I refer to what I call the capability trap, because what happened, you know, a trap, you can run and then you get a stat, and instead of thinking carefully of how you want to get out of this being a stat, you continue to push the trap into something that can't work, and this seemed to be the problem with the 2018 agreement. And that's why the Tamine Initiative is to complement already how to address the structural problem, as what the regulators say, of how can we make it implementable. And as some mechanism provided in the Tamine Initiative, in order to ensure there is an improvement in the Tamine Initiative, it is true, the Tamine Initiative cannot be a panacea for solving all the problems of South Sudan. And that's why I don't see what I'm going to have, Tamine means that we solve all the problem of South Sudan. It is a beginning of collective efforts of how to solve the problem of South Sudan. And that's why we, the people, the citizens, we have absolutely a big role to play, questioning our government, questioning having for shooting our eyes of what is being agreed here, how it is going to be implemented, don't leave it to the those in power. It is us how we make them accountable, what they have signed and what they have agreed upon. Let me, I will not answer most of the year, but I think I will leave the issue of, of Caraltos to the radio, but I think one, one of the things I want to highlight, sometime we talk as if we don't have resources, seriously, we indeed do have resources. And for you, even for us to convince the International Community to support us, there must be a real reason to, to, to show that we don't have resources because if we have resources and we are not managing these resources, right, there's no way that the International Community will come and say, we want, we want to come and, and, and help you. You have to make use of what you have. International Community will come to complement what you have, but you can't even say, we don't have resources. Look at the behavior of the government, look at our budget, we know, we have, we don't have resources. And that's the, let us start with the fundamental question that we do have resources. It is the way we manage those resources. Even these are, these are pretty good. What will it take in order to, to study the institutions already provided for in the, in the, in the 2018. This, I think that we can, is either political will or even a minimum of resources. We don't need to go and say, I want to have the International Community to, to, to, to society. Because it is our agreement. Um, I don't know what you want us to, to, then then me, maybe the last, uh, the intention of the mediators. I, I think one thing I want our people to know when I attended the opening, it reminded me, when I attended with the Tokyo, the, the donors confluence in Moscow, it was amazing the intention of the International Community to the people of South Korea. At that time. At that time. At that time. And the way, because they saw these people are great people and the way they struggle is unbelievable. I think, and that's why we should be very proud. People look up to us because we sacrifice, we show how we really manage to get our independence with absolutely unbelievable sacrifices. And that's why people, they stand with us and our values as well. And that's why, uh, when I attended the opening, the opening event for the resumption and the attendance, as you write, you put it in the signing, I was, I was really shocked. I, I, I, I, I had, yeah, I felt the International Community, you know, that kind of was ours. But still, that was ours, even despite the fact that you have competing, Christ is globally. But that is still with us. That's so, what is the intention of the mediators? Seriously, Kenya, Kenya is one of the few countries in the, in our region here, a democratic country is actually very keen to make sure there's a transition and a democratic process. A government that are actually people's center, Kenya has shown the consciousness of the citizens, how they can govern themselves. Kenya has no any interest. It is true. The Kenya's are benefiting of the stability of South Sudan in terms of the economy and the rest. And that's why some of us are looking forward, how can we integrate Kenya to become a very effective people in the East Africa, because that's the idea, even the outlet, because Kenya, we are actually depending on Kenya, especially for our, our imports are coming for you. The intention of the mediators is the request of our president to the president of this great country, Kenya, to mediate, because he fell, our president fell, he can provide a trusted platform, a platform without, that can help us, all of us to, to, to. So I think, let us, let us, let us say really, let us trust the, let us trust the, the mediators. Tell me, what can we expect, really, can we have a good gift, a Christmas gift? Yeah. And what happens if the parties fail to, yeah, in my piece, when I wrote this, when I said, you know, if, if the parties agree for the good reason to renegotiate, it took them how many months in order to agree on the, on the nights, on the, on the aid, on the aid protocols. And then you, you really open it, if you really open it, for example, to give you some of the ideas of the opposition, no position was talking about, you know, we, we don't want to present self and read myself, let us have a new people, and, and some of why there's no way you can just make an argument, people who are in the sea, and you say, they should get out. There's no way, unless you, unless you do a democratic process, okay, and I, that's why I don't subscribe to that idea of getting people out, but unless it's just another willy, willingly, and that's why this process, the press around, money to address that issue, that issue of targeting the leadership now. And if you come, if you come to reopen, it may come back, it may come back, seriously. And why should you do so you think, so we are going to have almost like six months in order to, that's why reopening, if they reopen, don't expect a Christmas gift, okay, if they open, reopen, but if they adhere to the directives of President self to the delegation here, to conclude within two weeks, the outstanding issues, only two outstanding issues, then you are, you are likely to get the gift, it is us now, the citizen of South Sudan, to urge the delegation of the government to make sure to adhere to the intention of the president to have a gift to the people of South Sudan, but within two weeks. So you have a question, what if, what if, what if, what if, that is, that is the cost of not having an agreement. And it is going to be upon the parties, the consequence, if they fail for me. First, for the parties and especially the delegation here, they fail to live up to the intention of the president to provide a gift to the people of South Sudan. They fail to live to the intention of the president by asking them, I want you to go and bring us peace back, because without peace with this round, we have only one scenario, a scenario of despair, a scenario of violence. And that for me, people of South Sudan are fed up with it, because if you don't sign, it is true, you cannot give up as well. We hope the material will not say, if you don't sign, that's the end of the whole thing. But then you trigger a situation whereby people offer violence, that only means to solve the problem. That's something we need to avoid. And it's going to be a responsibility for the government and for the opposition. They blame for them not to agree, only think that with some of us, we believe, are there obvious. The last one is this issue of the trust deficit. The trust deficit, you know one of the things, you cannot trust, you earn it, but you need to institutionalize it, especially when you are working with government. It is not about one's intention. It is whether you build mechanism to build trust, and you earn it. And that's why I'm one of the people really very happy about this confidence and trust building measures at protocol. We in the peace agreement, the two southern and five peace agreement, we did not, it was only during the process, we build a relationship, we become friends with the Sudan government. And that won't help us a bit in order to go when we went for the implementation, we were having a bit of friendly relationship with our colleagues in the government of Sudan, although we were having a very different opinion, but it was very important for us. I think here we, what this confidence building, but we did not institutionalize it in the comparison piece of the two southern and five. That's why in this term, in the initiative, this issue of confidence building is another way how you can erode the area of mistrust and build a collision. But institutionalize a mechanism that can help you. And that's why I feel the initiative is one of the innovation and this protocol is really very, very important. Let me stop here. Okay, maybe before you step, I want you to summarize, it's very important to lead this question to your last statement about, you are talking about if nothing happens, the package failed. We are most likely to slide back with some kind of violence, but there's a question coming from Paul Nikoi in Uganda and he's asking what would be the way forward if the government education keeps on insisting of reopening the initial protocol in July, like the NLC and the NRAC. What would be the way forward, your input? Yeah, I think one of the things is that the, almost I believe in flexibility. And that's why I say, but for me, the sequence, if, if, if the finish and the finish, the there is also judiciary and then the implementation modalities, I think there are two fundamental questions, like the issue of institutions, if this field is a duplication and overlapping, that are quite genuinely, that genuinely, I think opposition should be open to discuss some of the very pertinent issues about the, about the reopening, but it's not the whole opening. You know, there's one thing that I want to mention here also. One of the things, and I hope, one of the things I'm very concerned about the 2018 agreement is the Article 8.4. Article 8.4 is giving a room for the parties to continue agreeing of changing the provision in the, in the agreement, which is fine, but becoming now an inbuilt mechanism to accentuate perpetual extension. And it is very important, how can we put an N, that's why they're making agreement attractive. How can we put an N to this Article 8.4, to say, for example, the current political infrastructure, even after Tomini, you are tasked to create conditions for conducting elections. Coming 2026, and then the parties fail to create the conditions. The question, are you going again to this Article 8.4, you know we have no succeeded, and then you need to extend. Yeah. Seriously. One of the things I am suggesting, it is very important now to agree on a new political infrastructure that can help us to conduct a fair and credible election, rather than having a similar infrastructure that we can. Okay. All right. And just to remind our listeners that we are unable to pick you, of course, I know some of you are really trying to call, or some of you are calling, and no one is speaking. We can't pick your call today, but we try as much as possible to ask all the questions you have. You can also visit our page, and then drop your question there, and ask them. Yes. Let's go to Rajab. You had a couple of questions as, let's begin, when the question is coming in, you are also asking a question, and they do the same question to Dr. Alokadhyam, yes, the platform is yours. Oh, well, thank you, Sonny Martin. Borod, a geogenia, ask the questioners to how these protocols would help address the crisis in the country. The crisis in the country would be addressed if agreements are implemented, and one aspect of this protocol was to focus on the element of ensuring that agreements are implemented. And so it is our consider to believe that if the agreements are made to implement this agreements are implemented through the mechanisms that are provided, then there would be a possibility of addressing the issues. The second is the issue of resources. We are aware that as Dr. Alokadhyam say, we have resources. But the utilization of these resources for implementation of the peace process in the country has been a challenge. And so it is an area that these protocols are attempted to address. Now there are a couple of other questions that were raised. One is the issue of how do we ensure that voices of the ordinary citizens feature in this protocol or in these peace processes? We have done this in a number of ways. Number one, we have written to the parties, we have made submissions that really address the issues the citizens have been raising and the situation they are going through. We have also provided that input directly to the protocols. So a lot of the content of the protocols, not only the protocols, but even the addresses, in our contributions to these processes which you are the voices of the citizens getting to that, we have put up social media platforms through which we are receiving a lot of comments from the citizens. And some of them are writing, they are young people who write really very, very passionate letters to the parties participating in the process. And we have ensured that those letters actually reach to these actors and also the mediation. So we raised these voices. Now there was a question raised on the issue of if the agreement, for example, this look a bit untouched on that, if the parties fail to sign an agreement within two weeks, what do we do? These two weeks were predictions or estimate of the timeline required when you go to be a host people, nasties or midwives make estimates for women who are pregnant, they leave up. And they can say you will deliver on the 1st of January 2025. Usually what happens is that sometimes you even deliver before that. So there's a possibility that there is possibility that you deliver exactly on this stipulated date, but there's a possibility that you can also deliver beyond that date. The fact that you're going to deliver is what matters, to ensure that the child is safely delivered and help the expected mother to ensure the child is delivered. What is important at this point is really for us to be guided by the situation the citizens are going through, from all the engagements that we will have with the citizens, they clearly mention the desperate economic situations they are going through, others raise concerns about security, others raise concerns about services and all of this. If we are guided by this and really the burden of this situation in the country as put on the citizens, we can work or the bodies can actually work through out to be able to find solutions as soon as possible. That is one. The second is the midwife, which is the mediation, definitely needs to help the expected mother and ensure that the child is delivered from time. And what I know is that sometimes they can also provide medication that would expedite the process. And so this is what the mediation needs to do as they help to guide this process. Okay. And yes, Brigitte had the couple SMS, the role of women when any day they sign here. So what would be the role because the complaint is even with the current agreement back home, see the role of women are not seen. Thank you so much, yes, Tuwane is also going to be an agreement just like the previous agreement, for example, Arab says was also signed. And in Arab says, as you respect and honour it, 35% affirmative was confirmed. And when it came to implementation, we also have seen that women are also serving at all levels of the government, starting at the high level, the elites, and at all levels, women are there with their counterparts, also working hard to build the nation. However, though, the 35% is not fully practically implemented because I can give an example if there are 10 states and we have only one female governor, that's not equal to the 35%. And so it was even a remote last month. Yes. He can also see that. And they are replaced by a man. He can imagine. Is that justice to us, women, it's a question of one. And again, at all levels, you see the same things happening. Women are being, I did that few, not equally to the 35%. And now, looking at them, to many, we still will have to compliment the agreement with the 35%. And women have to participate at all levels of the government and outside the government as well. However, what I'm thinking of or what we as women thought of is, are we going to remain at a 35%? Can we raise it as we have been raising it, but it's still less steady, less steady. So we are still in our assessment of the 35% and the same 35% will also be implemented as it is going to complement together. So that's what you can insist it has to be included and also implemented the 35% form of team. And we are proud of our women at the end, they're also doing a lot of things. Okay. Yes. Still, you can send us your question because we can't pity, of course, like I said earlier on, because some challenges we are facing to our main studio in Juba, we are coming to the life of Nairobi, this weekend where at the venue of the two main initiatives that was relaunched on Wednesday, this week, and the parties have so far spent two days. We don't know what's going to happen. This is another question I'll be putting to read that shortly because I've checked around I can't see any agenda for today, maybe that will be coming later on. We have a question coming in from Dan Mutch, Dan Mutch is listening from Nairobi here online, he's asking, this question is going to Dr. Lukadioli and he says, "You are well vast about the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005." And it was not an annex to 1972 or to the 1997 accrement. Why should the two main events be an annex to the 2018 accrement? And this is going to Raja Mahandis. He says, "The analysis, do you think, if you are going to suffer from the people, so then we have stayed for 13 months, no salary, insecurity all over, price of water in Juba time is expensive, we buy every day and the common man can't afford two decent meals a day. So, do you believe that the humanity can show that people are paid and good rolls, clean water and all this, that's from Dan Mutch. And then another question here is coming from Jok Zeng and Jok is listening to us from Kapal and Uganda. He says, "The previous agreements in South Sudan are focused on power sharing, neglect in key issues like the economy, the social justice. We have prioritized our politicians' interest over the interest of the citizens. How unique is this to mine in negotiation from the previous one?" That's from Jok Zeng from Kampala in Uganda, that's why he's listening from. Another one here is saying, okay, almost the same that we, the suffering citizens of South Sudan, you don't have any hope in this to mine in peace initiative because it's only giving power to those who lost it before and they will come back, occupy their position and keep quiet. What impact would it to mine in peace initiative have on our lives as citizens of South Sudan? Yes, let's begin with Rajab Mohandis about his last question coming from Dan here in Irobi. He's asking about, do you believe that the two main consensus, if signed, will change the life of the people from the way they're suffering right now to a better one? Well, thank you. The provisions of these agreements, the provisions of the two main consensus, if implemented, will definitely help to deliver our address to the challenges the citizens are facing. It is the same with the provisions of the previous agreements, where it would be a challenge is when these agreements are signed and they are not implemented. And so on that note, we have been telling these parties that first they must agree to start to implement their commitments when they sign these commitments. In addition to that, it is important that we as citizens of South Sudan, specially organized as civic groups, should be very close to this process and followed through with implementation insisting that these processes, I mean the outcomes are implemented and this they hold us made up of the diverse group of actors. So we have civil society, women groups, youth, religious leaders, academia, and all of that because of Dr. Lukaviyok, the academia. We need to pull together to follow through with implementation. If we leave it to the parties, we will always be the same place. So even if the agreements are signed, they might end up in the same way. So we need to step up our efforts to do things differently in terms of effectively supporting their implementation as well. Okay. Yes, Dr. Lukaviyok, this question from Dan, that the CPA was not an annex to the 1992 or the 1997 white should people advocate for this current to be an annex to the 2018 everybody allies, please agreement. Yeah, sorry, let me also answer the issue of the many and the several people. Yeah. And that's why I want to make sure agreement is not a panacea that is going to solve all the problems also. overnight. You know one of the work because we conducted a survey to ask the people what is the most challenging thing for them for their livelihoods. And we asked them between security development challenges and then political challenges. And then I was so impressed that the people prioritized the political challenges and also the security. And very it is not definitely the several of the people of certain span is about governance deficit and the security deficit. And I think I was I echo the popular statement by Kofi Annan that we as humanity, we cannot enjoy development without security and we cannot enjoy security without development. But we cannot enjoy either two of them without governance and because this nexus is very important to look into what the people of southern Sudan need, they need a good government. But importantly good government been said what they need there a farmer in in yambu. That farmer was only security because I know I live there in yambu is a productive place because there is no way you can't talk about anger but what they need a peace of mind. And that's why to me maybe it can create for us otherwise security arrangement is one of the things we did not talk about and it's very important to look into this security arrangement is key to create a conducive environment for our people to assume their normal work. Coming to the question of the CP and I think that's why we this idea of the annex that's why I don't want really we spend a lot of time on the terminology. For me I am interesting in the in the content and that's why then what you what you ask you are absolutely right because even for us and in fact it was it helped me resolve that the we are going to have an agreement and is going to be signed by the parties in the same way they signed the 2018 do need to call it as a next is a then done I don't see is about it I think we have to have agreement and it's going to be signed let us not name it whatever names it is going to be an agreement that's it. The last point Sani is the this idea no hope in this initiative and what will the impact you know this issue of hope is very important and imagine that we at least now we are expecting something from this initiative you know if we don't have hope imagine we are in a situation of despair and nothing really happening this initiative leave alone determining as a name of hope yeah by itself is giving and I hope that we are going to have a better south we are going to have peace and I think believing and being hopeful I think it is very important project yes go ahead because our time is coming to an end we are looking only five minutes thank you so much this question from individual and the community quite often comes up yeah that the elites who we started the government is also done work chart and they want to come back again and I assume they are all they are positioned and continue to do the same I think it will probably give it to you so this question comes of it I would like to answer it this way in a biblical manner and there was a prodigal son who squandered everything he went to when he came back he was welcomed does the boy was saying he went again to squandered and went again so let us again it's good to have that his future I attended the church service in Cuba one time a priest can't remember his name he said if the protocol son was in today's world there will be a fight if they are storming him and so on we are waiting as we conclude yes go ahead let me just finish as the doctor said it justice this is a mathematical justice plus good governance and plus security is equal to peace for everyone okay yes we do have a couple of questions I have just read them as we conclude the last two your question have been answered some last two some last two some manner what will happen if there is no deal I think they are doctor Ruka answered that one again to mine is going on well my worry is their opposition within the government who are not happy we have added to mine within the government so how do we convince them and say bit Michael is asking what next in the committee to mine fails yes it was also answered and then time will Juliet also your question was asked answered about the group of Thomas zero one part of this agreement it was answered yes this annex also it was answered about the role of the regional act as we are concluding already in I will give you a second to give you a concluding remark if you are to recommend Dr. Ruka be able to the parties because it seems like there is a dead look at the moment people have not come into terms what will be your recommendation to all the parties more special to the government and so now good yeah my first is for them to remember the people of South Sudan whatever that is and I think that's very important for them whatever they are doing for the opposition I think it is important for them to stick to the eight or eight articles or nine protocols but I think they should be a window for flexibility as well if they finish the outstanding issues there is the opposition might be a bit flexible as well for the government my advice up here to the directives of the president of the Popular South Sudan asking you to conclude and resolve the outstanding issues in fact you have been tasked to discuss the outstanding issues as per the director of the president it is true we have a chance also to open other issues but it should not be the main focus by doing so you would be able to really meet the aspiration of people but also the directives okay thank you so much yes I appreciate it in a second so you are concluding the mark and your expectation in the coming days as we conclude our discussion thank you so much listen us and to the people here in this room who have given us a chance to speak my first remark is my expectation is peace one two I would like to give a remark to the government in our discussion for peace I would wish them to carry the suffering of the people in their hearts as they negotiate or as they speak and they speak in the voice of the suffering of the people of South Sudan who are hungry for peace thank you so much yes I read that fine thank you I think first of all engaging in the negotiations is important but we want to speak directly to the parties and the south is leaders at the moment that you know the problems of South Sudan can be solved even in a minute we do not necessarily need to travel to Kenya in order to find solutions to the issues that we know very well from 1947, 1955, 1983 down to date we all know the issues affecting our country and the solutions all about and so we simply need to accept to do the right things and South Sudan will get out of this crisis okay thank you so much and I would like to thank my panelists Dr. Lokaviam, Rajab Mohandis and Nagamal Vigate who are all here in Ayurveda attending these that mine is this initiative my name is Sany Madhyam and thank you so much for listening and also our apologies for those whom who are calling but you cannot pick your calls and we will hand over to Juba thank you so much stay tuned. [BLANK_AUDIO]