Government should lay structures for controlling arms regardless of UN’s decision

The United Nations Security Council will vote on Thursday, May, 2021, to decide the future of arms embargo currently imposed on South Sudan.  This is after the council approved a resolution extending the restriction by a year in May last year.

Fingers are crossed. Eyes are on the council as the moment of truth nears. The arms embargo issue gathers a lot of debates, where proponents of the status quo argue that lifting the restrictions will expose the country to potentially negative ramifications that could arise from handling of arms. For example, the Amnesty International penned a lengthy statement prevailing on the UN not to grant the appeal of the youngest nation on the premise that there are no frameworks in place to control state officers, who have been accused of rampant human rights violations.

In addition to this, a meeting between the presidency and a delegation of diplomats led by US Special Envoy to South Sudan Donald Booth exposed the differences of opinion between the country’s leadership and the human rights groups and the diplomats.

The government wants the restrictions rescinded with an argument that it massively impedes on the plans to graduate the forces. It is safe to say that the forces should graduate with guns. But it is also prudent to point out that the government must now put its act in order to strike the balance.

Options in place

Options now present themselves regardless of the outcome of the vote. But the glaring situation is that the government should put in place the mechanisms to make sure that it can be able to evade circumstances that led to the imposition of the arms embargo in the first place.

Chapter two of the Revitalised Agreement to the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) proposes the formation of the unified forces, which upon graduation should be able to protect the citizenry. The same forces must also be united under one command so that they can pledge a unilateral allegiance and serve in one course. With these not yet settled, it becomes difficult to argue out a case for the lifting of the arms embargo. But here is the gist: the government could still win the heart of the UN council by showing the willingness to do all these. How does this happen? There is need for a presentation on how it intends to complete the implementation of the chapter two which touches on the security organs of the country. This should encompass a robust plan on how to control the guns; not just silencing them.

There is also another elephant in the room. There are hold out groups who are still fighting the government from different fronts. Some of these groups have been blamed for machinating highway attacks and killing innocent civilians going about their duties.

This proves that there is still violations of the peace deal and cessation of hostilities on agreement because of these factions that are persistent with their wars. There were high hopes among the citizens that South Sudan would have peace and stability before the end of the transitional period still there is delay in the implementation of those chapters in the agreement. Someone could say that lifting the restriction at this point would just be disastrous. For instance, it will be so difficult to tell who is taking arms from where and who is doing what. That there is lack of proper monitoring structure for arms is a living testament that the exercise could be difficult to implement.

In a nutshell, the government should be ready to lay down structures for mopping out illegal guns and controlling gun ownership so that security is beefed up. This will help the security officers to easily enforce law and order.