Kiir peace speech on Jonglei, Pibor conflict misunderstood
Amidst pin-drop silence at Freedom Hall in Juba on January 27, President Salva Kiir walked to the podium to fulfil his duties of presiding over state events like that which was before him-mediating the peace talks for Jonglei State and Pibor. The moments before his speech were agonising for a man of his stature.
One would say that emotions know no crown and this was his time. He had shed tears recounting the suffering of victims of war-tone Jonglei and Pibor Administrative Area. When he delivered his speech, the president told his compatriots that he was pained by the harrowing tales of the victims. But he would deliver a speech of his life. A speech that would send a coded message for the war perpetrators but would leave a lot that calls for wisdom to understand.
He said: “Next time you go for fighting I will not come to help you again, and even I will not appoint any committee to go and investigate the fight in the area. I have decided that any fight that takes place will not be stopped by the police or the military, I will leave you to fight.’’
The head of state spoke in bitterness and conviction of heart that his message was succinct and had created an impact. But his coded words landed on various ears but with different impacts. It reminded of the parable of the sower talked of in the Holy Bible, where a sower threw seeds on different surfaces. The ones that fell on the rock and thorns failed to germinate save for the seeds that fell on rich moisturised soil. There are those who viewed his utterances as careless, inciting and unpresidential.
To them, Kiir’s words were unkind and could also be blamed on the recent clashes in Tonj and that has forced the state to sanction a curfew. And, given the volatility hovering over the country, more unfortunate sporadic fights could be blamed on the president’s utterances during the Juba peace talks.
Debunking disconnect
But here is the gist of it. Communication encompasses the use of words, characters and situations. This may create impressions that may not necessarily be understandable to everyone uniform perception. First, by president saying he would not appoint another committee to mediate conflicts, he did not mean to say he will abet conflicts while enjoying tea in his affluent residence.
His words portray the position of someone fade up with doing same thing every time with no result. In other words, he was telling the constituents of Jonglei and Pibor to personalise peace initiatives. Secondly, he was faulted saying he will not engage the army in such peace deals, and that the police and the soldiers will protect. And, that whoever will flee to Juba will be welcomed with open arms.
Again, this may sound arrogant but it was figuratively used to send a message to the people that peace has to start with them because they [constituents] have no privilege of being guarded as leaders. The moment they jeopardise safety they are the first line of casualties.