Nine South Sudanese opposition groups have formed an alliance to accelerate efforts to end the conflict in South Sudan.

Kwaje Lasu, secretary-general of the South Sudan National Movement for Change, told VOA’s South Sudan In Focus program Thursday that the various opposition groups had united.

“We in opposition believe that the unity of the opposition is paramount to address the issues that brought the country to the crisis, and since High [Level] Revitalization Forum 2, we have been working together collectively as a unified opposition addressing the issues of the country.” Lasu said, referring to the second phase of the South Sudan peace initiative.

The South Sudan Opposition Alliance is an umbrella group composed of the Federal Democratic Party, National Salvation Front, National Democratic Movement, People’s Democratic Movement, South Sudan Liberation Movement, South Sudan National Movement for Change, South Sudan Patriotic Movement, South Sudan United Movement and United Democratic Alliance.

Lasu said the new group would work together at the third round of the talks mediated by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), scheduled for March.

‘It is an opportunity for us to cultivate our efforts and work together in a concerted mechanism to address the issues,” he said.

Groups not mentioned

The rebels of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO), loyal to South Sudan’s former First Vice President Riek Machar, and the SPLM Former Detainees (SPLM-FD) were not mentioned among the groups in the new alliance.

“This is a preliminary process of unifying or forming the alliance,” Lasu said. “SPLM-IO is still with us and we are working together as opposition. However, they are still making consultation before they join this new group.”

Lasu said the alliance leadership would rotate among the leaders of the coalition members.

”We are not interested in any accommodation. … We are more concerned about what brought the country to this crisis, and we would like to address it in [a] unified voice as the opposition,” he said.

Since violence erupted in South Sudan in December 2013, several groups opposed to President Salva Kiir sprang up, and leaders fled to the neighboring countries of Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan.

A group of opposition parties held a news conference in Addis Ababa last month to accuse South Sudan’s government of not taking the High-Level Revitalization Forum seriously and of violating the latest cease-fire, which was signed in December. A South Sudan army spokesperson dismissed the accusations, saying it was the rebels who were attacking government positions across the country.

Both government and opposition forces have committed multiple violations since the cease-fire pact was signed, according to four separate investigations by the Cease-fire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism, or CTSAMM, an independent body.

IGAD adjourned the South Sudan peace talks last month for three weeks. Ismail Wais, IGAD’s special envoy for South Sudan, told delegates from the South Sudanese stakeholders that his office would set a date for the resumption of peace talks.
…

South Sudan Information Minister Michael Makuei has lashed out at the United States, Britain, and Norway, accusing them of controlling South Sudan’s peace process.

Speaking Wednesday in Juba, Makuei said the East Africa bloc IGAD, the official mediator of the process, is not truly running the high-level forum in Addis Ababa aimed at reviving a collapsed 2015 peace deal.  

He said the agenda is dictated by the United States, Britain and Norway, known as the Troika countries.  “Troika and the EU, who are funding the peace process, are actually the ones in the driving seat because he who pays the piper calls the tune,” Makuei said.

IGAD officials did not respond to calls from VOA for comment.

South Sudan has been mired in conflict between President Salva Kiir’s government forces and rebel groups since December 2013.  Violence has displaced about four million people and left much of the country in a humanitarian emergency.

Makuei also said the Kiir adminstration rejects an IGAD proposal of having four vice presidents in a transitional government and a proposal to dissolve certain government institutions and establish new ones.

“South Sudan is not a test case where [you can] bring any principle and come and test here,” he said.  “South Sudan is not a company, so that power sharing is 51- 49 percent.  South Sudan is a sovereign state and it has the right to decide on its own issues and nobody from outside will ever come and impose on us whatever he thinks,” Makuei said.

‘Unfit partner’

The information minister, who has been sanctioned by the United States for allegedly threatening the peace, security, and stability of South Sudan, also said any proposal that removes Kiir from office is a non-starter.

In January, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley called Kiir’s government “an unfit partner” for any country seeking peace in South Sudan.

“The Troika and the EU are not just supporting the opposition because they like them, but they want them to dance to their tune.  That is why they declared President Salva as an unfit partner because he did not accept and implement what they want,” Makuei told reporters.

He also said targeted sanctions and an arms embargo will not shake the government or compel it to sign an imposed peace agreement.

Makuei’s latest remarks could be seen as a violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement signed by South Sudan’s government and various stakeholders in December last year.  An article in the accord states, “The Parties shall not carry out unwarranted verbal attacks … against any entity associated with the implementation of this Agreement.”

 
…

In the 19th century, the Kingdom of Dahomey was a major West African power, boasting a flourishing slave trade with Europe and a feared corps of Amazon women warriors. Commissioned by the royal court, its art — intricate wood and ivory carvings, metalwork and appliqué cloth — stood as a potent symbol of the kingdom’s might.

But by 1894, Dahomey was annexed by France after a pair of brutal wars. Its artifacts ended up in French museums and private collections.

Now modern-day Benin, the seat of the former Dahomey kingdom, may have the best chance to date of getting them back, as French President Emmanuel Macron vows to make the return of treasures from former African colonies a top priority. That vow will be tested next week, when Benin President Patrice Talon visits France. Restitution of Dahomey artifacts is expected to rank high in (March 6) discussions between the two leaders.

“The question is to give back what has been stolen during the worst conditions of war,” said Marie-Cecile Zinsou, daughter of Benin’s former prime minister and president of the Zinsou Foundation, an organization in the main city, Cotonou,  that promotes African art.

“It’s very small for France, but for us it’s everything,” she said of the roughly 5,000 artifacts Benin wants back. “We have nothing left in Benin — we have copies, but no original trace of our history.”

Made during a November speech in Burkina Faso’s capital, Ouagadougou, Macron’s restitution promise has been described as historic and even revolutionary. Over the next five years, he said, the conditions must be met ‘for the temporary or permanent restitution of African heritage to Africa.”

“African heritage can’t just be in European private collections and museums,” Macron said. “African heritage must be highlighted in Paris, but also in Dakar, in Lagos, in Cotonou.”

Experts believe that if realized, France’s example may prove the tipping point for other former colonial powers, similarly pressured by restitution claims. But while much of Africa’s cultural heritage lies outside the continent — stolen, sold or otherwise expatriated by European soldiers, missionaries and Africans themselves — returning it lays bare a tangle of difficult questions.

Who should receive artifacts that may have changed hands and borders many times over the years? Should private collections, as well as national museums be compelled to return the treasures? And would those returns be permanent or temporary? In France, repatriation may also demand changing current law that recognizes the artifacts as inalienable cultural heritage.  

Skeptics argue that many African countries lack national museums or other spaces capable of housing old and fragile artifacts. And apart from a handful of exceptions like Benin, some say, few governments have mounted strong restitution campaigns.  

“All these countries have so many problems to solve that it’s not been the priority,” according to Corinne Hershkovitch, a French lawyer specializing in the restitution of cultural goods. “But it has be be a priority if you want to make cultural heritage come back to your country.”

Others say restitution discussions are taking place outside the media spotlight. Many agree returning African art will demand creative ways of thinking and pooling resources.

“The debate has started in France,” said Mechtild Rössler, director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Center. “Museums now need to look at their own collection and identify pieces, which may have been trafficked illegally, or which may have come out of some dubious circumstances during colonialism. It’s part of reviewing the whole colonial history.”

The debate also heating is up in other European countries, which collectively house several hundred thousand African artefacts.  That includes in Germany, where Berlin’s museum chief wants to draw up international museum guidelines for the repatriation of African artefacts — similar to those created for the return of Nazi-confiscated art.

In Britain, Cambridge University students are calling for a bronze cockerel on the university campus to be returned to Nigeria. It is among hundreds of ‘Benin bronzes’ looted during colonial days whose return will be discussed by European museums during a meeting this year. Restitution also will be on the menu at yet another conference being organized in Brazzaville.

“It’s a matter of justice and culture, but it’s also a matter of business,” said Louis-Georges Tin, head of CRAN, an umbrella group of black French associations that helped spearhead some of the repatriation demands. “You cannot do business with African countries and be a robber at the same time.”

For African countries, repatriating the artefacts carries another powerful economic argument, since they can  attract sought-after tourism revenue. “Museums can be the first entry point to learn about the history and culture of these countries,” said UNESCO’s Rossler. “But there must also be different explanations than those given in Europe.”

Beyond restituting African artifacts, Rossler also said Europe could help African countries to house them.

“I have seen museums in Africa where this is absolutely possible,” she said, adding that in other cases, the European Union or individual countries may offer financing.

In France, the public Quai Branly Museum, which houses most of the country’s colonial-era African artifacts, says it is open to restitution demands — providing proper conditions and political will exist.

“We don’t return objects just to heal wounds,” Quai Branly’s president, Stephane Martin, told Paris Match magazine. “The people who receive them must have a real desire to do something with them.”

Others argue African countries should be making those calls.

“It’s our problem what to do with our heritage,” said Zinsou of the Benin foundation. “It’s not a question of France telling us what to do.”

In 2016, Benin became the first sub-Saharan African country demanding that France return its artifacts, arguing they were important both culturally and economically. But last year, the previous French government rejected that request, arguing the pieces now were legally French property. If the Macron administration gives the green light, it may demand changing French law.

“I hope Benin will show what is possible,” Zinsou said. “Even if you’re a poor country, you can [repatriate artifacts] properly.”

Restitution questions also are roiling private galleries and auction houses. But at his office near the Seine River, Paris gallery owner Robert Vallois is serene.

“The doors are open for discussion among people of good will,” he said.

Vallois and group of local gallery owners have offered one answer to the debate. In 2015, they opened a small museum in Benin that exhibits art donated from their own collections.

“Is it a national treasure for France, or is it a national treasure for Africa?” Vallois asked. “Both. The problem is to show it to the people.”
…