This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/world/africa/truce-in-south-sudan.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Mediators Say Truce in South Sudan Is Near Cease-Fire Signed in South Sudan Conflict
(about 1 hour later)
NAIROBI, Kenya — An end to the monthlong conflict in South Sudan appeared tantalizingly close on Thursday as mediators said the two sides would sign a temporary cease-fire before the end of the day. NAIROBI, Kenya — The government of South Sudan and rebels loyal to the country’s ousted former vice president signed a cease-fire agreement on Thursday, holding out the prospect of peace after more than a month of fighting that has torn the new nation apart.
Previous claims that an agreement was close have proved untrue, as the government and rebels have been unable to find common ground on the release of prisoners. Under the agreement, signed in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, both sides promise to lay down their arms and President Salva Kiir is supposed to pardon political prisoners who support the former vice president, Riek Machar. Both sides in the conflict have said that a cessation of hostilities would be a temporary measure, short of a formal peace agreement, and that negotiations would have to continue.
Both sides in the conflict have said that a cessation of hostilities would be a temporary measure that falls short of a formal peace agreement and that negotiations would have to continue. Analysts cautioned that even if a cease-fire were signed, it would be only the first step in bringing an end to the deadly conflict that has killed thousands and displaced more than half a million South Sudanese. While humanitarian groups welcomed the cease-fire as an opportunity to restore peace and stability, political analysts urged restraint, saying that a cease-fire was only the first step in bringing an end to a civil war that has killed thousands and displaced more than half a million South Sudanese.
“There will be a signing ceremony of agreements on cessation of hostilities and question of detainees between the South Sudanese parties,” said a message sent out by mediators from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, a regional group that has led the negotiations. “We have to be very cautious,” said Zacharia Diing Akol, director of training at the Sudd Institute, an independent research group in the South Sudanese capital, Juba. “Today is just going to be the first step toward stopping violence, but the long and arduous process of real negotiations are going to begin.”
Negotiators have spent weeks at the luxury Sheraton hotel in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, discussing a deal that could bring an end to the fighting. Ateny Wek Ateny, a presidential spokesman in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, declined to comment officially until after an agreement had been signed but said that he also expected it to happen on Thursday. Refugees, many of them unaccompanied children, have streamed across the border by the tens of thousands into Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya. More than 70,000 people are sheltering at United Nations bases in South Sudan, afraid that they will be killed either by crossfire or in targeted attacks.
The conflict began on Dec. 15 with a clash at a military barracks in Juba. President Salva Kiir accused his rival and former vice president, Riek Machar, of staging a coup attempt. Mr. Machar denied it and fled to the bush. Forces loyal to Mr. Machar, who was ousted as vice president in July, took up arms against the government. Fighting between the two sides quickly escalated and state capitals including Bor, Malakal and Bentiu have changed hands repeatedly, with heavy casualties for civilians as well as combatants. “The world’s newest nation, plagued by conflict for the past month, has today been given a second chance,” said José Barahona, Oxfam’s country director for South Sudan, in a statement following the announcement of the deal.
Neighboring countries and global powers, including the United States, China and the United Nations, placed significant pressure on the parties to reach an agreement, fearing that the fighting could escalate into a protracted civil war or even a wider regional conflict. Ugandan troops have been fighting alongside government forces, helping to push back the rebels.
The government and rebels had difficulty finding common ground, in particular on the question of the release of prisoners. But the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the regional group that has mediated the negotiations, announced that the two sides had finally reached an agreement, which was signed on Thursday evening after a delay of several hours.
Negotiators have spent weeks at the luxury Sheraton hotel in Addis Ababa, discussing a deal that could bring an end to the fighting.
The conflict began on Dec. 15 with a clash at a military barracks in Juba. President Kiir accused his rival, Mr. Machar, of staging a coup attempt. Mr. Machar denied it and fled to the bush. Forces loyal Mr. Machar, who was ousted as vice president in July, took up arms against the government. Fighting between the two sides quickly escalated and state capitals including Bor, Malakal and Bentiu have changed hands repeatedly, with heavy casualties for civilians as well as combatants.
“Amnesties, political and economic rewards are basically what the government has had in its tool box for peace agreements up until now,” said David Kwol Deng, research director of the South Sudan Law Society. “Until people see that leaders are held accountable, there’s no way to buy into the idea of a new nation in South Sudan. We’ll just remain a bunch of communities that are all protecting themselves.”
“If we want sustainable peace, we have to dig deep and face some of the problems the country has been dealing with for the last nine years,” Mr. Deng said. “That can’t be done just with the signatures of the two parties involved.”
Mr. Akol of the Sudd Institute said that cease-fire “allows them to sit around the negotiating table and address some of the real issues, the root causes of the problem.” But he added that he could not rule out a return to violent conflict “if either of the parties thinks that they are in a weaker position to negotiate when fighting is not ongoing.”