The US State Department says that South Sudan President Salva Kiir has promised to sign a peace deal to end 20 months of civil war in his country. But signals coming out of the world's youngest nation should make one wary. Several towns of the country witnessed protests against some provisions of the proposed peace deal last Friday. And the protests were organized by Kiir and a section of the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). The latest round of talks aimed at restoring peace were mediated by the regional eight-nation bloc, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), as well as the UN, African Union, China and the "troika" of Britain, Norway and US. Aug. 17 was set as the deadline. The rivals, President Kiir and rebel chief and his former Vice President Riek Machar met in Ethiopia on Sunday with talks lasting late into the night and negotiations were resumed on Monday morning. Though Machar signed the deal Monday, Kiir wanted "a couple of more days of consultation." The US called Kiir's refusal to meet the deadline "outrageous." The deal provides for a 30-month transition period with Kiir as president, with a first vice-president post allocated to the rebels. Elections would be held two months after the close of the interim period. Both Kiir and Machar would be eligible to run. South Sudan, born out of a protracted civil war, plunged into civil war again in December 2013 only two years after it won independence from Sudan. If the first civil war was between a largely Christian south and the Arab/Muslim-dominated north, the latest pits Kiir's majority Dinka tribe against Machar's minority Nuer forces. Violence erupted after Kiir accused Machar of plotting a coup. Within no time, forces loyal to Kiir and rebels allied with Machar started fighting each other. As was only to be expected, the clashes soon assumed the character of a no-holds-barred ethnic war. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in almost 20 months of war. UN troops are sheltering more than 100,000 civilians at several sites around the country. Rights groups have accused both sides of committing war crimes. At least seven ceasefires had been agreed and broken since the Dinka-Nuer conflict started. Monday's refusal by Kiir to sign the deal has only added to the growing exasperation among African and global leaders over South Sudanese leaders' failure to end the violence. Some rebel commanders opposed to Machar have set their face against the peace deal. Even Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who once sided with the Kiir government, is losing patience. Regional isolation is not the only thing that should worry Kiir. If UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not report before Sept. 6 that both parties have signed the deal and implemented a ceasefire, Washington may call for implementing a UN arms embargo on South Sudan and further targeted sanctions. In July, after more than a year of warnings, the UN imposed its first sanctions on six generals for fueling the fighting — the first people to be subjected to a global asset freeze and travel ban. South Sudan has been at war for 42 of past 60 years. Kiir and other leaders should ponder whether they should force their people to raise another generation of children in civil war conditions. At the same time, the international community should try to address Kiir's concerns regarding some aspects of the peace deal without violating its spirit. Kiir is said to have reservations about a provision in the plan to demilitarize the capital, Juba. But his objection to a provision that calls for consultations with Machar on "powers, functions and responsibilities" he would exercise in any future administration merits consideration. This may cause unnecessary conflicts in the future. What is more, giving a veto power to the vice president over the authority of his boss may lead to a paralysis of the administration.
