Talking peace more often

There has been a long standing grievance that discussions and analyses of war have seemed to get more print and airtime than would be expected of the peace dividend. This prevails even as the East African Community stares at the unfolding situation in the Sudans.Sudan and South Sudan are on the brink of an all-out conflict once again. The tragedy of the situation is that South Sudan only gained independence in July last year following a civil war which ended in 2005. Disputes, however, remain with Sudan, including over oil and the official demarcation of the international border. Since then there have been a number of clashes, the latest being the confrontation over the Heglig oilfield. Though the two countries are not officially at war, the current crisis is at its most serious. The International Community, and more so the EAC, is worried that the current violence may yet undermine efforts to establish a permanent peace. It would seem that in the general uncertainty, the international and regional players and pundits alike should speak about peace more often. It is a bit mystifying that it is often on the verge of war, or when it breaks out, that talk of peace seems most urgent. This is not an accident. Though there is universal agreement that peaceful arbitration is the best way of settling disputes, there seems to be a perverse fascination with war that makes the subject of peace appear distant, even dull. Therefore, when you read, watch or listen to the news during an expert discussion about how to end the war in Somalia, Syria or where there is ongoing conflict you will rarely hear the voice of a peace expert. One mostly sees conflict analyses by war experts.Pundits and the man on the street agree that if you stand back and look calmly at a given situation, the cost of war is almost always higher than its benefits to the citizen, whatever is at stake politically or otherwise. The Iraq war, for instance, which many believe was entirely unnecessary, is now history. But if a dispassionate assessment had been made of the cost of the war, it seems obvious that on cost-benefit grounds it should not have taken place.When one starts to look at a disagreeable situation from the perspective of peace, the situation comes out differently. Even when they raided each other, our African traditional societies knew that peace should dynamically be able perpetuate itself in seeking to prevent war. It should be no different in our modern societies.Peace is also about the people, whose material needs must be met to prevent an uprising or political manipulation towards conflict, as has so often happened on this continent. It is also about good neighbourliness, because conflict never fails to touch anyone in its neighbourhood. Thus the worry of the EAC and the International Community. In a volatile region, such as this, it is no idle talk that we must be on the lookout for one another. This region deserves a break to consolidate its gains. The two Sudans must be urged to resolve their differences amicably. Twitter: @gituram