The signing of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (RARCSS) in September 2018 raised debate not only about its added value to the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS) but also the effectiveness of style of mediation pursued by mediators. Although there are divergent views on whether the RARCSS will deliver sustainable peace or reach the same fate of ARCSS, these views can be grouped into realists and idealists. While realists see RARCSS as practical way to end the enormous suffering faced by the people of South Sudan, the idealists see RARCSS as a “bad peace,” as it fails to address the root causes of conflict that may be a recipe for another cycle of violence. Between these two extreme views of realists and idealists are the middle ground group “idealism with realism” that sees opportunity in transforming this “bad peace” into “good peace” by working from within and creating space for civicness in governance rather than continuing with armed opposition or non-violent diplomatic opposition.
In assessing these expectations and views, the article attempts to review the RARCSS with provocative question of whether ARCSS has been revitalized or deadened and whether RARCSS will be sustainable as it was concluded through coercive mediation. These two questions can be adequately answered by comparing the process, the content and the outcomes of RARCSS in relation to ARCSS and the 2005 Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The article is organized into five sections, including this introduction section. The analysis of the process of RARCSS is presented in Section 2, while its content is discussed in Section 3. The outcomes of RARCSS are presented in Section 4, while main conclusions for finding a common ground between idealists and realists are discussed in Section 5.