Skip to main content
Support
Blog post

South Sudan: The Fear of Becoming a Failed State

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan
Getachew Blog Post 1

Photo Courtesy of http://sofrep.com.

South Sudan's civil war has continued to escalate ever since the conflict broke out in December 2013. The escalation of the conflict has led to the country becoming a failed state. Most of the stakeholders are reluctant to push the conflicting parties towards a sustainable solution. The current state of the crisis is far from a lasting peace based on accountability and reconciliation. However, there are still attempts to build dialogue among the warring parties.

The violent internal conflict started in Juba when long-standing tensions within the county's ruling party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), exploded in the nation's capital. The national army split into forces loyal to President Salva Kiir's government and forces loyal to former Vice President Riek Machar. The violence spread rapidly amongst other security forces in Juba and other parts of South Sudan, particularly Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile States, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths within a few days. This further caused the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) to disintegrate, from which the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO) was formed.

According to several reports, including one by the United Nations, violations of international human rights and humanitarian law have been committed by both parties to the conflict. These include ethnic based extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and recruitment of child soldiers, alongside instances of rape and other acts of sexual violence. There have been attacks at hospitals, churches, mosques, and United Nations bases. So far, ICG report estimated that at least 50,000 people have been killed, 1.5 million people have been internally displaced, and more than 700,000 refugees have fled to Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda.

On 6 March 2015, the peace process between the two warring factions collapsed. An East African regional economic community, known as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), mediated the process[i]. In the beginning, IGAD was expected to play a prominent role because of its rich historical engagement in peace processes in the region, including the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between Sudan and South Sudan and starting in 1998 the Somali peace process. IGAD mediation efforts have already been recognized and accepted by the warring parties and international partners, including the AU, the Troika (US, UK and Norway), China, the EU, and the UN. South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011 via a referendum based on the 2005 CPA that ended a war between the government of Sudan and SPLM/A, which cost over 2 million lives.

South Sudan's peace process collapsed after both sides failed to agree on controversial issues such as power sharing, security arrangements, and a federal system of government. IGAD attempted to bridge the differences between the two sides. However, problems remain unresolved because the IGAD-led peace process only narrowly focuses on Kiir and Machar — the two principals. Both principals are, in effect, unable to deal with the underlying causes such as corruption, heinous crimes, issues with accountability, and the lack of an effective judicial system. Additionally, the IGAD peace process has failed to provide an inclusive space for the active participation of South Sudanese churches, women, youth, and civil society in the negotiations. Finally, IGAD did not allow opposition political parties and the semi-autonomous armed groups operating in South Sudan to become participate in the power sharing and security arrangements, nominally to prevent more conflict at the negotiation table.

Apart from lack of comprehensive peace agreement, IGAD has been unsuccessful because its members have divergent and competing interests in South Sudan. The mistrust and strain amongst member states such as Uganda, Sudan, and South Sudan have resulted in serious contradictions, which cannot be resolved by a common goal. Instead, the conflict has created additional pressure on some of the states involved to support one side or the other.

Ugandan forces have been fighting alongside South Sudanese government troops against the SPLM-IO. At the same time, Uganda has been allegedly supporting Sudanese rebels, which are based in South Sudanese territory bordered by Sudan with the goal of protecting oilfields along the border, which the government of South Sudan uses to fund its military expenses.

On the other hand, Sudan's rebel groups, notably the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), which is a coalition of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the Sudan Liberation Army-Abdul Wahid (SLA-AW), the Sudan Liberation Army-Minni Minawi (SLA-MM), and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) are fighting alongside South Sudanese troops to sustain their base at South Sudan's border with Sudan.

The irregular behavior of Uganda and South Sudan has annoyed Khartoum, which then drives the government of Sudan to support the SPLM-IO. This is because Sudan and Uganda are not on good terms ever since Uganda accused Sudan of supporting one of its rebel groups, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). In turn, Sudan has accused Uganda of providing support to the SRF.

South Sudan's neighbors are strained by the ongoing dynamics, complexities, and animosities that complicate the current situation in South Sudan. This is because no one will put Sudan under pressure to resolve other unsettled issues such as the contested border areas, Abyei in particular. Furthermore, Ethiopia and Kenya are reluctant to pressure Sudan and Uganda to cease potentially destabilizing actions, as they do not want to set a precedent for regional interference in their own affairs.

After the collapse of the peace process on the 6th of March 2015, IGAD called for the mediation efforts to be led by an expanded "IGAD Plus" group, including the African Union (AU), troika (the US, UK, Norway), the UN, the EU, and China. However, unless Uganda and Sudan are excluded from the IGAD mediation team and end their destabilizing games, the prospect for peace in South Sudan is still uncertain and raises the prospect of the country becoming a failed state.

To have a workable peace process, members of IGAD-Plus need to provide space for on-the-ground active participation from other groups such as South Sudanese churches, women, youth, civil society, and opposition political parties in the peace process. Unless the African Union Peace and Security Council and the United Nations Security Council impose effective sanctions on targeted top rebel and government political and military elites, which would be lifted pending a negotiated agreement, the warring parties will continue to destroy the entire country and reinforce a culture of impunity. Equally, China and the United States — individually, or through the "IGAD Plus" line — should encourage the conflicting parties to negotiate and to tell Sudan and Uganda to stop pursuing their contradictory interests in South Sudan. With hope, their influence might push Uganda to pullout its forces from South Sudan and halt Sudan's obstruction of a sustainable peace and security in the region.

 

[i] IGAD member countries include Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Eritrea and South Sudan.

 

About the Author

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan

Former Southern Voices Network Scholar;
Lecturer, Institute for Peace and Security Studies, Addis Ababa University
Read More

Africa Program

The Africa Program works to address the most critical issues facing Africa and US-Africa relations, build mutually beneficial US-Africa relations, and enhance knowledge and understanding about Africa in the United States. The Program achieves its mission through in-depth research and analyses, public discussion, working groups, and briefings that bring together policymakers, practitioners, and subject matter experts to analyze and offer practical options for tackling key challenges in Africa and in US-Africa relations.    Read more