Australian Outlook

In this section

Preventing Disaster in South Sudan

11 Jun 2015
Shaiful Alam
South Sudan's Civil War. Photo Credit: Flickr (Steve Evans) Creative Commons.

The power struggle in South Sudan is tearing the world’s newest nation apart and the United Nations has a major role to play in negotiating peace.

Newly-independent country South Sudan has been stricken with violent conflict over the power struggle between incumbent President Mr Salva Kiir and former Vice President Dr Riek Machar. This conflict has caused the death of thousands of civilians and displacement of millions of people since it erupted in December 2013. Both political leaders have exploited their respective tribal emotions, sympathy, and support, and thus shifted the issue of elite power struggle towards a violent ethnic conflict. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is the main forum supported by the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) for political dialogue in resolving the crisis. However, existing initiatives led by IGAD have been deadlocked. Given these perspectives, ensuring durable peace in South Sudan is a big challenge. In resolving this crisis, there needs to be a strong mediation to constitute an inclusive ‘transitional government’ and the imposition of an ‘arms embargo’ to ensure immediate civilian protection.

The root cause

South Sudan’s post-independence conflict may result in escalating violence. Experts identify deep-rooted causes behind this persistent violence, ranging from the alienation of youth to intensely entrenched ethnic divisions and unaddressed grievances emanating from lack of access to basic services. No isolated or single factor can be identified as the root cause of the crisis in South Sudan. However, based on the available sources, at least four main causes can be pinpointed. First, the principal cause of the conflict is the quest for power, worsened by weak political institutions. The second cause is the traditional enmity between the Dinka and the Nuer ethnic groups. The third factor is that South Sudan was underdeveloped and resource-drained well before the liberation struggle, and is still suffering the same in the post-independence period due to the corruption of political elites. Fourth, a significant challenge is the absence of effective institutional mechanisms capable of delivering services to the citizens. Given these major causes of conflict, the major root cause of the current conflict can be identified as a struggle for power among the politico-military leaders. Power or authority over resources has led to competition, which ultimately ends up in confrontation.

Critical recent developments

Major recent developments with regard to political and humanitarian aspects show that urgent action is required in South Sudan. Most of the agreements and peace initiatives mediated by IGAD have barely produced any successes. One of the important political developments is the agreement on sharing power under the Transitional Government of National Unity signed on 1 February 2015. Only a week prior, a reunification agreement had also been signed in Tanzania. However, neither the government or the opposition has complied with either of these agreements. In the latest political move, IGAD has expanded the negotiation process to encompass the UN, the AU and Troika countries. There is a serious humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. International Crisis Group (ICG) records that the South Sudan crisis has already taken a toll of 10,000 lives. According to the UNHCR, 1.5 million people have been internally displaced while nearly 500,000 people have fled to neighbouring countries since the crisis began. UNMISS is sheltering about 113,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs). In the latest move, the UNSC adopted a resolution imposing sanctions for travel bans and asset freezing.

Potential Security Council responses

Three measures under Article 33 of Chapter VI and two other measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII can address the crisis of South Sudan.

Article 33 of Chapter VI

First, negotiations have been carried through the IGAD process. Second, mediation efforts are already on the table under the Secretary-General’s offices, the IGAD, and other regional efforts. Mediation has minimised the gaps in many areas, although implementation has remained in question. Third, an inquiry could be undertaken to examine the implementation and monitoring of existing measures.

Article 41 of Chapter VII

Sanctions provision of an ‘arms embargo’ under Article 41 is possible as both government and opposition forces are in an unabated conflict causing serious humanitarian suffering. Another possible option is sanctions on travel bans and asset freezing, which have already been adopted under the Security Council Resolution 2206 dated 3 March 2015. Still, a comprehensive list of relevant individuals and entities needs to be prepared and approved by the sanctions committee.

In addition, the existing capacity of UNMISS under the Chapter VI.5 for state-building and peace monitoring can be increased.

A Political Settlement

A political settlement to the on-going conflict of power sharing may be solved by mediation for constituting an inclusive transitional government. The cooperation of South Sudanese leaders, IGAD mediators and the international community is necessary for that initiative. Mediation for a transitional government may comprise a four-member council accommodating incumbent President, opposition leader and two civil society members. In the mediation of transitional government under the enlarged IGAD mediation, the UN may appoint a delegate which may incur $US 0.3 million. However, for immediate protection of civilians and a halt to the violence, an ‘arms embargo’ can be effective, because the supply of weapons to the belligerents would cease. For executing and monitoring the arms embargo, a panel of experts comprising five members may be appointed which could incur $US 1.5 million. In addition, UNMISS can help monitor this process. However, the current number of peacekeeping troops in UNMISS is 10,470, which is 2,030 short of the UN-sanctioned peacekeeping strengths. The existing prevalence of violence requires more peacekeeping troops. The additional number of IDPs necessitates an extra number of peacekeeping troops. The existing budget of peacekeeping has already granted the costs until 30 June 2015. Therefore, no additional costs are involved for fully equipping peacekeeping operations and assigning existing experts for monitoring framework. Most of the international organisations, regional bodies and actors involved in South Sudanese negotiations prefer the imposition of the ‘arms embargo’ measure, and a positive political ramification of this measure is expected.

Shafiul Alam a career diplomat working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangladesh. The opinions expressed in this write-up are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any Ministry of the Bangladesh government. This article can be republished with attribution under a Creative Commons Licence