Thinking of South Sudan ...

Born out of decades of conflict and war, South Sudan is the youngest African nation founded through a referendum in January 2011, becoming the 193rd member nation of the United Nations. The recent conflict in South Sudan, which started in December 2013 and referred by some as the ‘Third Sudanese Civil War’, is devastating the young nation in an unprecedented rate and scale. What has started as averting an alleged coup d’état by the then vice president has now gone out of hand spiraling into a large-scale conflict. What is worrying is that the conflict is increasingly adopting an ethnic twist, that it has mainly pitted the two major ethnic groups of the country - the Dinka and the Nuer - in a seemingly power tug-of-war.

Consequently, the move by Juba to quell conflicts in the country is perceived as an attempt to affirm dominance by the Dinka ethnic group to which the current president belongs. It is important to highlight that rivalry between the two leaders may have its roots in the 1983 – 2005 armed struggle. The two advocated different strategies, which were mutually exclusive, that in turn had created mistrust until the Naivasha Agreement in January 2005. A semblance of peace and reconciliation reigned until 2013.

It is estimated that over 300,000 people have lost their lives in the current conflict, with 3.5 million displaced, and another 2,063,884 seeking refuge in neighboring countries (source: https://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/regional.php) Although it is the southern and western parts of the country that are suffering from the brunt of this ongoing conflict, the rest of the country is equally affected by the conflict in one way or another. Attempts by mediators such as IGAD and AU to bring the warring groups to agree have had numerous false starts, hence hope for sustainable peace is dashed. The South Sudan conflict is affecting neighboring countries too, as refugees in these countries are overstretching meager resources of their hosts, posing threats to internal security, and rendering pores borders.

The current conflict has dragged South Sudan down in terms of economic growth and in terms of providing its youth with hope and employment. With the renewed conflict on one hand and the low global oil prices on the other, South Sudan, the most oil-dependent country in the world where oil accounts for almost the totality of exports and around 60% of its gross domestic product (GDP), has witnessed extreme poverty rate increased to over 65%. Moreover, hyperinflation has hit the fledgling economy hard leading millions to live in abject poverty (source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southsudan/overview) Inflation Rate in South Sudan averaged 85.81 percent from 2008 until 2017.

The main actors of the conflict in South Sudan are Salva Kiir (President of South Sudan) and Riek Machar (former Vice President of South Sudan) and factions aligned to this divide. The former Vice President has been struggling to unseat the president thereby to bring about a system change in the country. As it appears, what is at the core of the conflict is the power struggle between the two. The idea that having an upper hand in the conflict could be a strong leverage in power negotiation is what seems fueling the conflict. Repeated attempts to normalize relationships such as power sharing have failed possibly due to this. Furthermore, lack of political pluralism and the fact that there is too much power in the hands of the president have aggravated the situation, as the political space is perceived to be suffocating. As it stands now, the chances of political reconstruction with a potential to inspire confidence among actors of the conflict are remote especially with the former Vice President, who is the leader of the main opposition, put under house arrest in South Africa. It defies any logic how this would bring lasting peace to the country.

The South Sudan conflict is influenced by actors in the region and beyond mainly for economic and security reasons. For instance, it will not be in its interest if South Sudan proceeds with its plan to move the oil refinery points from Sudan to Kenya through the LAPSET project, as it would mean loosing lucrative revenue for Sudan. Sudan’s interest under the current scenario, therefore, could be in maintaining the status quo with its role in the South Sudan conflict limited to protecting the oil wells. Uganda is another country that has been embroiled in the conflict, accused many at times by the opposition as supporting the central government. For Uganda, the primary concern, in addition to securing cross-border trade with Juba, is to have its borders with South Sudan and DRC secure, as the LRA threat is not over yet. China is also another actor with a potential to influence the situation in South Sudan, as the conflict is a huge threat to its investments in the oil sector.

In conclusion, should the situation in South Sudan continue the way it is now, the effort to bring about peace has to involve, with IGAD and its international partners playing a leading role, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, and China. As mentioned earlier, these countries have stakes – economic and political – in South Sudan. The deployment of a 20,000-strong peace keeping force by the UN will at least provide much needed protection for children and women, who are most affected by the conflict. Furthermore, the recent UNSC resolution (S/RES/2353) that has extended the mandate of the South Sudan sanctions regime until May 2018 is also a step forward towards bringing the warring parties to negotiation. Other important actors missing in the conflict-resolution and peace building process are customary authorities – known by such titles as chiefs, traditional leaders, and kings. Although their influence might have shifted in the face of decades of war and the ensuing changes in post-war South Sudan, they still wield significant power in settling local conflicts and promoting peace, so it would be unwise to exclude them in the process of peacebudiling in South Sudan.