It was with much fanfare that South Sudan became the world’s 193rd country in July of 2011 following a referendum that passed with 98.83% of the vote in favour of separating from Sudan. Despite the decades of fighting, the international community felt that this oil rich state could chart a bright new future for itself. The country was ripe with opportunity including an abundance of arable land with 90% of its land considered suitable for agriculture and 50% of that prime agricultural land.
Sudan, since its independence in 1956, had suffered terribly through two civil wars. The second civil war, which ended with the signing of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, had erupted in 1983. The 21-year conflict resulted in more than 2.5 million people being killed and millions more becoming refugees both within and outside the country. Livelihoods had been destroyed, and towns wiped off the map, along with the little infrastructure that had managed to be built. Now with independence, this was supposed to be a time of rebirth for South Sudan.
Statehood had been a remarkable achievement. However, the new country wobbled with political infighting agitating deep ethnic scars, before falling into the full conflict that it now finds itself in. Since independence, tribal fighting has routinely occurred, especially in Jonglei state. Top government positions in the South Sudan capital of Juba were shared among men who had previously led opposing armies. After rumors about a planned coup surfaced in Juba in late 2012, South Sudanese President Salva Kiir began reorganizing the senior leadership of his government, party and military on an unprecedented scale. Then on the evening of December 15th, 2013, at the meeting of the National Liberation Council (NLC), opposition leader Dr. Riek Machar, the South Sudan vice-president and ethnic Nuer, and two other opposition members, voted to boycott the meeting of the NLC. Following an order from President Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, to disarm the Presidential Guard, Dinka members were then re-armed. Nuer soldiers re-armed themselves and fighting erupted between the Dinka elements of the Presidential Guard and the Nuer elements. Civilian casualties began when the Dinka elements of the army began targeting Nuer civilians in the capital city of Juba.
President Kiir called it a coup attempt and announced that it had been put down, but fighting again erupted the following day and spread beyond the capital, Juba, to the region around Jonglei. Since then, the conflict has rekindled and inflamed ethnic and tribal sentiments, particularly amongst the bigger tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka. The conflict has taken on a darker and uglier side as Kiir’s government and rebel forces loyal to former vice-president Machar are reported to have committed atrocities and “wide scale human rights violations” in the three-month-old conflict. A ceasefire signed in January by both the government and rebels, has not been respected by either side.
Then, in mid-January, troops from Uganda joined forces with the South Sudanese military, an act that, according to many observers, could see regional countries drawn into the conflict. Initially, Uganda claimed the intervention was a humanitarian mission, securing the airport and other key assets in Juba, enabling the evacuation of many of its citizens and other foreigners. Ugandan officials claim they helped avert a potential Rwanda-style genocide. But Uganda forces have pushed further into the country, helping government troops recapture key towns and secure oil fields near the border with Sudan which could possibly agitate Khartoum.
In conflicts it is far too common that the international community responds too late in the face of a humanitarian disaster. Aid agencies have warned of a looming humanitarian catastrophe in South Sudan; where fighting continues in spite the crisis talks currently under way in neighbouring Ethiopia. Close to seven million people, or about 60 % of South Sudan’s population, now teeter on the edge of a hunger crisis, a number that will continue to grow with the arrival of the rainy season in April. It has raised fears of famine because South Sudanese farmers have been unable to sow their fields or move livestock to pasture. More than 900,000 have fled their homes. Insecurity has placed major restrictions on humanitarian access. When the rains come in April, nearly 60 % of South Sudan will become inaccessible by road.
Marking the extreme violence and national political crisis now entering its fourth month, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan has now suspended its current operations, choosing to focus on protecting civilians and ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid. Yet the UN remains committed to supporting South Sudan, by extending its current mandate and increasing its presence on the ground from 7,000 to 12,500 soldiers.
The world helped in bringing about South Sudan’s independence and to be sure, it is the international community’s moral obligation to act when states, such as South Sudan and its people, face certain humanitarian disasters. The violence in South Sudan highlights the troubles of new emerging democracies that are often weak states. They also show that something is seriously flawed in the way the world’s largest foreign aid donors, such as the US and EU, conducts state building in these states. Providing assistance to weak states like South Sudan is one thing but the other thing is to ensure it is done right. Lessons are often learned the hard way in places like Rwanda, Kosovo, and East Timor, yet are most often neglected.
Legitimacy of new governments in new democracies such as South Sudan does not result from public elections alone. Legitimacy comes from those elected ensuring all stake-holders are included in the peace and state building process. And because a “new” state and its first few governments often lack a social contract, social inclusion must become a central theme of state building.
With no end to the violence in sight, interventions in South Sudan cannot be either a political or humanitarian response, but must include both if the international community is to not only protect the lives of those in immediate need, but to ensure that the cycle is not repeated, both in South Sudan and the surrounding region. The international community’s response must be swift, to prevent the situation from becoming far worse. The priority is to save lives now, and ensure that food, medicine and other lifesaving supplies are positioned in the field, in easy reach of aid agencies before the rains hit and the roads become impassable. At the same time, the international community must also ensure that government and rebel forces continue to dialogue in a meaningful way and reach an immediate ceasefire that is respected by all parties and supports longer term institutional and democratic reform.
Lloyd Dalziel is an International Development Consultant who works in many emerging democracies in areas of democracy, governance, and humanitarian aid.