Dispute prevention time expires rapidly.
South Sudan is on the verge of returning to the civil war. The first round, which began in 2013, was extremely expensive for a young, poor country. It ended with a power-sharing agreement between President Salva Kir and First Vice President Riek Machar, but many of the measures set forth in the peace agreement include holding national elections – has not been taken away. Vice President Machar is currently under house arrest, with military conflicts in the Upper Nile province in particular spurring wider mobilization.
So far, the world has responded primarily with a collective sigh of resignation and indifference. South Sudan is certainly a frustrating portfolio for policymakers. The leadership of the country is corrupt and unreliable. Too many actors quickly utilize the cleavage of ethnic groups for their own benefit and ow social distrust.
But reaching for the prospect of a return to conflict in South Sudan means more than resigning yourself to further suffering for South Sudan, which has already been challenged by the cholera epidemic and food insecurity. And as conflicts in the Horn of Africa, Sudan and Central Africa become more intertwined, sleepwalking is on a major crisis. It’s not just that arms and fighter jets have the trick to move across borders. Already, the Sudan war has devastated the South Sudan economy. This is because damage to major oil pipelines has eliminated a large portion of the state’s revenue. Ugandan troops are deployed in both South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Eastern Congo to protect Kampala’s interests. Desperate for cash, President Kiel approached the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates is also the most important supporter of the rapid support force that holds most of western Sudan. As more players bet their positions in vulnerable territory, the risk of escalation, miscalculation, and transfer conflicts is increasing.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
Unfortunately, these dangers come at a moment when global leadership is lacking. Resolving a conflict involving two or three antagonists is one thing. With support from additional states, it is much more difficult to bring peace to a situation involving dozens or more players. However, geopolitical tensions made the United Nations almost irrelevant in resolving threats to peace and security. From government agencies on development (IGAD) to the East African Community (EAC) to the development community in South Africa (SADC), African and small-scale organizations in Africa are struggling to achieve an effective response to increased instability. The United States is increasingly more isolated and dismantled many of its unique ability to at least alleviate human suffering during the crisis zone.
I hope that new leadership at the African Union Commission will strengthen the body’s role in “silence the guns.” The AU is sending representatives from Juba from Wise’s panel to calm tensions, but it has yet to be seen whether they will be more successful than Kenya’s recent efforts led by Raila Odinga. The time to prevent conflict expires rapidly, but the potential costs of war continue to increase.
