South Sudan is at a precipice. The world’s newest country has seemingly experienced nothing but strife and violence since its independence from its northern neighbor in 2011. It has been nearly a year now since infighting began when the country’s President, Salva Kiir, dismissed his cabinet. In response, ousted former Vice President Riek Machar is accused of orchestrating an attempted, but failed, coup. The combination of presidential overreach and an attempted power grab took on greater meaning by a country with ethnic tensions simmering just under the surface. The Dinka, the country’s largest ethnic group of which Kiir is a member and the Nuer, the country’s second largest ethnic group that counts Machar among its ranks, broke out in fighting that would overtake the fragile state. This fighting has proven exceedingly difficult to stop.
Among the many reasons for the continued violence, including ethnic tensions, political ambition and economic dissatisfaction, was a lack of political will to end it. While East Africa’s eight country trading bloc, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), brokered a peace deal in January, neither side has appeared particularly interested in an on-the-ground ceasefire, failing to put the full weight of their efforts towards the negotiations or enforcement.
There is some indication this is beginning to change.
On Monday, October 20, Kiir and Machar agreed in principle to a new framework for peace in Arusha. The pair were joined by a group of senior leaders from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, a party whose ranks also include Kiir and Machar, but who had been imprisoned by Kiir but were not allied to Machar., according to The Guardian.
The most significant advancement of the Arusha talks was the joint acceptance of responsibility for the country’s woes. The signed agreement acknowledges “that the current crisis in South Sudan is rooted in differences within the [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] leadership,” while ”rejecting the use of violence as a means of resolving political disputes” and “believing that a peaceful, political solution must be found to resolve the conflict.”
As mentioned, this is not the first agreement the parties have signed. The first failed to produce any meaningful ceasefire but the Arusha agreement has given some hope that this time the ceasefire will hold. There seems to be an honest, contrite commitment to this process that has not existed in previous attempts, according to The Guardian. The efforts from both sides are said to be new to these negotiations.
There has also been a tremendous increase in international pressures. In addition to the Tanzanian ruling party that is hosting the talks in the country’s capital, significant pressure has come on both sides from South Africa’s African National Congress, along with President Jacob Zuma, and the Ethiopian government from the continent. The U.S., UK and a former President of Finland have added international support to the mediation attempts.
There is also a different format to these talks that lends some credence to their potential for success. These talks, contrary to the IGAD talks in Addis Ababa, are intra-party talks, hosted by the SPLM and working towards party level reconciliation. This allows for internal mechanisms and significant influence for those that worked together to separate from their despotic northern neighbor and Omar al-Bashir.
It is unfortunate that too often in new countries for every piece of good news there is accompanying horrific news. A May report by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan detailed potential war crimes and crimes against humanity that have taken place since the outbreak of fighting in the country. This includes substantial violations of international law and human rights, including “extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, rape and other acts of sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, targeted attacks against civilians not taking part in hostilities, violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population, and attacks on hospitals as well as personnel and objects involved in a peacekeeping mission.“
The report goes on to detail how widespread such attacks have been, stating that the “systematic” nature of the violence suggests “coordination and planning.” This is a troubling development for all sides to the conflict, in addition to the country as a whole.
Perhaps the most disheartening of the chronicles in the report is the widespread use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. This included allegations of “rape, sometimes with an object (guns or bullets), gang-rape, abduction and sexual slavery, and forced abortion.”
The news has not gotten better in the months since the report was released, with a more recent report by the United Nations’ Special Representative on Sexual Violence Zainab Hawa Bangura reporting that in Bentiu she saw sexual violence of such magnitude that a two year old child was among the victims.
Despite the rampant sexual violence and the potential that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed during the 10 month conflict, there has been recent progress. In addition to the framework agreement in Arusha, the country managed to avert a massive famine that had been seen as all but inevitable by the international community. While these steps forward are important, it is vital that the ceasefire holds and more is done to stave off war crimes and sexual violence in the country. As grim as some of the stories coming out of the country are, all movement forward must start with peace. The Arusha agreement is an important first step.
Andrew Friedman is a human rights attorney and consultant who works and writes on legal reform and constitutional law with an emphasis on Africa. He can be reached via email at afriedm2@gmail.com or via twitter @AndrewBFriedman.
