The roots of South Sudan’s current predicament are deeply embedded in its history. The 2011 independence from Sudan, initially heralded as a triumph of self-determination, quickly descended into civil war fueled by tribal rivalries, accusations of electoral fraud, and the accumulation of power by President Salva Kiir and his former Vice President, Riek Machar. The 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS), brokered with significant international mediation, aimed to establish a power-sharing government and end the fighting. However, the agreement’s implementation has been plagued by violations, mistrust, and a breakdown of security, culminating in renewed violence beginning in December 2021. The UK government’s recent statement, reflecting a globally shared concern, underscores the gravity of the situation. Key stakeholders – the Kiir-led SPLM/A-In Transition, the Machar-led SPLM/A-IO, regional bodies like the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the African Union – remain locked in a cycle of accusations and counter-accusations, severely hindering progress toward a sustainable peace. The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) operates within this volatile environment, constantly facing threats to its personnel and operations, a factor highlighted by the tragic death of an UNMISS staff member in Wau.
Humanitarian access remains a critical impediment to delivering aid and assistance. The data reveals a catastrophic humanitarian landscape: over 9 million people – nearly half the population – are in need of assistance, with Jonglei experiencing some of the most acute displacement – approximately 230,000 people displaced since December. Recent incidents, such as the 3 February airstrike on a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Wau and the looting of a convoy carrying aid to Upper Nile State, demonstrate a systemic failure to protect humanitarian workers and ensure the safe delivery of critical supplies. The UK, alongside other international actors, has repeatedly called for unimpeded humanitarian access, a demand increasingly met with obstruction and deliberate targeting of aid efforts. “The deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid constitutes a war crime,” stated Dr. Elizabeth Duffield, Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group, in a recent briefing. “It is essential that the international community holds those responsible accountable.” The situation underscores the complex interplay between political negotiations and humanitarian imperatives.
Political processes surrounding the implementation of the R-ARCSS have been equally fraught. The transitional government’s attempts to unilaterally amend the agreement and remove opposition figures have eroded trust and deepened divisions. The creation of parallel governance structures, often operating outside of the agreed-upon framework, further complicates the situation, impeding aid delivery and exacerbating tensions. The agreement’s core provision – a power-sharing government – is demonstrably failing, with the Kiir regime dominating the institutions and refusing to fully implement the terms. The protracted negotiations are hampered by a lack of genuine commitment from all parties to inclusive, consensus-driven dialogue. “The key to unlocking South Sudan’s future lies in a demonstrable shift towards genuine dialogue and compromise,” argues Richard Black, a former US Ambassador to Sudan. “Without that, the risk of a descent into full-scale civil war remains extraordinarily high.”
Short-term outcomes over the next six months are likely to remain dominated by violence and continued displacement. The conflict will likely persist, fueled by competition for resources and ethnic divisions, and further strain humanitarian resources. The risk of a major offensive, potentially centered around key oil-producing regions, is a significant concern. Long-term, without a fundamental shift in the dynamics between the warring factions, the prospects for a lasting peace remain bleak. The potential for a protracted, low-intensity conflict could create a destabilizing “ungoverned space,” attracting extremist groups and exacerbating regional security challenges. The impact on South Sudan’s economy – heavily reliant on oil – will be devastating, further compounding the humanitarian crisis.
The UK’s commitment to supporting a peaceful and prosperous South Sudan is, understandably, a priority. However, the efficacy of international pressure is being severely tested. The challenge is not just to condemn the violence but to translate that condemnation into tangible action that can genuinely influence the behavior of the warring parties. A key strategic imperative for the West is to bolster the role of regional organizations, particularly IGAD and the African Union, in facilitating dialogue and promoting accountability. Furthermore, sustained pressure on the government of South Sudan to uphold its commitments to the R-ARCSS and ensure humanitarian access is crucial. Ultimately, the future of South Sudan hinges on the willingness of all parties to engage in genuine dialogue and prioritize the needs of the South Sudanese people. This situation demands sustained, nuanced engagement, and a recognition that a solution requires more than simply imposing external conditions – it requires fostering a genuine commitment to peace from within. The question remains: can the international community, including the UK, generate the sustained and effective pressure needed to avert a further descent into chaos, or is South Sudan destined to remain a region of protracted conflict and human suffering?