South Sudan's seemingly interminable tensions

The story so far...

Since the start of the bloody conflict in December 2013 there have been concerns about whether the peace process, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Arusha peace talks, mediated by Tanzania’s President Tekwete, could bring about a resolution to the bloody conflict in South Sudan. Clearly the ongoing tensions in the world’s youngest nation have its neighbours concerned. The talks in Addis Ababa which commenced after January’s cessation of hostilities agreement between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and his former Vice-President Riek Machar have reached an impasse with Kiir on the verge of recalling his delegation from Ethiopia amid his accusations of Machar’s reversion to military means. Despite signing an agreement to ‘resolve the conflict’ (May 9^th 2014) both sides remain heavily armed (according to the South Sudan Action Network on Small Arms, SSANSA) and each with their pockets of strong support in the key areas outside the capital, Juba.  This latest deadlock comes after Kiir accused the rebel leader of returning to violent conflict last week in Bentui – which has changed hands between the government and rebel fighters often - thereby undermining the peace talks.  However, Machar’s allies are quick to point out that Machar’s presence at the delegation is proof enough of his commitment to peace. The Arusha talks in late October have, at least, signalled that both sides were able to take responsibility for the intense violence thus far but whether that can be capitalised on to effect concrete power-sharing agreements is doubtful – owing largely to suspicion between the two parties as well as the role of other, more maligned political actors within the South Sudan political landscape.

The last week’s skirmishes in oil-rich Bentui, in the border state Unity, have been allegedly planned and launched from Heglig within neighbouring Sudan’s borders, although their involvement in this recent battle remains unclear.  Sudan has previously supported peace talks in the erstwhile southern Sudan, no doubt mindful of the potential exacerbation of its own internal conflicts, its overstretched military resources and the effect of swathes of refugees from the south on its population, economy and food security. However its continuing role in South Sudanese politics has thus far only added to the mistrust and suspicion among key South Sudanese leaders, unable to extricate themselves from the long history with the Sudanese government as well as escaping their own political short-comings.  Kiir is considered indecisive and prone to surround himself with yes-men while Machar is still perhaps best known and little forgiven for his role in the 1991 Bor massacre – while both sides continue to curry favour with Sudan’s NCP, against whom they fought for 22 years.

Looking ahead

Given the endurance of bad blood between the two sides, the shifting allegiances and intermittent fighting, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the overall decrease of the levels of violence seen last December is due to strategic or logistical issues brought about by the rainy season. Concerns now arise about possible escalation with the start of the dry season in November and the attacks in Bentui may signal the start of further cycles of violence in poverty-stricken South Sudan. This is supported by the ramping up of recruits particularly children, strengthening the call by civil society and rights groups for an investigation into this and other crimes during the 10-month conflict.