Rethinking Strategies for Sustainable Peace in South Sudan

Time and time again, we observe the futility of the United Nations' pluralistic multilateral approaches to relinquishing asymmetric violent conflict across countless humanitarian intervention agendas (Berdal 2003). This very idea is manifested by the intergovernmental organization’s unintentional contrivance of an ideological hierarchy predicated upon the presumption of genuine state altruism to define contemporary international order (Duffield 2001). For instance, the current United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), deployed in July 2011 to contain the political struggle between President Salva Kiir’s disputed incumbency and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM/A-IO) led by former Vice President Riek Machar, has only exacerbated hopes of attaining domestic prosperity as the dynamics of conflict evolved (Human Rights Watch 2016). This article contends that adopting a hard-power approach, predicated on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the Hegemonic Stability Theory, is essential for transcending the limitations of current peacebuilding efforts and promoting sustainable peace in the embattled nation of South Sudan.

In May 2014, Kiir and Machar agreed to a ceasefire reaffirming their commitment to the ceasefire signed earlier in January 2014. These agreements, mediated by the African Union, aimed to put an end to the violent conflict between Machar-aligned insurgents and government factions in support of Kiir. However, on the same day, both parties accused each other of violating the terms of the negotiations. Subsequently, in June 2014, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) facilitated further negotiations concerning a third ceasefire and the establishment of a transitional democratic government to oversee domestic affairs for 60 days. As before, short-sighted diplomacy and a pervasive desire for political dominance among both parties led to a complete cessation of its terms after four days. A trend of precarious ceasefire agreements ensued, with renewed commitments being ratified in November 2014, January 2015, and February 2015 (Grono 2018).

The failure of soft power-oriented foreign policy pressures on the civil intra-state war plaguing South Sudan warrants a hard-oriented liberal interventionist approach to resolve disputes over legitimacy in the country. This is manifested by the persistence of war by Sudanese nationalists that predicate their political agenda on attenuating the cultural hegemony arising from President Kiir's efforts to exert totalitarian control domestically (Woodward 2008). Such divisions have hindered the effectiveness of an external humanitarian intervention, despite the allocation of $9.5 billion in foreign aid to rebuild national infrastructure (Government of the Netherlands 2019). However, this is an unsurprising outcome of conflict as there is no moral obligation, particularly when defending fundamental human rights, for a state to adopt or act on any foreign policy agenda that would undermine its dominance (Krasner 2001).

It is clear that South Sudan's status as an independent and sovereign state was granted prematurely. To effectively address its fragile democratic institutions, an alternative pathway to negative peace may entail a reconsideration of South Sudan's independence, and allowing external military intervention to take place within the country (Paris 2002). The nation, deeply entrenched in instability, can only be rehabilitated and guided with a unilateral change in recognized authority from a neoliberal interventionist paradigm. The United Nations Security Council can facilitate the establishment of short-term negative peace and long-term positive peace by ratifying sanctions on Kiir-aligned organizations in order to undermine the international legitimacy of South Sudan’s incumbent government (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect 2012). The effectiveness of hard-power approaches in resolving South Sudan's issues is grounded in the Hegemonic Stability Theory, which asserts that unipolar and imposed international systems are more likely to maintain negative peace than multipolar systems, as observed during the preliminary peacekeeping negotiation process initiated in 2011 (Gilpin 1981).

Additionally, the hard-power approach derives justification from the R2P doctrine, established in 2005. The international norm sets a precedent for external intervention in another state's sovereignty intending to protect human rights (United Nations General Assembly 2005). Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the complexities surrounding the application of R2P and the potential consequences of intervention. While the protection of human rights is a noble goal, it is essential to acknowledge that proposed interventions may also be influenced by geopolitical and strategic considerations. As such, attributing military responses solely to human rights concerns could be overly idealistic. It is crucial to carefully assess the motives behind any intervention and maintain a balanced perspective, taking into account both humanitarian goals and potential political implications. Skepticism towards any apparent manifestation of altruistic ideals should be maintained, as history has demonstrated that even well-intentioned interventions can lead to unintended consequences and exacerbate existing tensions (Barnett 2011).

The persistent dissonance in South Sudan calls for a pragmatic reevaluation of the United Nations’ strategies for conflict resolution and peacekeeping efforts in the region. Considering the empirical inadequacies of soft power-oriented foreign policy pressures to effectively address the civil intra-state conflict plaguing South Sudan, it is imperative to employ a hard-oriented liberal interventionist method to settle issues of contested legitimacy and achieve enduring peace.

---

References

Amnesty International. 2019. “South Sudan: Crippled justice system and blanket amnesties fuelling impunity for war crimes.” Accessed March 12, 2023.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/10/south-sudan-crippled-justice-system-and-blanket-amnesties-fuelling-impunity-for-war-crimes/.

Barnett, Michael. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Berdal, Mats. 2003. “The UN and the Use of Force: A Marriage Against Nature." Journal of Conflict Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, 2003, pp. 89-113. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26299740.

Deng, Francis M. 2015. South Sudan: The Untold Story from Independence to the Civil War. London: I.B. Tauris.

Duffield, Mark. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. New York: Routledge.

Gates, Scott. 2014. “Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East.” First ed. Palgrave Macmillan 18 (3): 273–94.

Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. 2012. “South Sudan: Populations at Risk.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/south-sudan/.

Government of the Netherlands. 2019. “South Sudan.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/your-country-and-the-netherlands/south-sudan/and-the-netherlands/development-coorporation.

Grono, Charles. 2018. “South Sudan: the challenging path to peace.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.iiss.org/events/2019/12/south-sudan-conflict-briefing.

Human Rights Watch. 2016. “South Sudan: Civilians Killed, Tortured in Western Region.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/24/south-sudan-civilians-killed-tortured-western-region.

Krasner, Stephen D. 2001. “Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy.” Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Makur, Richard. 2018. “South Sudan rebel leader Riek Machar returns to capital.” Reuters. Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southsudan-politics/south-sudan-rebel-leader-riek-machar-returns-to-capital-idUSKCN1IX4L4.

Paris, Roland. 2002. “International Peacebuilding and the ‘Mission Civilisatrice.’” Review of International Studies 28 (4): 637–56.

Rasanayagam, Angelo. 2003. Afghanistan: A Modern History. London: I.B. Tauris.

The Fund for Peace. 2020. “2020 Fragile States Index: South Sudan.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://fragilestatesindex.org/country-data/south-sudan/.

United Nations General Assembly. 2005. “2005 World Summit Outcome.” Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf.

Woodward, Peter. 2008. “Crisis in the Horn of Africa: politics, piracy and the threat of terror..’” Survival 50 (2): 143–62.