The world cannot walk away from South Sudan

The world’s newest country, South Sudan^[1], is vying for the status of its most broken. Created in 2011 after decades of civil war and a referendum vote to leave Sudan, the new country quickly sank into a cesspit of infighting and destruction. Long-simmering resentments, which had been kept in check while the mainly Christian south fought the mainly Muslim north, sprang into unholy war as a corrupt cadre of leaders manipulated ethnic allegiances for their pecuniary ends.

That was just the start. In the past year or so, the situation has become decisively worse. Following the breakdown of successive peace accords, Riek Machar, the former vice-president once accused of plotting a coup, has fled the country leaving President Salva Kiir in control. What has often been portrayed as a conflict between Mr Kiir’s Dinka ethnic group and Mr Machar’s Nuer has shattered into a plethora of deadly squabbles between an alphabet soup of rebel groups.

As usual, it is the people who suffer. Of South Sudan’s population of 12m, nearly 1.5m have fled the country and a further 2m are internally displaced. Nearly 5m face hunger. The UN has declared the first famine in six years. It is Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

It would be tempting to leave South Sudan to it, particularly since the government in Juba has so blatantly used food aid for its own ends: both as a source of revenue and as a weapon of war. Nor is engagement without risk: in March, seven aid workers were ambushed^[2] and killed in just the latest attack on those trying to bring help.

Yet abandoning South Sudan would be wrong — for humanitarian, moral and practical reasons. If assistance stops — indeed if it is not increased — tens of thousands or more could starve. Like victims everywhere, ordinary South Sudanese are caught in a swirl of events they have no power to control.

The moral imperative is linked to the role of the west, particularly the US, in helping to create the country. Its cause became one close to the heart of US evangelicals. Washington pushed Khartoum to allow South Sudan to secede. For mainstream America, the country has fallen off the map. But there is at least an element here of “you break it, you keep it”. The west cannot simply walk away.

References

1. ^{^} South Sudan (www.ft.com)
2. ^{^} seven aid workers were ambushed (www.theguardian.com)
3. ^{^} risk being swamped by refugees (www.bing.com)