South Sudan: Negotiating a Settlement - Peace and Power

Photo: /Julio Brathwaite/UN^[1]

Civilians displaced by fighting at a United Nations facility on the outskirts of Juba. Up to 13,000 civilians have sought refuge at UN compounds.

Inclusivity Will Fix It

The peace negotiations for South Sudan could resolve the crisis only through a "genuine and inclusive political dialogue", [1] according to Ethiopia's Foreign Minister, Tedros Adhanom, recently speaking on behalf of the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD).

This echoes current international thinking within the talks currently underway in Addis Ababa. Inclusivity however is only one factor necessary for achieving a successful settlement. The type of peace which the talks will deliver also depends on the relations of power at the negotiation table.

A Stalemate? Political, Humanitarian and Military Dimensions

Serious negotiations require a stalemate that hurts in one kind or another: a situation in which all factions have little to win, but a lot to lose. However, the military situation has remained fluid in the past months.

While Kiir could rely on continued military support from Yoweri Musevini of Uganda, Machar could gamble on the strategic benefits of the rainy season and the promises of waging a low-intensity war against an army, which while better equipped, would be unable to move heavy vehicles and machinery.

Concerns have been mounting about the increasing regionalisation of the conflict, which has already increased tensions among neighbouring states. IGAD plays a central role in the current negotiations.

However, rivalries between IGAD member states, in particular Uganda and Sudan, and Ethiopia and Eritrea,[2] threaten to undermine its mediating position.

Moreover, a unilateral military intervention of any of the member states would lead not only to an increasingly complex situation on the battlefield, but an aggravation of the military and political conflict. If additional regional players intervene militarily, both Kiir and Machar will loose much of their ability to steer the course of conflict to their liking.

Intensified efforts to negotiate a settlement make it clear that important international players have lost patience with the two warring factions. The two adversaries thus increasingly have reasons to worry about their standing in the international arena.

The recommitment to the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in May was a result of the rapidly mounting international pressure, including visits by US Secretary of State John Kerry, and UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon to Juba, and the threat of sanctions against the key protagonists of the crisis. Reports about mass atrocities, and calls for investigations into crimes against humanity have arguably played an important role to present the parties with a more sober outlook on the chances of achieving political victory primarily through military means.

International pressure was also an effort to reduce the humanitarian impact of the crisis. Initiatives in late April came at a critical moment, as US and UN bodies pointed to the impact of the conflict on the planting season and increased food insecurity.[3] Only through an immediate cessation of hostilities, could humanitarian access be improved, and the risk of famine be reduced.[4]

These efforts also provide a starting point to resolving the crisis politically, through the resumption of peace talks. However, while the current international pressure has sufficed to bring the parties to the negotiation table, a successful settlement depends on getting the relations of power between them right.

References

1. ^{^} /Julio Brathwaite/UN (www.unmultimedia.org)