By Umba Peter Bosco

Before judging the International Community, this article departs by challenging the peace partners in terms of their willingness and capability to restore peace and stability in the country. Despite tremendous efforts by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and its partners in trying to resolve South Sudan’ civil war, more appalling events continue to evolve day-by-day in the different parts of the country. The pursuit for zero-sum game by the peace partners is seriously threatening the peace agreement reached in August, 2015 between South Sudan’s government and its opposition, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – in Opposition. The Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) has also been reconstituted since the leader of the opposition, Dr. Machar went into hiding before appearing again first, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and later in Khartoum in Sudan. Dr. Machar accused the government of attempting to assassinate him following the conflict recurrence on 8th July, 2016 and violating the peace agreement which are all lies according to the government.

The July 8th conflict has forced hundreds of thousands of people into displacement and refugee camps mainly to Uganda and Sudan. Humanitarian agencies including the United Nations (UN) are currently grappling with the provision of basic needs of those affected by the war in displacement and refugee camps. Most citizens believe that the war has no direct impacts on those responsible for its creation and/or continuation hence, raising fears of a prolonged civil war. There are also concerns that the sluggishness by the International Community in taking immediate action favors either of the conflict parties especially the one with leverage.

Although the government earlier on indicated willingness to restore calm and allow deployment of a protection force proposed by the peace guarantors, it is only through action that the lives of South Sudanese will be preserved. There is need for a show of political will by leaders of both parties to the agreement to fully implement the accord so as to restore law and order in the country.

The International Community still has another chance of making up for its failure in Rwanda by quickly taking appropriate measures against those obstructing the implementation of the peace agreement. It is senseless for the International Community to rely on unrealistic conditions laid by the peace partners before intervening while civilians continue dying of hunger, diseases, gun shots, and stress. It must be understood that sovereignty is not better than the civilians who voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession from Sudan in 2011. The world must also acknowledge that South Sudan’ independence and sovereignty were won by civilians, although the then Dr. Garang’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement started the liberation struggle which he did not win through the gun, but the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Thus, returning South Sudan back to normalcy requires less talk, but more action especially by the International Community.

As shown by arguments in this article, both the International Community and parties to the peace agreement appear to be doing little to end the suffering of the people of South Sudan. In order to find answers to the question about failure or success by the International Community in South Sudan, I leave my opinion open to further debate and constructive criticism.

The author is an independent political scientist and conflict analyst. He is reachable at umba.peter@yahoo.com.