LegiStorm

Summary:

South Sudan, which separated from Sudan in 2011 after almost 40 years of civil war, was drawn into a devastating new conflict in late 2013, when a political dispute that overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political fault lines turned violent. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the conflict, often along ethnic lines, and the warring parties have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The war and resulting humanitarian crisis have displaced more than 2.7 million people, including roughly 200,000 who are sheltering at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the country. Over 1 million South Sudanese have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. No reliable death count exists. U.N. agencies report that the humanitarian situation, already dire with over 40% of the population facing life-threatening hunger, is worsening, as continued conflict spurs a sharp increase in food prices. Famine may be on the horizon. Aid workers, among them hundreds of U.S. citizens, are increasingly under threat—South Sudan overtook Afghanistan as the country with the highest reported number of major attacks on humanitarians in 2015. At least 62 aid workers have been killed during the conflict, and U.N. experts warn that threats are increasing in scope and brutality. In August 2015, the international community welcomed a peace agreement signed by the warring parties, but it did not end the conflict. The formation of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) in late April 2016, six months behind schedule, followed months of ceasefire violations. Opposition leader Riek Machar returned to the capital, Juba, for the first time since the conflict began, and his swearing-in as First Vice President of the new power-sharing government led by his rival, President Salva Kiir, was heralded as a major milestone toward peace. By late June, however, with little sign of subsequent progress in implementing the agreement, the head of the international monitoring commission warned that the peace deal was under threat of collapse. Fighting in parts of the country previously seen as stable spurred new displacement and amplified concerns about a return to full-scale war. By early July, mistrust among the parties in Juba had mounted and, with the two sides having negotiated security arrangements that allowed armed elements in the capital, the situation quickly deteriorated—which side started the fighting remains subject to debate, but hundreds were killed before ceasefires were declared on July 11. Reported attacks by government forces, including sexual assaults and ethnically targeted killings, on civilians and aid workers during the violence have prompted an international outcry and raised questions about the response of peacekeepers. More than 12,000 people sought shelter at the U.N. peacekeeping bases in Juba; Machar and other opposition officials fled the city and ultimately sought refuge outside the country. The status of the unity government, and the peace agreement itself, is now in question. The United States, at the request of East African countries, has since led an international effort to deploy additional U.N. peacekeepers to Juba, with the immediate aim of providing a secure environment in the capital, and with the hope that the force’s presence may create conditions more conducive for broader stabilization efforts. The South Sudan government has been reluctant to accept the force, viewing the deployment as a possible threat to its sovereignty, and has sought to condition its consent on approval of “modalities” for the force, including its composition. While negotiations on the force’s deployment continue, the prospects for a possible arms embargo, threatened by the U.N. Security Council in August, are unclear. Mixed messages from the international community on the status of the peace agreement and the legitimacy of the TGNU, following President Kiir’s replacement of Machar and many of the opposition representatives in the government in late July, may complicate the path forward. By some accounts, the TGNU and the peace agreement on which it was based have collapsed, and reports suggest that both sides may be preparing for a return to full-scale war. In the context of ongoing conflict, donor governments, including the United States, may deliberate on whether, or how, to invest in proposed recovery and development efforts in the country. Without robust donor engagement, South Sudan’s crisis appears set to worsen—the International Monetary Fund warns that without economic reforms and political reconciliation, the economy will further deteriorate and the government may be unable to meet key obligations, including salaries for its army. Donor concern about state corruption, however, is high, amid reports that senior officials have diverted state assets to fuel the war, and for their own benefit. The United States, which played a key role in supporting South Sudan’s independence, has long been its leading donor and is a key diplomatic actor. With congressional support, the United States made major investments in South Sudan’s recovery and development after the Sudanese civil war ended in 2005, but many of those gains have now been reversed. The Obama Administration has contributed over $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid since the conflict began in December 2013. Along with its support for the humanitarian response and ongoing development programs, the United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the country and a key donor for ceasefire monitoring and other efforts to mitigate conflict. As Congress considers available options for U.S. engagement, several key questions arise:  How can the United States most effectively facilitate an end to violence and a path toward peace and reconciliation, both among political factions and rival communities?  Is the August 2015 peace agreement still viable? Should peace negotiations be restarted? Is the government in Juba still, in practice, a unity government?  If fighting continues, what possible steps—further sanctions, an arms embargo, new types of aid, aid restrictions—would be most appropriate and most effective?  How can the United States support efforts to pursue accountability for alleged war crimes without a negative impact on the peace process?  Given the serious abuses committed by the warring parties, what role, if any, should the United States play in the reform of a security apparatus that is expected to combine their forces? How should the United States engage with senior officials who have been accused of directing military operations in which war crimes have reportedly been committed?  How can the international community help to create a more secure environment for aid workers, including U.S. citizens? How significant is the impact of reported government restrictions on aid deliveries?  In light of reported threats against Americans and recent assaults on U.S. citizens and incidents involving U.S. diplomats in Juba, how does the U.S. government currently assess the threat to the U.S. embassy, and to U.S. citizens in South Sudan more broadly?  What are the international community’s expectations of peacekeepers with regard to protecting civilians, and do they have the appropriate personnel, equipment, and political will to implement their mandate?  What lessons have been learned from past support for state-building efforts in South Sudan, and how can foreign donors best support more transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance going forward?