Nowhere in Africa has there been a liberation movement that transitioned seamlessly out of the bush into government. But never has there been a group that has failed so spectacularly as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Successive regimes in Khartoum bombed and enslaved the people of South Sudan. In the five years since they celebrated independence from the north, the South Sudanese have discovered that their own rulers can be just as brutal and corrupt.
Since last week, forces loyal to president Salva Kiir and vice- president Riek Machar, who leads a breakaway faction of the SPLM, have jeopardised an 11-month old peace deal by reigniting conflict in Juba, the capital. Tens of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee or take shelter in churches and UN compounds. Hundreds have been killed. UN peacekeepers look on, as they have done on numerous occasions since the outbreak of civil war between the rival forces in 2013, unable to prevent the massacre of innocents.
This is foremost a failure of South Sudan’s leadership. The many foreign architects of the peace process that led to independence also share some blame. It was only with consistent, top-level engagement from Washington, London and the east African region that Khartoum was persuaded to sign the 2005 accord that paved the way for self-determination. The same countries that helped to end one war - between north and south - approached the brief peace in the south with naive paternalism and, at times, complacency. Now that it has all gone wrong, they appear guilty of looking the other way.
The western and multilateral donors, on whom the building of the world’s youngest nation to a great extent depended, are paralysed by a dilemma of their own making. Beyond an elaborate patronage system run by grasping generals and local warlords, and a national dependency on aid, the donors have little to show for the billions of dollars they have thrown into propping up the nascent state.
They are reluctant to throw good money after bad. Yet, without greater external support there is little chance that the main protagonists can keep their forces in line. South Sudan is bankrupt. Oil production has halved as a result of fighting between the ethnic Dinka and Nuer. Much of the production has been sold forward anyway, and what is left in revenues the south must share with Khartoum, which owns the export pipelines. The uncomfortable truth is that the peace may have to be bought. China, which has the greatest interests in the oil - as well as peacekeepers in the UN force, two of whom were killed this week - can also help.
Carrots can only be part of the solution. Some of the actors in this conflict are guilty of crimes against humanity. They should be subject to sanctions, and should know that they will ultimately be held to account. An arms embargo, long overdue but under consideration at the UN Security Council, should be put in place immediately.
Meanwhile, the African Union (AU), which is meeting at a summit this weekend, can take the lead in sending extra troops to protect civilians. The AU has standby forces precisely for this kind of crisis and the 12,000 UN peacekeepers in place are insufficient.
For two days, a shaky ceasefire has taken hold - enough time for the evacuation of foreign nationals. But without far more robust and high level international engagement, there are few grounds to be optimistic that the peace will last.
