Four years ago, after two devastating civil wars, South Sudan won its independence from Khartoum. It is now discovering that building a new country is just as hard as creating one. Quarrelling political leaders sparked a paroxysm of violence, which they continue to stoke. More than 50,000 people have been killed and millions have fled. The escalating brutality, including atrocities such as the slaughter of unborn children and the castration of young boys, is a warning that worse may lie ahead.
Most international voices have not got beyond the pious but less than useful sentiment “Why can’t they all just get along?” What little attention South Sudan has so far received has been shaped by humanitarians and addressed to symptoms not causes. Having played an integral role in the inception of the new state, the west – now sanctioning a few commanders and debating an arms embargo – struggles to find a remedy.
That state was misconceived. The people of South Sudan remain deeply troubled by their constitution. The army swelled, without unified command, and the ruling party remained unreformed from the days of revolution. It had little to offer the people. Society is now bitterly divided, even between communities still at peace. Yet there is a deep yearning for national dialogue, expressed by the churches, elders, women’s groups, thinktanks and even apparatchiks.
In this atmosphere, every incitement is more deadly and every act of moral courage more precious. The main peace process, directed by a regional group, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, has never begun to properly address South Sudan’s predicament.
The fragmented nature of the country is especially unsuited to a top-down approach. And South Sudan’s neighbours are especially unsuited to administer it. Uganda and Sudan, in particular, must be persuaded to draw back and allow South Sudan a life of its own.External mediation would be best led by an eminent African mandated by the UN.
The UN has saved tens of thousands of lives by offering sanctuary to people fleeing persecution, but has yet to find a moral voice and a political strategy. As for the African Union, it commissioned, and then buried, an inquiry into atrocities. The truth must be published for the country to move forward. But it would be wise not to paint anyone into a corner. President Salva Kiir and rebel leader Riek Machar must instead be persuaded that they have a last opportunity to shape their legacy. And the country must draw the right lessons about the nature of political competition and how to accommodate it.
The shortcomings of the liberation movement cast a long shadow. It can only be escaped through a political opening. Given the chance, the people of South Sudan could provide that opening by embarking on a truly serious conversation on the country’s political future. After all the international incantation about “capacity”, some South Sudanese have learned to talk themselves down.
In truth, their capability has not been fathomed. If space could be created for internal mediation, the churches and others would rise to the occasion. South Sudan’s state will be brutal and weak or it will be inclusive and strong. It is time to say, in the words of Isaiah: “Come, let us reason the matter together.”
