Need to delve into root of South Sudan strife

South Sudan rival leaders have their own doubts that the August 2015 deal midwifed by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional body, and troika, led by US and the UK, would work. They cited some weaknesses in the accord that the frustrated mediators who were in a hurry to clinch the deal, overlooked. Among those doubts though not expressed by any party, is the historic mistrust that dates back to the second edition of the civil war from 1983- 2005 between North and South Sudan.
So the recent outbreak of violence wasn’t exactly a surprise. President Lt. General Salva Kiir and First Vice President Dr. Riek Machar were not on the same side during most part of the civil war. Riek switched side to the North against the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), then led by late Dr. John Garang. When Riek rejoined the SPLA, he didn’t have the same clout. Yet, Dr. Riek contests that Kiir is a dictator who doesn’t want to relinquish power. Hence, the power struggle begun and took an ethnic form as each side recruited from his tribe. It is complicated as the conflict isn’t a clear-cut ethnic war.
In other words, the power-sharing arrangement forced on them last August did little to resolve underlying tensions. Moreover, the mediators didn’t deliver to shore an ailing economy whose dividends might have touched lives of people.
Further, the collapse in oil prices has deprived South Sudan — which boasts sub-Saharan Africa’s third largest reserves, after Nigeria and Angola — of badly needed revenue. The production was reduced at least a third to as little as 120,000 barrels per day.
Worse still, the economy shrank by more than 5 per cent last year and inflation has hit nearly 300 per cent. Meanwhile, Kiir’s government has been spending money on attack helicopters.
The human toll of the conflict is huge. With nearly 5 million South Sudanese facing starvation and more than 2 million displaced, donors must pledge and deliver more humanitarian assistance.
Frankly, South Sudan started from the scratch after two civil wars: 1955- 1972 and 1983- 2005. Endowed with resources, South Sudan lacks infrastructure to help it harness resources amid instability and lack of sufficient international cooperation.
To address conflicts such as in South Sudan and other countries in the region, international community should apply both carrot and stick. A UN report has blamed senior officials in both the government and opposition for war crimes and called for the wider use of targeted sanctions. Yet any expansion needs to be done with a focus on deterrence.
This may work more than UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s call for an arms embargo. The arm embargo hasn’t work elsewhere as regional and
international conflict of interest renders it useless.
Should the region and major international players understand the root causes of this conflict, they would bring peace to the restive country. A recipe for solution of conflicts that takes into account local factors should be embraced to come up with proper solutions.
There is a silver lining as both rivals are feeling local and international pressure that this conflict must come to an end. Kiir’s call for Machar to engage in talks to resolve pending issues must be encouraged by the mediators to review the peace accord to address reservations of both parties.