South Sudan: Three Years On, South Sudan Is Locked in a Cycle of Violence
By Elizabeth Ashamu Deng
9 July 2014
interview
On 9 July, South Sudan will mark three years as an independent state. But
the growing pains of the world's newest country are evident as millions are
trapped in a vicious cycle of violence. Amnesty International's Elizabeth
Ashamu Deng looks at some of the problems facing South Sudan today.
Q: What is the current human rights situation in South Sudan?
The situation is catastrophic. Both government and opposition forces engaged
in the fighting have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and other
grave human rights violations and abuses.
Thousands of people, many of them civilians, have died over the past six
months.
Women and girls have been raped or abducted and several of South Sudan's
largest towns are now deserted after homes and other civilian property have
been destroyed.
There have also been attacks on medical facilities and places where
civilians have sought protection, including churches and hospitals.
Humanitarian agencies trying to reach those affected by the violence have
faced intimidation and have had their equipment and supplies destroyed or
looted.
Civilians from South Sudan's two largest communities, the Dinka and the
Nuer, as well as other groups like the Shilluk, have also been the targets
of violence due to their ethnic identity and assumed political affiliations.
Members of government forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, as well as army
defectors and allied militias loyal to ex-Vice-President Dr Riek Machar have
systematically targeted civilians based on ethnicity, resulting in a cycle
of revenge killings.
More than one million people have been forced to leave their homes, becoming
internally displaced within South Sudan, while nearly 400,000 have sought
refuge in neighbouring countries.
Q: What is happening in the country now? What are people saying?
I was in Juba, South Sudan, in the two weeks leading up to Independence Day.
We spoke with internally displaced persons (IDPs) who are sheltered within
the two United Nations (UN) bases in Juba, many of whom fled to these bases
in December after the conflict erupted. We also met with IDPs who have come
to Juba from other parts of the country and are living in informal
settlements.
Overwhelmingly, I was struck by the sadness of South Sudanese people as the
country was preparing to mark three years of independence. People I met said
they had little pride in their country. Hopes and dreams have been dashed by
the current conflict. Many of those living on UN bases feel trapped, too
afraid to circulate freely on the streets of the capital.
In meetings with government officials, we urged them to increase efforts to
investigate abuses and bring those responsible to justice. Accountability is
critical to improving public confidence in members of the security sector
and as a deterrent to future abuses. We also called for members of the
public to be able to engage in public debate about the country's future
without fear of reprisals.
Q: Has South Sudan's human rights situation improved or deteriorated since
independence?
Prior to the conflict the situation was mixed. On the positive side, South
Sudan gave some early indications that it would abolish the death penalty.
In December 2012, it voted in favour of a moratorium on capital punishment
at the UN General Assembly. Prior to the conflict there were around 200
people sentenced to death in South Sudan; abolition would be a positive
step.
Nevertheless, South Sudan has suffered from pervasive human rights concerns
since independence, including the harassment of human rights activists and
journalists, unlawful killings of civilians by the South Sudan Armed Forces
(SPLA) and arbitrary detentions.
Since December 2013, the situation has gotten much worse. In addition to the
widespread attacks on civilians, the UN has said that 4.9 million people
across the country are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. Some
3.7 million people are at high risk of food insecurity in the coming year
due to fighting preventing farmers from working during planting season.
South Sudan now faces the worst risk of famine in Africa since the
mid-1980s.
Q: Why is this conflict happening?
The conflict began as a political dispute within South Sudan's ruling party,
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) between President Kiir, and Dr
Machar.
In early 2013, Machar, then Vice-President, openly declared his desire to
challenge Kiir for the chairmanship of the SPLM and then run for the
presidency in the 2015 general elections. That April, Kiir withdrew
executive powers delegated to Machar and suspended the National
Reconciliation Conference, an initiative chaired by Machar. Kiir also
retired senior generals, replaced two state governors and, in July 2013,
dismissed almost his entire cabinet, including Machar.
Machar, joined by senior members of the SPLM, denounced these decisions,
accusing Kiir of corruption, paralyzing the SPLM party, forming a personal
army and of unilateral decision-making influenced by "regional and ethnic
lobbies".
The splits in the SPLM leadership were evident at an internal meeting of its
Political Bureau on 14 December 2013, the day before conflict broke out. At
the meeting, Machar accused Kiir of offering no room for political dialogue
and declared he and others would boycott a session scheduled for the
following day.
After the session on 15 December, fighting broke out between soldiers of the
Presidential Guard, quickly escalating into an armed confrontation in Juba
between forces loyal to Kiir and Machar.Security forces split largely along
ethnic lines, with many Dinka maintaining allegiance to the government, and
many Nuer defecting to join the opposition, referred to as the SPLM/A in
Opposition.
Both parties appeared to use ethnicity as an indicator of political
allegiance, but as the conflict spread, and reprisal killings continued,
ethnicity seemed to supersede politics as the primary motivation for
killing. This has resulted in a cycle of revenge killings and has created
deep rifts between communities.
Q: Who is responsible for the human rights violations and abuses in this
conflict?
Every side of the conflict bears some degree of responsibility.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, as well as the
Human Rights Division of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) have
documented crimes committed by both government and opposition forces.
During the conflict, several large towns, such as Bor, Bentiu and Malakal,
have alternated between control by government and non-government forces.
Human rights monitors have found evidence that while under anti-government
control, Dinka civilians were killed and fled in large numbers, while the
same was true of Nuer civilians when government control was restored.
Q: Are you surprised this is happening? Did you expect independence to be a
fresh start for human rights in South Sudan?
Although South Sudan's independence was widely celebrated, the new country
already faced a range of problems. The armed forces were far from being an
organized, trained, professional army, and were fractured by soldiers'
allegiances to former militia leaders.
South Sudan also had a weak justice system that failed to hold to account
those responsible for human rights violations and abuses. Since South Sudan
gained regional autonomy from Sudan in 2005, there have been clashes between
the military and militia groups, and violence between various communities,
resulting in large-scale displacement and thousands of civilian deaths.
However, such violations and abuses have not been adequately investigated,
and perpetrators have not been held to account. This leads individuals and
groups affected to believe that the only way to ensure those responsible are
punished and prevent future abuses is by taking the law into their own hands
and engaging in reprisal attacks.
The current conflict in part stems from such problems and now shows little
sign of abating. A number of agreements were made over the past few months.
A cessation of hostilities agreement was signed on 23 January 2014 by
representatives of the government and the opposition forces, which was
renewed on 5 May, and followed by a 9 May agreement by Kiir and Machar "to
resolve the conflict." However, not only were these agreements ignored by
both sides, but they also did not deter forces on either side from carrying
out targeted violence against civilians.
Q: What is the way forward for South Sudan?
The immediate priority is for both sides in the conflict to stop attacks on
civilians. Leaders on both sides must ensure that combatants responsible for
violations and abuses are removed from the ranks and held accountable.
Humanitarian agencies must be given unhindered access to all areas of South
Sudan to help those in need.
Also, authorities in South Sudan must conduct prompt, independent and
impartial investigations into reports of unlawful killings, torture, and
other ill-treatment and survivors must be provided with adequate
reparations.
In addition, the international community should support the Commission of
Inquiry, set up by the African Union earlier this year to investigate human
rights violations and abuses committed during the conflict.
Justice is essential for human rights to become a reality in South Sudan.
There must be no amnesties or political deals that would allow those found
guilty of abuses to escape justice.