Peace Deals For Their Own Sake

The Obama administration is watching the South Sudan ceasefire between the forces of President Salva Kiir and rebel leader Riek Machar, the former Vice President who was dismissed in 2013 and has led an uprising against the South Sudanese government ever since.

The conflict has resulted in over ten thousand dead and many more displaced. However, most observers are skeptical that the ceasefire will hold, due to the mutual distrust arising from the political grievances and claims to power by both sides.

By sponsoring the peace talks beginning in 2007 under the Bush administration, which ultimately led to South Sudan’s independence in 2011, the United States is responsible for the peaceful transition of power and establishment of democracy.  Furthermore, it is a desirable strategic partner due to its location, resources, ability to establish a secular democracy based on Western ideals, as well as a natural cultural ally.  While South Sudan is acknowledged as important to this administration, so far it has not been given the attention it deserves.

One area of concern is the role of China, a rising power that has broken with its long-standing policy of non-interference via sending 700 troops to South Sudan as part of the UN peacekeeping mission.  It has also chosen to back Kiir in the form of arms, betting that his forces can subdue the rebels.  Of course, the primary motivation seems to be the protection of its sizable oil and mineral investments, as well as power projection and countering Washington’s primary role in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, for which there is no clear strategy other than “wait and see.”

Another factor is the role of Uganda, South Sudan’s neighbor to the south, which has also intervened militarily on the side of President Kiir.  Seeking to project its image as a regional power while at the same time pledging to abide by the ceasefire, Ugandan troops will remain in order to prevent a refugee crisis, protect trade and commerce between both nations, and to monitor the agreement.

The ceasefire is already showing signs of falling apart, with Machar accusing the government of breaking it mere hours after it went into effect.  Perhaps the defection of two generals under his command will serve as a ploy to draw the international community further in under the pretense of being an honest broker for peace while regrouping and reorganizing his forces.  In reality, the factions in Machar’s camp show that he cannot guarantee peace, rendering his signature almost weightless.

Meanwhile, President Kiir signed it under threat of UN sanctions, leaving him no choice but to seek increased assistance from his Chinese patrons, who have been supplying him with arms for the past few months.

The terms call for the formation of a new government, including Machar regaining the Vice Presidential post.  This strengthens his position, as it legitimizes his rebellion and potentially casts him in the role of defender of the oppressed Nuer minority against the Dinka majority, of which President Kiir is part.   For the US, the ceasefire is the first step to achieving political stability, while also serving as an economic lifeline to China in the wake of their financial problems.  But will a coerced cease fire weighted heavily in Machar’s favor reach those ends?  With Chinese backing, Kiir does not need the deal.

In the larger context, China is assertive in its pursuit of global power broker status and has shown with its commitment of troops to South Sudan under the UN mantle and its arming of President Kiir that it has a clear objective: guaranteeing the security of its economic investments.

For the US, despite the reality of South Sudan’s importance to our policy objectives of stability, secular democracy, and regional security, the lack of involvement beyond being one of the many parties sponsoring the latest ceasefire is a clear sign of our diminished role and the potential sidelining of our interests as China continues to rise to the occasion.  Further alienating Kiir into China’s arms may only serve to prolong the conflict.