South Sudan is a Test for the African Union

South Sudan is on the brink of a return to civil war. The first round, which started in 2013, was terribly costly for the young, largely impoverished country. It ended with a power sharing agreement between President Salva Kiir and first Vice-President Riek Machar, although many of the steps prescribed in the peace deal—including holding national elections—still have not been taken. Now, Vice President Machar has been placed under house arrest, and military clashes, particularly in Upper Nile State, are prompting a broader mobilization. 

Thus far the world is largely responding with a collective sigh of resignation and indifference. South Sudan is admittedly a frustrating portfolio for policymakers. The country’s leadership is corrupt and unreliable. Too many actors are quick to exploit ethnic cleavages for their own gain, sowing social mistrust.  

But throwing up one’s hands at the prospect of a return to conflict in South Sudan means more than resigning oneself to additional suffering for the South Sudanese, already challenged by a cholera epidemic and food insecurity. It also risks sleepwalking into a massive crisis as the conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sudans, and Central Africa risk becoming ever more entwined. It’s not just that arms and fighters have a knack for moving across borders. Already, Sudan’s war has devastated the South Sudanese economy, as damage to a major oil pipeline has eliminated a huge portion of the state’s revenue. Ugandan troops are deployed in both South Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to protect Kampala’s interests. Desperate for cash, President Kiir has grown closer to the United Arab Emirates, which is also the most significant backer of the Rapid Support Forces that hold much of western Sudan. As more players stake out positions in fragile territory, the risk of escalation, miscalculation, and metastasizing conflict is increasing. 

Unfortunately, these dangers come at a moment when global leadership is in short supply. Untangling a conflict involving two or three antagonists is one thing. Bringing peace to a situation in which a dozen or more players are involved, with backing from an additional set of states, is far more difficult. But geopolitical tensions have made the United Nations largely irrelevant in resolving threats to peace and security. Africa’s subregional organizations, from the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to the East African Community (EAC) to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), have struggled to mount any effective response to growing instability. The United States is growing more isolationist and has dismantled much of its own ability to at least alleviate human suffering in crisis zones. 

Some hope that new leadership at the African Union Commission will bolster the body’s role in “silencing the guns.” The AU is sending representatives from the Panel of the Wise to Juba to calm the tensions, but whether they will be any more successful than Kenya’s recent effort led by Raila Odinga remains to be seen. The time for conflict prevention is rapidly expiring, while the potential costs of war continue to rise.