Four days of heavy fighting in the South Sudanese capital of Juba between troops loyal to South Sudanese President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar has ended, for now. Well over a hundred soldiers and an unknown number of civilians were killed, while thousands of the latter fled their homes.
The violence is the latest manifestation of a complex crisis that began in 2013, though the roots of the rivalries and dysfunction that led to the crisis stretch back decades.
The likely temporary peace that has settled onto the capital comes after Kiir and Machar called for a cease-fire, yet no one should be fooled about the two men’s culpability in all of this. For years, they have both placed their own ambitions above their people’s welfare and deepened the calamity gripping their country.
South Sudan was born to international acclaim in 2011 after a terrible, decades-long war against the north and simultaneous internecine violence within the liberation movement. Kiir from South Sudan’s largest tribe, the Dinka, was elected president while Machar, from another major tribe, the Nuer, became vice president.
The new country had profound challenges: little infrastructure, widespread illiteracy and poverty, deep-seated ethnic and political rivalries that occasionally turned violent, and continued conflict with Sudan. Yet, it also had oil wealth and the goodwill and diplomatic and financial support of the international community. The United States in particular was an avid supporter.
Leading such a country was an immense challenge, and, unfortunately, Kiir and Machar proved unequal to the task. Massive government corruption diverted billions of dollars into private pockets, while tens of millions were squandered or used to purchase weapons.
In December 2013, the political rivalry between Kiir and Machar turned violent. Fighting broke out in Juba between their respective forces, and Kiir accused Machar of attempting a coup, a claim for which subsequent African Union and U.S. inquiries found no evidence. Machar fled the capital to lead a rebel force against Kiir, and after just over two years of independence, the country descended into civil war.
The international community tried strenuously from the beginning to force Machar and Kiir to lay down their weapons. Various countries and regional blocs cajoled the warring sides into signing a string of cease-fires that one or both of the opposing forces usually broke almost immediately.
The effect on the fragile country has been devastating. Tens of thousands have been killed and more than 2.5 million displaced. Production of crude oil, which accounts for virtually all the country’s exports, fell by almost 50 percent from pre-conflict levels. Inflation skyrocketed nearly 300 percent per year, and the poverty rate surged to about 58 percent in 2015 from about 45 percent in 2011.
In August 2015, the international community managed to pressure Machar and Kiir sufficiently to sign yet another deal. After much squabbling over the implementation of various parts of it, Machar returned to Juba in April to take up his post as vice president, thus reinstating the same political arrangement that brought civil war in 2013.
Details are still hazy as to which side provoked this latest spasm of violence, but it matters little who fired the first shot.
Both Machar and Kiir have demonstrated time and again they will not bring peace to South Sudan, as they have no real interest in it. There have been many opportunities for them to work through their differences, yet they have seized on the slightest excuse to violate the various deals they have signed. True commitment to peace would not be so easily derailed.
It is also unclear if Kiir and Machar now even have the ability to bring calm in South Sudan. They have managed to rein in their fighters for the moment, but their troops ignored their pleas for peace in the midst of the fighting.
Having spurred their country into often overtly ethnic violence over the last several years, Kiir and Machar may have unleashed forces they cannot control. If so, they are even further unsuited to promote peace.
It was right for the international community to push for peace in South Sudan. But it was an illusion to believe that forcing cease-fires upon men who had no interest in reconciliation was going to work, or will work in the future. Reaching an agreement without the participants’ commitment is a potentially dangerous distraction that lulls observers into believing progress is being made.
Leading South Sudan in its infancy was always going to be difficult, and the previous two and a half years of violence have made the task monumental. Kiir and Machar have proved time and again they are willing to sacrifice the good of their people and country as they scrabble for power. No one should be fooled by the current cease-fire. Kiir and Machar are not part of a lasting solution in South Sudan.