Three months after the outbreak of armed conflict, the number of displaced people have now reached one million. Humanitarian organisations struggle to get access to the most vulnerable, and a political agreement between the disputing parties seems far away.
While the capital of Juba seems slowly to be getting back to “normal”, shelling and atrocities continue throughout the country. Control of the most strategic towns has shifted hands between the government and opposition forces several times, and the number of displaced keeps rising.
This naturally puts pressure on UN and humanitarian agencies to reach those most in need.
But the span for humanitarian access to the most rural areas in South Sudan is narrow, since roads and airstrips get flooded when the Nile exceeds its banks during rainy season.
UN disputes lead to restricted humanitarian access
The government is accusing the UN mission to South Sudan (UNMISS) of running ‘parallel government’ and for supporting the rebels by protecting them at UN bases. This suspicion culminated in mass demonstrations throughout Juba when weapons for the UN troops were found in a UN convoy marked as carrying food.
It was hastily concluded that the weapons were destined for the rebels since the actual content of the cargo was not labelled. Besides, transport of weapons overland is not allowed, which is a fact that has further disturbed the already tense relationship and mistrust between the UN and the Government of South Sudan.
The UN has apologized for the mistake, but humanitarian access has now become further restricted by the government. The Foreign Ministry has called for security personnel to stop and check the flow of humanitarian goods.
Several humanitarian agencies have witnessed their items and equipment to be held back or confiscated, while others have experienced harassment. That this type of bureaucracy hampers the activities of the humanitarian agencies will in the end have serious implications for the most marginalised.
The opposition forces accuse the government of preventing access to people in need, which directly violates the cease-fire agreement here.
From political power struggle to multifaceted crisis
The fighting that rocked South Sudan on December 15th 2013 initially broke out within the South Sudanese army between soldiers loyal to President Salva Kiir and those loyal to former vice president Riek Machar.
The political rivalries between the government troops and the rebels rapidly intensified using the antagonism between the Dinka and Nuer people as political tool. The crisis quickly developed into ethnic massacres of civilians throughout the country.
Cease-fire signed in Addis; the fighting continues
In January, the warring parties agreed to meet in Addis Ababa to negotiate a cease-fire which resulted in the signing of a cease-fire agreement on 23rd January.
However, the reality on the ground does not correlate with the conditions put down in the cease-fire agreement, and fighting has continued throughout the country since January.
Mediation talks in Addis have now resumed in order for the conflicting factions to strike a political settlement. They are led by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and aims at achieving national reconciliation and sustainable peace.
Riek Machar and his resistance movement have criticised IGAD for intervening in internal affairs, and blames them for not remaining neutral.
A holistic approach to a complicated situation
While the fighting goes on in South Sudan, and the talks hosted by Ethiopia do not indicate a political agreement to be reached anytime soon, civil society and churches do their utmost to mediate for peace and reconciliation. DCA support our local partners in advocating for inclusion in the ongoing peace talks in Addis. Particularly the role of the church is perceived as crucial in the process of national reconciliation and healing.
Combined with the emergency response on the ground, DCA seeks to ensure a holistic response to the crisis in South Sudan, where people’s most basic needs are met while those responsible for the situation are held accountable for their actions.