The U.N. Security Council has extended the arms embargo on South Sudan amid growing fears of civil war, with the U.S.-backed resolution passing narrowly. Political tensions have escalated since the fragile 2018 peace deal, and warnings of military confrontations abound. Opposing views about the effectiveness of sanctions are emerging.
In a closely contested vote, the U.N. Security Council has decided to extend the arms embargo on South Sudan, a country where mounting political tensions have raised alarms of a potential return to civil war. The resolution, backed by the U.S., squeaked through with the bare minimum of nine votes, while six countries, including Russia and China, abstained. This embargo, which includes travel bans and asset freezes for individuals on the U.N. sanctions list, will remain in effect until May 31, 2026.
When South Sudan became independent from Sudan in 2011, there were significant expectations for peace and development. However, a civil war erupted in December 2013, as President Salva Kiir’s forces clashed with those loyal to Riek Machar, a power struggle between the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups, respectively. Despite a peace deal in 2018 that designated Machar as the first vice-president, implementation has been sluggish and fragile; even a presidential election has been delayed until 2026.
The situation has intensified, with U.N. envoy Nicholas Haysom warning last month of increasing military confrontations between the factions led by Kiir and Machar. The arrest of Machar was a notable escalation. According to Haysom, a toxic mix of misinformation and hate speech is creating a dangerous atmosphere, particularly across social media, reminiscent of prior conflicts that claimed over 400,000 lives.
Following the vote, U.S. Minister Counselor John Kelley expressed gratitude, emphasizing the arms embargo’s role in curbing the reckless influx of weapons into the region plagued by violence. “Escalating violence in recent months has brought South Sudan to the brink of civil war,” he stated, calling on leaders in South Sudan to prioritize peace.
In contrast, Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Anna Evstigneeva, argued that the council’s sanctions are outdated and hinder the peace process. She claimed they impede the implementation of the 2018 agreement and complicate military readiness for the national armed forces, suggesting a more open approach would benefit stability.
Cecilia Adeng, South Sudan’s U.N. ambassador, voiced her disappointment over the sanctions’ extension, stressing that lifting them is crucial not only for national security, but for economic opportunities. “These measures create barriers to growth, delay development, discourage foreign investment, and leave the state vulnerable to non-state actors and outlaws,” she lamented. This ongoing debate reflects the complexities involved in achieving lasting peace and stability in South Sudan.
The U.N. Security Council’s recent decision to extend the arms embargo on South Sudan highlights the challenges facing the country amidst political tensions and fears of renewed civil war. The divided vote underscores differing views on how best to approach the ongoing conflict. With the future of peace in question, significant international attention remains focused on the situation.
Original Source: www.newsday.com
