IGAD’s Dilemma: Will the Regional Body Rise to Address South Sudan’s Ongoing Crisis?

By Ter Manyang Gatwech

In a region fraught with internal strife, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) faces a critical juncture regarding its engagement in South Sudan’s protracted crisis. Recent political turbulence among South Sudanese elites has led to a pervasive stagnation in peace efforts, raising questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of IGAD’s role in facilitating dialogue and resolution.

The Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), initially brought into force from 2015 to 2018, has largely failed to yield tangible results. With a history marked by unmet promises and repeated setbacks, South Sudanese leaders continue to demonstrate a reluctance to engage in meaningful reconciliation, undermining their credibility on both national and international fronts.

Signed on August 17, 2015, the ARCSS aimed to quell the violence that erupted following clashes in Juba in 2016. However, the agreement’s collapse highlighted a consistent theme in South Sudan’s political landscape: a troubling lack of political will among the ruling elite. With the nation teetering on the brink of a resurgence in hostilities, the question looms—will IGAD now listen to the voices of the South Sudanese people clamoring for change?

Despite various extensions of peace timelines, the spirit of “negative peace” prevails, as the political elite remain entrenched in their positions of power. The ongoing conflict and suffering of the South Sudanese populace necessitate urgent action. The current Revitalized Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) is expected to implement the R-ARCSS effectively; however, conflicting interests and mistrust among its members obstruct progress and compromise the collective effort toward lasting peace and stability.

The R-ARCSS does present opportunities for transformation through sustained peace, national reconciliation, and public financial reforms. However, establishing trust and fostering a cooperative environment is imperative. The need for fresh perspectives and new voices is evident, as the stalemate continues to cultivate an atmosphere of competition rather than collaboration.

The regional dynamics further complicate IGAD’s potential involvement. Nations such as Ethiopia and Kenya are entrenched in their internal challenges, ranging from civil conflicts to contentious diplomatic relations. These complicating factors raise doubts about IGAD’s ability to impartially mediate or address South Sudan’s crisis effectively.

Uganda’s longstanding military support for South Sudan complicates matters further, with opposition leaders accusing the country of interference. Meanwhile, Djibouti’s recent elevation in the African Union signals diversification in its focus, potentially detracting from regional conflict resolution efforts.

With President Salva Kiir’s administration weakened by internal divisions and a raging humanitarian crisis, the urgency for dialogue outweighs militaristic solutions. Despite possible advantages for opposition figures like Dr. Riek Machar amid widespread hunger, the path forward must emphasize cooperation over confrontation.

As South Sudan grapples with its tumultuous political landscape, the question remains—will IGAD prioritize engagement and accountability, or will internal divisions among its members render it ineffective? The citizens of South Sudan deserve an answer, and the future of their nation hinges on the willingness of the international community to advocate for peace and stability in this beleaguered region.

Ter Manyang Gatwech is a prominent South Sudanese human rights activist with ten years of experience in civil society. He can be reached via email at termanyang24@gmail.com.