In February, the United Nations declared a famine in South Sudan and estimated that 100,000 people faced immediate risk of starvation. This was the first declared famine in six years; the last was in Somalia in 2011. While South Sudan has long been struggling, the question is, how did an oil-rich state and one that had finally gained independence from Sudan after years of fighting, suddenly find itself in this situation? Read on to learn more about the nation’s tumultuous history, the aftermath of its independence, and where it stands today.

The History of Sudan

Sudan emerged as an extension of Egyptian society in 1500 B.C. and shared many of Egypt’s customs after the decline of ancient Egypt. Critical to the current conflict, Christianity was introduced to Sudan beginning in the 4th century, followed closely by Islam. For the next several centuries, the country fell under the sway of various Muslim or Egyptian rulers until it finally became a province of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Not long after, control of Sudan passed to the British after fierce fighting between Britain and local religious leaders.

Ultimately, British machine guns and artillery won out and Sudan was eventually brought to heel under a combined British-Egyptian rule. For approximately the first fifty years of the 20th century, the two sides continued this arrangement, with occasional conflict, as Egypt wanted to rule both Egypt and Sudan as one united country. These protests were ignored and ultimately, after Egyptian consent, Sudan became an independent country in 1956.

The Emergence of South Sudan

In 2011, 99 percent of voters in a referendum decided that the 10 southern-most states of Sudan should break away and become South Sudan. While the final decision ended with a clean break, getting to that point was an arduous process. In fact, the referendum followed on the heels of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, an agreement that finally ended a civil war that had lasted for several decades. In total, more than 1.5 million people died in the war and another 4 million were displaced because of the war.

The Civil War started in 1955, before what would become Sudan had even gained independence, when army officers from the south of Sudan mutinied. The officers rose up out of fear that once control of Sudan had passed from Egypt and Great Britain that the Muslim majority in the north, the new government, would impose Islamic Law on the country and promote an Arab identity. The initial conflict ended in 1972 with the Addis Ababa Agreement that granted the south limited autonomy. However, the government reneged on its agreement in 1983 leading to another outbreak in fighting that lasted until 2005. The specific issue was the government in the north’s decision to place Sudan under Sharia Law. While the country was approximately 70 percent Muslim, the other 30 percent was composed of Christians and those who followed traditional indigenous religions. In addition to the religious divide, there is also an ethnic divide between Arabs in the north and black Africans in the south.

In addition to the ethnic conflict that started much of the fighting, a major issue preventing peace was how to divide the country’s oil. Although the south has most of the oil reserves, the north had the pipelines and the port to the Red Sea. In the 2005 agreement, the two sides decided to divide profits equally, however, that arrangement ended in 2011 with South Sudan’s independence. Furthermore, while the 2005 agreement paved the way for southern independence it left many conflicts unresolved. The video below looks at Sudan’s modern history and why it has been plagued by conflict.

The Aftermath

Following the implementation of the peace deal in 2005, South Sudan went through a six-year period of autonomy before it voted for independence in 2011. The initial decision for independence was greeted with enthusiasm due to the promise of a large supply of oil and an end to decades of fighting. However, the agreement also left key elements undecided. Notably, it failed to decisively divide up oil resources evenly and did not extinguish ethnic tensions.

The oil issue grew out of the fact that the new South Sudan had most of the oil, while Sudan had most of the transporting and refining capabilities. This issue also bled into the ethnic conflict as some of the disparate groups were armed by Sudan in an effort to weaken South Sudan from the inside, sparking sudden conflicts. These clashes, especially the one between the two largest ethnic groups, led by the president and vice president, sparked yet another outbreak of civil war, this time within South Sudan. Additionally, there remains conflict between South Sudan and Sudan in various border regions. One of the contested areas, Abyei, was not able to participate in the original 2011 referendum vote, leaving questions about its status in the conflict. Many of these border regions also have considerable amounts of oil.

The following video looks at South Sudan at independence and many of the issues that have plagued it since:

South Sudan’s Civil War

A civil war within South Sudan, following its independence, came about in December 2013. At that time the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, and the vice president, Riek Machar, were engaged in political infighting. Ultimately, Machar was removed from his role as vice president and fled the country.

What started as a political dispute quickly divided the country along ethnic lines. The Dinka, one of the two largest ethnic groups in South Sudan, supported the president, while the Nuer, the other major ethnic group, supported the ousted vice president. As the ethnic conflict escalated, human rights violations ranging from rape to murder have been documented. Because of the violence, many farmers have been unable to tend their fields and grow their crops, which has led to the food disaster that is now considered a famine.

As many as 100,000 people are in jeopardy of starving because of this famine. In addition, another 5.5 million could face food shortages as soon as July. Making the situation even more difficult, annual inflation has risen to 425 percent, making it nearly impossible to buy food. Aid agencies, which have been making up for most of the shortfall, face significant obstacles as the conflict escalates. More than 80 aid workers have already been killed in the conflict. The situation has gotten so bad that people in the affected areas are hiding and foraging in swamps by day and then tending to their crops, at risk of animal attack, by night while the soldiers sleep.

South Sudan Today

To counter the ongoing turmoil, the international community has tried to intervene. The United Nations Security Council has authorized over 13,000 peacekeepers to be stationed in the country and given them the power to use force to protect civilians. These efforts though, have been continuously undetermined by the fluid situation on the ground, with all sides, including the government, involved in the violence. The international community has taken other steps as well, such as sanctions leveled by the United States on the leaders of both sides of the conflict.

To avoid further sanctions, President Kiir agreed to a peace deal with former vice president and rebel-Leader Machar in August 2015 with the support of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. As part of this agreement, Machar returned to his old position in April of 2016. However, the deal quickly unraveled with both sides violating the agreement causing Machar to flee once again, plunging the country back into war.

With the ongoing conflict and with tens of thousands of displaced people unable to return home, the situation in South Sudan has become increasingly bleak. As of April, the South Sudanese refugee camp in Uganda, Bidi Bidi, has eclipsed Kenya’s Dadaab camp as the world’s largest, with over 270,000 South Sudanese living there. Moreover, the mass exodus shows no signs of ending soon. In other war-torn areas such as Syria, outward migration has effectively slowed, but in South Sudan, the number has gone up dramatically. South Sudan’s refugee crisis is currently the fastest growing one in the world, although it is not the largest in terms of total numbers.

This refugee flow is only likely to continue with yet another outbreak of violence between the government and the main insurgent force flaring up in mid-April. This comes in the wake of more aid workers being displaced and unable to offer desperately needed assistance to the local population.

Conclusion

South Sudan had to overcome approximately a half-century of conflict just to become a nation. In the process, more than a million people have died and millions more were displaced. Upon its independence, the future looked bright for the new nation. It was home to a large supply of oil and it appeared to have finally put its destructive conflicts behind it.

However, appearances were not what they seemed. Conflicts erupted externally in the form of border disputes with Sudan and internally among the nation’s many ethnic groups. The country’s two largest ethnic groups took opposing sides in a political dispute between the president and vice president that once more plunged the nation into a civil war. The consequences of this conflict have been devastating, with any hope of economic success dashed and even the provision of the most basic means of survival thrown into doubt.

Despite being the youngest nation on earth, South Sudan already finds itself at a critical crossroads. Its government is locked in an internal struggle, thousands of U.N. troops are already on the ground, and millions of its citizens sit in refugee camps ringing its borders. To be successful, the country’s path seems clear: reconcile the various ethnic groups, make lasting peace with Sudan, and let people get back to their lives. Finding a way to make these things happen, however, will be a much more difficult process.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turmoil in South Sudan, the World’s Newest Nation appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the United Nations formally declared a famine in parts of South Sudan, saying that the civil war and the collapse of the economy have left 100,000 people facing starvation. As many as a million more are on the verge of it. Now the UN urges the international community to act fast, as the number of people at the brink of starvation will rise to an estimated 5.5 million in July, which is the peak lean season.

“Famine has become a tragic reality in parts of South Sudan and our worst fears have been realised. Many families have exhausted every means they have to survive,” said Serge Tissot, a representative for The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in South Sudan. He added that most of the affected families are farmers who had their land and agriculture disrupted by the armed conflicts. People have had to rely on what little food they can find.

Famine has been declared today in parts of #SouthSudan. 100k facing starvation, almost 5m urgently need aid https://t.co/0TxKfgqfar pic.twitter.com/jJcT0of89x

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) February 20, 2017

This is the first declared famine since 2011 in Somalia, when more than a quarter of a million people are believed to have succumbed to starvation between October 2010 and April 2012. Expectations were high that South Sudan, the world’s youngest country that gained independence from Sudan in 2011, was going to prosper because of ample oil in the area. But the new country is also home to over 60 different ethnic groups and the conflicts didn’t end with their independence.

#Famine hits parts of #SouthSudan: 100,000 ppl facing starvation. 5 mln ppl need food, #ag & nutrition assistance https://t.co/IQGSr0YI2K pic.twitter.com/e5HmsqlRrA

— FAO Newsroom (@FAOnews) February 20, 2017

Malnutrition is a public health emergency in South Sudan and armed fighting, displacement, and poor access to health services have aggravated the situation. According to UNICEF, more than a million children are already malnourished and many will die unless they get immediate help. And to make matters worse, the crisis could have been prevented: “This famine is man-made,” said Joyce Luma, Country Director at World Food Programme, WFP. She added:

WFP and the entire humanitarian community have been trying with all our might to avoid this catastrophe, mounting a humanitarian response of a scale that quite frankly would have seemed impossible three years ago. But we have also warned that there is only so much that humanitarian assistance can achieve in the absence of meaningful peace and security, both for relief workers and the crisis-affected people they serve.

Another contributing factor to the severity of the situation is serious inflation and a devaluation of the currency by 800 percent in the past year, resulting in food prices rising ten-fold. It has also been reported that President Salva Kiir’s government has been blocking humanitarian aid to certain areas.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Declares Man-Made Famine in South Sudan appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Associated Press revealed that South Sudanese troops went on a nearly four-hour violent rampage, where they raped foreign aid workers and killed a local journalist near the country’s capital of Juba. The worse part is, the nearby U.N. compound and the U.S. Embassy knew, but did nothing.

For three long years, Juba has been the center of a civil war between President Salva Kiir and the opposition forces led by Riek Machar. During the course of the war, both sides have often targeted civilians. But on July 11, soldiers celebrating a battle win in the capital attacked the Terrain hotel complex, which is a temporary home to many foreign aid workers, expats, and members of the Sudanese elite.

Residents of Terrain heard shouts and gunfire, while  between 80 and 100 men armed, drunk, and wearing the symbol of the President’s army broke into the hotel complex. Security guards at the hotel armed only with handguns didn’t stand a chance.

The soldiers began their rampage inside the complex by stealing phones, computers, and wallets. Then they beat up foreigners with their rifles–seemingly singling out Americans–and fired bullets close to people’s heads.

A man from the Philippines said the soldiers definitely had hatred for America, recalling one soldier saying: “You messed up this country. You’re helping the rebels. The people in the U.N., they’re helping the rebels.”

Three women interviewed by the AP said they were raped–one of them by 15 men. One of the women said security advisers from an aid organization had told them they would never be the target of an attack since they were foreigners. She claimed this exchange happened half an hour before they were assaulted.

Local journalist John Gatluak was killed for having the same tribal markings as Machar. A soldier shot him twice in the head and four more times in other parts of his body.

Many sent texts, emails and Facebook messages to people on the outside, pleading for help.

“All of us were contacting whoever we could contact. The U.N., the U.S. embassy, contacting the specific battalions in the U.N., contacting specific departments,” said the woman raped by 15 men.

But why didn’t the U.N. or the U.S. Embassy do anything to stop the attack? According to an internal timeline compiled by the U.N. that was obtained by the AP, a member of the U.N.’s Joint Operations Center in Juba first received word of the attack at 3:37 p.m, minutes after the breach of the compound.

Then over the course of the next hour, the timeline noted more U.N. staff members began receiving messages from inside Terrain. At 4:33 p.m., a Quick Reaction Force was informed; however it wasn’t until 6:52 p.m.–more than two hours after first the first message–that the U.N. Department of Safety and Security (DSS) declared it would not be sending a team.

Ethiopians from the U.N. mission were asked to send a Quick Reaction Force instead, but the emergency team took too long and the mission was abandoned. The U.N.’s Department of Safety and Security also asked Quick Reaction Forces from China and Nepal to intervene, but no one did.

“Everyone refused to go. Ethiopia, China, and Nepal. All refused to go,” said an American man who alerted U.N. staff of the attack after being released early from the compound.

According to the U.N. timeline, a patrol was supposed to go the following morning instead, but it “was cancelled due to priority.” When asked why no one responded, the U.N. said that it is investigating the matter.

But the U.N. isn’t the only organization facing blame. The U.S. Embassy was also asked for help, and reportedly never answered the American citizens trapped inside the hotel. The Embassy also did not respond to repeated requests for comment from AP.

The foreign aid workers in the field are there to help local civilians, but when they themselves become targets of attacks, the U.N. and their embassies should be the first ones to assist them. Instead, they were ignored when they begged for help.

Human Rights Watch is now calling for increased sanctions and an arms embargo on South Sudan.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Sudanese Soldiers Raped Foreigners, While the U.N. Did Nothing appeared first on Law Street.

After two years of civil war, the world’s newest country, South Sudan, finally achieved a semblance of stability with the formation of a unity government in April. But last week, over a blood-soaked five-day stretch, its capital city erupted in violence and lawlessness. On Wednesday morning, the U.S. military in Africa announced the deployment of 40 additional troops to its capital, Juba, to bolster security and assist American nationals seeking to leave for safer pastures. Additionally, the U.S. Embassy in Juba is organizing flights for non-essential personnel to flee the city. Germany and Italy have begun similar initiatives.

In recent months, South Sudan has been relatively stable. Two warring factions–one loyal to the president, the other to the dissenting vice president–signed a peace agreement last August. The Transitional Government of National Unity formed this past April. But last week, the streets of South Sudan’s capital turned bloody. The U.N. reports that 36,000 civilians have fled their homes. Hundreds have died. The fighting was ignited by forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those loyal to Vice President Riek Machar–the same warring sides that ignited the civil war in 2013. The violence is a stark pivot for a country that was seemingly on the path to unity.

A sliver of good news arrived on Wednesday, with Reuters reporting that the vice president, whose forces were ousted by those loyal to the president, fled from Juba. He said he does not intend to reignite the war. South Sudan’s civil war has roots in its independence from Sudan in 2011. A government was cobbled together, with the president a member of the Dinka ethnic group and the vice president a member of the Nuer. So what began as political dissent evolved into a full-throated conflict between warring ethnic groups. An encouraging step toward peace came in April when a unity government formed. But the recent clashes have left the country’s future in doubt.

On July 10, the U.S. State Department issued a travel warning for U.S. citizens traveling to South Sudan. “This instability is exacerbated by intertribal and intercommunal violence, cattle raiding, economic uncertainty, and an increase in violent crime,” the warning read. “Aid workers have been the targets of shootings, ambushes, assaults, harassment and robberies, some resulting in death.” Human rights groups are calling on all sides to allow safe passage for its aid workers, who are reportedly being blocked by government forces from reaching areas that need assistance.

Read more about South Sudan and its struggle for stability

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Troops Sent to South Sudan to Aid Fleeing Americans appeared first on Law Street.

In January 2011, South Sudan became the newest member of the international community following an overwhelming referendum in favor of secession from Sudan. Despite initial turbulence with its northern neighbor, by the middle of 2013 South Sudan looked ready to transform its wealth of natural resources into prosperity and stability. Then in December 2013, Vice President Riek Machar was forced to flee the capital of Juba following an alleged coup against President Salva Kiir. The violence has since spilled out across the country, killing an estimated 50,000 and displacing nearly two million more. The violence is highlighted by civilian massacres, ethnic violence, and other atrocities, despite seven failed peace attempts. While a recent peace agreement has at least temporarily stopped the violence, many challenges remain for the country. Read on to learn about what is going on in South Sudan’s civil war and the international peace process accompanying it.

A Brief History of South Sudan (1955-2011)

The history of what is today South Sudan is a long and bloody one, going back as far back as the second half of the 20th century. In 1955, the first Sudanese civil war broke out between the predominantly Muslim-Arab north and the largely Christian-African south. After 17 years of conflict, the fighting was halted in 1972 and the South Sudan Autonomous Region (SSAR) was formed.

Peace lasted until 1983, a couple years after oil was discovered in the south. The war resumed, or depending on who you ask, the Second Sudanese Civil War began. For several years, the North began wearing away at the agreement that created the SSAR. The second conflict emerged after Sudan assumed control of oil-rich land in the South while also imposing a strict version of sharia law. In 1991, in the middle of its conflict with the north, a South Sudan rebel group led by Riek Machar split from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Other groups split from the SPLA, often along ethnic lines, but Machar’s was the most prominent. In total, the second civil war killed nearly two million and displaced another four million between 1983 and 2005.

The conflict was negotiated to a settlement in 2005 by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional group. The settlement included provisions for a referendum on South Sudanese independence to be held in 2011.

The Referendum (January 2011)

In January 2011, the people of the South Sudan Autonomous Region, including refugees and ex-patriots in other countries, voted with 99 percent in favor of secession from the Republic of Sudan. A government was formed with Salva Kiir appointed as the president (representing the majority Dinka population) and Riek Machar as vice president (representing the Nuer population). Resource revenue–largely from the oil reserves located predominantly in South Sudan–were to be split between the Republic of Sudan (North) and South Sudan.

In July 2011, South Sudan was recognized by the international community as an independent state. Despite tension between both countries, direct conflict never broke out. The relatively orderly division of Sudan was hailed as a breakthrough in international conflict resolution.

The Recent Conflict (December 2013-August 2015)

In December of 2013, President Salva Kiir claimed that a coup had occurred from within the royal guard orchestrated by Vice President Riek Machar. Machar, who to this day denies that any coup attempt was made, fled the capital before he could be captured, going to the Upper Nile region to be with the Nuer people. He then waged an increasingly chaotic and violent struggle against Kiir’s government.

Efforts to control the violence faced significant challenges. In January 2014, U.N. peacekeepers were directed to not engage with either side of the conflict, only to protect UNMISS compounds and NGOs. Chief of Public Affairs at the U.N.’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations Kieran Dwyer best summarized the difficulties the peacekeeping and humanitarian groups were having in South Sudan saying, “It’s 11 million people across a country the size of France. How could we promise that we could protect everyone all of the time against everybody?”

The ethnic nature of the conflict has led to civilian massacres and revenge killings, which often perpetuate each other. The fighting, when combined with the climate, has led to starvation among groups of civilians. Additionally, the loose control that both Machar and Kiir exhibited over the groups under them has led to a general lack of organization and chaos. Because Machar represents all the rebel forces for the purposes of negotiation his control has been limited–there were rebel war chiefs and combatants who only had a distant allegiance to him and may have been fighting for different reasons. As a result of the chaos, there have been numerous reports of human rights violations and potential war crimes.

The following video by The VICE Report paints a picture of rebel life near the front lines of this conflict. The video does contain images that are graphic in nature, so viewer discretion is advised.

According to Laia Balcells, a political science professor at Duke University, if two sides of a conflict are close to each other in regards to power, civilian atrocities are more likely to be committed. Additionally, her research on violence against civilians in civil wars suggests that initial instances of violence correlate strongly to future instances of civilian violence. Given the relative parity demonstrated between Machar’s forces and Kiir’s throughout the conflict, the patterns Balcells predict seem to apply. That is to say, South Sudan finds itself in a vicious cycle of violence against non-combatants.

Agreements and Breakdowns

In January 2014, the two sides agreed to a ceasefire negotiated by IGAD. The agreement was initially hailed by the international community, including praise from the UN and the United States. But the deal quickly fell apart within a day of coming into effect as rebels accused the government of continuing the violence. Six additional ceasefires had come into effect only to be violated within days of being signed.

Some experts see these failed cease fires as a sign that the conflict will be prolonged. For example, Barbara Walter, a political science professor at University of California San Diego, hypothesized that civil wars are more likely to re-emerge when they are ended by partition or compromise rather than with a decisive victory for one side. Additionally, shorter wars are more likely to see renewed conflict than longer wars (with longer wars being defined as longer than 4 years). However, crucial to the peace process is that rebel opportunity costs must be increased to deter reenlistment. Opportunity costs in civil wars are often defined roughly by quality of life statistics (e.g. infant mortality rate, quality of education, national/regional GDP, etc.).

In South Sudan, we see a relatively short war combined with repeated peace processes, which attempt to create a compromise between Machar and Kiir. With neither side disarmed and both sides less than happy, war could likely return after each negotiation. This problem, coupled with a population that faces lower and lower opportunity costs to join the rebellion creates a very challenging situation for South Sudan.

The Current Ceasefire (August 2015) and the International Peace Process

In August 2015, both Kiir and Machar signed a new peace deal that includes the demilitarization of major settlements, including the capital Juba. Additionally, the deal calls for Machar to be reinstated as Vice President. While Kiir and Machar seem to be doing their best to uphold the agreement, there already have been accusations of violation of the peace agreement. Even as he was signing the deal, Kiir expressed doubts over the language of the agreement and reservations, which he set aside to avoid sanctions. It should be noted that while the peace is fragile and teetering on a razor’s edge, it is holding.

As recently as September, the U.N. Security Council has attempted to coerce the two sides into upholding the peace with sanctions targeting key figures in the conflict. However, Russia and Angola have blocked these sanctions. Recent efforts include the July sanctioning of six generals, three from each side. However, human rights groups have criticized these sanctions for not effectively targeting higher ranking officials, arguing that the sanctioned individuals had very few assets outside of South Sudan that could be seized.

There are a few possible explanations for a lack of international involvement in this conflict. Stephen Gent, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina, hypothesized that the international community often suffers from a collective action problem when it comes to intervention. When outside groups have shared beliefs about what should be done to intervene, there’s an incentive to “free ride,” and hope another country is willing to bear the cost of intervention. Gent’s models also predict a lack of international intervention in the case of humanitarian crises (e.g. South Sudan, Darfur).

Meanwhile, the IGAD has attempted to reestablish its influence in negotiating a settlement by bringing in the African Union, United Nations, European Union, and others. The thought has been to present a united international front against the conflict. However, it has failed to gain effective backing given the international community’s general disillusionment with South Sudan.

Conclusion: Is There Hope for South Sudan?

Although South Sudan has managed to initiate a peace agreement, a lot of questions remain for the country. Thre have been several recent ceasefires and all have eventually collapsed. Furthermore, Salva Kiir’s reluctance to sign the agreement is certainly not a good indicator. Given the nature of the agreement and the country’s history, violence may quickly return. If that happens, increasing numbers of individuals will likely be displaced and in danger of starvation. Without centralized command on either side, peace talks will likely continue to fail and the currently negotiated truce appears unlikely to hold without significant intervention from the international community. Barring direct international, military intervention the relative parity between the rebel and government forces could lead to continued civilian massacres.

Resources

BBC: South Sudan Backs Independence – Results

Inter Press Service: U.N. Peacekeepers Overwhelmed in South Sudan

Al Jazeera: South Sudan: Birth of a new Country

CNN: South Sudan, Rebels Reach Cease-Fire after Weeks of Fighting

New York Times: South Sudanese Rebels Accuse Government of Ignoring Day-Old Cease-Fire

Relief Web: 50,000 and not Counting: South Sudan’s War Dead

Voice of America: Russia, Angola Delay UN South Sudan Sanctions

Foreign Policy: South Sudan’s Peace Deal Never Stood a Chance

Sudan Tribune: UNMISS Condemns Violation of South Sudan Peace Agreement

Defense News: US Warns South Sudan Warring Parties on Ceasefire

Enough Project: Sudan: Independence through Civil Wars, 1956-2005

United Nations Security Council: Resolution 2155 (2014)

International Crisis Group: South Sudan: Keeping Faith with the IGAD Peace Process

Stephen E. Gent: Strange Bedfellows: The Strategic Dynamics of Major Power Military Interventions

Laia Balcells: Rivalry and Revenge: Violence Against Civilians in Conventional Civil Wars

Barbara F. Walter: Does Conflict Beget Conflict? Explaining Recurring Civil War

VICE: Saving South Sudan

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Sudan’s Continuing Pattern of Reneged Peace Deals appeared first on Law Street.

While climate change, habitat loss, and strains on food resources are all putting pressure on many forms of wildlife to survive, another human induced threat is direct action by way of poachers. Especially in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, poaching is pushing already endangered animals such as the black rhino, elephant, and some big cats to the brink. Turbulent political situations and market demands further escalate the determination of those involved and the degree of their activity. Attempting to protect said animals will require more than raising awareness and implementing additional rules, rather, we need widespread alterations to value systems. However since there are so many factors involved that need to be addressed, any progress is desirable–during his notable recent visit to the United States, Prince William spent time advocating for wildlife conservation.

A city in Myanmar named Mong La, called by some a mini Las Vegas, is a haven for black market outlets and red light activities. In addition to gambling and prostitution, many endangered animals are desired in one form or another. Rhino horns are thought to have healing qualities, tiger parts are thought to be aphrodisiacs and increase virility, and bear claws, leopard pelts, and live monkeys are also common sights. These things have been the practice in the region for a long time, but recently it has worsened due to China’s economic expansion. A vast increase in members of China’s middle and upper middle classes has provided an enormous demand for these already extremely rare animals. Such people have cash to burn, and desire to spend it conspicuously on trophies, prestige, and lavish leisure.

Poachers cut up a kill. Courtesy of Rod Waddington via Flickr.

One does not need to be ethnocentric, insofar as declaring one’s own culture, values, and belief systems to be correct or superior to those of another. However there is no scientific evidence to support the theories that these animals provide the medicinal benefits that are claimed.

Yet this should not be the only factor in the issue. Individuals and societies should be allowed to exercise their cultures regardless of scientific validity. The Faroe Islanders, located between Scandinavia and Iceland, got into a scrape with Greenpeace over their Grindadrap, or Pilot Whale Hunt. Greenpeace made assumptions about the Islanders–that they were killing simply for the sake of it and in attempts to assert masculinity. This seemed pointless to them and Greenpeace advocated for an end to the hunting practices. However upon further investigation, many minute details regarding the Faroe culture and its relationship to the hunt were discovered. An aesthetic interest in whales was not sufficient to deny the Faroes the right to pursue these values. This conclusion became all the more prevalent when it was discerned that the Islanders were in fact going about the hunt in a sustainable fashion, and the pilot whale itself is not an endangered species. However neither of these two details are the case with regard to the poaching discussion at hand.

Ivory jewelry. Courtesy of USFWS Mountain-Prairie via Flickr.

Currently the primary solution to the poaching problem is armed defense. Many African national parks employ heavily weaponized rangers to patrol and defend the borders. Often times firefights break out; there are often reports of poachers, and occasionally rangers too, getting killed in these conflicts. While this might help on a case by case basis, it does not stop poaching at the source. That is, it does not address the root motivations for poaching in the first place.

Rangers confiscate ivory. Courtesy of Enough Project via Flickr.

Poachers and Rangers are not the only ones engaging in armed conflict in the African national parks. In 2013, the two-year-old country of South Sudan erupted in civil war. Sudan is already known for hosting Africa’s longest civil war, lasting from 1983-2005. During that time, it is estimated that all but 5,000 of the country’s 80,000 elephants died. After the first war, elephants, giraffes, antelope, buffalo, and others were in a position to begin a recovery. Paul Elkan of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s South Sudan program explains that formal protection, ecotourism, and other programs were being established which could have aided these animals in returning to a healthy population. However with the onset of another war these systems collapsed. As a power vacuum has opened up in much of the region, there is little to stop poachers from running rampant. Furthermore, as combat spreads into the parks themselves, poachers are not the only threat to the animals. Commercial bush meat hunting to feed soldiers is a common occurrence during hostility.

The Duke of Cambridge is a longstanding advocate for wildlife conservation. While in Washington D.C. at the beginning of December, Prince William vocalized his intention to address the trafficking aspect of poaching, in an effort to work with transportation companies and international regulations on trade. Trying to cut the actual trade of the animals could reduce the level of poaching on site. This is just one of the many means by which Prince William hopes to improve the situation and spread more environmentally conscious sentiment across the globe. Being in an authoritative and high profile position, he continues to put his influence and altruistic intentions to productive use.

Prince William speaks about wildlife conservation. Courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr

If the increased demand for these animals is in part a consequence of modernization, interconnected markets, higher income, and more leisure time for the societies in question, the interest in sustainability and environmental conservation should not be long to follow. If they could heed the Prince’s warnings and follow his example, we may be able to find effective and long lasting solutions to these problems.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prince William Speaks Out Against Animal Poaching appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in decades, the United Nations has declared four of the world’s humanitarian crises a “Level 3 Emergency,” the highest possible rating the organization can assign. The four on the list are Syria, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Iraq; Iraq was just added to the list on August 14th. From the Islamic State beheading journalists, to the thousands dying from the Ebola virus in Western Africa, from the thousands of civilians fleeing towns in Iraq, to the million malnourished and displaced in South Sudan, as a world, we are collectively in crisis.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General, the “Level 3”  emergency designation facilitates “mobilization of additional resources in goods, funds and assets to ensure a more effective response to the humanitarian needs of populations affected by forced displacement.”

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a team of UN and other NGO humanitarians, is responsible for determining the level of crisis. Level 3 is given to countries experiencing civil unrest that causes the displacement or removal of thousands of people. Unlike natural disasters, conflicts put humanitarian workers in the crossfire, making relief efforts that much more difficult.

Iraq became a particular concern after the situation on Sinjar Mountain escalated and thousands of Yazidi families–a particular religious community in Iraq–were trapped on the mountain without water, nourishment or any form of sanitation as ISIS fighters surrounded them. Despite numerous Department of Defense airdrops over a week long period in August, 1.5 million Iraqis are in need of humanitarian help, according to USAID.

USAID estimates that 10.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria; 2.5 million in the Central African Republic, with 900,000 more displaced; and 1.1 million displaced in South Sudan. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said:

This is the first time in our agency’s history that we have been called on to manage four large-scale humanitarian responses at once— in addition to reaching other vulnerable populations worldwide and preparing communities ahead of natural disasters.

UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNHCR, CARE USA, World Vision USA, Save the Children, Oxfam America and many other NGOs are currently operating in these four countries. Their contributions have saved thousands from death, and millions of individuals have been helped to get back on their feet. The U.S. government alone has sent more than $2.8 billion in assistance to these four countries; but the battle is nowhere close to being done.

To the 5,000 people who are suffering from the Ebola virus, I feel for you. To my sisters in India, who have no choice but to give contaminated water to their children, I feel for you. To the 5.5 million children affected by the crisis in Syria, I feel for you. To the families in Gaza whose houses have been destroyed, I feel for you. I know my empathy won’t bring your loved ones back, give you a new home, or calm the fear that you have to live with everyday. But I hope my words can reach and inspire my colleagues here in America. I hope my words will make people realize how mundane their issues are compared to those I’ve outlined above. I hope my words can bring us together collectively, so we can finally realize that it isn’t “us and them,” but simply “us.” We are Iraq. We are Syria. We are South Sudan. We are Central African Republic. If they are experiencing a crisis, we are experiencing a crisis. With countries like Gaza, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the horizon of reaching a level 3 designation, humanitarian aid is needed now more than ever. We are collectively in crisis, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.