In July 2011, days after South Sudan declared independence, I attended a workshop at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on the issue of China, US and Africa. I remember that the discussion went to which country and sector China and the US could cooperate on in Africa. “South Sudan” and “security” came out as the answer.
Unfortunately, merely two and half years after achieving independence, South Sudan, the youngest country in the world, has been caught in a web of violence and conflict since December 2013. The conflict was initially a power struggle between two factions within the ruling party South Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) led by President Salva Kiir and former vice-president Riek Machar, but was quickly followed by fighting between the South Sudan government forces led by President Kiir and rebel forces loyal to Machar. More seriously, the conflict soon escalated into ethnic group killing between the majority Dinka group, which Kiir is from, and the second largest group, the Nuer, which Machar is from. So far, the conflict has claimed more than 1,000 lives and displaced nearly 200,000 people, and is bringing the country to the brink of the civil war and a failed state.
Given that China is the largest investor in South Sudan and Chinese oil enterprises have invested heavily in the petroleum industry in the country (China imported 70 percent of South Sudan’s crude oil in 2012, and Chinese petroleum enterprises have a 40 percent share in South Sudan’s petroleum pipeline), some foreign media outlets have claimed that China is the biggest victim of the South Sudan conflict and now in a predicament. The conflict is also a test for China’s non-interference policy.
Indeed, the conflict in South Sudan has threatened Chinese people’s personal safety and property . And Chinese oil enterprises have evacuated more than 400 Chinese oil workers from South Sudan to neighboring countries. Some oil production activities in conflict areas have been suspended, and economic losses caused by the suspension are yet to be estimated.
However, it should be pointed out that the conflict in South Sudan is also a big blow and setback for the US, which claimed that South Sudan’s referendum on independence in February 2011 was a success for the Obama administration’s new Sudan strategy announced in September 2010. The goal of the new strategy was not only South Sudan’s independence, which the US hoped would give it access to oil, but also to prevent the Islamic regime in Sudan from further expanding its influence in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, when US military aircraft tried to evacuate American citizens caught in the recent conflict in South Sudan, three planes were hit by South Sudan rebel’s fire and four US soldiers wounded.
Moreover, South Sudan borders six neighboring countries including Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Central African Republic (CAR), Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Compared with other parts of Africa, the Horn of Africa, North and East Africa have suffered a lot from terrorist activity by extremist organizations and rebel forces. In recent years, the activities of Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist group crossed the border of Somalia into Uganda and Kenya. Uganda and the DRC have suffered for years from rebel forces such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and the M23 rebel group. The CAR has also fallen into civil strife since the second half of 2013. So, if South Sudan falls into a full-scale civil war, it will spill over into neighboring countries and threaten regional peace and stability.
Therefore, ending the crisis in South Sudan will not only enhance benefits for Chinese economic interests, but will also be crucial for defending the US diplomatic reputation and strategic purpose in the region. Of course, most importantly, it will restart the national reconstruction process of South Sudan and maintain the peace and stability of the country and the entire region at large.
In resolving the South Sudan conflict, China, US and the international community as a whole should make a joint effort to call on both sides (South Sudan’s government and rebels) to exercise restraint and solve their dispute through dialogue and negotiation. China and the US should also actively support the mediation efforts of the African Union and the regional bloc of Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Actually, it is quite encouraging to see that both Chinese special envoy Ambassador Zhong Jianhua and the US special envoy Ambassador Donald Booth have all paid the visits to South Sudan within a short time, and tried very hard to mediate and broker a ceasefire the two sides. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also met separately with representatives of South Sudan’s warring sides in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa when he visited the country. During the meeting, he urged South Sudan’s warring sides to end the violence, to seek a reasonable and rational solution to their conflict, and to restore the rule of law and order.
As permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the US have also worked together to facilitate a fast adoption of the UN resolution to temporarily increase the overall force levels of UNMISS (UN Mission in South Sudan) to support its protection of civilians and the provision of humanitarian assistance. The resolution reinforces the strength of UNMISS to 12,500 troops and 1,323 police from its previous mandate of over 6,800 troops and police.
With a strong push from the international community, South Sudan’s two warring sides eventually had direct peace talks in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa even though fighting continues. Although the two sides still have differences in opinion, the direct talks are a good beginning for achieving a political solution, as a consensus may be reached on stopping hostilities, releasing political prisoners, holding political dialogues and providing access for humanitarian aid. This will lay the foundation for further negotiations on possible power sharing. Since conflict and even war originated from the political struggle between the two factions in the ruling party, both the US and China should also work hard to find some political and institutional arrangement for guiding the peace talks.
In addition, China’s engagement in mediating South Sudan’s peace talks cannot be regarded as the abandon of its traditional “non-interference policy.” An article in People’s Daily on Jan. 13, 2014 summarized the issue by saying “Chinese diplomats have frequently taken part in negotiations to resolve burning regional and global issues because China is committed to shouldering more international responsibilities and protecting its interests abroad.” In my opinion, “Constructive engagement” is aimed at resolving problems and building peace, rather than “destructive interference.”
In short, restoring peace and stability in South Sudan is the common desire of China and the US, as well as the international community as a whole. With a joint effort from all stakeholders, the mission for resolving the conflict in South Sudan is possible.
Dr. He Wenping is a senior researcher at the Charhar Institute, and a researcher at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies, CASS.
