Divided U.N. Extends Arms Embargo on South Sudan as Fears of…

The U.N. Security Council has extended an arms embargo on South Sudan amid concerns of renewed civil war, passing the resolution with minimal support. While U.S. representatives argue for the necessity of these measures, opposition exists, particularly from Russia, questioning their effectiveness and calling for an end to sanctions. South Sudan’s U.N. ambassador expressed disappointment, citing economic implications and vulnerability to non-state actors.

In a significant move, the U.N. Security Council, currently divided on various fronts, voted on Friday to extend the arms embargo on South Sudan. Analysts are expressing concern that rising political tensions may lead the country to a renewed civil war, prompting the U.N. to take action. This resolution, primarily sponsored by the United States, garnered approval by the narrowest margin, securing the required nine affirmative votes against six abstentions from countries like Russia and China.

The embargo, alongside travel restrictions and asset freezes targeting individuals on the U.N. sanctions list, has been extended for an additional year, with a new expiration date set for May 31, 2026. This extension comes at a time when hopes were high following South Sudan’s independence from Sudan in 2011, which marked its entry as the world’s newest nation. However, that optimism has faded considerably.

The nation first fell into civil war in December 2013, following violent clashes between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, who represents the Dinka ethnic group, and those loyal to Riek Machar of the Nuer group. A fragile peace deal established in 2018 that positioned Machar as first vice-president has not seen effective implementation, with elections now pushed back to 2026.

Nicholas Haysom, the U.N. envoy to South Sudan, raised alarms last month about the increasing tensions between Kiir and Machar. These tensions have reportedly escalated to direct military confrontations, resulting in Machar’s recent arrest. Haysom pointed out a troubling rise in misinformation and hate speech on social media, warning that such conditions echo those preceding the brutal conflicts seen in 2013 and 2016, which resulted in significant loss of life.

Following the vote, U.S. Minister Counselor John Kelley expressed gratitude towards the council, stating that the arms embargo is vital to curtail the unregulated influx of weapons into a region already saturated with arms. He emphasized the urgent need for South Sudan’s leaders to prioritize peace, especially given the recent uptick in violence threatening civil stability.

Conversely, Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Anna Evstigneeva, criticized the continued sanctions, describing them as outdated and counterproductive. She claimed these restrictions hamper the peace process and the development of South Sudan’s armed forces. Furthermore, she accused proponents of the sanctions of obstructing political progress in the area.

South Sudan’s own U.N. ambassador, Cecilia Adeng, voiced her disappointment regarding the extension of the arms embargo and other sanctions. According to her, lifting these sanctions is not only a matter of national security but also essential for economic development and restoring dignity. Adeng argued that the measures hinder growth, discourage foreign investments, and leave the government vulnerable to criminal elements in the society.

The U.N. Security Council’s decision to extend the arms embargo on South Sudan reflects ongoing concerns about escalating violence and the potential for renewed civil war. Amidst strong reactions from a divided council, U.S. officials stress the necessity for these measures to maintain regional stability. Conversely, criticisms from nations like Russia highlight disagreements on the sanctions’ efficacy and impact on the peace process. As the situation evolves, the fragile peace remains a focal point for both South Sudan and international observers.

Original Source: www.newsday.com