The United States’ arms ban on South Sudan comes as the result of cumulating frustration over the factions’ failure to negotiate peace, to maintain ceasefires, and to protect the lives of their citizens. The United States began taking action against the political elites of South Sudan in 2014, when President Obama sanctioned six military leaders because of their involvement with the atrocities taking place. During the Trump administration, these sanctions have broadened to include three close associates to Kiir, who are charged with personally profiting from the violence. Additionally, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has pushed for more comprehensive action, leading to the implementation of the U.S. arms embargo. This campaign initially began with an ultimatum given to Kiir during a visit to the nation on October 25, 2017, where she also met with suffering civilians. The ultimatum essentially informed Kiir that he may lose American support if the violence and perpetration of atrocities by his military continues. When Kiir failed to respond, Haley began advocating for the end of the United States’ support of Kiir and the implementation of an arms embargo. While the US State Department has officially declared an arms ban on South Sudan, it is an almost entirely symbolic move given that the U.S. has not dealt weapons to South Sudan.

Though symbolic, the move can also be seen as a call to action for other nations with the potential to have a deeper and stronger impact on the conflict. A State Department statement in February stated “We urge all countries, including South Sudan’s neighbors, to promote peace and save innocent lives.” The ban comes at a time of growing consciousness about the conflict and a desire for further action from other nations and organizations relevant to South Sudan’s civil war. For example, the African Union has expressed its willingness to implement sanctions to end the conflict. Due to this rise in support for action, including some regional acknowledgment of the problem, it is a prime time for the United Nations Security Council to take action by placing an arms embargo on South Sudan so it can capitalize on the commonality of multiple nations’ view on the issue.

While the growing agreement is encouraging, the United States, the United Nations, and South Sudan’s neighbors need to take further action to ensure that they are not enabling the conflict. A UN embargo does not look entirely likely because of the veto power of Russia and China. Notably, China has oil ties to South Sudan and is thus unlikely to take direct action. Although the U.S. move is a welcome one, peace will not come to South Sudan unless there is additional action. South Sudan’s neighbors must actively work towards ending this civil war by implementing sanctions, arms embargoes, providing humanitarian aid, and possibly through direct intervention. Furthermore, while the US has taken positive action to end the conflict, it must act further if it does not want to be complicit in the violence. Such action could include ceasing to supply arms to Uganda, who sells weapons to South Sudan. Options have not yet run out, and until the nation’s neighbors and the UN are willing to act, the war will continue.

All of these steps are vital to ending the conflict, which has killed more than 50,000 people and displaced approximately four million. Priti Patel, the British International Development Secretary, has gone so far as to call the situation in South Sudan genocide, due to the ethnic divisions and destructive tactics used by both sides. Even if one does not consider the conflict to be genocide, one cannot ignore its potential to cause further mass systematic slaughter. The conflict has also placed even more lives at risk by causing a man-made famine that has left an estimated 1.25 million people on the brink of starvation — an amount expected to rise over the coming months. The war in South Sudan is preventing people from farming and aid from reaching large portions of the population, generating an abundance of hungry men, women, and children. To save these innocent lives, this war must end, and while the United States arms ban is a step in the right direction, it is only one move of many that must come to support stability in this young nation.  

–

Zachary Gossett is a member of the Communications Task Force for STAND. He is a first-year student at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he is studying political science. He is passionate about protecting the rights of people of the world.  

Historically, most presidential administrations have viewed special envoys as vital to the foreign policy of the United States. Because special envoys are able to focus exclusively on a single issue, they can often achieve more progress than policymakers in the State Department, This is particularly the case if the issue has important regional and international components that can be more difficult for ambassadors and even regional secretaries to solve . Additionally, they often report directly to the president, surpassing bureaucratic constraints. Indeed, one of the most important advantages possessed by special envoys is their ability to meet with foreign leaders outside of formal diplomatic communication. This allows them to speak with unfavorable individuals, such as war criminals and terrorists, if they believe that doing so will advance their resolution initiatives. In short, special envoys play an important role in foreign policy, largely due to their flexibility. Although STAND is concerned about many aspects of State Department restructuring, we are particularly alarmed by the reorganization of three special envoy positions that relate to four of our conflict zones: the Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes of Africa, and the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.

First, the Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan is being subsumed under the Bureau of African Affairs. Although it is theoretically possible for the Bureau of African Affairs to continue this special envoy’s mission of ending violence and human rights abuses in Sudan and South Sudan, it seems more likely that this change reflects the Trump administration’s apathy towards the ongoing conflicts in these countries. In fact, some administration officials wish to lift sanctions on Sudan despite a lack of any real progress towards respecting human rights by the genocidal government of President Omar al-Bashir. The Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan would continue to be instrumental in applying pressure on the government of Sudan if sanctions are indeed lifted. The deteriorating situation in South Sudan, which has seen government and opposition forces commit atrocities against civilians while enriching themselves through profiteering, would also benefit from the attention of this special envoy.

Second, the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa is also to be subsumed under the Bureau of African Affairs. During the Second Congo War (1998-2003), also known as Africa’s first world war, at least half a dozen countries—including Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Angola—fought a proxy war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Nearly fifteen years after the official end of that conflict, however, atrocities continue to be committed by government troops and rebel groups, many of whom are allegedly supported by regional powers. The vast wealth of natural resources, such as tin, tungsten, and tantalum (the “Three Ts”)—minerals used in cellphones and other electronic gadgets—is a major driver of the continued violence. Indeed, there is concern that the conflict in the DRC as well as the ongoing crisis in Burundi have the possibility of spilling over into the rest of the region. Given these regional dynamics, STAND believes a special envoy is necessary in order to address the myriad complexities of these ongoing conflicts.

Finally, the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma is being stripped of its title and moved to the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In addition to this change, Tillerson is asking “Congress [to] repeal the statutory requirement for this special representative position, since the mission of this position has been accomplished with the 2016 formation of a democratically elected, civilian-led government and the rebuilding of relations with Burma.” Yet this sentiment recklessly ignores the plight of the Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority who have been described by the United Nations as “the most friendless people in the world.” Having been denied basic human rights for decades and confined in what many refer to as “modern-day concentration camps” by the Burmese military and Buddhist extremists, the past week’s rapid escalation of violence in Burma has only worsened the plight of the Rohingya. The Burmese military has burned thousands of homes and slaughtered at least one thousand civilians since a Rohingya militant group launched a counteroffensive against police posts and an army base on August 25. As such, a special representative or envoy is crucial in order to carefully monitor the situation and steadfastly protect the Rohingya from this unfolding tragedy.

Although Secretary Tillerson has argued that these changes in the State Department will increase efficiency by reducing redundancies and trimming the bureaucracy, in effect the restructuring of these special envoys will make it more difficult for the United States to effectively promote peace and human rights internationally. Worse, STAND fears that such restructuring actually represents a shift in policy priorities that could ultimately risk the lives of countless thousands of people around the world.

—

Justin Cole is the Policy Coordinator for STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities, and a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he is currently earning his degree in economics and peace, war, and defense.

“Many of the crises our nation faces do not have military solutions alone — from confronting violent extremist groups like ISIS in the Middle East and North Africa to preventing pandemics like Ebola and stabilizing weak and fragile states that can lead to greater instability.”

– Over 120 Retired Generals, Admirals on State and USAID Budget: “Now is not the time to retreat”

United States foreign policy is too often centered around militarized violent responses to conflicts across the world. But this doesn’t have to be the case. Peacebuilding efforts are more cost effective, have higher success rates, and ultimately save significantly more lives.

And yet, the Trump administration has proposed to cut funding to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two major institutions that support peacebuilding and diplomatic problem solving, by 37% in their proposed Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) budget.

On February 28, the Office of Management and Budget submitted private FY18 budget guidance to all administrative departments and agencies. Reports indicate that the budget level for the State Department and USAID will be cut 37% from FY17 levels, and possibly much more for foreign assistance.

As the State Department and USAID face these extreme and lethal cuts, the budget guidance suggests that the Pentagon budget will increase by $54 million while most other government agencies will face only a 15% decrease. The 37% cut is not only draconian, but also a disproportionate blow to peaceful diplomacy efforts.

But what does this budget cut actually mean?

The proposed budget would strip America’s civilian forces back to funding levels not seen since 9/11. Given the severity of complex global threats including the proliferation of terrorist groups such as ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; the emergence of lethal diseases including Ebola and Zika; and various international conflicts leading to the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, these cuts would not only be an American divestment from peace efforts, but also could cause thousands of deaths across the globe.

These extreme and inappropriate budget cuts will not only affect our foreign policy, but will be unthinkably dangerous for America’s national security. The cuts would decrease the capacity of diplomats and peacebuilding efforts across the world, allowing more space for violent extremism, and leading to significant negative shifts in diplomatic relationships with countries across the world. Additionally, a divestment from diplomatic solutions would lead to an increase in conflict as well as the number of American men and women in uniform put in mortal danger on the battlefield. We must not attempt to save money when it would put American lives at risk.

While there is always room for positive reform within government agencies, these budget cuts go far beyond what the United States should be willing to risk. These budget cuts would roll back significant reforms undertaken since 9/11, including progress made on human trafficking, the rights of women and girls, trade and energy in Africa, wildlife trafficking, and many others, all of which have had strong bipartisan support. They would be a hacksaw to the civilian side of our national security budget, which is critical to keeping our country safe.

“The State Department and USAID are critical frontline defenses to prevent conflict and advance our national security interests. If we’re going to put America First, we can’t tie the hands of our diplomats and development workers, fighting alongside our soldiers to keep our country safe.”

–Liz Schrayer, President and CEO, US Global Leadership Coalition

The State Department and other civilian agencies, including USAID, have played significant roles in bipartisan peacebuilding efforts including in mass atrocity prevention, as well as the work of the J Bureau and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. With these budget cuts, critical structures and resources would be put under severe stress, with unimaginable results for civilian populations worldwide.

–

Francesca Freeman is a STAND alumna, and served as STAND’s National Student Director for the 2015-2016 school year. Francesca holds a B.A. from the University of Chicago, and is a Program Assistant at the Social Science Research Council. You can follow Francesca on twitter at @francescafree16.