Role of the UN Security Council
The United Nations has maintained a significant presence in Sudan and South Sudan throughout the twenty-first century. Shortly after the Sudanese government and the South Sudanese signed the Peace Agreement in 2005 to end the Sudanese Civil War, the UN Security Council authorized a peacekeeping mission. This mission was authorized to support the implementation of the agreement and provide humanitarian assistance to the area. After South Sudan gained independence in 2011, the United Nations established the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to support the new country in establishing peace and security. Immediately after the civil war broke out in 2013, UNMISS shifted its focus to the protection of civilians.
The top priority for the UN Security Council in this situation was preventing atrocities and reducing the violence and loss of life in South Sudan. Many observers have criticized the United Nations for its responses to past humanitarian crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide or the 1995 genocide in Bosnia. Observers argued that the peacekeeping forces in those areas were mismanaged and should have done more to prevent atrocities. In response, the United Nations adopted the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P). This doctrine established a norm for robust international intervention in cases of crimes against humanity or genocides that a national government cannot or will not stop. The norm is nonbinding—meaning that member states are not legally required to abide by it—and its application to specific situations is often disputed [PDF].
Policy Options
As the Security Council deliberated how to respond to the outbreak of violence in South Sudan, member states needed to balance the desire for a timely response to a crisis with the need to secure support from as many council members as possible, especially permanent members. The Security Council had three main options to consider as it formulated a response to the crisis.
Call for Negotiations
The Security Council could call on the South Sudanese government and rebel leaders to enter peace negotiations. Although previous attempts at negotiations had so far failed, a new round could restart the peace process with the help of UN mediators or through the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which facilitated regional negotiations in the past. A call for negotiations would offer a way to respond quickly to the situation at hand. This could allow the United Nations continued debate on other measures. However, UN Security Council members could not guarantee that the warring parties would respond to such a call. Security Council members would also need to consider what, if any, measures they could take to prevent the negotiations from breaking down as previous ones have. This would be the least ambitious option. It would also be the most likely to garner consensus among member states. Should calling for negotiations be ineffective the United Nations could be criticized for inaction and negligence.
Strengthen the Existing Peacekeeping Mission
The UN Security Council could attempt to bolster the effectiveness of existing peacekeeping operations. The Security Council could do so by requesting that member states provide additional troops and resources—heavy military materiel such as helicopters and armored tanks—to UNMISS. This option would entail adopting a resolution raising the UNMISS force levels beyond the existing ceiling. It might also consist of improving the capability of forces to protect civilians and establish reliable access to humanitarian aid.
The Security Council could also seek to expand the mandate of UNMISS beyond the protection of civilians. It could consider authorizing peacekeepers to use force to ensure access to humanitarian aid entering the country. The role of UNMISS could also be expanded to facilitate the voluntary return of displaced persons. Expanding the mandate would allow UNMISS to address the conflict while helping to relieve human suffering. Moreover, this option would fall under the umbrella of existing operations and would therefore be more likely to pass if voted on by Security Council member states.
Deploying additional peacekeepers or expanding the mission mandate could increase UNMISS’s abilities to improve conditions in South Sudan. However, the option would come with significant costs and risks. UN member states could be reluctant to put their military personnel at risk by contributing additional forces to the mission. Moreover, greater numbers would not guarantee that UNMISS would be better able to achieve its goals. Finally, the government of South Sudan could reject an expanded UNMISS mandate.
Call for Military Intervention
In the most extreme option, the Security Council could issue a resolution declaring an immediate cease-fire and calling for military intervention, either by multinational forces such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by regional organizations such as the African Union. Such an intervention would be considered legitimate under a Security Council resolution that would presumably invoke the R2P doctrine as its rationale.
Similar to the UN Security Council resolution that authorized international intervention in Libya in 2011, this option would authorize UN member states to use all methods necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. The resolution could also impose additional conditions. These conditions could include an arms embargo, travel bans on South Sudanese nationals, and a freezing of assets owned by South Sudanese authorities. Such an intervention would avoid the risks and costs of strengthening UNMISS forces while promising better-trained and better-supplied forces that could establish peace and ensure access to humanitarian aid more effectively. If Security Council members chose this option, they would also have to consider the end goals of any military action. For instance, would the intervention be considered a success if it simply stopped the fighting, or would the intent be to establish a new government or an international trusteeship?
This option could be the most effective at changing conditions on the ground in South Sudan but would also be the most difficult to implement. First, for such an operation to be successful, several countries would need to be willing to intervene in South Sudan. Even if countries were willing, the Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent members have each blocked similar resolutions in the past. Permanent members could also be reluctant to authorize action in this case. Finally, a military intervention would not necessarily be successful or popular. The 2011 intervention by NATO-led forces in Libya was widely considered a failure and drew significant criticisms from UN member states. Members made assertions that the UN mandate was vague, the military planning incoherent, and the underlying motivations sinister.