South Sudan, the world's newest country, has been embroiled in a civil war between its two main ethnic groups, the Dinka and the Nuer, for 66% of its existence. Between famine, a refugee crisis, and ethnic conflict, the situation in South Sudan embodies the very definition of a humanitarian crisis.
How should the international community react to gross and systematic violations of human rights? The "Responsibility to Protect" principle was born in the aftermath of such violations of human rights in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Kosovo. A liberal principle, R2P embraces the idea that "sovereignty is not just protection from outside interference – rather is a matter of states having positive responsibilities for their population's welfare, and to assist each other" (United Nations Office). As the state system changes, the way the international community thinks about sovereignty has also been changing: rather than the traditional Westphalian way of thinking, in which sovereignty means "a state's capacity to make authoritative decisions regarding the people and resources within its own territory," now, sovereignty implies a "dual responsibility". Externally, a state must respect the borders of other states; however, internally, a state has the responsibility to respect the human rights of everyone within that state (Evans, Sahoun). Responsibility to protect "implies a duty to react to situations in which there is a compelling need for human protection" (Evans, Sahoun). Proponents of humanitarian intervention would argue that, given the current situation in South Sudan, humanitarian intervention is necessary.
The main arguments for humanitarian intervention are, of course, arguments that rest on moral grounds. When looking at South Sudan, it then becomes all-too-clear that there are many moral reasons for the international community to intervene. The civil war in South Sudan, which began as a conflict for political control, quickly turned ethnic, pitting Kiir's Dinka forces against Machar's Nuer. In fact, Adama Dieng, the UN Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide, has remarked that the situation in South Sudan has the "potential for genocide". The Bentiu Massacre, which took place in 2014, is a clear example of the ethnic violence and mass killings that are currently happening in South Sudan. Alongside the civil war, there is also currently a hunger crisis occurring in South Sudan. The years of civil war have contributed to massive food shortages and an economic crisis that has greatly increased food prices. "There are…areas of South Sudan reaching emergency levels of food crisis, which is just one level above famine" (care.org). Additionally, 1.7 million people are on the brink of famine, and 6.1 million face extreme hunger. People who argue for humanitarian intervention would say that we not only have a moral duty to end the ethnic violence but that doing so will in turn aid the food shortages and hunger crisis. The South Sudanese economy is also in crisis: "the inflation rate – 835 percent – is the highest in the world" (Mercy Corps). Furthermore, the civil war and ethnic violence have led to millions of refugees, both internally and externally displaced. Within South Sudan, 3.7 million people have fled their homes; 1.8 million are internally displaced, while the remaining 1.9 million have fled to neighboring countries, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. "South Sudan is now the third-most fled country in the world, behind Syria and Afghanistan" (Mercy Corps). "This is the first time that the UN, in accordance with its Human Rights Up Front initiative, has opened its peacekeeping bases to civilians fleeing violence. The conflict has been characterized by direct attacks against civilians, including humanitarian personnel" (Holocaust Museum).
The "most violent and protracted" cases of humanitarian suffering have been because the international community was either unwilling to intervene or to sustain a commitment of credible force (Western, Goldstein). While military interventions do lead to more casualties in the short-term, they often mitigate violence towards civilians, because they force would-be killers to divert their attentions towards defending themselves rather than killing civilians. The historical record shows that interventions that respond the most quickly save the most lives. Like in Rwanda and Bosnia, ethnic killings often occur towards the beginning of conflicts. South Sudan has been on a path towards ethnic violence since the civil war began, and liberals would argue that the international community needs to intervene to avoid more mass atrocities like Rwanda.
Most proponents of humanitarian intervention agree that it should be used only as a last resort – i.e. when all other non-military options have been exhausted. Unfortunately, many of these non-military options have not been led to fruition. UNMISS, the United Nations Mission In South Sudan, has had peacekeepers stationed in South Sudan since 2013. While UNMISS has been successful at protecting internally displaced civilians, they failed to protect international aid workers, raising questions about the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan (Garrett). In the case of South Sudan, many non-military options have been explored.
On the other hand, realists generally are proponents against humanitarian intervention. The main arguments against humanitarian intervention rest on state sovereignty. While "responsibility to protect" gives sovereignty both an external and internal responsibility, international law still dictates that states must respect each other's borders. When military intervention is utilized, sovereign borders are ignored. The question then remains of what sovereignty means: liberals would argue that sovereignty includes a responsibility to take care of one's own citizens, while realists would argue that sovereignty means respecting borders above all else.
Military intervention usually, if not always, results in the deaths of civilians. When looking at military intervention, "aiding defenseless citizens has usually meant empowering armed factions claiming to represent them" (Valentino). Unfortunately, it is often these very groups that are responsible for human rights violations. For example, in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army turned on Serbian civilians, killing hundreds (Valentino). Additionally, even with international intervention, "even if the ends could be humanitarian, the means never are" (Valentino). In Somalia, US troops killed at least 1,500 Somalis, more than half of them women and children. In Kosovo, NATO air strikes killed around 500 civilians. The argument against intervention is, in this case, not about blanket non-intervention, but intervening specifically in ways that will not cause civilian casualties.
On the other hand, in some cases, the argument against intervention is about blanket non-intervention. For the international community to intervene would mean picking a side. Yet, in the South Sudanese conflict, both sides have been accused of committing mass atrocities against the other. Those who argue against humanitarian intervention argue that, especially in this case, it is not the right of the international community to decide which side should gain the upper hand in this conflict. Once a peace has been reached, the UN should come in and fortify that peace, but "to make peace is to decide who rules" (Betts).
For these reasons, many people who argue against humanitarian intervention argue instead for other forms of aid. Rather than sending military forces, the international community could invest in public health initiatives, send relief aid to victims of natural disasters, or help refugees who are fleeing violent conflict. Investing in public health initiatives is "the most cost-effective way to save lives abroad" (Valentino). In fact, according to WHO, at least 2 million people die each year from preventative diseases. Similarly, natural disasters cause more casualties than humanitarian conflicts. The benefits of sending relief aid for victims of natural disasters are twofold: they both are able to help victims domestically and abroad, and they avoid the political and moral consequences of humanitarian intervention. A third alternative to humanitarian intervention is aiding refugees who are fleeing violent conflict. Within South Sudan, an estimated 3.7 million people have been forced to flee their homes. Rather than intervening in the military conflict, the international community should aid victims of the civil war;
Furthermore, even in cases where the UN took action, it did not always put an end to the humanitarian crisis. In Kosovo, NATO bombings turned public support in favor of Milosevic, which allowed him to carry out an ethnic cleansing. In Somalia, US-led intervention led to the Black Hawk Down incident, and the Somali civil war continues to this day. There is no guarantee that intervening in South Sudan would cause an end to the ethnic conflict;
In my opinion, the UN should invoke the "Responsibility to Protect" principle in the case of South Sudan for three reasons. Firstly, historically, worse things have happened when the UN either does not intervene or intervenes too late. In the case of Rwanda, for example, it was only after the UN pulled its forces out that the genocide occurred. There is a claim that interventions often prolong civil wars and lead to greater civilian casualties; the record shows just the opposite. The "most violent and protracted cases in history" – Somalia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia before Srebrenica, and Darfur – have been because the international community was either "unwilling or unable to intervene or to sustain a commitment with credible force" (Western, Goldstein). In addition, external interventions often alleviate violence against civilians.
Secondly, the ethnic cleansings and violence in South Sudan show that the country is perhaps on its way to becoming another Rwanda. Humanitarian intervention, in this case, would serve as both responsive and preemptive action: responsive in the measure that certain atrocities have already been committed within South Sudan, and preemptive in terms of stopping the humanitarian violations from becoming worse.
There are certain steps the UN should take when intervening in South Sudan. First, military action should be multilateral. This is both because of public opinion and the nature of humanitarian intervention. In the United States alone, two-thirds of Americans support multilateral action as opposed to unilateral action (Nye). While public support is, of course, not the only reason to support multilateral action, it is nevertheless important to consider the effect that intervening in South Sudan will have politically on the countries that participate in that intervention. Second, the nature of humanitarian intervention supports multilateral action for a few reasons. When considering humanitarian intervention, it is crucial that said intervention occurs for moral, not political or financial, reasons. The primary purpose of intervention "must be to halt or avert human suffering" (Evans, Sahoun). One way to ensure this is by having military intervention always take place on a multilateral basis. By giving multiple nations a stake in the intervention, it becomes less likely that the intervention will occur for reasons other than ending suffering. At least two UN Security Council members should send troops to South Sudan, as well as a United Nations Peacekeeping force. Along with this, the African Union should also be involved with humanitarian efforts.
Second, any military intervention should be accompanied by aid and relief efforts – military intervention alone will not be sufficient to end the suffering in South Sudan. The hunger and refugee crises have led to an overwhelming number of people in need of aid. This aid should be coordinated by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Nearby nations such as Sudan and Ethiopia should be given financial incentives to accept more refugees; additionally, the UN should set up refugee camps which have monthly inspections to ensure humanitarian conditions. Within these camps, the UN should work with NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières to give quality medical care. Security Council Members who do not aid militarily should be given financial incentives to send food and medicine to refugees fleeing South Sudan, which will aid with the hunger crisis.
Third, it is imperative that military aid only begin to pull out of South Sudan when the conflict is completely over and some sort of rehabilitation has begun. If troops leave before a new government has been set in place, it is likely that the conflict will simply continue. The UN and AU should work in conjunction with tribal leaders in South Sudan to build a democratic government. In order to prevent this from happening again in South Sudan, both Salva Kiir and Riek Machar, who have both been accused of human rights violations, should be put on trial in front of the African Union Court. Ideally, they would be put on trial in the International Criminal Court, but South Sudan is not yet part of the ICC. Additionally, there should be comprehensive peace talks between leaders of both the Dinka and the Nuer which includes fiscal deterrents if one side violates the peace accord.