Mending Relationships Through Mediation: Negotiation for Peace in South Sudan

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Conflict in South Sudan:
The Republic of South Sudan, a nation that gained independence in 2011 after a protracted conflict with Sudan, is well known for having experienced a turbulent history marked by cycles of ethnic conflicts and political instability. The civil war, which erupted in 2013, has a rich history that is grounded in political rivalries, ethnic divisions, and competition for resources and has resulted in widespread suffering and displacement of civilians, destruction of property, and limited socio-economic development. Though lasting peace has not been achieved, South Sudan has gone through a journey marked by several efforts to reconcile the various conflict parties to bring peace to the war-ravaged nation. These efforts to reconcile the different factions have been mainly through mediation, a strategic instrument for peace-building that has gained significant attention in the recent past. Two peace agreements resulted from the mediation and negotiation processes, including the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS) and the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement.

Drawing from the theoretical insights and the South Sudan case as a practical example, this paper assesses negotiation’s role in fostering relationships among the conflicting parties. The paper delves into the processes leading to peace-building in contexts marked by deep historical and socio-political complexities, the role played by the multiple regional and international actors in the negotiation process, and the challenges faced by the mediation efforts. In so doing, the paper aims to contribute to the broader understanding of how mediation and negotiation can contribute to attaining peace in nations like South Sudan, which are marred with profound political and ethnic divisions.

Problem:
Since its independence in 2011, South Sudan has suffered from long-lasting, deep-rooted ethnic conflicts and political instability. These conflicts, which are characterised by repeated cycles of violence, have continued to breed mistrust among conflicting parties amidst the numerous mediation initiatives. Even with these many mediation efforts and peace agreements, lasting peace has not been achieved due to a persistent lack of trust among conflicting parties, communication gaps, and the powerful influence of internal and external actors. This paper explores the South Sudan mediation process, the competing interests, power imbalances, and challenges encountered, and examines the role of negotiation in relationship-building to foster sustainable reconciliation. Based on this exploration, the paper recommends approaches to achieve lasting peace in such situations.

ASSESSING THE CONFLICT IN SOUTH SUDAN

Historical Context:
The historical context of the South Sudan conflict is deeply rooted in the country’s struggle with Sudan’s colonial past and its subsequent quest for independence and governance. Upon gaining independence from British-Egyptian rule in 1956, tensions arose between the predominantly Christian and animist South and the Arab Muslim-dominated North. The Southern region felt marginalized by the Northern government’s policies and dominance, leading to disputes exacerbated by ethnic and regional disparities. This marked the beginning of two major civil wars: the first lasting from 1955 to 1972 and the second from 1983 to 2005. Key figures during this period included John Garang de Mabior, who led the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and its armed faction, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The SPLA’s mission, which sought to challenge the Northern domination, was significantly weakened by internal splits, notably when Riek Machar led a faction to pursue self-determination for South Sudan, diverging from Garang’s vision of a unified Sudan. Over the years, Machar switched allegiances multiple times, even signing the Khartoum Peace Agreement with the government in 1996 before rejoining the SPLM after realizing a referendum could lead to southern independence. This highlights longstanding political and leadership rifts within the SPLM/A, which are characterised by ethnic inclinations.

After achieving independence in 2011, South Sudan was embroiled in another cycle of conflict that erupted in 2013, primarily characterised by political rivalries, ethnic divisions, and resource competition. The conflict primarily involved forces loyal to President Salva Kiir (who had succeeded Garang after he died in a plane crash in 2005) against those led by former Vice President Riek Machar. Ethnic tensions, particularly between the Dinka and Nuer communities represented by Kiir and Machar, respectively, further fuelled violence and humanitarian crises. This internal power struggle, coupled with ambitions and grievances between these groups, perpetuated a volatile environment, resulting in widespread suffering, displacement, and socio-economic underdevelopment. While peace agreements like the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS) and the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement aimed to reconcile these factions, pervasive ethnic and political divisions have continuously challenged the journey toward lasting peace.

Resource-Based Divisions:
The conflict in South Sudan is deeply intertwined with resource-based divisions, particularly surrounding its rich oil reserves. The oil-rich Greater Upper Nile region has become a focal point of violence, as local communities and militia groups clash over access to oil and other valuable resources such as fertile land, water, and cattle. This struggle for control over resources further exacerbates socio-economic challenges, perpetuating poverty and limiting development amid high poverty rates, inadequate infrastructure, and limited social services. Historical neglect and resentment toward the government have intensified these tensions, creating a breeding ground for rebellion. The competition for control over these valuable resources is central to the strategies of both government and opposition forces, hindering peace processes and contributing to ongoing instability.

Main Conflicting Parties and Their Interests:
The South Sudan conflict primarily involves the forces of President Kiir and those led by Machar. President Kiir, who represents the government, is motivated by a strong desire to retain power and control over critical economic resources, specifically oil. His administration is characterized by efforts to consolidate political dominance by galvanizing ethnic Dinka support, particularly from Northern Bahr al-Ghazal, and maintaining strong international alliances with regional players like Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia. Despite signing the two peace agreements, Kiir’s actions indicate a hesitance to distribute power equitably or foster a genuinely representative democracy, as evidenced by his suppression of dissent and arrest of rivals.

Machar’s opposition, primarily comprising Nuer communities, seeks to challenge Kiir’s Dinka-dominated government. The opposition accuses the ruling administration of sowing ethnic divisions to solidify its governance. While portrayed as a struggle for political reform and inclusivity, their efforts are mainly driven by ambitions of control over national resources and power redistribution. Beyond the main factions, other groups like the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA) and ethnic militias add layers of complexity to the conflict, each vying for recognition and resources while opposing perceived governmental corruption and ethnic favouritism. These dynamics reflect the multi-dimensional nature of the struggle, intertwining ethnic grievances, political aspirations, and resource control.

On the other hand, external parties, like Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, China, and the United States of America (USA), have vested interests ranging from regional stability and economic gains, particularly in oil, to strategic geopolitical influence, further complicating mediation and peace-building efforts. Zach documented this mix of competing interests by the various regional players, as quoted below.

In time, the values brought to the South Sudanese mediation effort by IGAD’s frontline states— unique knowledge, relationships, and direct interest in stability—were outweighed by their competing national interests and stakes in the outcome. Uganda’s army doubled down in support of the government, provoking strong reactions from Sudan. Ethiopia was frustrated by its inability to unite the region or deliver a settlement. Weapons and ammunition flowed into the country from Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. Broader regional rivalries meant Egypt and Eritrea also paid close attention and were suspected of partisan involvement. It was a dizzying mix of competing interests and egos, all playing out on a South Sudanese canvas, while those suffering as a result of the war sometimes got lost in the mix.

EFFECTIVE MEDIATION FUNDAMENTALS AS APPLIED TO THE SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT

Mediation is a structured process that seeks resolutions by formulating hypotheses and setting attainable goals. The mediation process must focus on resolving core issues essential to sustainable peace while avoiding the complexity of addressing all potential issues. Attaining effective mediation is hinged on several critical considerations that collectively shape a conducive environment for conflict resolution. At the heart of these vital considerations is a thorough assessment to identify the key characteristics of the conflict, the core issues, the parties involved, and the context within which the conflict occurs, laying the groundwork for successful mediation. In the case of the South Sudan conflict, the African Union (AU) and the South Sudan Church led an unsuccessful mediation effort. After the outbreak of the war on 15 December 2013, there seems to have been panic among the regional and international actors to bring peace to the country. Owing to the urgency of the matter and as fighting continued in the next few days, shuttle diplomacy began to press the warring parties toward negotiations. This is evidenced by a quote from the South Sudan Conflict Insights documented by the Institute for Peace and Security Studies.

Following the outbreak of the war in 2013, IGAD dispatched its council of ministers to conduct a fact-finding mission in South Sudan, along with the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security and the UN Special Envoy to the AU. On 27 December 2013, IGAD established the Office of the Special Envoys for South Sudan, which was composed of representatives from Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya. The mediating teams brokered a cessation of hostilities agreement on 24 January 2014 and oversaw the signing of a series of other agreements in the subsequent months. However, a final negotiated agreement proved difficult to conclude due to continued violations of the agreement by the SPLM-IG, the SPLM-IO and other factions.
The three mediators, representing Ethiopia (chief mediator Seyoum Mesfin, the former foreign minister), Kenya (Lazaro Sumbeiywo, a retired general and mediator of the Sudan-South Sudan 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement), and Sudan (Mohammed Al-Dabi, a tired general) led the mediation process. Together with Uganda, these four states were the most influential participants in the South Sudan crisis and the IGAD peace process. IGAD’s leading role in the peace process was endorsed by the African Union and the U.N. Security Council, as well as the United States, China, and other peace process supporters.

On 27 December 2013, the IGAD, a regional organization of seven northeast African states, convened its first Extraordinary Summit on South Sudan and appointed three mediators from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan. Negotiation started immediately, and after 19 days of negotiation, the parties signed an agreement to cease hostilities. These timelines seem to indicate that the mediators did not undertake a comprehensive assessment of the conflict since the immediate pressure was to manage the loss of lives.

Considering the timelines that followed the outbreak of the war in 2013, the question of the conflict ripeness for mediation sets in. A conflict is considered ripe for negotiation when parties recognize they are in a mutually hurting stalemate and see a possible way out. While it is clear that the background to this conflict spans decades of deep-seated grievances, it remains unclear whether a mutually hurting stalemate had been reached to warrant mediation. This is further evidenced by the level of commitment that the principal conflicting parties gave to the peace process, especially in honouring the agreements made. The ongoing nature of the conflict, with increased numbers of armed groups, suggests that the situation is complex and potentially less ripe for resolution.

The urgency of conflict resolution efforts led IGAD to appoint a three-man mediation team shortly after the outbreak of the war. It is unclear if the choice of the mediators by IGAD was consented to by the principal conflicting parties and if they possessed the requisite expertise and readiness and were deemed impartial and neutral. The bias expressed by one of the principal conflicting parties on IGAD is a clear demonstration of gaps in the choice of mediators, which ultimately affects the mediation process. IGAD’s mediation role was seen to be limited by regional politics and biases, thereby making it ineffective, especially when some IGAD member states participated in peace processes, introducing biases related to their national interests. These regional dynamics and the national interests of IGAD member states compromised the mediation process, which was impaired by a lack of regional impartiality, affecting the credibility and effectiveness of the efforts.

The AU coordinated with regional organizations like IGAD and international bodies like the UN, European Union (EU), and Troika to align efforts and maintain a unified approach to addressing the conflict. The AU continues to strive to play a constructive role in supporting peace processes, leveraging international cooperation, and applying political and legal pressure to encourage adherence to agreements and accountability for actions during the conflict. While the process in which this Commission has been engaged is delinked from the IGAD mediation process aimed at finding a political solution to the crisis, it is the Commission’s view that irrespective of the political settlement that is reached, the post-conflict dispensation must include renewal of existing institutions and the construction of new ones to better respond to the imperatives of effective, inclusive, accountable and democratic governance. (AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan, 2014, 35).

Cross-cultural considerations in conflict resolution efforts are addressed by recognising and being sensitive to the multicultural and multi-faith environments where conflicting parties operate. This involves drawing on the existing knowledge of conflict resolution practices embedded within different communities, focusing on nonviolent and culturally rooted conflict resolution methods. An approach that aligns with creating inclusive and supportive environments that promote participation, cooperation, and respect for differences, highlighting the importance of gender sensitivity and responsiveness to diversity, is encouraged. The mediation team should be constituted with an eye to cross-cultural perceptions, as well as with regard to the skill, experience, and acumen of prospective team members.

The mediation efforts by IGAD recognised the ethnic diversity and tensions, particularly between the Dinka and the Nuer groups, along with more than 60 ethnic groups and their role in the conflict dynamics. Efforts by regional states like Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya to mediate peace processes suggest an attempt to navigate these complex ethnic landscapes. However, the persistent escalation of the conflict partly suggests limitations in effectively assessing and addressing the deep-rooted cross-cultural issues. Thus, it is essential that the mediation team uncovers these longstanding, deep-rooted cross-cultural issues and possibly engages mediators who relate closely to the South Sudan cultural aspect, together with traditional and religious leaders.

SUCCESSES OF MEDIATION EFFORTS IN SOUTH SUDAN

Mediation efforts in the South Sudan conflict have registered some successes even when the conflict still exists. The 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS), which aimed to end the conflict, frame a post-conflict transition, and begin reconciliation and reform tasks, represented a significant mediation effort success, though with challenges. The process that led to the 2015 ARCSS brought together rival factions in South Sudan and initiated a ceasefire that offered a window for political dialogue and power-sharing. This mediation success demonstrated that, despite deep-rooted grievances, conflicting parties could come to the negotiation table, establish temporary arrangements for peace, and agree on mechanisms for resource sharing and political inclusion. The agreement provided a platform for conflict de-escalation and laid the groundwork for future peace initiatives by addressing some immediate concerns of the warring sides.

Despite the 2015 agreement, ceasefire violations continued, highlighting challenges despite formal mediation successes. These challenges led to another negotiation round, which led to the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement. This agreement sought to address lingering issues and expand participation by including more stakeholders, reinforcing transitional governance structures and confidence-building measures. There were renewed concerted efforts from international and regional stakeholders to support the implementation and monitoring of the peace process.
However, both agreements have faced significant limitations, including challenges in implementation, limited oversight and enforcement mechanisms, external influences, internal rivalries, and persistent mistrust, among others.

RELATIONSHIP BUILDING IN MEDIATION

The Importance of Trust in Negotiation:
Trust building is a critical component in the conflict resolution process as it serves as the foundational element that enables opposing groups to overcome deep-seated distrust and animosity. Since trust building is a process, an incremental approach to confidence building is crucial, as it limits risk while fostering new relationships. Trust is established by fulfilling commitments, respecting agreements, and demonstrating reliability during negotiations, creating space for open dialogue and joint problem-solving. Effective communication, the establishment of a non-threatening environment, and demonstrating respect for each other further facilitate the process of building trust. Ultimately, trust helps shift conflict expression from competitive and aggressive behaviour towards nonviolent advocacy and cooperation, paving the way for mutual settlements and long-term reconciliation.

In the South Sudan conflict resolution process, several factors can provide clues to such deep-seated distrust. Since independence, there has been a perception of Dinka dominance, especially in government jobs, oil-generated resources, and land. This perception has fuelled longtime resentment among other ethnic groups, particularly the Nuer. With the conflict taking on ethnic dimensions, with widespread violence mainly between the Nuer and the Dinka, the ethnic targeting and killings have contributed significantly to the distrust as they fuelled resentment and retaliation along tribal lines. The mutual distrust between President Kiir and Machar, evidenced in the alleged attempted coup by the former, while Machar accused Kiir of ethnic arming militias to instigate chaos and the detention of political figures, further aggravates this distrust. Additionally, the involvement of military forces and external actors like Uganda supporting Kiir’s regime and Sudan’s supplying of arms to the opposition added layers of regional distrust, which also affected the peace process. The real test of trustworthiness was tested by the inability to keep the promises and commitments made during the negotiation process.
The continued failure to honour commitments made is a clear indication of, among other things, deep-seated distrust, which calls for a thorough re-analysis of the conflict and a strategy for the conflict resolution process in South Sudan.

Strengthening Interpersonal Relationships:
The process of effectively addressing conflicts not only helps settle immediate disputes but also rebuilds and strengthens relationships on a mutually beneficial foundation, potentially preventing future conflicts. This is amplified when the conflict resolution process is not solely focusing on making demands and compromise. As such, considerable effort must be made towards strengthening interpersonal relationships, mainly for the leaders heading the conflicting parties. Some conflicts become too personal and cause a shift from deeper to superficial issues, often arguing unimportant things, signalling problems with personal relationships.

The conflict in South Sudan is, to some extent, a reflection of longstanding personal relationship challenges between Kiir and his primary challenger, Machar. In this case, the need for external influential figures to reach out to both leaders to induce a change of heart or mind is essential for mending broken relationships, which, when achieved, can be crucial in advancing the peace process. This implies that while external actors attempt to exert influence, leaders’ internal, personal transformation might be more impactful. Such interpersonal relationship-building strategies and the roles of leaders within the parties involved can have more direct and immediate impacts on a peace process.

POWER AND INFLUENCE IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

The Role of Political Power in Mediation Outcomes:
The role of political power in conflict resolution processes is significant and even more pronounced in armed conflicts. Therefore, conflict resolution processes involve addressing extreme power imbalances but also recognise that power and justice must be considered when engaging with or responding to conflicts since national leaders with significant power can leverage their positions in peace negotiations. The high visibility of leaders limits their negotiation flexibility without risking their interests. In the case of South Sudan, political power dynamics are deeply intertwined with ethnic identities, influencing both causes and mediation efforts of the conflict.

The political power dynamics and the lack of political will among the parties involved heavily influenced the mediation efforts for peace in South Sudan. Despite the involvement of the IGAD and other international partners, the success or failure of the peace process primarily depended on the willingness of South Sudan’s principal conflicting parties to engage in meaningful negotiations. The parties often displayed hostility towards the idea of a negotiated settlement. This political stance posed a significant hurdle for the mediators, as both government and opposition were more focused on retaining or gaining power rather than genuinely seeking an inclusive, sustainable peace. This resistance to broad-based participation curtailed efforts to address the root causes of the conflict through a more inclusive dialogue involving political parties, civil society, and other stakeholders. President Kiir, wielding considerable political power as vested in the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, exercised an upper hand in negotiations, hindering the implementation of agreements and thereby eroding the peace process.

Furthermore, the competing national interests of IGAD member states, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda, compounded the political complexities of the mediation effort. Kiir’s influence extended to leveraging external support from Uganda, which maintained its military presence in Juba to its advantage. This situation was exacerbated by the lack of clarity from the IGAD-led Cessation of Hostilities (COH) agreement regarding withdrawing foreign troops, which Uganda exploited to remain involved without repercussion. The SPLM-IO, led by Machar, also became a spoiler in negotiations by demanding a power-sharing agreement, which became a point of contention and contributed to the collapse of the IGAD-led peace process in March 2015 .

The mediators, constrained by the political realities, had to navigate between immediate military and political urgencies and the long-term goal of a comprehensive settlement. With the South Sudanese government and opposition frequently prioritising power dynamics over peace, mediators faced the challenge of maintaining urgency without resorting to temporary fixes that could lead to further conflicts. The absence of a shared political vision among the main conflicting parties meant the push for an expansive political agenda, focusing on governance, security, reconciliation, and reform, was difficult. Despite the peace agreements, the mediation process was continually fragile and susceptible to the predominant power struggles, highlighting the critical need for genuine political commitment from all parties to transform the mediation gains into lasting peace. Both parties capitalised on their respective power bases, leading to a fragmented and ineffective peace agreement implementation.

Economic Influence and Control Over Resources:
The desire to control natural resources can significantly influence the peace process by acting as both a catalyst for conflict and a barrier to resolution. When groups or nations seek to dominate valuable resources such as oil, minerals, or water, tensions can escalate, leading to prolonged conflicts as parties vie for economic and strategic advantages. This competition can complicate peace negotiations, as parties may be unwilling to compromise on resource control, fearing loss of revenue or power. Furthermore, resource wealth can finance ongoing hostilities, reducing incentives for peace or creating power for the antagonists. Therefore, addressing resource control and ensuring equitable distribution is crucial in achieving sustainable peace agreements. The struggle for control over South Sudan’s abundant natural resources, particularly oil, has significantly complicated the peace process. The country’s economy is heavily dependent on oil revenues, which has led to intense competition among rival factions for control of oil-rich regions. This competition has fuelled conflict, as opposing groups view control over resources as a means to gain political power and leverage in negotiations. As a result, these underlying economic interests have hampered the peace process, as parties may be less willing to reach a compromise that could threaten their access to valuable resources.

The country’s abundant mineral wealth, particularly oil, attracted neighbouring countries and global powers that sought to manipulate the peace process for their benefit. Internationally, the perception that the peace process in South Sudan could be a means to access the country’s natural resources led to distrust among key domestic players, such as the government led by Kiir. The international community’s influence was viewed with suspicion, as it was believed that pressures exerted on the peace process could be intended to establish a regime favourable to foreign economic interests. This perception weakened the implementation of peace agreements, as resolutions like the 2015 ARCSS were seen not just as routes to peace but also as potential threats to sovereign control over the country’s resources. Consequently, this dynamic resulted in fragile peace efforts, which hindered the progress towards a lasting resolution, with the fear that any power shift could compromise domestic control over valuable resources. Thus, the control and management of natural resources are crucial in shaping the power dynamics between conflicting parties, influencing their motivations and actions during the peace process.

CHALLENGES IN NEGOTIATING FOR PEACE IN SOUTH SUDAN

Mistrust and Deep-Rooted Grievances:
Past grievances and feelings of injustice can provoke an escalation of a conflict, mainly when one party feels unfairly treated; it may angrily blame its opponent, leading to a desire to retaliate. If the aggrieved party overreacts, this can provoke outrage and intensify the struggle. Such hostility-driven escalation may be rooted in past events, leading to a cycle of revenge. In South Sudan, the deep-seated grievances and lack of trust between the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups present a significant challenge to achieving lasting peace. The repeated cycles of violence have deepened mistrust while driving fears of betrayal, marginalisation, or oppression, making reconciliation efforts challenging. This mistrust has been fuelled by repeated violations of ceasefires and peace agreements, leading to skepticism about the intentions and commitments of opposing factions. The involvement of military forces and external actors like Uganda supporting Kiir’s regime, as well as the demands from SPLM-IO for higher political positions, exacerbated the mistrust. In this environment surrounded by pervasive mistrust, mediators face the challenge of addressing political power-sharing and deep-seated ethnic grievances, ensuring equitable representation, and rebuilding trust in the entire country.

Political Manipulation:
Political manipulation of peace agreements can occur when parties involved in the conflict or external actors use the peace process to achieve their own political aims rather than genuinely striving for peace. This can involve manipulating the terms of the agreement to consolidate power, exclude rival factions, or garner international support. The political manipulation of peace agreements in South Sudan significantly undermined efforts to achieve lasting peace. Despite attempts to broker an inclusive process, prominent political actors, including the government and opposition forces, conspired to restrict participation, thus limiting the legitimacy and effectiveness of the mediation effort. The resistance to a broad-based political dialogue, coupled with the competing national interests of IGAD member states, further complicated the mediation process. This political maneuvering not only limited effective and meaningful engagement with principal conflicting parties and civil society but also fostered an environment where vested interests overshadowed the pursuit of genuine peace, culminating in an unfulfilled 2015 peace agreement and continued conflict.

Political manipulation may also lead to the inclusion of ambiguous language that leaves room for different interpretations, allowing parties to act in ways that favour their interests while seemingly adhering to the agreement. This is evidenced by the lack of clarity from the IGAD-led Cessation of Hostilities agreement regarding withdrawing foreign troops, which Uganda exploited to remain involved without repercussions. This manipulation, as well as the involvement of other regional and international stakeholders, often led to conflicting agendas that diverted focus from the primary objective of achieving peace. Ultimately, this undermined the trust and effectiveness of the peace process, leading to challenges in achieving sustainable and inclusive peace.

Competing Interests among External Parties:
Conflicting interests among influential states or organizations can pose significant challenges or create obstacles to achieving a successful peace settlement. Powerful states may influence local parties by acting as allies or adversaries. In pursuit of peace, South Sudan has not been spared of this challenge. Competing interests among neighbouring states and external parties severely challenged the peace process. Regionally, complex geopolitical dynamics led neighbouring countries to seek influence over the Juba regime led by Kiir, which resulted in a lack of cohesive support for the peace process. Each country pursued its own agenda, diminishing the overall effectiveness of monitoring and enforcing peace agreements and failing to hold violators accountable.

Externally, international actors, who should have played a pivotal role in supporting the enforcement of peace agreements, fell short, particularly in providing necessary funding and oversight during the implementation of the 2015 ARCSS agreement. The lack of consistent international support and the presence of competing interests at the global level meant that peace efforts struggled to maintain momentum. This setting left the newly brokered Revitalized ARCSS in 2018 with challenges in securing a lasting peace.

Weak Implementation of Peace Agreements:
Various factors can hamper the implementation of peace agreements. First, agreements could be weak because they lack the necessary components to ensure long-term stability and peace. Such agreements may fail to address the root causes of conflict, lack comprehensive enforcement mechanisms, or suffer from ambiguous terms that lead to differing interpretations by involved parties. Often, agreements brokered with urgency and international pressure or immediate ceasefire needs may fall short of a comprehensive conflict analysis and have limited involvement of all relevant stakeholders, leading to omissions that can reignite tensions. Further, weak agreements might lack adequate support from the international community for implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, yet mobilising international resources, including funds and expertise, is critical for implementing peace agreements and supporting dangerous transitions to peace.

The South Sudan peace process that resulted in the 2015 ARCSS and the Revitalized ARCSS in 2018 could have suffered a similar fate, falling short of adequately addressing the complex dynamics and varying levels of commitment among the conflicting parties coupled with the external influence. This can be further complicated by individuals and groups that attempt to undermine a peace process, the so-called spoilers. The inability or failure to adequately identify or address the interests, support, and resources available to these spoilers leaves room for the conflict to persist. Additionally, the limited commitment from the international actors to finance, monitor, and enforce the implementation of the agreements aggravated the already challenged state. Thus, robust agreements must be developed with precise implementation arrangements which ensure accountability for all involved parties.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The pursuit of peace in South Sudan has been rather a complex one, and it can be deduced that several factors have severely hampered the journey. Deep-seated mistrust among principal conflicting parties, each showing little confidence in the other or the mediation process. This mistrust was exacerbated by the absence of consensus on the nature of the conflict and the vulnerability of the process to internal and external spoilers, including regional actors whose interests sometimes conflicted with peace objectives. Further, the involvement of various international and regional actors led to a lack of coherence in mediation efforts, further complicating peace negotiations and their outcomes. Internally, unresolved ethnic, political, and intra-group tensions weakened the prospects for lasting peace. Additionally, even when peace agreements were attained, they lacked clear, robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms, allowing violations to go unchecked and ultimately leading to repeated breakdowns. Collectively, these challenges undermined the sustainability of peace efforts, further dented the already stale relationships, stalling progress toward a stable and unified South Sudan.

To address the challenges hampering the South Sudan peace process, it is recommended that trust and confidence-building initiatives among conflicting parties and the entire country be enhanced to mend broken relationships, as it is essential for a successful peace process in South Sudan. Promoting and prioritising transparency in negotiations and implementation phases is essential to minimize suspicion and ensure accountability. To reduce misunderstandings and promote cooperative dialogue as a catalyst for mending relationships, clear communication channels between all stakeholders must be established and respected. Further, grassroots mediation efforts should be strengthened by involving community leaders, faith-based leaders, and local organisations in the peace process. Community-driven reconciliation projects can play a crucial role in promoting social cohesion at the local level, ensuring that peace is not only negotiated at the national level but also embraced by communities affected by conflict.

It is also recommended that institutional reforms be undertaken to create a resilient governance structure that can withstand political changes and ensure the long-term stability of South Sudan. Once institutions are strengthened, governance-related grievances that fuel the conflict will be managed. Parallel to the negotiation efforts, traditional conflict resolution methods, which are culturally relevant to South Sudan, should also be integrated into the peace process with emphasis on strengthening relationships between all actors. Empowering local mediators familiar with cultural norms can enhance conflict resolution efforts. Furthermore, managing external political influences requires coordinated efforts among international and regional entities to prevent competing interests. It is also essential to encourage impartial international oversight to ensure peace efforts remain focused on stability rather than external geopolitical interests.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes and African Union. “African Union Mediation Support Handbook.” Revised Edition. Umhlanga Rocks: ACCORD, 2014. https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/06-au-mediation-support-handbook-2014.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2025.
Ahtisaari, Martti. “The Role of Inter-Governmental, State and Non-Governmental Players in Conflict Resolution.” Lecture, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, October 29, 2007. https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/ytuq8MOwOr.
American University of Beirut. “Peace-Making Under the United Nations Flag: Reflections on a Quarter Century of Mediation.” Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, Lebanon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiQXte28e0A, 2009. Accessed March 22, 2025.
Githua, Edgar. Spoilers and Peace Agreements: The South Sudan Conflict (2013-2019). Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa. Vol. 14, Number 1. United States International University-Africa, 2023. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jolte/article/view/248083/234633. Accessed March 15, 2025.
IGAD. “Ending the Crisis in South Sudan through Mediation: A Progress Report of the Special Envoys to the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government.” IGAD. https://www.usip.org/south-sudan-peace-process-digital-library/progress-report-igad-mediators-peace-process-igad-heads, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2025.
———. 2019. “Lessons for IGAD Mediation Arising from the South Sudan Peace Talks 2013 – 2015.” IGAD. https://mediation.igad.int/index.php/documents/9-lessons-learnt-draft-booklet-1final/file. Accessed March 16, 2025.
Institute for Peace and Security Studies. “Conflict Analysis & Insights: South Sudan Conflict Insight.” Addis Ababa University. https://africaportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/south_sudan_conflict_insight_final.pdf, 2018. Accessed March 15, 2025.
Jok, Jok Madut, and Sharon Elaine Hutchinson. Sudan’s Prolonged Second Civil War and the Militarization of Nuer and Dinka Ethnic Identities. African Studies Review. Vol. 42, Number 2. JSTOR, 1999. https://doi.org/10.2307/525368. Accessed March 15, 2025.
Kleiboer, Marieke. Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation” The Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 40, Number 2 (June 1996): 360–389. https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/2XXZdo1m77.
Mkandawire, Patrick. “South Sudan—Diminished Excitement of Greater Hope: Causes of Instability and Lack of Economic Development.” MSc., University of Nairobi, Nairobi, 2016. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1105213.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2025.
Ndeche, Okechukwu, and Samuel O. Iroye. Key Theories in Peace and Conflict Studies and Their Impact on the Study and Practice. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa. Vol. 14, Number 1. United States International University-Africa, 2023. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jolte/article/view/248083/234633. Accessed March 17, 2025.
ProfileTree. “Conflict Resolution | Mediation | Conflict Resolution Techniques | Mediation Process | Negotiation.” Queen’s University Belfast. https://youtu.be/hAX7ujNYzBA, 2019. Accessed March 22, 2025.
Smith, Amy L., and David R. Smock. Managing a Mediation Process. Peacemaker’s Toolkit. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2008.
United Nations. “United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation.” United Nations, 2012. https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/ytuq8MOwOr.
United Nations Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. “Launch of ‘Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners.” New York. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbpmzSb2VCo, 2015. Accessed March 22, 2025.
United States Institute of Peace. “South Sudan Peace Process: Key Facts.” Accessed March 16, 2025. https://www.usip.org/south-sudan-peace-process-key-facts.
Vertin, Zach. “A Poisoned Well: Lessons in Mediation from South Sudan’s Troubled Peace Process.” New York: International Peace Institute. https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1804_Poisoned-Well.pdf, 2018. Accessed March 15, 2025.
Wamaitha Mugo, Judy. “An Analysis of Mediation as a Tool in Conflict Resolution in Africa: A Case Study of Mediation Process in South Sudan Between December 2013-March 2015.” MSc., University of Nairobi, Nairobi, 2016. https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/100012/Mugo_An%20Analysis%20Of%20Mediation%20As%20A%20Tool%20In%20Conflict%20Resolution%20In%20Africa%20A%20Case%20Study%20Of%20Mediation%20Process%20In%20South%20Sudan%20Between%20December%202013-March%202015.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed March 15, 2025.
Weeks, Dudley. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution: Preserving Relationships at Work, at Home, and in the Community. Trade Paperback ed. A Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam Book. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1994.
World Mediation Organization. “Anthological Correlation: Mediation & Conflict Management,” 2008. https://euclid.egnyte.com/dl/2roFZWPvuZ.
Young, John. John Garang’s Legacy to the Peace Process, the SPLM/A & the South. Review of African Political Economy. Vol. 32, Number 106. Taylor & Francis Online: ScienceOpen, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056240500467039. Accessed March 15, 2025.