UN Security Council must renew the arms embargo on South Sudan
The review of the embargo is now coming up on May 29 and there is a push from African members of the UNSC – Sierra Leone, Somalia and Algeria – to lift it. On March 18, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) publicly called for this measure to end.
But lifting the embargo on South Sudan at this moment would be a mistake. Violence has come back to plague the country, killing at least 180 people between March and mid-April, amid deepening divisions between President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, who has been placed under house arrest.
Allowing more weapons to enter the country would only escalate the dire situation. This would not be in the interest of neighbouring countries and the African Union as a whole.
Under the AU's development plan, Agenda 2063, the continent set itself an ambitious goal of 'Silencing the Guns' by 2020, later extended to 2030. With this, the AU wants to 'end all wars and violent conflicts and promote dialogue-based mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution'.
Yet, the AUPSC's call for lifting the embargo on South Sudan does not fall in line with these goals. The justification for this stance is that free access to more weapons can enable the unification of government and opposition forces and reform the security sector.
But this logic ignores the growing fractures in South Sudan amid the renewed tensions between Kiir and Machar. Placing more guns in the hands of warring parties involved in serious human rights violations and crimes under international law would only make the situation worse.
South Sudan's security and defence forces have attacked the very people they are tasked to protect: Civilians. The South Sudanese army, National Security Service and armed opposition forces have been implicated in war crimes and human rights violations for well more than a decade, including by the AU's Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan and the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
Indeed, around the time the AUPSC called for the lifting of the arms embargo, South Sudan's government reportedly used improvised incendiary weapons in aerial attacks, killing at least 58 people and injuring others, including children.
To be sure, the existence of the arms embargo is not enough – its enforcement is key. That is already faltering after in early March, Uganda sent troops and military equipment to South Sudan without providing notification or receiving special exemption from the UNSC Sanctions Committee. This is a clear violation of the embargo.
South Sudan's Mi-24 helicopters also seem to be on the move, despite the government's fleet reportedly being non-functional and grounded since the arms embargo was imposed in 2018. This suggests spare parts have been sourced in violation of the embargo.
On May 4, Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, reported that two helicopter gunships had bombed its medical facility in Old Fangak the day before and fired at the town, killing seven and injuring 20 others. Deliberate attacks on a medical facility performing its humanitarian function violate international humanitarian law and would constitute a war crime. This is yet another indication of why the UNSC must renew the arms embargo and strengthen its enforcement.
If properly implemented and enforced, a renewed UNSC arms embargo would not obstruct security sector reform. Instead, it would block the disorderly and destabilising accumulation of arms in South Sudan, which is spurring the current conflict and contributing to violations against civilians.
If the AU is serious about silencing the guns, it should back the strict controls prohibiting arms transfers to South Sudan, and the African states in the UNSC should vote to renew the arms embargo.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
36 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
France says Mali's arrest of embassy worker on coup charges ‘unfounded'
France's Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs has said that a French man recently arrested in Mali on 'unfounded' charges of plotting a coup was a French embassy employee. The Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that it was in talks with Bamako to 'clear up any misunderstanding' and obtain the 'immediate release' of Yann Vezilier, who had been arrested in recent weeks alongside two generals and other military personnel. It added that the arrest of the French national was in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Mali's security minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, had announced Vezilier's arrest on Thursday, alleging that he had been working for the French intelligence services, mobilising 'political leaders, civil society actors, and military personnel' to destabilise the country. Mohammedine said that a full investigation into the alleged plot, which he said had been launched on August 1, was under way and that 'the situation is completely under control'. The arrests followed a crackdown on dissent following a pro-democracy rally in May, the first since the military government came to power after back-to-back coups in 2020 and 2021. France's once close relationship with its former colony in West Africa's Sahel region has soured since soldiers seized power nearly four years ago. The military government, led by President Assimi Goita, has turned away from Western partners, notably former colonial power France, expelling its troops and turning to Russia for security assistance. The country has since been gripped by a security crisis since 2012, fuelled notably by violence from groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and the ISIL (ISIS) group, as well as local criminal gangs. In June, Goita was granted an additional five years in power, despite the military government's earlier promises of a return to civilian rule by March 2024. The move followed the military's dissolution of political parties in May.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
African courts may pave the way for holding social media giants to account
In April 2025, the Human Rights Court in Kenya issued an unprecedented ruling that it has the jurisdiction to hear a case about harmful content on one of Meta's platforms. The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Abraham Meareg, the son of an Ethiopian academic who was murdered after he was doxxed and threatened on Facebook, Fisseha Tekle, an Ethiopian human rights activist, who was also doxxed and threatened on Facebook, and Katiba Institute, a Kenyan non-profit that defends constitutionalism. They maintain that Facebook's algorithm design and its content moderation decisions made in Kenya resulted in harm done to two of the claimants, fuelled the conflict in Ethiopia and led to widespread human rights violations within and outside Kenya. The content in question falls outside the protected categories of speech under Article 33 of the Constitution of Kenya and includes propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech and advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others, incitement to cause harm and discrimination. Key to the Kenyan case is the question whether Meta, a US-based corporation, can financially benefit from unconstitutional content and whether there is a positive duty on the corporation to take down unconstitutional content that also violates its Community Standards. In affirming the Kenyan court's jurisdiction in the case, the judge was emphatic that the Constitution of Kenya allows a Kenyan court to adjudicate over Meta's acts or omissions regarding content posted on the Facebook platform that may impact the observance of human rights within and outside Kenya. The Kenyan decision signals a paradigm shift towards platform liability where judges determine liability by solely asking the question: Do platform decisions observe and uphold human rights? The ultimate goal of the Bill of Rights, a common feature in African constitutions, is to uphold and protect the inherent dignity of all people. Kenya's Bill of Rights, for example, has as its sole mission to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities and to promote social justice and the realisation of the potential of all human beings. The supremacy of the Constitution also guarantees that, should there be safe harbour provisions in the laws of that country, they would not be a sufficient liability shield for platforms if their business decisions do not ultimately uphold human rights. That a case on algorithm amplification has passed the jurisdiction hearing stage in Kenya is a testament that human rights law and constitutionality offer an opportunity for those who have suffered harm as a result of social media content to seek redress. Up to this point, the idea that a social media platform can be held accountable for content on its platform has been dissuaded by the blanket immunity offered under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, and to a lesser extent, the principle of non-liability in the European Union, with the necessary exceptions detailed in various laws. For example, Section 230 was one of the reasons a district judge in California cited in her ruling to dismiss a case filed by Myanmar refugees in a similar claim that Meta had failed to curb hate speech that fuelled the Rohingya genocide. The aspiration for platform accountability was further dampened by the US Supreme Court decision in Twitter v Taamneh, in which it ruled against plaintiffs who sought to establish that social media platforms carry responsibility for content posted on them. The immunity offered to platforms has come at a high cost, especially for victims of harm in places where platforms do not have physical offices. This is why a decision like the one by the Kenyan courts is a welcome development; it restores hope that victims of platform harm have an alternative route to recourse, one that refocuses human rights into the core of the discussion on platform accountability. The justification for safe harbour provisions like Section 230 has always been to protect 'nascent' technologies from being smothered by the multiplicity of suits. However, by now, the dominant social media platforms are neither nascent nor in need of protection. They have both the monetary and technical wherewithal to prioritise people over profits, but choose not to. As the Kenyan cases cascade through the judicial process, there is cautious optimism that constitutional and human rights law that has taken root in African countries can offer a necessary reprieve for platform arrogance. Mercy Mutemi represents Fisseha Tekle in the case outlined in the article. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Mali's military arrests generals, suspected French agent in overthrow plot
Authorities in Mali have arrested a group of military personnel and civilians, including two Malian army generals and a suspected French secret agent, accused of attempting to destabilise the country. Mali's security minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, announced the arrests on Thursday evening following days of rumours that Malian military officials had been arrested. The minister said, 'The situation is completely under control.' 'The transitional government informs the national public of the arrest of a small group of marginal elements of the Malian armed and security forces for criminal offences aimed at destabilising the institutions of the republic,' Mohammedine said on national news. 'The conspiracy has been foiled with the arrests of those involved,' he said, adding that the plot began on August 1. 'These soldiers and civilians' had obtained 'the help of foreign states', Mali's military said in a statement, adding that a French national – identified as Yann Christian Bernard Vezilier – was held on suspicion of working 'on behalf of the French intelligence service'. The security minister said the Frenchman acted 'on behalf of the French intelligence service, which mobilised political leaders, civil society actors and military personnel' in Mali. Images shared on social media of the alleged French spying suspect featured a white man in his 50s wearing a white shirt and appearing somewhat alarmed. National television also broadcast photos of 11 people it said were members of the group that planned the coup. The security minister also identified two Malian generals he said were part of the plot. One of the suspects, General Abass Dembele, is a former governor of the country's central Mopti region, who was abruptly dismissed in May when he demanded an investigation into allegations that the Malian army killed civilians in the village of Diafarabe. The second general, Nema Sagara, was previously lauded for her role in fighting rebel groups in 2012. Security sources told the AFP news agency that at least 55 soldiers had been arrested, and authorities said they were working to identify 'possible accomplices'. Impoverished Mali has been gripped by a security crisis since 2012, fuelled notably by violence from armed groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and the ISIL (ISIS) group, as well as local criminal gangs. The country's military rulers, led by President Assimi Goita, have in recent years turned away from Western partners, notably former colonial power France, and aligned politically and militarily with Russia in the name of national sovereignty. In June, Goita was granted an additional five years in power, despite the military's earlier promises of a return to civilian rule by March 2024.
