Rizky Amelia
South Sudan has used the platform of the United Nations General Assembly to press for the removal of international sanctions, with its envoy arguing that such measures should not serve as a substitute for diplomatic and political engagement. Cecilia Adeng, South Sudan's representative at the UN, delivered the appeal during the annual gathering of world leaders in New York, framing the request around her country's stated progress away from armed conflict and toward democratic governance.
Adeng's central argument was that sanctions ought to be tied to clearly defined objectives rather than functioning as a permanent feature of international relations with her country. She contended that restrictions imposed on South Sudan should not replace the kind of sustained political dialogue that she said is necessary for consolidating peace and building state institutions. In her remarks, she described South Sudan as a nation that has moved beyond its period of conflict and is now on a path toward democratic rule, and she called on the international community to recognise that trajectory.
The appeal reflects a long-running tension between South Sudan's government and its international partners. Since gaining independence in 2011 following decades of civil war with Sudan, the world's youngest nation has struggled with internal armed conflict, political instability and a chronic humanitarian crisis. A devastating civil war that erupted in 2013, barely two years after independence, pitted forces loyal to President Salva Kiir against those backing then-vice president Riek Machar, dividing the country along ethnic and political lines and killing hundreds of thousands of people.
That conflict prompted the United Nations Security Council to impose a range of measures, including an arms embargo, asset freezes and travel bans targeting individuals accused of fuelling violence and obstructing peace efforts. A fragile power-sharing agreement signed in 2018 helped reduce large-scale fighting, and a transitional government was formed in 2020 with Kiir retaining the presidency and Machar returning as vice president. However, implementation of key provisions of that agreement, including the creation of a unified national army and the drafting of a permanent constitution, has repeatedly fallen behind schedule, and elections have been postponed multiple times.
It is against this backdrop that South Sudan's leadership has consistently argued for the lifting of sanctions, portraying them as an obstacle to economic recovery and to the consolidation of peace. Officials in Juba have long maintained that punitive measures harm ordinary citizens more than they pressure political elites, restricting access to international finance, deterring foreign investment and complicating efforts to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by years of war. The government has also argued that sanctions reinforce a narrative of perpetual crisis that discourages the international engagement the country needs.
Western powers, however, have been reluctant to loosen restrictions. Diplomats and human rights organisations have pointed to continuing violence in parts of the country, including clashes in contested regions, reports of abuses by security forces, and the slow pace of transitional justice. They argue that sanctions remain a necessary tool to press for accountability and to keep pressure on leaders to fulfil commitments made under the peace agreement. For these critics, the test of South Sudan's democratic transition lies not in statements delivered at the UN, but in concrete steps such as credible elections, the unification of armed forces and respect for civil liberties.
Adeng's intervention at the General Assembly is therefore best understood as part of a broader diplomatic campaign by Juba to reshape how the international community views the country. By choosing the UN's most prominent stage, South Sudan sought to appeal directly to member states, many of which are sympathetic to arguments that sanctions can entrench poverty and instability in fragile post-conflict settings. The envoy's emphasis on sanctions serving "clear objectives" echoes a wider debate within the UN system about the effectiveness and unintended consequences of punitive measures, a debate that has gained traction among African and other developing countries.
The timing of the appeal is also significant. The General Assembly provides a venue where smaller states can project their priorities onto a global stage, and South Sudan has used previous sessions to lobby for debt relief, development assistance and a recalibration of its relationship with international financial institutions. For a government facing severe economic pressures, including inflation, currency instability and disrupted oil production, the lifting of sanctions is seen as a prerequisite for attracting the investment needed to stabilise the economy. Oil revenues remain the backbone of South Sudan's budget, and any disruption to production or exports has an outsized impact on state finances.
Regional dynamics add another layer of complexity. South Sudan's neighbours, including Sudan to the north, have their own interests in the country's stability, and cross-border tensions have occasionally complicated peace efforts. Meanwhile, the presence of a large UN peacekeeping mission, established to protect civilians and monitor the peace agreement, has been a subject of debate, with Juba periodically calling for its drawdown and international partners warning against a premature exit. The sanctions question is closely tied to these discussions, since some Security Council members view the measures as part of a broader framework that includes peacekeeping and political support.
Whether Adeng's appeal will translate into concrete movement at the Security Council remains uncertain. Decisions on sanctions require consensus among the council's permanent members, several of which have expressed reservations about lifting restrictions without measurable progress. Nonetheless, the South Sudanese government is likely to continue pressing its case through bilateral channels and regional bodies, including the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, which brokered the 2018 peace deal. For Juba, the argument is straightforward: sanctions that were designed to end a war should be adjusted now that the war has formally ended.
The coming months will test that proposition. South Sudan's partners will be watching for progress on the benchmarks set out in the peace agreement, including electoral preparations and security sector reform. If those benchmarks are met, pressure to ease restrictions could grow. If they stall, the sanctions debate is likely to remain deadlocked, with South Sudan's appeals at the UN serving more as a statement of intent than as an immediate catalyst for change. Either way, the envoy's message in New York has placed the sanctions question squarely back on the international agenda.
Comments (0)