Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process

The document argues that the IGAD peace process in Sudan is undermined by a lack of trust between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the SPLM/A, systemic failures in monitoring security agreements, and the GoS's use of proxy militias to maintain influence. It highlights specific breaches of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in the Shilluk Kingdom and Western Upper Nile, where civilian abuses and cattle looting occurred. The author concludes that sustainable peace requires a democratic transformation of the Sudanese state to address root grievances, rather than focusing solely on security maintenance.

• The monitoring instruments for security agreements—the Verification Monitoring Team (VMT), the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team (CPMT), and the Joint Military Commission (JMC)—have faced significant operational hurdles. The VMT was hampered by a "complicated structure" and was effectively "'grounded'" from August to October 2003 due to GoS objections regarding visas and base areas. The CPMT suffered from high staff turnover, a "narrow interpretation of its mandate," and a "misplaced military command and control approach."
• There have been widespread and unaddressed breaches of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, specifically regarding the requirement for forces to maintain positions held on 17 October 2002. In the Shilluk Kingdom, the GoS-affiliated militias conducted a "terror campaign" that resulted in "dozens of Shilluk villages being burned to the ground," approximately "50,000 civilians forced to flee," and 50 deaths. In Western Upper Nile, fighting between the SPLM/A and the SSIM led to the destruction of schools and clinics and the "forced conscription of under-aged boys."
• The Government of Sudan (GoS) is accused of using proxy forces to maintain control in the south despite the Security Arrangements Agreement. Evidence includes the appointment of "more than sixty senior SSDF officials to high ranking positions in the GoS army in early 2004" and suspected continuing support for the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Equatoria, which would allow the army to "maintain its influence in the south" after the official withdrawal of forces.
• The Security Arrangements Agreement is described as fundamentally weak because it is merely a "framework agreement" and contains contradictory provisions. Specifically, it erroneously claims there are "only two military forces on the ground in southern Sudan" while simultaneously stating that "no armed group allied to either party shall be allowed to operate outside the two forces" and later suggesting the status of "other armed groups" must be addressed.
• The IGAD peace process is criticized for its narrow focus on the GoS and SPLM/A, excluding other Sudanese constituencies. The author argues that the "prevailing logic of the IGAD mediators" to limit parties to these two groups is "not defensible" from a democratic perspective and fails to address the "marginalisation" of other regional and tribal groups, particularly in light of the crisis in Darfur.
• The report asserts that a sustainable peace is unlikely without a "democratic transformation" of the Sudanese state. It argues that the state has been "dominated from its beginnings by minority interests" and that viewing the transitional period merely as "security maintenance" will likely lead to a deepening of the current crisis and continued violence.

APA

Institute for Security Studies (2004). Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/SUDANJUN04.PDF

Chicago

Institute for Security Studies. Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process. 2004. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/SUDANJUN04.PDF.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Institute for Security Studies |title=Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process |date=8 June 2004 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/SUDANJUN04.PDF |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{instituteforsecuritystudies2004insecurity, author = {{Institute for Security Studies}}, title = {{Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2004}, month = jun, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/SUDANJUN04.PDF}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }