GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Conflicting Priorities: GoSS Security Challenges and Recent Responses

Conflicting Priorities: GoSS Security Challenges and Recent Responses

Library
Small Arms Survey
2009

Summary

What are some of the internal and external challenges currently facing the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), and how has it responded to them? How can donors promote security most effectively in the area? This study finds that the GoSS faces a combination of internal divisions and external pressures from an increasingly hostile National Congress Party (NCP) in the North. The focus on civilian disarmament (such as the campaign of 2008) is potentially damaging; planning for internal security is needed instead. This could be facilitated by mediation of internal divisions and a renewed focus on South-South dialogue and grassroots peacebuilding. Donors should both engage decision-makers at a political level and support sectoral and community-based initiatives that contribute to stability.

Four years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the Government of Southern Sudan GoSS) has yet to establish security throughout the South and to address internal challenges to its authority, including various militia groups and inter-communal conflicts. The GoSS has also resolved that the referendum on self-determination should take place by 2011.

The 2008 GoSS civilian disarmament campaign had limited impact, in terms of both removing weapons from circulation and stemming violence. The campaign was conducted selectively and took place alongside rearmament. It failed to address internal conflicts and gaps in civil security provision, which continue to motivate weapons possession. Disarmament in the current context is unlikely to contribute to the broader goals of peace and security. Further:

  • The disarmament campaign and subsequent violence in Jonglei and Upper Nile are indicative of divisions within the GoSS, between those empowered by the CPA and other southern groups, as well as ongoing inter-communal conflicts.
  • The unresolved issue of how to handle militias – whether independent or aligned with security forces in the North – is connected to these divisions.
  • In terms of external security pressures, violations of the CPA have been left unresolved, and there has been associated violence in Southern Sudan and border regions.
  • The GoSS’s security planning (which focuses on defending the border and containing potential spoilers) continues to be largely based on the perception that the North is actively working to undermine the CPA and that a future war is likely. This has limited its ability to address insecurity and conflicts emerging within the South.

The international community needs to refocus on the fragile North-South ceasefire and a southern government that is struggling to cope with mounting internal and external pressures. Donors can engage decision-makers both to plan for possible scenarios following the referendum in 2011 and to develop strategies to address internal threats to stability in the interim. This calls for a sequenced approach that takes security, rather than disarmament, as the starting point.

  • A gradual approach to arms control could be developed in the context of planning for internal security, in sequence with other aspects of security sector transformation and peacebuilding.
  • The UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) could more effectively operationalise its core mandate to monitor the ceasefire and security arrangements of the CPA and could establish a more dynamic presence on the ground, as it has begun to do in Jonglei.
  • In the longer term, it is critical to develop the infrastructure for state security, particularly the police, law, and justice institutions, and their links to customary security and legal systems.
  • It is also important to enhance the capacity of the Southern Sudan Peace Commission (SSPC) and relevant SSLA and State Legislative Assembly Committees and their members to work with communities and state authorities to mediate disputes in their constituencies.

Source

Small Arms Survey, 2009, 'Conflicting Priorities: GoSS Security Challenges and Recent Responses', Sudan Issue Brief no. 14, Human Security Baseline Assessment, Small Arms Survey, Geneva

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".