The Peace and Security Council (PSC) is to meet on Friday 24 July to discuss the situation in South Sudan. The meeting is likely to deliberate on the long-awaited human rights report on South Sudan, as requested by heads of state at the African Union (AU) summit in Johannesburg.
Coincidentally, this week two reports on human rights violations in South Sudan are on the news agenda. The two are quite different, however – perhaps not in content, but certainly in how they have been published and promoted.
The first is the long-awaited report of the AU Commission of Inquiry into South Sudan, which allegedly details atrocities and serious human rights violations committed by both sides. The commission was led by former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, and its findings were ready at the end of last year.
However, at the AU summit in January 2015 leaders decided to defer discussion of the report for fears that its contents might upset the delicate ongoing peace negotiations.
This decision was reversed at the following summit in June 2015, where the PSC set itself the deadline of mid-July 2015 to consider it. This deadline was missed, and it will only be considered at an extraordinary ministerial-level meeting on 24 July. (On the same day, South Sudan’s peace talks are due to reconvene in Addis Ababa under a new format: IGAD-plus, which comprises the Intergovernmental Authority on Development plus several other interested parties).
Uncertainty over tabling of Obasanjo report
It is uncertain at this point whether any action will be taken following this discussion, or even whether the report will be made public (at least two versions of the report have been leaked, but their authenticity is not confirmed).
The second report in question is one by Human Rights Watch into alleged atrocities committed by government forces in one particular offensive. According to Human Rights Watch, it documents ‘scores of killings, rapes, and widespread burning and pillage of civilian property by South Sudanese government forces and allied fighters during a military offensive in Unity State. The deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian property during the offensive between April and June 2015 amount to war crimes, and the killings and rapes may also constitute crimes against humanity.’
While no one is questioning the authenticity or accuracy of either report, it is worth highlighting a couple of differences between them.
For one thing, the Human Rights Watch report details events that happened recently, between April and June 2015. The Obasanjo report, meanwhile, speaks only to events in 2014, making it dated in comparison. For another, the Human Rights Watch report is publicly available, whereas the Obasanjo report is still confidential and available only to a select few decision-makers. There is no guarantee that the Obasanjo report will ever be made publicly available.
Public or behind the scenes?
It is an open question as to which, ultimately, will be more influential – but it is worth considering. Does it make more sense to put these issues into the public domain? Or is it the quiet, behind-the-scenes influence that makes a real difference?
Berouk Mesfin, a senior researcher with the Institute for Security Studies, suggests that these approaches are not mutually exclusive. ‘It is my hope that that two reports will complement each other,’ he said. He explains: the publicity generated by the Human Rights Watch report will help to keep the pressure on the AU on the subject of South Sudan. Ultimately, this should help guarantee that the Obasanjo report is treated with the gravity it deserves.