Unilateral changes will not bring peace to South Sudan
In South Sudan, a peace agreement born from years of devastating civil war is now being contested from within — as one side moves to rewrite its terms without the consent of those who signed it. The proposed amendments would sever the link between elections and the security reforms meant to make those elections meaningful, while weakening the accord's standing as supreme law. A coalition of sixteen nations, including the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, has warned that such unilateral changes betray both the letter and the spirit of the 2018 agreement — and that the cost of failure will be measured, as it so often is, in the lives of ordinary people.
- South Sudan's government is moving to rewrite the 2018 peace deal without the agreement of all its signatories, threatening to unravel the fragile architecture that has held the country together.
- Sixteen international donors have issued a stark collective warning, declaring that unilateral amendments violate the accord's spirit and risk reigniting large-scale violence across the country and the region.
- On the ground, fighting between government forces and militia aligned with suspended First Vice-President Riek Machar has already resumed, with civilians bearing the heaviest burden through airstrikes, forced recruitment, and widespread sexual violence.
- Doctors Without Borders documented twelve attacks on its staff and facilities in just sixteen months, with an estimated 762,000 people now cut off from healthcare as humanitarian access is deliberately denied or weaponized.
- Peace monitors warn that unless hostilities cease and inclusive dialogue resumes immediately, political fragmentation and renewed mass violence are not a distant risk — they are an accelerating trajectory.
South Sudan's leaders are moving to rewrite the country's foundational peace agreement without the consent of all parties who signed it, and the international community is sounding alarms. A coalition of sixteen donors — including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Germany — issued a stark warning this week: unilateral changes to the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan risk collapsing the fragile stability the accord was designed to protect.
The proposed amendments would fundamentally reshape the agreement's architecture. Most critically, they would delink December 2026 elections from requirements that security forces be reformed and a national census conducted — and would weaken the provision establishing the peace deal as supreme law, meaning it would no longer automatically override conflicting constitutional provisions. The donors were unambiguous: "Unilateral changes to the agreement are not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the agreement and will not bring peace to South Sudan."
The warning reflects a deeper crisis already unfolding. Fighting has erupted between government forces and militia linked to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition, led by suspended First Vice-President Riek Machar — one of the agreement's co-principals alongside President Salva Kiir. The accord meant to bind them together has instead become a battleground.
The human toll is severe. Doctors Without Borders documented twelve attacks on its staff and facilities between January 2025 and April 2026, with an estimated 762,000 people left without healthcare access. Civilians across affected areas face airstrikes, forced recruitment, abductions, and widespread sexual violence. Humanitarian aid itself has been weaponized, with entire populations in opposition-held areas of Jonglei and Upper Nile states cut off from life-saving assistance.
The Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, which oversees the agreement's implementation, presented its first 2026 quarterly report to lawmakers this week. Interim Chairperson Aggrey George Owinow warned that the proposed amendments would "fundamentally alter the structure" of the peace deal, and that implementation has "considerably faltered" over seven years. Without an immediate ceasefire and inclusive dialogue, he cautioned, the risks of fragmentation and renewed large-scale violence will only grow — with consequences reaching far beyond South Sudan's borders.
South Sudan's leaders are moving to rewrite the country's foundational peace agreement without the consent of all parties who signed it—and the international community is sounding alarms. This week, a coalition of major donors including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland issued a stark warning: unilateral changes to the 2018 peace deal risk collapsing the fragile stability that has held since the accord was signed, and could trigger a return to large-scale violence.
The proposed amendments would fundamentally reshape the agreement's architecture. Most notably, they would delink elections scheduled for December 2026 from requirements that security forces be reformed, a national census be conducted, and all signatories to the peace deal participate in the process. The changes would also weaken provisions that establish the peace agreement as supreme law—meaning it would no longer automatically override conflicting constitutional provisions. Thirteen additional nations, including Germany, France, Canada, and the Nordic countries, joined the donors in their statement. "Unilateral changes to the agreement are not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the agreement and will not bring peace to South Sudan," they said, calling for an immediate return to dialogue among all parties.
The warning reflects a deeper crisis unfolding on the ground. Fighting has erupted between government forces and a militia group linked to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition, led by suspended First Vice-President Riek Machar. The 2018 agreement, formally known as the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan, had named both Machar and President Salva Kiir as co-principals—a recognition meant to bind them to the peace framework. Instead, the agreement has become a point of contention, with one side seeking to alter it unilaterally while the other resists.
The human toll is mounting. Doctors Without Borders released a report documenting twelve attacks on its staff and facilities between January 2025 and April 2026, describing war crimes committed by warring sides. The violence has left an estimated 762,000 people without access to healthcare. Across affected areas, civilians face airstrikes and ground attacks, forced recruitment, abductions, and widespread sexual and gender-based violence. Towns and villages are being struck indiscriminately, producing mass displacement and destroying civilian infrastructure. The charity called on all parties to the conflict to respect and protect civilians, noting that direct attacks on healthcare facilities and other civilian infrastructure constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Peace monitors have added their own warning. The Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, which oversees implementation of the 2018 agreement, presented its first quarterly report of 2026 to South Sudan's legislature this week. Interim Chairperson Aggrey George Owinow told lawmakers that the proposed amendments would "fundamentally alter the structure" of the peace deal and undermine its legal basis. He noted that implementation of the agreement has "considerably faltered" over its first seven years, with some gains already eroded. Without an immediate ceasefire and inclusive dialogue, Owinow warned, the risks of political fragmentation and renewed large-scale violence will only increase, with serious consequences for both national and regional stability.
Aid organizations have also documented how the conflict is being weaponized against civilians. Humanitarian groups report widespread insecurity, denial of access to affected areas, and deliberate efforts to redirect aid away from communities perceived as opposing one faction or another. Entire populations in opposition-held areas of Jonglei and Upper Nile states are being deprived of life-saving assistance. The humanitarian response itself has become a casualty of the political struggle. As lawmakers debate amendments that could reshape the peace framework, the people caught between the warring sides face a narrowing window of survival. The question now is whether the international pressure and the warnings from peace monitors will be enough to pull South Sudan's leaders back from the brink—or whether the country is headed toward the kind of large-scale violence the 2018 agreement was meant to prevent.
Notable Quotes
The peace agreement remains the basis of legitimacy for transitional government in South Sudan. Unilateral changes to the agreement are not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the agreement and will not bring peace to South Sudan.— Joint statement from major international donors
Overall, the implementation of the R-ARCSS has considerably faltered, and in some cases, peace dividends achieved over the first seven years of the R-ARCSS have been eroded.— Aggrey George Owinow, Interim Chairperson of the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether elections are linked to security reforms? Couldn't they just hold elections and deal with security later?
Because the whole logic of the 2018 agreement was that you can't have legitimate elections while armed groups still control territory and security forces haven't been reformed. If you delink them, you're essentially saying one side can win an election while still holding guns—which means the other side has no incentive to accept the result.
So this is about who gets to hold power after the transition ends?
Exactly. The agreement was designed so that by the time elections happened, the playing field would be level. Everyone would have disarmed, the military would be unified, and there'd be a census to show who actually lives where. Now one side wants to skip those steps and go straight to voting.
And the donors are worried because if one side changes the rules unilaterally, the other side might just pick up weapons again?
That's the fear. The agreement only works if both sides believe it's binding and fair. The moment one side starts rewriting it alone, the whole thing loses legitimacy. That's when you get back to fighting.
What about the healthcare crisis—how does that connect to the peace deal?
The fighting is happening because of disputes over the peace deal. The warring sides are attacking each other's territory, and civilians caught in between lose access to hospitals, clinics, everything. Aid groups can't reach people safely. It's not a separate crisis; it's the direct consequence of the political breakdown.
Is there any chance the amendments don't pass?
The international pressure is real, and the peace monitors have made clear what the consequences would be. But ultimately it depends on whether South Sudan's leaders decide the cost of unilateral change is higher than the cost of negotiating with their rivals. Right now, that's an open question.