Returns, aid and conflict in South Sudan

August 22, 2019 by Elizabeth White

Since the signing of South Sudan’s revitalised peace agreement in September 2018, the return of people forced to flee the country’s civil war has risen up the political agenda. The numbers of people returning has been taken by many as an indicator that the deal is delivering. This has put pressure on aid agencies to support returns of people displaced within the country and across its borders, often irrespective of the risks.

There are often multiple reasons driving decisions to return. Sometimes factors pushing people to leave their places of refuge can be greater than the pull of relative peace attracting them back. This was certainly the case for people I met in June in Rubkona County, former Unity State, who had recently returned from Sudan. While the men and women I spoke to said they had come back because of the deteriorating situation in Sudan and improved security in South Sudan, all felt the former was enough alone to reach the same decision. As painfully but effectively summed up by one woman, “if you’re going to die, it’s better to die in your own country.”

People can only choose from the options on the table. And in a country where conflict continues to divide communities, these options are often limited. If you’re part of a community that is perceived as pro-government, you’re going to be safer in government-held territory. And vice-versa. It’s no surprise then that many people returning to South Sudan are not returning home.

In April this year, aid agencies REACH and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) found that more than half of refugees arriving in Renk (Upper Nile) and Rubkona (Unity) from Sudan travelled directly to the UN peacekeeping Protection of Civilians sites (UNMISS PoCs) in Malakal and Bentiu. Most of these people are from Malakal and Bentiu towns, whose home communities are widely seen as being anti-government. But both towns are now under government control, and many communities seen as pro-government have subsequently settled there – often in the houses left empty by opposition-affiliated communities who feel safer in the PoC, Sudan, or in other parts of the country.

Aid that supports returns – by helping people move or assisting them when they arrive – could inadvertently legimitise people’s presence in other people’s homes, exacerbate tensions between communities, and ultimately contribute to conflict.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the peace deal stipulates that the amount of influence different groups will have over any future power sharing across local and state positions will be determined by the relative ‘prominence’ of those parties on the ground at the end of the pre-transitional period in November. This creates a powerful incentive for these groups to try to bolster their support bases, and potentially seek to recruit new fighters, by encouraging or facilitating people’s return to – or resettlement in – areas under their control.

With information and analysis, aid that supports returns can also be used to reduce the risk of conflict, build bridges between communities, and give people the best possible chance of returning home when the time is right. The starting point for this is asking the right questions, collecting the right information and understanding the different drivers and types of returns and resettlements. Things to think about include:

Asking people choosing to resettle – however temporarily – why they are not returning home. The barriers may be surmountable, and aid agencies may be able to help. Checking back with these people will also help to determine whether those temporarily resettling are able to return home as planned – and if not, why.

Distinguishing between returns and resettlements. While humanitarian responses should always be needs, rather than status based, differentiating between returns and resettlements when sharing data can help agencies identify conflict risks, including potential housing, land and property disputes. Differentiating in this way can also help to counter the false narrative that repatriation means going home, and therefore progress towards peace.

Distinguishing between voluntary and assisted returns and resettlements. Information on assisted returns and resettlements could then be shared with relevant aid forums such as the Solutions Working Group, Inter-Cluster Working Group and Humanitarian Country Team. This will help these bodies ensure that decisions to assist returns and resettlement are informed by context analysis, and thus avoid facilitating pursuit of divisive political agendas.

Ultimately, aid can play an important role in supporting people to return to their homes after conflict and displacement. But we need to recognise and account for the risks associated with supporting returns, and incentives that make it attractive for some groups to encourage returns before the conditions are conducive. If we don’t, we risk contributing to the re-emergence of conflict, and new rounds of displacement and human suffering.