U.S. exit from South Sudan UN mission sparks civilian safety fears

JUBA – The United States’ recent withdrawal of military officers from the United Nations peacekeeping mission in South Sudan has sparked fears among civil society leaders and peace experts of deepening insecurity and a shrinking international commitment to civilian protection.

A U.N. peacekeeping spokesperson confirmed to Sudans Post on Tuesday that the U.S. removed its personnel from the mission, known as UNMISS, on April 6. While described as temporary, no timeline for their return was provided.

Edward H. Carpenter, a former UN peacekeeper and director of World Without War, a U.S.-based advocacy group pushing to outlaw war as a legal and ethical institution, called the decision a reflection of misplaced priorities.

“This move suggests U.S. policymakers are prioritizing the safety of their soldiers over the safety of civilians, which is backwards—especially in a mission where the core mandate is to protect civilians,” Carpenter said in an interview with Sudans Post. “America might not be a reliable partner, even for its closest allies.”

He added that the U.S. risk calculation may be based on a limited understanding of the situation in South Sudan. “No one in South Sudan is statistically safer than a U.N. officer on a base in Juba,” Carpenter said, warning that even a small withdrawal could set a precedent for other countries to follow.

The move comes amid rising violence and concerns over the stalled peace process. Civil society leaders say the U.S. exit could embolden armed groups and weaken the fragile security architecture supported by UNMISS.

Edmund Yakani, executive director of local civil society watchdog Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO), said the U.S. decision reflected growing frustration with South Sudan’s leadership.

“The USA is taking serious actions to distance itself from the protection of South Sudanese citizens,” he said. “Our leaders are failing to transition from violence to peace, and now Washington is applying new pressure to make them take responsibility.”

Others echoed these concerns, urging South Sudan’s leaders to meet reform benchmarks outlined in the 2018 peace deal.

“Implement the R-ARCSS without reservations,” said Ter Manyang Gatwech, executive director of Centre for Peace and Advocacy, referring to the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan. “We need institutional reforms, good governance, human rights protection, and timely payment of civil servants. Without the U.S., South Sudan would not exist today.”

Yoal Gatkuoth, founder of the Pan-African Peacemakers Alliance, described the withdrawal as “unannounced and alarming,” suggesting deteriorating relations between Washington and Juba.

“The U.S. should uphold its commitments to the people of South Sudan, not just the government,” he said, urging a renewed American role in supporting the peace agreement and maintaining stability.

U.S. officials have not publicly commented on the rationale behind the withdrawal. Analysts believe it reflects broader geopolitical shifts and a reassessment of overseas military deployments by the Trump Administration.

Carpenter warned that continued inaction could lead to a collapse of peacekeeping momentum. “Peacekeepers can prevent violence just by being there,” he said. “Abandoning civilians—especially amid a rise in militia mobilization, political detentions, and human rights abuses—sends a dangerous message.”

The United States has historically played a central role in supporting peace efforts in South Sudan, through both financial contributions to UNMISS and direct diplomatic engagement. With violence reported in multiple states and opposition leaders under house arrest, observers say the timing of the withdrawal is critical.

Yakani called on national leaders to heed the U.S. warning. “It’s time for our leaders to show political will and end the cycle of violence. The citizens cannot be left unprotected.”

Bol Deng Bol, executive director of INTREPID South Sudan, expressed concern about the implications but said he could not fully respond to the U.S. decision.

“I believe it will affect our country negatively,” he said.