The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to deport unwanted migrants to South Sudan is appalling. The migrants being deported have no legal, cultural, or national ties with South Sudan. The decision has puzzled South Sudanese and should alarm every world citizen who values justice, sovereignty, and human dignity.
The said ruling represents a significant violation of international law and is also an unjustifiable affront to South Sudan’s sovereignty, and therefore, it poses a reckless endangerment to human lives.
There is no evidence supporting the claim that South Sudan has agreed to accept these deportees, and the U.S. government’s ambiguous reference to “credible diplomatic assurances” does not align with the substance of the claim, given that it is not supported by any formal agreement, treaty, or public statement from Juba.
The situation so created does not reflect a collaborative undertaking by two sovereign nations on a matter of shared interest. The action, viewed from the angle of keenness, represents the unilateral imposition of a burden by a powerful nation onto one of the world’s youngest and most fragile states. The United States of America is not providing any remedial actions alongside this decision. Is the United States of America providing any package to the government of South Sudan for the construction of a prison and all the related services to it as it looks after the criminals or innocent migrants it has deported?
The world, and the United States of America in particular, is aware that South Sudan is still grappling with the aftermath of years of war, superimposed on economic hardship and political instability. By these apparent struggles, South Sudan is not in a position to accommodate individuals who are not its citizens and whom it has not invited. Imposing such a burdensome responsibility, as done by the United States of America, is to undermine the sovereignty and dignity of South Sudan.
The policy is a clear contradiction of international law. The principle of non-refoulement, established in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture, prohibits returning individuals to countries where they face a significant risk of persecution, torture, or other forms of cruel treatment. While these deportees did not flee from South Sudan in the first place, it is self-explanatory that their conditions would be even worse in a fragile country that is grappling with its own hurdles. The U.S. government itself has recently issued warnings to its citizens against traveling to South Sudan due to fear of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict. How then can it, with any sense of integrity, assert that migrants sent to South Sudan will be safe?
The diplomatic assurances allegedly provided by the administration lack transparency and credibility, and in this sense, the legal protections intended to safeguard vulnerable individuals from harm are being intentionally undermined.
In my uncensored view, what makes this policy even more troubling is its deliberate disregard for the fundamental choices and rights of the migrants themselves.
These deportees had compelling reasons for migrating to the United States. They were fully aware of the existence of South Sudan, and in spite of this, they did not choose to seek refuge there. Their decision conveys a significant message: they fled to the United States of America in search of safety, justice, and hope, not the chaos and insecurity they feared in their countries of origin and that they perceived in South Sudan, where they are being forced to go.
Given this context, why does the Trump administration choose to ignore this straightforward truth? Why did the administration choose to force vulnerable individuals to a land they consciously avoided when it was aware that it would not provide them with maximum protection? This decision defies normal human reasoning, and it should not have come from a country that claims to uphold dignity and the rule of law.
The most troubling aspect of this decision is that the administration has denied any due process to the migrants. It is a legal norm in the interest of natural justice that migrants who are targeted for deportation to third countries should, at a minimum, receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to present their claims regarding fears for their safety.
While the lower courts of the United States of America recognized this necessity, the Supreme Court decided to aggravate the matter by lifting these protections and allowing the administration to put its fallacious decision into action without considering the voices of the affected migrants. This situation not only constitutes a breach of legal technicalities; it also represents a betrayal of the American legal tradition, which has long prided itself on safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable.
It would be oversimplistic and inaccurate to view this problem solely as an internal American issue. The injustice it has created would extend far beyond the U.S. borders; it will affect South Sudan.
From this perspective, it is also important to clarify that South Sudanese do not hold the American people culpable or accountable for the actions of President Donald Trump and his administration. South Sudanese are well acquainted with the great United States of America, the nation that stood by them during their darkest hours and that played a crucial role in the creation of their country. The bond between South Sudanese and the American people runs deep and strong.
What baffles me is the new turn of events; more so, against South Sudan. In this instance, as in many other instances, President Donald Trump has demonstrated unconcealed disregard for human life and dignity. His policy decisions have humiliated nations, violated laws, and contradicted the ideals that have historically defined the United States at its best. What President Trump should know is that South Sudanese are human beings too. Our sovereignty, dignity, and right to safety should not be so easily overlooked simply because we are small or facing challenges. We deserve respect. Being a superpower nation is not a license for disrespecting other nations.
What I have observed at the core of this deportation policy is a troubling power imbalance. This power imbalance is one in which the stronger country imposes its will on the weaker country without considering fairness and justice.
The world is aware of the fact that the United States of America is not an ordinary country; it is wealthy, endowed with military might, and has global influence. With this, the United States of America is disrespectfully perpetrating or supporting injustices. What it should take note of is this: true strength is not defined by the ability to coerce or humiliate other nations but by the willingness to act fairly toward them, respect their rights, and lead by moral example. When a powerful nation such as the United States of America begins to treat weaker states like South Sudan as mere repositories for its unwanted migrants, it does not only harm those it is exploiting but also undermines its own standing in the world.
What is it that the international community, and Africa in particular, must do? First, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Cooperation, South Sudan must assert its sovereign right to reject any deportees imposed upon it by the United States of America without its consent. I know that the will to do that was crushed when all visas were revoked after the standoff between the two countries over the first batch of non-citizen migrants deported to South Sudan. We must renew our determination to assert our sovereign rights, regardless of the form it takes. Cooperation, as claimed by the United States of America, must be mutually acceptable. Second, the African Union and the United Nations need to condemn this practice in the strongest terms possible. The two organizations should also invoke the necessary articles to avert this distasteful act. Third, the American people should reflect on whether such an action is the type of policy they want to be enacted in their name, considering the fact that the greatness of a nation is measured not only by its enormous power but also by how it chooses to wield that power.
The deportation of migrants to South Sudan without consent is a legal misstep; it is a diplomatic slight that constitutes a moral failure. This action can endanger lives because the migrants themselves might pose a safety risk to the local citizens. The action is also a disrespect to other sovereign nations, and it grossly undermines the rule of law.
I urge the international community not to remain passive while powerful countries erode the principles that safeguard the world.
Till then, yours truly, Mr. Teetotaler!
The writer, Dr. Sunday de John, holds MBA and Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBChB) from the University of Nairobi, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences and Faculty of Medicine respectively. He is the current Chairman of the South Sudan United Front-Progressive and can be reached via drsundayalong4@gmail.com
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.