In April this year, President Salva Kiir visited the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, where he had bilateral engagements with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Upon conclusion of the visit, the President’s office described the visit as “strategic, successful, and historic,” with discussions centered on political developments, economic cooperation, and regional security.
This engagement should not remain symbolic; it must be translated into deliberate reshaping of ties with Ethiopia, anchored in mutual strategic interests. In fact, it should mark a turning point in South Sudan’s strategic engagement in pursuing its regional economic and security interests. It should present an opportunity for the country to reassess and redefine its strategic interests with greater clarity and focus.
There is urgency for South Sudan to reassess its regional relations and adopt a more intentional, selective, and interest-driven approach. While the country is surrounded by several neighbors, not all partnerships with them equally advance the country’s economic and security priorities. Strategic alignment requires identifying and prioritizing partners that offer tangible and reliable benefits.
For the sake of this article, it is worth understanding what strategic economic and security interests I am referring to. In this context, strategic interest should be understood as the guiding principle upon which South Sudan evaluates all its external engagements. It refers to the country’s long-term priorities – those that guarantee its survival, stability, and prosperity as a sovereign state.
For South Sudan, this means pursuing partnerships that directly contribute to sustainable economic growth, internal security, infrastructure development, and regional integration. It also means safeguarding political independence and ensuring that no relationship undermines national unity or deepens fragility. Any partnership that fails to deliver tangible benefits in these areas, or worse, perpetuates dependency and instability, falls outside the country’s strategic interest; hence must be reviewed.
Therefore, South Sudan must return to the drawing board and reassess its regional partnerships. This recalibration should be guided strictly by the country’s strategic economic and security interests and pursued without compromise.
15-years of instability, fake partnerships
Nearly fifteen years after independence, South Sudan’s economic and security trajectory remains uncertain, swinging like a pendulum. Weak growth in domestic product, instability persists, and displacement has, in many respects, worsened.
Armed actors have multiplied, national unity has grown increasingly fragile, and even a Revitalized Peace Agreement has struggled to repair the country’s fractured social and political fabric. If anything, fear – of instability, of relapse, of the unknown – continues to grip both citizens and political leaders.
Meanwhile, relations with traditional partners such as the United States, United Kingdom and Norway have steadily weakened, despite their historical support during South Sudan’s most vulnerable moments – before independence. There is little indication that these ties will be restored soon.
At the same time, several regional actors continue to offer sweeping promises of support. Yet many of these commitments appear to be driven more by self-interest rather than genuine partnership. To say the least, they are fake. In some cases, South Sudan has been reduced to a subject of ridicule rather than treated as a sovereign state deserving of respect and meaningful cooperation.
This reality calls for a deliberate and critical reassessment of the country’s regional engagements. South Sudan must effectively ‘sieve’ its regional partnerships – retaining those that deliver tangible economic and security benefits per its interests while discarding those that perpetuate dependency or instability. Key questions must guide this process: Does this partnership advance national interests? What measurable benefits has it delivered over the past fifteen years? Does it strengthen the country, or keep it weak? Et cetera.
In this recalibration, Ethiopia stands out as a partner worthy of strategic prioritization – not out of sentiment, but out of clear, mutual interest and demonstrated regional relevance.
Unlike many actors whose engagement has been episodic, Ethiopia’s role in South Sudan has consistently intersected with both security and economic stabilization. From historic support to South Sudan during the liberation war with Khartoum, its frontline involvement in peace processes, hosting negotiations, and contributing peace troops under regional and continental frameworks, Ethiopia has positioned itself as a stabilizing force rather than a distant commentator. Its commitment has not been flawless, but it has been tangible.
Geographically, Ethiopia offers South Sudan a strategic gateway to the Horn of Africa and beyond. At a time when landlocked South Sudan urgently needs diversified trade corridors, infrastructure linkages with Ethiopia- roads, energy interconnections, and cross-border markets present a realistic pathway toward bolstering the country’s economy and reducing dependency on limited routes and partners. The potential for electricity trade, agricultural exchange, and industrial cooperation is not theoretical; it is immediate and achievable with political will.
More importantly, Ethiopia’s own developmental trajectory offers lessons in state-building under pressure. While contexts differ, its investments in infrastructure, regional integration, and institutional resilience provide a model that South Sudan can selectively learn from and adapt.
This does not mean blind alignment. Even with Ethiopia, engagement must remain grounded in national interest, clearly negotiated, and constantly evaluated. But if South Sudan is to move from rhetoric to results, it must begin to prioritize partners whose proximity, capacity, and strategic outlook align with its long-term stability.
The time has come to move beyond passive diplomacy and into deliberate selection. Not every hand extended in friendship is meant to lift; some are designed to hold down. Ethiopia, if engaged wisely, represents a hand that can help South Sudan stand.
The current situation of South Sudan places Ethiopia as a dependable partner. Historical ties between the two countries provide a strong foundation. It is worth noting that during the 21-year liberation struggle, Ethiopia – under Mengistu Haile Mariam – offered critical military, logistical, and humanitarian support to the SPLM/A. It hosted refugees, provided training bases, and contributed significantly to the movement’s resilience and eventual success. These historical bonds should now be leveraged to address present-day challenges.
Strengthening ties with Ethiopia is not only about history but also about present and future strategic value. As a neighboring state with growing economic capacity, Ethiopia offers South Sudan practical opportunities, particularly in energy cooperation. The development of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam positions Ethiopia as a key regional power supplier.
South Sudan, given its proximity, is well placed to benefit from reliable and affordable electricity imports, which are critical for industrial growth, infrastructure development, and overall economic transformation. In turn, Ethiopia gains a stable market for its power exports – creating a mutually beneficial partnership.
At a time when South Sudan faces persistent economic and security challenges, revising its ties with regional partners and prioritizing a strategic partnership with Ethiopia is not just an option – it is a necessity. A focused and pragmatic foreign policy, anchored in trusted and capable partnerships, will be essential for the country’s stability and long-term growth.
What to do
What must be done now is clear. The leadership of the South Sudan government should first have the will and intentionally formalize a revised and clearly defined strategic partnership with Ethiopia, one that sets out specific priorities, timelines, and measurable outcomes. This should not be a symbolic agreement, but a practical framework that provides direction on trade, infrastructure, energy cooperation, and security coordination.
Equally important is the need to reassess and strengthen South Sudan’s frontline diplomatic representation in Ethiopia. Effective diplomacy is not ceremonial. It is a strategic tool. Competent, well-resourced, and politically trusted envoys are essential to negotiate, protect, and advance the country’s strategic interests on a continuous basis. Without a capable and proactive diplomatic presence to drive and monitor implementation, even the most well-crafted agreements risk remaining on paper. A strong partnership, therefore, must be matched with strong representation.
The takeaway
In any diplomatic negotiations, it is all about the interests. What will South Sudan gain in reshaping its ties with Ethiopia? Well, a well-structured strategic partnership with Ethiopia offers South Sudan a realistic pathway to advance its strategic interests. It helps address some of the country’s most pressing economic and security constraints. At the core, it would help diversify trade routes and reduce the country’s overdependence on a narrow set of corridors, which often exposes it to disruptions and political vulnerabilities. Improved connectivity with Ethiopia would also expand access to regional markets and lower the cost of transporting goods, making trade more viable for both formal businesses and local producers.
Beyond trade, cooperation in energy stands out as a major opportunity. Access to more affordable and reliable electricity imports from Ethiopia, which the country currently could significantly support industrial development, urban services, and rural electrification, offering key foundations for long-term economic transformation. Industrialization and rural electrification mean opening up more employment opportunities in the private sector, considering the move will likely boost domestic trade. A stable and predictable partnership environment would also send positive signals to investors, potentially attracting Ethiopian and regional capital into sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and transport. In parallel, joint infrastructure development, particularly road networks linking border areas, would strengthen mobility, stimulate commerce, and better integrate isolated communities into national and regional economies.
On the security front, deeper bilateral coordination with Ethiopia could significantly enhance stability along the two countries’ shared frontier by improving efforts to combat cross-border crime, regulate armed movements, and address other transnational threats that frequently undermine peace and security. This is particularly important given that parts of South Sudan’s eastern regions, including areas of Bahr El Ghazal bordering Ethiopia, have for years experienced recurring insecurity and, at times, served as breeding grounds for pockets of rebellion and armed activities.
A strategic expansion of economic ties with Ethiopia could help address some of the underlying drivers of this insecurity. Increased trade, investment, and cross-border economic opportunities would empower communities economically and provide viable alternatives to involvement in armed groups or criminal activities. Communities with sustainable livelihoods, thriving businesses, and meaningful economic prospects are less likely to abandon these opportunities for the uncertainty of armed rebellion.
Moreover, stronger economic engagement would stimulate investment, create employment opportunities and improve the delivery of basic services. The presence of investors and businesses could also generate corporate social responsibility initiatives that directly benefit host communities. Ultimately, economic integration with Ethiopia should not be viewed merely as a commercial opportunity, but as a strategic instrument for promoting livelihoods, reducing the appeal of armed conflict and fostering long-term stability in South Sudan.
Additionally, Ethiopia’s relative experience in large-scale agricultural production and public infrastructure development offers opportunities for knowledge exchange and practical cooperation, particularly in improving food security and building resilient production systems within South Sudan. More broadly, such a partnership would strengthen South Sudan’s position within regional frameworks, enhancing its diplomatic leverage and integration into the Horn of Africa’s economic and political architecture.
Ultimately, this is not merely about bilateral cooperation; it is about repositioning South Sudan from fragmentation and dependency toward structured regional integration, where partnerships are measured by tangible contributions to stability, growth, and national resilience.
Pursuing a closer strategic alignment with Ethiopia is not without diplomatic implications. For South Sudan, such a recalibration may generate cautious reactions from traditional regional partners, particularly Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, and even Egypt, each of which undeniably has its own historical, political, and strategic interests in South Sudan and the wider region. However, the most important thing for South Sudan is to understand what serves its strategic economic and security interests. Fifteen years down the road after independence, without economic progress and stability, it is reasonable enough to make shifts in the country’s engagement with its neighbors in the effort to achieve the country’s strategic interests. All the leadership requires is the need for careful diplomatic balancing – deepening cooperation where national interest is served, while maintaining constructive and stable relations with key regional partners.
The writer a South Sudanese award-winning journalist and a student of Strategic Security Studies. He is passionate about promoting evidence-based policy dialogue on how modern security approaches can strengthen public safety and contribute to sustainable peace and national development. He can be reached at wakemurye@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.
and then