South Sudan’s religious congregations urged the country’s political leaders to ensure that the latest peace agreement holds, and they condemned the atrocities and violence carried out by both government forces and rebel groups over the past five months. “Too much blood has been shed in this land. Too many lives have been lost. Too much destruction has taken place. We want peace, stability and development for all citizens of our young nation,” the Religious Superiors’ Association of South Sudan said in a statement after its mid-May meeting in the capital, Juba. “As your brothers and sisters, we are all mindful of each child, each woman, each man, each elderly person who has been affected by violence,” it said. “The blood of thousands of innocent people cries for justice.” They urged South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, and the rebel leader Riek Machar, Kiir’s former vice president, to work for peace and reconciliation through dialogue. “Both government and rebel forces must be disciplined and kept under full control,” the association said, noting that the international convention on war and human rights “must be fully observed.”
Sudan: 'Too Much Blood Has Been Shed'
Show Comments (
)
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
The latest from america
A cosmopolitan stance—one that values other cultures while treasuring the unique gifts of one's own—is a necessary one in a world where Donald Trump is destroying the venturing spirit and generosity of the American people.
Pope Leo XIV called on world leaders to reject the temptation to use “powerful and sophisticated weapons,” as President Donald J. Trump aired the possibility of using massive bombs to destroy Iran’s Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant.
As Chicago’s “No Kings” protests against President Trump wound down Saturday afternoon, the celebration of Pope Leo at White Sox stadium began. Which made me wonder: Does one impact the other?
In judging the morality of an act of war, an easy ask is always: “Was the belligerent party left with no other recourse?” That does not appear to be true in this case.