The Crisis in South Sudan
Lauren Ploch Blanchard
Specialist in African Affairs
January 9, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43344
The Crisis in South Sudan
Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
What led to the recent outbreak of violence? ............................................................................ 2
Who are the parties to the conflict and what are their goals? .................................................... 6
How has the crisis evolved? ...................................................................................................... 8
Placing the Crisis in Context ..................................................................................................... 9
Humanitarian Situation and Select Responses ............................................................................... 11
How does the fighting affect civilians and foreign nationals? ................................................. 11
How is the international community responding? ................................................................... 12
How has the United States responded to date? ........................................................................ 13
Conflict Resolution Efforts ............................................................................................... 13
U.S. Citizen and Embassy Protection Efforts .................................................................... 14
Select Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................. 14
U.S. Foreign Assistance .................................................................................................... 15
Mass Atrocity Prevention .................................................................................................. 18
Figures
Figure 1. South Sudan Crisis Map ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Key Figures in the Current Crisis or Recent Conflict in South Sudan ............................. 5
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Bilateral Foreign Assistance .................................................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 19
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
The Crisis in South Sudan
Overview
In December 2013, growing political tensions among key leaders in South Sudan erupted in
violence, just three years after the country gained independence from Sudan in an internationally-
supported public referendum. While the political dispute that triggered this crisis was not clearly
based on ethnic identity, it overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political grievances that
sparked armed clashes and targeted ethnic killings in the capital, Juba, and then beyond. The
fighting, which has occurred between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and forces loyal to
former Vice President Riek Machar, and among armed civilians, has caused a security and
humanitarian emergency that may be drawing the world’s newest country into another civil war.
More than 200,000 civilians have been internally displaced by the violence, including more than
60,000 who have sought refuge at U.N. peacekeeping bases.1 As many as 40,000 people have fled
to neighboring countries. By U.N. estimates, thousands have been killed, and U.N. officials
indicate that targeted attacks against civilians and U.N. personnel may constitute war crimes or
crimes against humanity.2 On December 24, the U.N. Security Council unanimously authorized a
substantial increase in peacekeeping forces for the U.N. Mission in the Republic of South Sudan
(UNMISS) through Resolution 2132 (2013). In prior remarks, the U.S. Permanent Representative
to the United Nations had stressed the urgency of the situation, noting the possibility of
“imminent confrontations at U.N. bases where civilians are gathered.”3
In response, the international community is mobilizing diplomatic, humanitarian, and
peacekeeping resources to protect civilians and facilitate an end to the violence. Given the
insecurity, many countries and aid agencies have evacuated their foreign nationals. This, together
with ongoing hostilities and related security concerns, constrains the humanitarian response. Four
U.S. military personnel were injured in an operation to evacuate U.S. citizens on December 21.
Talks between the parties began in January 2014, hosted by regional leaders in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Progress, to date, has been limited, as both sides wage fierce campaigns to gain and
hold ground, seeking to maximize their negotiating position prior to any ceasefire agreement. The
status of political figures detained by the government at the onset of the crisis remains a sticking
point. Diplomatic interventions by the United States and others, including China and Sudan, aim
stop the hostilities and prevent further civilian displacement. Meanwhile, the potential for
tensions among displaced communities to spark further violence is a growing concern.
The United States is the largest provider of bilateral foreign assistance to South Sudan and a
major financial contributor to peacekeeping efforts there. The United States historically supported
self-determination for the South Sudanese and played a major role in facilitating the 2005 peace
deal that brought an end to Africa’s longest-running civil war. Congress was active in supporting
South Sudan’s independence and plays an ongoing role in setting U.S. policy toward both Sudans.
As such, the Obama Administration and Congress face a series of complex questions as they seek
1 U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), “South Sudan Crisis: Situation Report as of 7
January 2014,” Report Number 8, January 7, 2014.
2 U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “Pillay Urges South Sudan Leadership to Curb
Alarming Violence Against Civilians,” December 24, 2013.
3U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Remarks by Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, At the Security Council Stakeout, December 23, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Crisis in South Sudan
to convince rival South Sudanese leaders to reengage in political dialogue and prevent further
human suffering. The future of what successive U.S. Administrations have considered to be an
important relationship with South Sudanese leaders is in question.
Members of Congress may choose to conduct additional oversight of U.S. efforts to secure U.S.
citizens, personnel, and property in South Sudan, as well as of U.S. assistance programs and U.S.
contributions to multiple U.N. peacekeeping missions in Sudan and South Sudan. The White
House has stated that the United States will hold leaders responsible for the conduct of their
forces and withhold U.S. support to any elements that use force to seize power.4 U.S. support to
South Sudan’s security services, now halted, may receive increased scrutiny given splits in the
military and reports of serious human rights abuses by armed actors on all sides. The President
has informed Congress that he “may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens,
personnel, and property, including our Embassy, in South Sudan.”5 He has deployed U.S. military
personnel to the region in support of this mission. Congress may consider how to respond,
including in any continuing appropriations legislation for FY2014 or in relation to FY2015
budget requests for the State Department and foreign operations.
This report explores key questions related to the conflict, summarizes the international response
to date, and outlines current U.S. policy and assistance. For additional background, see CRS
Report R42774, Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy.
What led to the recent outbreak of violence?
The current crisis reflects underlying tensions and mistrust among South Sudanese leaders and
ethnic groups that date back to Sudan’s civil war (1983-2005), and before. While the war was
described broadly as a north-south conflict, infighting among southern rebel commanders in the
1990s nearly derailed the southern bid for self-determination, as leaders of the insurgency, the
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/SPLA), competed for power and mobilized
supporters along ethnic lines, resulting in atrocities by all sides.6 The Sudan government in
Khartoum fueled SPLM splits by financing and arming breakaway factions. The major factions
reconciled in the early 2000s, although several smaller southern militias continued to operate.
In 2005, the Khartoum government and the SPLM signed a peace agreement to end the north-
south war. That deal, known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), paved the way for
national elections and a southern referendum on independence, after which South Sudan, led by
the SPLM in Juba, seceded on July 9, 2011. The relationship between the two countries remains
tense, with parts of the CPA yet to be fully implemented. Starting in January 2012, South Sudan’s
government, angered by Khartoum’s unilateral decisions regarding exports of South Sudanese oil
(which transits through Sudan for export), and by border disputes, suspended oil production for
more than a year.7 This led to fiscal austerity measures and economic shocks in both countries.
4 The White House, Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on South Sudan, December 31, 2013.
5 Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate, December 22, 2013.
6 The acronyms SPLM and SPLA refer to the political and armed wings of the former southern insurgency,
respectively. The SPLM is now South Sudan’s ruling party, and the SPLA refers to the country’s armed forces.
7 Sudan lost most of its oil reserves, now in South Sudan territory, in the north-south split. That oil must still transit
pipelines and facilities in Sudan for export. While both sides agreed that Sudan would benefit from some revenue
sharing and compensation in the near term, details remained unresolved after South Sudan gained independence.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Crisis in South Sudan
Figure 1. South Sudan Crisis Map
Source: Graphic created by CRS. Boundaries generated using data from ESRI, National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency, and State Department (al 2013), and U.N. Development Program (2012). Other areas and locations
based on maps from USAID (01/07/14) and Drilling Info International. Humanitarian data from UNOCHA.
Most SPLM leaders put aside their differences in the latter years of the independence struggle,
choosing to focus on presenting a unified front and, in some cases, positioning themselves for
political office in a new state. However, simmering ethnic tensions and bitter interpersonal
rivalries remained present, growing under the strains of establishing governing institutions and
assuming increased development responsibilities amid severe human, institutional, and
infrastructure capacity constraints. Political maneuvering in advance of 2015 elections added to
Congressional Research Service
3
The Crisis in South Sudan
these dynamics, with allegations of leaders using ethnic patronage to solidify their bases.8 Work
on a new constitution stalled. Amidst such pressures, an escalating political struggle among senior
SPLM members unfolded, as key figures traded accusations of unilateral decision-making,
corruption, and bad faith, and top officials moved to isolate potential rivals. President Kiir’s July
2013 announcement of a major cabinet reshuffle, in which Vice President Machar and several
other key officials were removed from office, formalized a major fissure in the ruling party.
Meetings of the SPLM party leadership in December 2013 brought these tensions to the fore as
leading figures publicly aired grievances against each other. On the night of December 15, 2013,
following one of the meetings, fighting reportedly broke out among members of the presidential
guard. The initial conflict appears to have occurred between soldiers from the country’s two
largest ethnic groups, the Dinka and the Nuer (largest and second largest), who claimed loyalty to
either Kiir or Machar, respectively. The fighting subsequently spread to the military headquarters,
and by December 16 gunfire was reported throughout Juba. Since then, the conflict has expanded
to other parts of the country, including the eastern state of Jonglei, where more than 100,000
people were already displaced by ongoing inter-communal violence and instability.
In Juba, senior political and military figures were arrested for what President Kiir describes as a
failed coup attempt, led by Machar. Those who were arrested denied the allegations. U.S. officials
indicate they have seen no evidence of a coup attempt.9 Nevertheless, forces that now claim
loyalty to Machar, who evaded arrest, subsequently took control of the capitals of Jonglei and
Unity States, and on December 23 Machar claimed that he had taken control of oil fields in Unity
and Upper Nile State.10 SPLA forces loyal to Kiir launched offensives to regain territory in
Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile, and fighting in the contested states has been fierce as the rival
forces struggle to take and hold maximum territory prior to a possible ceasefire. Most foreign aid
staff and oil workers in these states have been evacuated or have sought protection at U.N. bases.
Several other states have since been affected by violence.
The Status of Oil Production
After the 2012 shutdown, oil production in South Sudan restarted in April 2013, fol owing revenue sharing
negotiations between Juba and Khartoum. Exports resumed in June 2013. The country’s active oil fields are located in
Unity and Upper Nile States, which have been among the areas worst affected by the current fighting. Prior to the
2012 shutdown, South Sudan produced an estimated 350,000 barrels per day (bpd), accounting for 98% of
government revenues, although by many accounts oil revenue has been a major source for state corruption. Damage
to some of the fields, which had occurred during the shutdown process in January 2012 or during subsequent air
strikes, was expected to delay a return to pre-shutdown levels until at least mid-2014. Experts warned that future
shutdowns, particularly if they were to last more than six months, might cause lasting damage.
Machar’s forces have sought to control the fields in the current fighting, likely to gain leverage for negotiations. The
fields in Upper Nile and Unity represent 80% and 20% of production, respectively.11 Amid the hostilities, Sudanese
officials report that production averaging 200,000 bpd has continued in Upper Nile, while fields in Unity, which were
producing some 45,000 bpd before the fighting started, were shut down when oil workers evacuated.12 Sudan, which
has denied involvement in the crisis, has offered technical support to the Kiir government to maintain production.
Initial reports that Sudan might send troops for a joint force to protect the oil fields have been subsequently denied.
8 Peter Greste, “Thinking Outside the Ethnic Box in S Sudan,” Al Jazeera, December 28, 2013.
9 Testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC),
The Situation in South Sudan, January 9, 2014.
10 Radio Tamazuj (Juba), “Salva Kiir: ‘We lost control over Unity State and Jonglei,’” December 23, 2013.
11 Luke Patey, “South Sudan: Fighting Could Cripple Oil Industry for Decades,” African Arguments, January 10, 2014.
12 “Khartoum Says Oil Flows from South Sudan’s Upper Nile State Remain Stable,” Sudan Tribune, January 7, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Crisis in South Sudan
Figure 2. Key Figures in the Current Crisis or Recent Conflict in South Sudan
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Crisis in South Sudan
Who are the parties to the conflict and what are their goals?
In the 1990s, during Sudan’s north-south war, former Vice President Riek Machar was a senior
Nuer SPLA commander who, along with others, split from the SPLM/A, citing grievances with
the centralized leadership of the SPLM under John Garang, a Dinka, alleged human rights abuses,
and disagreements on the objectives of the insurgency against Khartoum.13 Machar and his allies,
who were primarily ethnic Nuer and Shilluk, later allied themselves with the government in
Khartoum and briefly held positions in the Sudanese government. Machar’s struggle with
Garang’s forces cost thousands of southern Sudanese lives—Amnesty International estimated that
2,000 civilians, mostly Dinka, were killed in a series of raids referred to as the Bor Massacre by
Nuer forces under Machar’s command.14 Abuses against civilians by both sides fueled ethnic
hatred and fighting, particularly in the Greater Upper Nile area (now northern Jonglei, Unity, and
Upper Nile states) throughout the 1990s. Machar reconciled with the SPLM in the early 2000s
and assumed the third-highest post in the leadership structure, after Garang and his deputy, Salva
Kiir. After John Garang died in a helicopter crash in 2005, shortly after the signing of the 2005
peace accord, Kiir then became head of the SPLM, with Machar as his deputy.
Sudan held national elections in 2010, prior to the 2011 referendum on southern independence.
As part of the CPA deal, the SPLM had formed a temporary Government of National Unity with
Sudan’s ruling party. Salva Kiir, as chairman of the SPLM, served as first vice president under
Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, and concurrently as president of a then-semi-autonomous
Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS). Rather than Kiir running against Bashir in 2010, the
SPLM decided to field a northern candidate on their national ticket. Kiir, who by many accounts
viewed secession as imminent, instead ran to retain the GoSS presidency, winning the position
with almost 93% of the votes cast.15 As incumbent GoSS president, Kiir retained his post, now as
president of the Republic of South Sudan, under a transitional constitution after independence,
with Machar remaining his vice president, for a four-year term beginning July 9, 2011.16
Efforts by senior leaders, often led by Kiir, to seek reconciliation with various armed groups and
among communities throughout South Sudan have been ongoing for more than a decade. As part
of these efforts, and out of apparent concern for the country’s political stability, Kiir granted
amnesty to several individuals who once led rebellions against the SPLM. In addition to Machar,
other faction leaders who returned to the party were often incorporated into either the government
or the security forces; many brought their forces with them, adding to the government’s new
challenge of reforming and “right-sizing” the increasingly bloated security sector. Some faction
leaders, including Peter Gadet, another Nuer commander who fought against Garang during the
civil war, received senior posts in the SPLA (which now refers to South Sudan’s armed forces).17
13 For additional information, see, e.g., Douglas H. Johnson, The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars, 2003.
14 The raids took place from September through November 1991 as forces loyal to Machar advanced on the town of
Bor, which was considered Garang’s home territory. Reprisal raids against Nuer areas followed. Amnesty International,
“Sudan: A Continuing Human Rights Crisis,” AI Index: AFR 54/03/92, April 15, 1992. See also Human Rights Watch,
Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, June 1, 1994.
15 See, e.g., The Carter Center, Observing Sudan’s 2010 National Elections, April 11-18, 2010: Final Report.
16 Under South Sudan’s current transitional constitution, the vice president is appointed by the president and may be
removed by him, or by a two-thirds majority of the legislature on a vote of no confidence.
17 For further information on armed groups and realignments in South Sudan, see reports by the Small Arms Survey’s
Human Security Baseline Assessment for Sudan and South Sudan, at http://www.smallarmssurvey.org, and Lesley Ann
Warner, “Armed-Group Amnesty and Military Integration in South Sudan, The RUSI Journal, December 2013.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Crisis in South Sudan
In 2013, President Kiir made major changes to his government in a stated effort to downsize and
address governance concerns, but also, it appears, in response to perceived threats to his
leadership and international donor pressure to crack down on state corruption. He replaced two
state governors, both elected in 2010, by presidential decree. In June, he dismissed two senior
cabinet ministers over alleged corruption charges, and conducted a major cabinet reshuffle in
July, removing Vice President Machar and his entire cabinet. Kiir also dismissed ruling party
secretary-general Pagan Amum, who had been publicly critical of the dismissals. The SPLM-
dominated parliament approved a new, leaner cabinet in August (after rejecting one of Kiir’s
appointees). Among his notable appointments was naming the powerful Dinka governor of the
volatile Jonglei state as defense minister; Kiir in turn appointed the previous defense minister, a
Nuer seen as loyal to Kiir, to assume the Jonglei governorship. Jonglei, which is believed to have
significant untapped oil reserves, has been a historic flashpoint for inter-ethnic fighting,
including, at various times, clashes between Nuer and Murle, Murle and Dinka, as well as
between Nuer and Dinka. Given its mixed ethnic composition and existing tensions, the Jonglei
capital, Bor, was among the first areas where fighting spread during the current crisis.
Key Political Figures Detained or Wanted by the Government of South Sudan
After the outbreak of violence, President Kiir ordered the detention of several key figures in the SPLM. Some are
members of the SPLM’s Political Bureau (the highest unit of the party): Pagan Amum, Riek Machar, Deng Alor, John
Luk Jok, Kosti Manibe, and Taban Deng, and they represent a range of ethnic groups (Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk, and
Equatorian groups). The government publicly insisted that it did not seek the arrest of another PB member, Rebecca
Garang (John Garang’s widow), who was seen as politically aligned with Machar in December 2013, despite rumors to
the contrary. Facing international pressure, the government announced on December 27 that it would release several
of the detainees, while continuing to hold three (Alor, Manibe, and Amum) on criminal charges of corruption. Only
one detainee was ultimately released; the rest have remained a focus of negotiations.
Riek Machar—Deputy Chairman of the SPLM and former Vice President of South Sudan. Wanted; at large.
Deng Alor Kuol—Former Minister of Cabinet Affairs (2011-July 2013), Interim Foreign Minister (2011),
Government of Sudan Foreign Minister (2007-2010). Removed by Ki r on corruption al egations. Detained.
Oyai Deng Ajak—Former Minister of National Security, Office of the President (2011-July 2013); SPLA Chief of
Staff (pre-CPA until 2009, when he was renamed GoSS Min of Regional Cooperation). Detained.
John Luk Jok—Former Minister of Justice (2011-July 2013). Detained.
Kosti Manibe—Former Minister of Finance (2011-July 2013); Removed by Ki r on corruption al egations. Detained.
Gier Chuang Aluong—Former Minister of Roads and Bridges (2011-July 2013), GoSS Minister of Internal Affairs,
SPLA ret. Major General. Detained.
Majak d’Agoot—Former Deputy Defense Minister (2011-July 2013). Detained.
Madut Bier—Former Minister for Telecomm & Postal Services (2011-July 2013). Detained.
Cirino Iteng/Hiteng—Former Minister of Culture, Youth & Sports (2011-July 2013), GoSS Deputy Minister for
Regional Cooperation. Detained.
Kuol Tong Mayay—Former Governor of Lakes State (elected 2010-July 2013) removed by Ki r in January 2013 and
replaced by military “caretaker” governor. Detained.
Pagan Amum—Suspended SPLM Secretary General and lead SPLM negotiator in peace talks with Sudan. Detained.
Ezekial lol Gatkuoth—Former Head of Mission, South Sudan Embassy in the United States (2011-2012). Detained.
Peter Adwok Nyaba—Former Minister of Higher Education, Science & Technology (2011-2012). Released 12/27.
Taban Deng—Former Governor of Unity State, SPLA Lieutenant General retired by Kiir in 2013, Wanted; at large.
Alfed Ladu Gore—Former Minister of Environment. Wanted; at large.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Crisis in South Sudan
The political dispute that appears to have triggered this crisis was not based on ethnic identity or a
communal dispute. The leaders who were aligned with Machar prior to the onset of fighting
represent multiple ethnic groups. Broadly, Machar and his political allies contend that President
Kiir has become increasingly dictatorial, using corruption allegations to sideline perceived rivals,
increasingly condoning human rights violations and abandoning the ideals of the independence
struggle, and letting “regional and ethnic lobbies” override collective decision making within the
ruling party.18 To Kiir and those loyal to him, Machar’s charges were seen as politically
motivated, and part of a long personal quest for power.
How has the crisis evolved?
Since the outbreak of fighting on December 15, the rhetoric from both the Kiir and Machar camps
has been at times bellicose and at other times conciliatory. On December 16, President Kiir
appeared in military fatigues for a press conference in which he publicly accused Machar of
orchestrating a coup attempt, drawing criticism from some observers that this posture may have
raised tensions.19 Machar, speaking to the press on December 18, denied the charges, suggesting
that the fighting was a misunderstanding among the presidential guard and that Kiir, whom he
claimed was “no longer a legal president,” had condoned targeted attacks on Nuer in Juba.20
Reports of a mutiny by Nuer soldiers in Bor and ethnic clashes in Unity emerged the same day.
By December 21, Machar had openly declared rebellion, stating that the forces that had mutinied
in Jonglei and Unity, purportedly in response to the attacks on Nuer, were now loyal to him.21
As noted above, several politicians who had publicly shared Machar’s political views of Kiir’s
leadership were detained soon after the violence began. Access to the detained was limited until
the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan was able to visit them on December 24 to
confirm their wellbeing. U.S. officials suggest that these figures may be crucial to negotiations
between the opposing factions. Machar demanded their release as a precondition for dialogue,
calling for one of the detained, Pagan Amum, to lead a negotiating team for talks in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, on his behalf. Kiir, in contrast, called for talks without preconditions. On December 27,
Kiir announced that he would release most of the detainees as a goodwill gesture, but that three,
including Amum, would remain in detention based on pre-existing criminal charges, related to
corruption. As of January 2, only one detainee has been released.
Under pressure from regional mediators and others in the international community, Kiir agreed
“in principle” to an immediate cessation of hostilities and to peaceful dialogue on December 29.
At the same time, government forces continued operations to retake rebel-seized areas.22 Machar
expressed skepticism of the government’s ceasefire offer, reiterating his call for all detainees to be
released and suggesting that mechanisms for monitoring a ceasefire be established through
negotiations first.23 Both sides agreed on December 31 to send teams to Ethiopia. While talks are
18 “Senior SPLM Colleagues Give Kiir Ultimatum Over Party Crisis,” Sudan Tribune, December 6, 2013.
19 See, e.g., Akshaya Kumar of the Enough Project, “South Sudan’s Salva Kiir Needs to Put His Black Hat Back On,”
Al Jazeera America, December 20, 2013.
20 “South Sudan Ex-VP Denies Coup Attempt, Labels Kiir ‘Illegal President,’” Sudan Tribune, December 18, 2013.
21 BBC Correspondent James Copnall interview with Machar, reported via Twitter on December 21, 2013.
22 “Defected Commander in Unity State Confirms Presence of Sudanese Rebels,” Sudan Tribune, December 29, 2013.
23 “South Sudan Rebel Leader Riek Machar Wary of Truce Offer,” BBC News, December 27, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Crisis in South Sudan
underway, however, many observers expect fighting between government and rebel forces to
continue until a formal cessation of hostilities deal is reached.
While complex and politically driven, the violence since mid-December 2013 in many cases
appears to have followed ethnic lines, with Dinka-on-Nuer violence reported in Juba and Nuer-
on-Dinka violence (and vice versa) reported in parts of Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile. In Juba,
many civilians seeking refuge with UNMISS have been Nuer, according to U.N. officials, and
reports indicate that Nuer were initially targeted by Dinka security forces in the capital. The
situation elsewhere is volatile, with clashes reported in seven of the country’s 10 states. In the
first two weeks of the crisis, UNMISS reports, “most of the more brutal atrocities are reported to
have been carried out by people wearing uniform.”24 However, given the splits in the security
forces, this could be considered an accusation against both government and “rebel” forces.
As the fighting has spread beyond Juba to multiple state capitals and outlying areas, the role of
other armed actors in the violence is a serious concern, with the potential to spiral beyond the
control of political and military leaders. On December 21, civilians sheltering at a UNMISS
peacekeeping base in Akobo (in eastern Jonglei state) were attacked by a group of 2,000 armed
Nuer youth, according to U.N. officials.25 More than 20 Dinka civilians were reportedly killed,
along with two Indian peacekeepers; another peacekeeper was injured in the attack. The media
and UNMISS have reported on movements in Jonglei of large numbers of armed men,
collectively referred to by some as the “White Army” (a term used to describe a grouping of
armed Nuer youth that periodically unite for community defense and cattle raiding, and in
reference to a group that was aligned with Machar’s faction in the 1990s). This force, whose
composition and leadership fluctuates, has been described by experts as sometimes, but not
always, under the control of Nuer community leaders.26 The extent to which Machar may “lead,’
or be able to control this group is unclear.
Placing the Crisis in Context
The potential for this crisis was not unforeseen—the violence was triggered by political disputes
among elites that had long been predicted by analysts, and reflects underlying ethnic tensions.27
Those tensions have waxed and waned among communities that have historically competed for
scarce water and grazing land, and who have remained armed in the aftermath of the Sudanese
civil war.28 As reports of new atrocities along ethnic lines emerge, the prospects for diffusing
these communal tensions may becoming increasingly poor. State Department travel advisories
since independence have warned of the potential for violence, not only between the security
forces of Sudan and South Sudan, but also between the armed forces and multiple rebel militias.
The State Department has repeatedly warned such internal clashes could “exacerbate ethnic
tensions throughout the country, leading to further violence.” These warnings have further
24 “’Mounting Evidence of Human Rights Violations’: UNMISS,” U.N. Press Release, December 31, 2013.
25 UNMISS Press Release, “UNMISS Issues Preliminary Account of Akobo Base Attack,” December 20, 2013.
26 For more information, see, e.g., John Young, The White Army: An Introduction and Overview, Small Arms Survey,
June 2007 and Small Arms Survey, “My Neighbour, My Enemy: Inter-tribal Violence in Jonglei,” October 2012.
27 See, e.g., Susan Stigant, “South Sudan’s Political Turmoil,” U.S. Institute of Peace, August 1, 2013; and Alex Vines,
“Who Can Halt the Crisis in South Sudan?” The Guardian, December 26, 2013.
28 See, e.g., The International Crisis Group (ICG), South Sudan: Compounding Instability in Unity State, Africa Report
No. 179, October 17, 2011, and Politics and Transition in the New South Sudan, Africa Report No. 172, April 4, 2011.
See also various reports of the U.N. Secretary-General on South Sudan, including S/2013/651, November 8 2013.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Crisis in South Sudan
cautioned U.S. citizens that South Sudan’s government has “limited capacity to deter crime or
provide security” and that “security forces often operate outside civilian control and laws
governing due process and treatment of detainees are often ignored.”
In its own “fragility assessment,” conducted in 2012 as part of the New Deal for International
Engagement in Fragile States, the South Sudan government stated that “large-scale internal
conflict” had “markedly decreased,” and said that “initiatives” had been “put in place to address
inter-tribal clashes recurring in some parts of the country.”29 However, the assessment stated that
“sustainable implementation of internal peace initiatives, in particular for Jonglei state [had] not
yet been achieved,” and acknowledged challenges stemming from the “proliferation of small
arms.” The government further sought to “improve the behavior, effectiveness, and accountability
of a broad range of security actors,” some of whom now have been drawn into internal conflict.
Small arms proliferated during the civil war, and efforts to disarm communities in its aftermath,
particularly efforts led by the SPLA, have been contentious and often accompanied by charges of
ethnic favoritism by commanders and abuses against rival communities. SPLA disarmament
campaigns in the Greater Upper Nile area have been particularly problematic in the context of
ongoing and emergent rebellions by various militias, most of which are organized along ethnic
lines that correspond to ethnic groups perceived to have fought as proxies of Khartoum against
the SPLM/A during the north-south war (e.g., the Nuer, Shilluk, and Murle).30 Many local
communities in this area have also sought to retain their weapons for self-defense, and armed
cattle raids have remained a recurrent source of violence there.
The South Sudan government’s incorporation of former militia fighters into its armed forces has
further contributed to an over-sized military with little or no professional training and loose
command and control.31 The United States and other donors have invested considerable resources
in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs and security sector
transformation initiatives. However, challenges associated with making these reforms in the
context of inter-communal mistrust, massive underdevelopment, and few near-term prospects for
employment for ex-combatants are immense.
The fracturing of South Sudan’s leadership, the various factions’ resort to violence, and the
resurrection of dormant ethnic grievances may have negative long-term effects on the country,
whether events triggering the crisis were, in fact, part of a coup attempt, a mutiny, or spontaneous
fighting. International leaders emphasize that the conflict is inherently political and requires a
political solution. Rebuilding trust among political leaders, and between communities directly
affected by ethnic violence, may prove increasingly difficult the longer the crisis continues.
29 The New Deal concept was created by a group of conflict-affected countries as a new country-owned and country-led
mechanism for engagement with international partners, including donors, civil society groups, and others working in
fragile states. Introduced in 2011, it has been endorsed by the United States, and South Sudan is among its Pilot
Countries. See http://www.newdeal4peace.org and http://www.g7plus.org.
30 Small Arms Survey, “Fighting for Spoils: Armed Insurgencies in Greater Upper Nile,” November 2011.
31 The size of South Sudan’s armed forces has been subject to debate, ranging between 150,000 to 200,000. For more
information on the security sector and related reform challenges, see John A. Snowden, Work in Progress: Security
Fore Development in South Sudan Through February 2012, Small Arms Survey, June 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Crisis in South Sudan
Humanitarian Situation and Select Responses
How does the fighting affect civilians and foreign nationals?
The current crisis worsens humanitarian conditions in a country facing acute needs.32 Fighting
and rising insecurity have contributed to deteriorating conditions that are further impacted by the
evacuation of many international relief workers. The protection of civilians is currently the
primary humanitarian challenge in South Sudan, and reports indicate that the security forces are,
in many areas, divided and/or unable to provide security for either residents or foreigners. In
some areas, reports by human rights groups suggest that members of the security forces may have
committed serious abuses against civilians.33
U.N. peacekeeping mission personnel have limited capacity to protect civilians—under its
existing mandate, UNMISS is authorized by the U.N. Security Council to protect civilians under
imminent threat of physical violence “within its capabilities and in its areas of deployment.”34
While the Security Council has authorized an increase in the force size of UNMISS, the mission’s
resources remain constrained given large-scale displacements in a country the size of France, with
extremely little infrastructure. The lack of paved roads outside the capital significantly hinders the
mobility of both South Sudanese security forces and U.N. peacekeepers. Prior to the onset of the
crisis, the Security Council reiterated in multiple resolutions that the government of South Sudan
has the primary responsibility for conflict prevention and civilian protection, with UNMISS
playing a supporting role.35 Amid reports of abuses by elements of the security forces, this
dynamic places U.N. forces in an increasingly difficult position vis-à-vis the host government.
More than 60,000 people have sought refuge at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the first three weeks
of the fighting. As of January 7, the United Nations conservatively estimated that more than
200,000 people had been displaced by the conflict, with the real figure likely much higher, given
limited access to civilians outside population centers.36 Delivering assistance to those in need is a
top priority for relief agencies, where security allows. Hygiene and sanitation have emerged as
problems in areas where the displaced are gathering, and U.N. officials indicate that food, water,
healthcare, and shelter are urgently needed. The United Nations has issued an emergency appeal
for $166 million to address immediate needs, including those of Sudanese refugees currently
residing in camps in South Sudan.37 This funding represents the most urgently required resources
from an overall $1.1 billion 2014 aid appeal for enduring humanitarian needs in South Sudan.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay reported on December 24 that “mass
extrajudicial killings, the targeting of individuals on the basis of their ethnicity and arbitrary
32 Prior to the outbreak of violence in December 2013, the United Nations estimated that more than one-third of the
population required assistance. U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), South Sudan:
Consolidated Appeal 2014-2016, November 14, 2013.
33 See Human Rights Watch, “South Sudan: Soldiers Target Ethnic Group in Juba Fighting,” December 19, 2013.
34 UNMISS’s mandate was defined by the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 1996 (2011).
35 UNMISS’s civilian protection mandate, set out in Resolution 1996 (2011), includes taking the necessary actions to
protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence, irrespective of the source of that violence.
36 Displaced figures from UNOCHA, “South Sudan Crisis: Situation Report as of January 7, 2014,” op. cit.
37 UNOCHA, “Aid Agencies in South Sudan Need $166 Million Now to Save Lives of People Caught in Crisis,”
December 25, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Crisis in South Sudan
detentions have been documented in recent days.” She also expressed concern about the safety of
detainees, including several hundred civilians who were reportedly arrested in Juba and hundreds
of police who were also reported arrested across the capital.38
Fighting in Unity and Upper Nile States not only threatens local residents but may also worsen
conditions for refugees who have fled the ongoing conflict in the neighboring Sudanese states of
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Fighting between Sudanese forces and insurgents in those
states has led some 200,000 refugees to seek shelter and assistance in camps in South Sudan since
2011. Foreign aid workers were evacuated, for example, from Yida refugee camp, which hosts
more than 70,000 refugees from Southern Kordofan. The fighting has also affected aid deliveries
to the Maban refugee camps in Upper Nile.
How is the international community responding?
Despite various reports of civilian-on-civilian violence and the opportunistic mobilization of
militias as the conflict has unfolded, world leaders emphasize that this crisis is inherently political
and requires a political solution. Many, including President Obama, U.N. Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon, and Pope Francis have cautioned South Sudan’s leaders and participants in the conflict
that their actions threaten gains made since independence and the future of the country.39 The
African Union (AU) has expressed “deep dismay and disappointment” at “the failure of political
leaders in the country to live up to the hopes and aspirations of their citizens,” and has publicly
urged President Kiir to release the detainees to facilitate talks between the opposing sides.40
The U.N. Secretary-General warned on December 24, “the world is watching all sides in South
Sudan,” announcing that the U.N. was bolstering efforts to investigate reports of human rights
violations and crimes against humanity and declaring that “those responsible at the senior level
will be held personally accountable and face the consequences—even if they claim they had no
knowledge of the attacks.”41 He stated, “Now is the time for South Sudan’s leaders to show their
people and the world that they are, above all, committed to preserving the unity of the nation.”
The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2132 (2013) on December 24 in
response to the crisis.42 Further deliberations are expected in January. The resolution, which calls
for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the opening of political dialogue, supports an
increase in the military component of UNMISS from an authorized 7,000 to 12,500 troops and in
the police component from 900 to 1,323 personnel. It additionally authorizes the Secretary-
General to facilitate inter-mission cooperation and, “if needed and subject to further Council
consideration,” complementary force and asset generation, including through the possible transfer
of troops and force enablers from other U.N. missions.43 U.N. efforts to mobilize these resources
38 OHCHR, “Pillay Urges South Sudan Leadership to Curb Alarming Violence Against Civilians,” December 24, 2013.
39 See, e.g., The White House, Statement by the President on South Sudan, December 19, 2013; The Holy See, Urbi Et
Orbi Message of Pope Francis: Christmas 2013, December 25, 2013.
40 African Union, Press Statement of the 410th Meeting of the Peace and Security Council on the Situation in South
Sudan, December 24, 2013.
41 United Nations, Secretary-General’s Press Conference at U.N. Headquarters, New York, December 23, 2013.
42 Draft resolution S/2013/760 was co-sponsored by eight Council members: Australia, France, Luxembourg, the
Republic of Korea, Rwanda, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Togo. Its unanimous adoption responded to
the request of the U.N. Secretary-General on December 23.
43 U.N. Security Council, Resolution 2132 (2013), December 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Crisis in South Sudan
are underway, although it remains unclear how quickly new forces can be deployed, and how any
potential transfer from other missions might affect competing needs elsewhere on the continent,
including for the crisis currently underway in the Central African Republic.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the East Africa regional group that
led the peace negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan in the early 2000s, has sought to
mediate talks between key leaders in the crisis with the support of the U.N. and the AU. Special
envoys from the United States and the European Union are also playing a role. Concurrently,
South Sudan’s influential church leaders have initiated reconciliation efforts. High-level IGAD
engagement has pushed both sides to send negotiation teams to Ethiopia. Comments to the media
by Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, who has deployed troops to South Sudan, warning that
regional leaders had agreed to take action “to defeat” Machar if he doesn’t agree to a ceasefire,
may also have played a role, although the perception of bias toward President Kiir by Museveni
may complicate IGAD’s mediation effort going forward.44
How has the United States responded to date?
Conflict Resolution Efforts
Top U.S. officials have engaged both South Sudanese leaders and key figures in Africa and the
international community to seek a mediated solution to the current crisis. Obama Administration
officials have referred to the U.S.-South Sudan relationship as one based on “deep ties” and an
“affinity” cast in the context of American public sentiment toward the South Sudanese that
developed during the civil war.45 Despite increasing strains in recent years, Secretary of State
John Kerry and others, including National Security Advisor Susan Rice, have acknowledged a
“personal stake” in finding a resolution to the crisis.46 In addition to private calls made by
Secretary Kerry and Susan Rice and public comments made by President Obama, U.S. Special
Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan Donald Booth and U.S. Ambassador Susan Page are engaging
both sides in the region. The envoy, who previously served as Ambassador to Ethiopia, has
offered U.S. support to the regional mediation effort in Addis Ababa.
The State Department has underscored that “there can be no military solution to this conflict.
Forcing a durable and lasting peace depends on resolving the underlying political causes of the
conflict.”47 The State Department has urged the immediate release of the “political detainees,”
whose presence U.S. officials describe as key to discussions of political issues, while at the same
time urging that the status of detainees not be used as a precondition for a cessation of hostilities.
44 The Ugandan military has deployed forces inside South Sudan not only to evacuate its citizens but to “secur[e]
critical infrastructure and installations” in South Sudan, an effort IGAD leaders have commended and pledged to
support. Communique of the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government on
the Situation in South Sudan, Nairobi, Kenya, December 27, 2013. “Uganda Says Region Ready to Take On, Defeat
South Sudan Rebel Leader,” Reuters, December 30, 2013. See also “Machar Says Ugandan Jet Bombed S. Sudan Rebel
Positions,” Sudan Tribune, December 27, 2013.
45 For further context on Obama Administration views of the U.S.-South Sudan relationship, see Princeton Lyman,
“The United States and South Sudan: A Relationship Under Pressure,” The Ambassadors Review, Fall 2013, available
at http://www.americanambassadors.org.
46 Remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry during a Solo Press Availability in Jerusalem, January 5, 2014.
47 State Department Spokesperson Maria Harf, Beginning of Direct Talks on South Sudan, January 4, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Crisis in South Sudan
The White House has stated that the United States will hold leaders responsible for the conduct of
their forces and will withhold U.S. support to any elements that use force to seize power.48
U.S. Citizen and Embassy Protection Efforts
The U.S. Embassy in Juba has suspended normal operations and the Administration ordered the
departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel, commencing evacuation operations for
U.S. citizens on December 18. At that time, the President ordered 45 combat-equipped U.S.
military personnel to Juba “to protect U.S. citizens and property.”49 A further drawdown of U.S.
government personnel was conducted on January 3, due to deteriorating security conditions, and
the State Department announced that the Embassy could no longer provide consular services to
U.S. citizens. The U.S. Ambassador has remained in Juba, along with a security detail and
minimal key personnel.
On December 21, 2013, President Obama ordered 46 additional U.S. military personnel deployed
by military aircraft to Bor, the capital of Jonglei State, to evacuate U.S. citizens who were
sheltering at a U.N. base. The aircraft was fired upon during the approach, and the operation was
aborted. Four U.S. military personnel were injured in the attack and evacuated for medical
treatment. The following day, the United States, in coordination with the United Nations,
evacuated U.S. citizens and others from Bor on U.N. and civilian helicopters.50 The President has
informed Congress in a message he described as “consistent with the War Powers Resolution”
that he “may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel, and property,
including our Embassy, in South Sudan.”51 On December 23, U.S. Defense Department officials
stated that forces were being repositioned in the region to facilitate “maximum flexibility to
respond to State Department requests.”52 Going forward, this crisis may test U.S. Africa
Command’s new rapid response capacity, which has drawn interest from Congress in the
aftermath of the September 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
Select Issues for Congress
The United States, which is the single largest bilateral aid donor to South Sudan, has invested
significant resources in its development. In recent congressional testimony, responding to a
question about why the current crisis matters to the United States, the State Department’s senior
Africa official explained “we birthed this nation,” suggesting that the Administration views the
situation there with particular urgency.53 Peace and stability among the Sudanese has long been a
key focus of U.S. foreign policy makers in Africa and a sustained issue of bipartisan
48 The White House, Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on South Sudan, December 31, 2013.
49 President Barack Obama, Report Consistent with War Powers Resolution, December 19, 2013.
50 State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki, “U.S. Citizen Evacuation in South Sudan,” December 22, 2013.
51 Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate, December 22, 2013.
52 “U.S. Calls for Immediate Talks in South Sudan,” Armed Forces Press Service, December 25, 2013. Deployed forces
include those from the Djibouti-based Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa’s (CJTF-HOA’s) East Africa
Response Force and a Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force based in Moron, Spain. See CJTF-HOA Public
Affairs, “Response Force Deploys for First Time,” December 26, 2013. See also, Richard Sisk, “South Sudan Crisis
Tests US Marine Response,” Military.com, December 26, 2013.
53 Testimony of Assistant Secretary Thomas-Greenfield, SFRC, January 9, 2014, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
14
The Crisis in South Sudan
congressional attention.54 Congressional engagement in Sudan and South Sudan has historically
been driven largely by human rights and humanitarian concerns. With South Sudan’s emergence
as an independent country, the focus has expanded beyond north-south dynamics to an increasing
examination of South Sudanese leaders’ records on these matters in the context of oversight of
expanded U.S. aid to the new country. Given evolving U.S. military deployments to the region in
response to the current crisis, some Members may further seek to engage the Obama
Administration on the role of those forces and the resources required to support them.
Members of Congress, including the Congressional Caucus on Sudan and South Sudan, have
frequently engaged South Sudanese leaders directly. The leadership of the Senate Foreign
Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees, for example, sent a letter to President Kiir in
August 2013 noting historic U.S. support for the people of South Sudan but expressing increasing
concern about human rights conditions, particularly in Jonglei. In response, Kiir emphasized that
improving security and preventing communal violence were top priorities for his government,
and noted measures that his government had taken in response to abuses in Jonglei. He made
assurances that there would “never be a government policy to cleanse any ethnic group” while he
was president. He also suggested that “without the sustained engagement of the United States
Government and its People,” the peace agreement that facilitated South Sudan’s independence
would not have been signed or implemented.55
In light of the current crisis, the congressional committees and Caucus leadership have publicly
called for an end to the violence, improved humanitarian access, and respect for human rights. In
a letter to President Kiir, they have expressed deep concern, called for restraint to prevent the
violence from escalating, and emphasized the importance of inclusive political dialogue. The
letter cautions, “your actions over the course of the coming days will be critical in influencing the
path your country takes and how people remember your leadership.”56
U.S. Foreign Assistance
In recent years, U.S. foreign assistance to the people and government of South Sudan has been
among the largest spending priorities for the United States in Africa, with more than $410 million
committed in FY2013 and more than $393 million in economic, health, and security assistance
requested for FY2014. In its FY2014 budget request (released in 2013), the Obama
Administration stated that South Sudan “still requires significant external support to provide basic
services to citizens, develop a broad-based, diverse economy, and establish basic standards for
rule of law and good governance.” The request also referred to “persistent ethnic conflict” and
warned that South Sudan was “trending toward authoritarianism,” although it argued that there
was “still time to influence this trend through strategic and targeted assistance that supports the
government’s responsiveness and citizen participation in determining a way forward.” The
request further outlined U.S. plans to fund new and ongoing conflict mitigation efforts aimed at
improving internal stability.
54 See CRS Report R42774, Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy, by Lauren Ploch
Blanchard. See also Sudarsan Raghavan, “Divisions in South Sudan’s Liberation Movement Fuel War,” The
Washington Post, December 27, 2013.
55 Letter from President Salva Kiir, September 27, 2013.
56 The text of the December 24 congressional correspondence to President Kiir is at
http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov. See also “Sudan and South Sudan Caucus Statement on Escalating Violence,”
December 19, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Crisis in South Sudan
The current crisis is creating new requirements for humanitarian aid for people displaced by the
recent fighting. In addition to the foreign aid figures cited above, the United States has provided
almost $320 million in humanitarian assistance in FY2013 and FY2014 to date, a figure that
includes emergency aid provided prior to the crisis as well as $50 million in new funding
announced on January 3.57 Further funding may be required as displacements continue. The
USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has activated a Disaster Assistance
Response Team (DART) and Response Management Team (RMT) to support U.S. government
efforts to respond to the humanitarian aspects of the crisis.
The crisis has implications for sizeable U.S. financial contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
missions in South Sudan, some of whose personnel have come under attack during recent fighting
and whose bases have been transformed into camps for those seeking safety. From FY2012 to
FY2014, the Administration requested more than $850 million to support the U.N. Mission in
Southern Sudan (UNMISS) and more than $197 million to support the U.N. Interim Security
Force for Abyei (UNISFA).58 Given the pending expansion of UNMISS by an additional 5,000
troops, to be drawn from existing U.N. missions in Africa, State Department officials estimated
that the required U.S. annual contribution for UNMISS may increase by more than $50 million.
This may result in a request for increased peacekeeping contribution funds in FY2014 and/or
FY2015, or a reallocation from other U.S. commitments. Additional U.S. support to prepare
African peacekeepers for UNMISS and UNISFA is provided through the State Department’s
African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program.
In the longer term, the evolving conflict in South Sudan may call into question the future
direction of U.S. and international assistance to the South Sudan government. U.S. support to the
government and security forces was already subject to certain restrictions, some of which are
based on human rights and budget transparency concerns.59 South Sudan has nevertheless been
among the largest African recipients of State Department-funded security assistance in recent
years, as the United States has sought to support security sector reform there. This aid, which has
totaled more than $300 million since FY2005, has targeted both law enforcement and the military,
seeking to help transform the SPLA from a rebel force to a professional military capable of
contributing to internal and regional peace and security through technical training, advising, and
non-lethal defense equipment. The SPLA has become increasingly active in U.S.-supported
regional efforts to counter the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).60 Underscoring the depth of U.S.
57 USAID, South Sudan—Crisis, Fact Sheet #13, Fiscal Year 2014, January 9, 2014. This document also includes
funding figures for South Sudan from other major international aid donors.
58 Part of UNISFA’s mandate is to support the monitoring and verification of a demilitarized zone and related security
arrangements along the yet-to-be-demarcated border between Sudan and South Sudan.
59 According to the State Department’s latest report on human rights conditions in the country, the three most serious
problems are “security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, intimidation, and other inhumane
treatment of civilians; lack of access to justice, including arbitrary arrest, prolonged pretrial detention, and corruption
within the justice sector; and conflict-related abuses, including continuing abuse and displacement of civilians as a
result of fighting between Sudanese and South Sudanese forces, RMGs opposing the government, and rival ethnic
communities.” State Department, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, April 19, 2013. The State
Department reports that the government has made progress in efforts to eliminate the use of child soldiers from the
SPLA. Information on restricted assistance is available to congressional offices upon request. South Sudan is 1 of 10
countries identified as subject to foreign aid restrictions based on the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA,
P.L. 110-457); President Obama waived the application of CSPA for South Sudan in September 2013, determining it in
the national interest to do so.
60 For more information on the LRA, a small, armed group in Central Africa, and efforts to counter it, see, e.g., Rajiv
Chandrasekaran, “Kony 2013: U.S. Quietly Intensifies Effort to Help African Troops Capture Infamous Warlord,” The
Washington Post, October 28, 2013 and CRS Report R42094, The Lord’s Resistance Army: The U.S. Response.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Crisis in South Sudan
concern about the recent crisis, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on December 20
that if “individuals or groups seek to take or hold power [in South Sudan] through force, mass
violence, or intimidation, the United States will have no choice but to withdraw our traditional,
robust support.”61 State Department officials report that security assistance has halted and will not
resume until security conditions improve.62 Assistance in other sectors is under review.
It remains to be seen how any withholding of U.S. development or security assistance might
affect the decision making of parties to the current conflict. One could argue that withholding
foreign aid might influence those leaders most concerned about the ability of the government to
meet the needs of citizens. A fiscal crunch induced by the dispute with Sudan over oil exports had
already undermined the solvency of the South Sudan government prior to the recent fighting.
Given new threats to oil production in the context of the current crisis, fiscal concerns may be a
decisive issue for some. However, it is unclear whether the severity of the crisis and the
immediate threats key leaders may perceive to their security will make them more or less
susceptible to coercive pressure from international donors. It also is possible that the continuation
or the suspension of U.S. and international assistance could be perceived by different parties to
the conflict as unwelcome attempts to shape the outcome of internal South Sudanese disputes.
Table 1. U.S. Bilateral Foreign Assistance
Thousands of current U.S. dollars
FY2012 Actual
FY2013 Estimate
FY2014 Request
GHP-USAID
43,010 38,541 35,510
GHP-STATE
12,036 14,339 13,904
ESF
305,360 284,761 280,499
INCLE
32,000 28,882 22,000
NADR
2,135 3,000 2,135
IMET
858 759 800
FMF
— 190 200
PKO
48,000 19,200 38,000
FFP 175,513
21,000
N/A
TOTAL 619,577 410,672 393,048
Source: State Department FY2013 Post-Sequester 653(a) Initial Al ocations and FY2014 Congressional Budget
Justification documents.
Notes: FY2014 figures do not include emergency food aid provided under the USAID-administered Food for
Peace (FFP) program, which is determined during the year according to need. GHP = Global Health; DA =
Development Assistance; ESF = Economic Support Fund; INCLE=International Narcotics Control & Law
Enforcement; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining & Related
Programs; IMET = International Military Education & Training; FMF = Foreign Military Financing.
61 The White House, “Urging Peace in South Sudan,” The White House Blog, December 20, 2013.
62 CRS communication with the State Department, December 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
17
The Crisis in South Sudan
Mass Atrocity Prevention
As Members of Congress weigh what role the role the United States might play going forward in
response to the South Sudan crisis, either directly or through support for international efforts,
reports of mass atrocities filed by the United Nations and others may become a focus of
congressional deliberations. In a number of recent crises with significant civilian casualties,
observers have examined the practical implications of the Obama Administration’s stated
commitment to the prevention of “mass atrocities.” The President, who was active in legislating
on the Darfur conflict during his Senate tenure, issued a presidential directive in 2011 classifying
the prevention of mass atrocities as “a core national security interest and a core moral
responsibility of the United States of America.” A major stated rationale of the President and the
leaders of various U.S. allies for military intervention in Libya in 2011 was the prospect that
forces loyal to Muammar Qadhafi might otherwise kill thousands of unarmed civilians.
The Administration released a strategy on mass atrocities prevention in 2012. As part of that
strategy, the Administration created the Atrocities Prevention Board and launched a new National
Intelligence Estimate on the risk of mass atrocities and genocide. In remarks during the strategy
release, President Obama referred to the Sudan peace process as one of several examples of a
diplomatic effort that had “saved countless lives,” noting that “when the referendum in South
Sudan was in doubt, it threatened to reignite a conflict that had killed millions.”63 The President’s
comments suggested that, on a case-by-case basis, diplomacy was one of several tools for
atrocities prevention, with military intervention among other possible options.
Human rights groups and others advocating U.S. intervention to protect civilians abroad are
divided on the legacy of the mass atrocities prevention initiative. In the Central African Republic,
for example, the Administration has credited the Atrocities Prevention Board with designing a
media messaging campaign on peace and reconciliation in response to a burgeoning conflict
along ethno-religious lines. Still, the exigencies of U.S. foreign policy and relative limits of U.S.
leverage have challenged both the President’s ability to give priority to prevention efforts and the
success of such efforts once implemented. This has been the case, for example, in Sudan—where
a bloody counterinsurgency campaign against rebel groups continues—and may be highlighted
anew if South Sudan’s internal conflict worsens.
In the near term, some in the advocacy community have sought to engage the U.S. government
and others in the international community on how to prevent atrocities in South Sudan. Some
have outlined proposals for increased U.N. action, including further examination and potential
modification of UNMISS’s mandate and a possible arms embargo on parties complicit in
atrocities.64 The U.N. Special Advisers to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide
and the Responsibility to Protect have expressed deep concern with targeted ethnic attacks that
they warn could constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity and have reiterated South
Sudan’s responsibility to protect all populations, regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation.65
63 For more information on the Administration’s position on atrocities prevention, see, e.g., “Remarks by the President
at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,” April 23, 2012; “The White House, Fact Sheet: The Obama
Administration’s Comprehensive Efforts to Prevent Mass Atrocities Over the Past Year,” May 1, 2013.
64 See, e.g., George Clooney and John Prendergast, “How to Stop an Inferno in South Sudan,” The Daily Beast,
December 20, 2013, and Louise Arbour, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, “Open Letter to the U.N.
Secretary-General,” December 24, 2013.
65 United Nations, Statement by Adama Dieng, U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and Jennifer
Welsh, U.N. Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, on the Situation in South Sudan, December 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Crisis in South Sudan
President Kiir appears to have publicly acknowledged international concerns about the
government’s responsibility to protect its citizens, stating on December 24:
Anybody that goes to the residential areas to kill people or to loot the property of others and
hoping that he’s doing it to support me must know that that person is not supporting me.
Instead, you are destroying me.... Innocent people have been wantonly killed.... There are
now people who are targeting others because of their tribal affiliation, by means of taking the
law into their own hands.... This... is unacceptable. It will only lead to one thing, and that is
to turn this nation into chaos. All the unruly and undisciplined soldiers, who are behind such
terrible acts, and who are randomly bent to killing innocent people are criminals and will not
escape the long arm of justice, and will have to be punished.... These atrocities recurring by
now have to cease immediately.66
Developments to date suggest that such appeals may not have immediate effect beyond the
capital, as disparate forces mobilize against perceived rivals. In the absence of a cessation of
hostilities, ongoing military and/or rebel operations to secure or retake contested areas may
escalate violence by both state and non-state actors with unpredictable results. Obama
Administration officials, along with others, have emphasized that this crisis will not be resolved
on the battlefield, and that a political solution is necessary. In the longer term, many analysts
suggest that South Sudan’s government, along with international donors engaged in the country,
must focus greater effort on addressing fundamental issues of governance, national identity, and
reconciliation, while at the same time supporting robust efforts to provide justice and
accountability.67
Author Contact Information
Lauren Ploch Blanchard
Specialist in African Affairs
lploch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7640
Acknowledgments
Christopher M. Blanchard, Amber Hope Wilhelm, and Hannah Fischer contributed to this report.
66 Nicholas Kulish, “South Sudan’s President Condemns Ethnic Killings,” New York Times, December 25, 2013; and,
Radio Tamazuj (Juba), “Kiir calls on soldiers not to commit atrocities,” December 25, 2013.
67 See, e.g., Princeton Lyman, Jon Temin, and Susan Stigant, “Crisis and Opportunity in South Sudan,” U.S. Institute of
Peace PeaceBrief No 164, January 8, 2014; Sara Pantuliano, “Donor-Driven Technical Fixes Failed South Sudan: It’s
Time to Get Political,” Think Africa Press, January 9, 2014; and David Deng and Elizabeth Deng, “South Sudan Talks
Must Make Provision for Justice and Reconciliation,” African Arguments, January 8, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
19