{ "id": "R43344", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43344", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456037, "date": "2016-09-22", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:32:01.366344", "title": "Conflict in South Sudan and the Challenges Ahead", "summary": "South Sudan, which separated from Sudan in 2011 after almost 40 years of civil war, was drawn into a devastating new conflict in late 2013, when a political dispute that overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political fault lines turned violent. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the conflict, often along ethnic lines, and the warring parties have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The war and resulting humanitarian crisis have displaced more than 2.7 million people, including roughly 200,000 who are sheltering at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the country. Over 1 million South Sudanese have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. No reliable death count exists.\nU.N. agencies report that the humanitarian situation, already dire with over 40% of the population facing life-threatening hunger, is worsening, as continued conflict spurs a sharp increase in food prices. Famine may be on the horizon. Aid workers, among them hundreds of U.S. citizens, are increasingly under threat\u2014South Sudan overtook Afghanistan as the country with the highest reported number of major attacks on humanitarians in 2015. At least 62 aid workers have been killed during the conflict, and U.N. experts warn that threats are increasing in scope and brutality. \nIn August 2015, the international community welcomed a peace agreement signed by the warring parties, but it did not end the conflict. The formation of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) in late April 2016, six months behind schedule, followed months of ceasefire violations. Opposition leader Riek Machar returned to the capital, Juba, for the first time since the conflict began, and his swearing-in as First Vice President of the new power-sharing government led by his rival, President Salva Kiir, was heralded as a major milestone toward peace. By late June, however, with little sign of subsequent progress in implementing the agreement, the head of the international monitoring commission warned that the peace deal was under threat of collapse. Fighting in parts of the country previously seen as stable spurred new displacement and amplified concerns about a return to full-scale war. \nBy early July, mistrust among the parties in Juba had mounted and, with the two sides having negotiated security arrangements that allowed armed elements in the capital, the situation quickly deteriorated\u2014which side started the fighting remains subject to debate, but hundreds were killed before ceasefires were declared on July 11. Reported attacks by government forces, including sexual assaults and ethnically targeted killings, on civilians and aid workers during the violence have prompted an international outcry and raised questions about the response of peacekeepers. More than 12,000 people sought shelter at the U.N. peacekeeping bases in Juba; Machar and other opposition officials fled the city and ultimately sought refuge outside the country. The status of the unity government, and the peace agreement itself, is now in question. \nThe United States, at the request of East African countries, has since led an international effort to deploy additional U.N. peacekeepers to Juba, with the immediate aim of providing a secure environment in the capital, and with the hope that the force\u2019s presence may create conditions more conducive for broader stabilization efforts. The South Sudan government has been reluctant to accept the force, viewing the deployment as a possible threat to its sovereignty, and has sought to condition its consent on approval of \u201cmodalities\u201d for the force, including its composition. While negotiations on the force\u2019s deployment continue, the prospects for a possible arms embargo, threatened by the U.N. Security Council in August, are unclear. \nMixed messages from the international community on the status of the peace agreement and the legitimacy of the TGNU, following President Kiir\u2019s replacement of Machar and many of the opposition representatives in the government in late July, may complicate the path forward. By some accounts, the TGNU and the peace agreement on which it was based have collapsed, and reports suggest that both sides may be preparing for a return to full-scale war. \nIn the context of ongoing conflict, donor governments, including the United States, may deliberate on whether, or how, to invest in proposed recovery and development efforts in the country. Without robust donor engagement, South Sudan\u2019s crisis appears set to worsen\u2014the International Monetary Fund warns that without economic reforms and political reconciliation, the economy will further deteriorate and the government may be unable to meet key obligations, including salaries for its army. Donor concern about state corruption, however, is high, amid reports that senior officials have diverted state assets to fuel the war, and for their own benefit. \nThe United States, which played a key role in supporting South Sudan\u2019s independence, has long been its leading donor and is a key diplomatic actor. With congressional support, the United States made major investments in South Sudan\u2019s recovery and development after the Sudanese civil war ended in 2005, but many of those gains have now been reversed. The Obama Administration has contributed over $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid since the conflict began in December 2013. Along with its support for the humanitarian response and ongoing development programs, the United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the country and a key donor for ceasefire monitoring and other efforts to mitigate conflict. As Congress considers available options for U.S. engagement, several key questions arise: \nHow can the United States most effectively facilitate an end to violence and a path toward peace and reconciliation, both among political factions and rival communities? \nIs the August 2015 peace agreement still viable? Should peace negotiations be restarted? Is the government in Juba still, in practice, a unity government? \nIf fighting continues, what possible steps\u2014further sanctions, an arms embargo, new types of aid, aid restrictions\u2014would be most appropriate and most effective? \nHow can the United States support efforts to pursue accountability for alleged war crimes without a negative impact on the peace process? \nGiven the serious abuses committed by the warring parties, what role, if any, should the United States play in the reform of a security apparatus that is expected to combine their forces? How should the United States engage with senior officials who have been accused of directing military operations in which war crimes have reportedly been committed?\nHow can the international community help to create a more secure environment for aid workers, including U.S. citizens? How significant is the impact of reported government restrictions on aid deliveries?\nIn light of reported threats against Americans and recent assaults on U.S. citizens and incidents involving U.S. diplomats in Juba, how does the U.S. government currently assess the threat to the U.S. embassy, and to U.S. citizens in South Sudan more broadly? \nWhat are the international community\u2019s expectations of peacekeepers with regard to protecting civilians, and do they have the appropriate personnel, equipment, and political will to implement their mandate?\nWhat lessons have been learned from past support for state-building efforts in South Sudan, and how can foreign donors best support more transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance going forward?", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43344", "sha1": "74937f974bf05789e1a1c6e8902d58c391720763", "filename": "files/20160922_R43344_74937f974bf05789e1a1c6e8902d58c391720763.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43344", "sha1": "9a97260e5bce1c3e2a3e36b0e5296b9c0a1e8335", "filename": "files/20160922_R43344_9a97260e5bce1c3e2a3e36b0e5296b9c0a1e8335.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455957, "date": "2016-09-19", "retrieved": "2016-09-23T18:03:35.967623", "title": "Conflict in South Sudan and the Challenges Ahead", "summary": "South Sudan which separated from Sudan in 2011 after almost 40 years of civil war, was drawn into a devastating new conflict in late 2013 when a political dispute that overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political fault lines turned violent. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the conflict, often along ethnic lines, and the warring parties have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The war and resulting humanitarian crisis have displaced more than 2.7 million people, including roughly 200,000 who are sheltering at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the country. Over one million South Sudanese have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. No reliable death count exists.\nU.N. agencies report that the humanitarian situation, already dire with over 40% of the population facing life-threatening hunger, is worsening, as continued conflict has led to a sharp increase in food prices. Famine may be on the horizon. Aid workers, among them hundreds of U.S. citizens, are increasingly under threat\u2014in 2015, South Sudan overtook Afghanistan as the country with the highest reported number of major attacks on humanitarians. At least 62 aid workers have been killed since the conflict began. \nIn August 2015, the international community welcomed a peace agreement signed by the warring parties, but it did not end the conflict. The formation of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU) in late April 2016, six months behind schedule, followed months of ceasefire violations. Opposition leader Riek Machar returned to the capital, Juba, for the first time since the conflict began, and his swearing-in as First Vice President of the new power-sharing government led by his rival, President Salva Kiir, was heralded as a major milestone toward peace. By late June, however, with little sign of subsequent progress in implementing the agreement, the head of the international monitoring commission warned that the peace deal was under threat of collapse. Fighting in parts of the country previously seen as stable spurred new displacement and amplified concerns about a return to war. \nBy early July, mistrust among the parties in Juba had mounted and, with security arrangements negotiated by the two sides allowing armed elements from both parties\u2019 forces in the capital, the situation quickly deteriorated\u2014which side started the fighting remains subject to debate, but hundreds were killed before ceasefires were declared on July 11. Reported attacks by government forces, including sexual assaults and ethnically-targeted killings, on civilians and aid workers during the violence has prompted an international outcry and raised questions about the response of peacekeepers. More than 12,000 people sought shelter at the U.N. peacekeeping bases in Juba; Machar and other opposition officials fled the city and ultimately sought refuge outside the country. The status of the unity government, and the peace agreement itself, are now in question. \nThe United States, at the request of East African countries, has since led an international effort to deploy additional U.N. peacekeepers to Juba, with the immediate aim of providing a secure environment in the capital, and with the hope that the force\u2019s presence may create conditions more conducive for broader stabilization efforts. The South Sudan government has been reluctant to accept the force, viewing the deployment as a possible threat to its sovereignty, and has sought to condition its consent on approval of \u201cmodalities\u201d for the force, including its composition. While negotiations on the force\u2019s deployment continue, the prospects for a possible arms embargo, threatened by the U.N. Security Council in August, are unclear. \nMixed messages from the international community on the status of the peace agreement and the legitimacy of the TGNU, following President Kiir\u2019s replacement of Machar and many of the opposition representatives in the government in late July, may complicate the path forward. By some accounts, the TGNU and the peace agreement on which it was based have collapsed, and reports suggest that both sides may be preparing for a return to full-scale war. \nIn the context of ongoing conflict, donor governments, including the United States, may deliberate on whether, or how, to invest in proposed recovery and development efforts in the country. Without robust donor engagement, South Sudan\u2019s crisis appears set to worsen\u2014the International Monetary Fund warns that without economic reforms and political reconciliation, the economy will further deteriorate and the government may be unable to meet key obligations, including salaries for its army. Donor concern about state corruption, however, is high, amid reports that senior officials have diverted state assets to fuel the war, and for their own benefit. \nThe United States, which played a key role in supporting South Sudan\u2019s independence, has long been its leading donor and is a key diplomatic actor. With congressional support, the United States made major investments in South Sudan\u2019s recovery and development after the Sudanese civil war ended in 2005, but many of those gains have now been reversed. The Obama Administration has contributed over $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid since the conflict began in December 2013. Along with its support for the humanitarian response and ongoing development programs, the United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the country and a key donor for ceasefire monitoring and other efforts to mitigate conflict. As Congress considers available options for U.S. engagement, several key questions arise: \nHow can the United States most effectively facilitate an end to violence and a path toward peace and reconciliation, both among political factions and rival communities? \nIs the August 2015 peace agreement still viable? Should peace negotiations be restarted? Is the government in Juba still, in practice, a unity government? \nIf fighting continues, what possible steps\u2014further sanctions, an arms embargo, new types of aid, aid restrictions\u2014would be most appropriate and most effective? \nHow can the United States support efforts to pursue accountability for alleged war crimes without a negative impact on the peace process? \nGiven the serious abuses committed by the warring parties, what role, if any, should the United States play in the reform of a security apparatus that is expected to combine their forces? How should the United States engage with senior officials who have been accused of directing operations in which war crimes have reportedly been committed?\nHow can the international community help to create a more secure environment for aid workers, including U.S. citizens? Are government restrictions hindering aid delivery?\nIn light of reported threats against Americans and recent assaults on U.S. citizens and incidents involving U.S. diplomats in Juba, how does the U.S. government currently assess the threat to the U.S. embassy, and to U.S. citizens in South Sudan more broadly? \nWhat are the international community\u2019s expectations of peacekeepers with regard to protecting civilians, and do they have the appropriate personnel, equipment, and political will to implement their mandate?\nWhat lessons have been learned from past support for state-building efforts in South Sudan, and how can foreign donors best support more transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance going forward?", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43344", "sha1": "0220bf7c06d463abf538494558c2adbd5f875e11", "filename": "files/20160919_R43344_0220bf7c06d463abf538494558c2adbd5f875e11.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43344", "sha1": "529185173864296ec654efa399d8917f45fc77bb", "filename": "files/20160919_R43344_529185173864296ec654efa399d8917f45fc77bb.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452068, "date": "2016-04-26", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:17:21.741941", "title": "Conflict in South Sudan and Challenges Ahead", "summary": "South Sudan became the world\u2019s newest country in 2011, separating from Sudan after almost 40 years of civil war. In late 2013, just over two years after achieving independence, the people of South Sudan were drawn into a devastating new conflict when a political dispute that overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political fault lines sparked a war, causing mass displacement and suffering. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the violence, often along ethnic lines, and the warring parties have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. \nAlong with Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, South Sudan is currently classified by the United Nations as one of four \u201cLevel 3\u201d (the highest level) humanitarian emergencies in the world. By U.N. estimates, more than 50,000 people have been killed, but some experts contend that the actual number of fatalities may be much higher. More than 2.4 million people have been displaced by the conflict, including more than 186,000 who are still sheltering at U.N. peacekeeping bases in the country. U.N. agencies report that the humanitarian situation\u2014already dire with almost one-quarter of the population facing life-threatening hunger\u2014has worsened in early 2016. Parts of the country most affected by fighting in the past year face what some experts refer to as \u201ca borderline famine situation.\u201d \nThe international community welcomed a peace agreement signed in August 2015 by South Sudan\u2019s warring parties, but it has yet to result in a clear end to the conflict. Repeated ceasefire violations, ongoing obstructions of the movement of peacekeepers and aid workers, and delays in implementation of key aspects of the agreement raise questions about the parties\u2019 commitment to the deal, despite slow progress toward the formation of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU). Violence has spread to areas of the country previously seen as comparatively stable, sparking new displacement. The return on April 26, 2016 of opposition leader Riek Machar to the capital, Juba, for the first time since the conflict began, marks an important milestone in the peace process. Per the terms of the peace deal, he assumes a position he held from 2010-2013, as the country\u2019s vice president, now in a new unity government. Mistrust among the parties remains high, however, and it remains to be seen whether the TGNU\u2019s formation will stem the violence, reverse the collapse of state institutions, or set the conditions for reconciliation. \nThe United States, which played a key role in supporting the country\u2019s independence from Sudan, has been its leading donor. With congressional support, the United States made major investments in South Sudan\u2019s recovery and development after the Sudanese civil war ended in 2005\u2014many of those gains have now been reversed. The Obama Administration has contributed nearly $1.6 billion in humanitarian aid since the new conflict began. In addition to its support for the humanitarian response and ongoing development programs, the United States is the largest financial contributor to the United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping mission in the country and a key donor for ceasefire monitoring and other efforts to mitigate conflict. The United States also plays a lead role in the U.N. Security Council on deliberations regarding South Sudan.\nAs Congress considers available options for engagement, several key questions arise. How can the United States most effectively facilitate an end to violence and a path toward reconciliation, both among political factions and rival communities? If fighting continues, what leverage\u2014further targeted sanctions, an arms embargo, or new types of aid\u2014would be most appropriate and most effective? How can the United States support efforts to pursue accountability for alleged war crimes without a negative impact on the peace process? Given the serious abuses committed by both sides of the conflict, what role, if any, should the United States play in the reform of a security sector that will combine the forces of the warring parties? What lessons have been learned from past support for state-building efforts in South Sudan, and how can foreign donors best support more transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance going forward?", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43344", "sha1": "589a56d78e37bba95635d58078742dffee315f29", "filename": "files/20160426_R43344_589a56d78e37bba95635d58078742dffee315f29.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43344", "sha1": "2013481b6a41c8f55546577e9a7f443675d4ca72", "filename": "files/20160426_R43344_2013481b6a41c8f55546577e9a7f443675d4ca72.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 426874, "date": "2014-01-14", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:10:56.784317", "title": "The Crisis in South Sudan", "summary": "In December 2013, growing political tensions among key leaders in South Sudan erupted in violence. While the political dispute that triggered this crisis was not clearly based on ethnic identity, it overlapped with preexisting ethnic and political fault lines and sparked armed clashes and targeted ethnic killings in the capital, Juba, and beyond. The fighting has caused a security and humanitarian emergency that may be drawing the world\u2019s newest country into civil war. In response, the international community is mobilizing diplomatic, humanitarian, and peacekeeping resources to protect civilians and facilitate an end to the violence. At the same time, many countries and aid agencies have evacuated their foreign nationals from South Sudan, and security concerns currently constrain the humanitarian response. Four U.S. military personnel were injured during an operation to evacuate U.S. citizens on December 21. \nUnited Nations officials indicate that targeted attacks against civilians and U.N. personnel may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity. By U.N. estimates, thousands have been killed and more than 400,000 internally displaced, including more than 60,000 people sheltering at U.N. peacekeeping bases. As many as 78,000 have already fled as refugees to neighboring countries. 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 \u201cimminent confrontations at U.N. bases where civilians are gathered.\u201d\nThe United States is the largest provider of bilateral foreign assistance to South Sudan and a major financial contributor to international peacekeeping efforts there. The United States has historically played a major role in supporting peace and stability for the country, which gained its independence from Sudan in 2011 after a long civil war between the Sudanese government and southern insurgents. Congress has been a key actor in setting U.S. policy toward both Sudans and supporting South Sudanese independence. As such, the Obama Administration and Congress face a series of complex questions as they seek to convince rival South Sudanese leaders to cease hostilities, reengage in political dialogue, and prevent further humanitarian suffering. The future of what successive U.S. Administrations have considered to be an important relationship with South Sudanese leaders is also in question.\nMembers 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. U.S. support to South Sudan\u2019s security services may come under increased scrutiny given emerging splits in the military and reports of serious human rights abuses by armed actors on all sides. President Obama has stated that he may seek to withhold certain U.S. assistance in relation to the crisis if South Sudanese leaders seek to take or hold power by force or intimidation. State Department officials report that security assistance has halted and will not resume until security conditions improve. The President informed Congress that he \u201cmay take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel, and property, including our Embassy, in South Sudan.\u201d Through U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), he has deployed U.S. military personnel to South Sudan in support of this mission. Congress may consider whether or 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.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43344", "sha1": "edf0b9dff0e6758c75428765f34ff0db58e48c4c", "filename": "files/20140114_R43344_edf0b9dff0e6758c75428765f34ff0db58e48c4c.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43344", "sha1": "dd19d3d1c1728fa534726fad7058773c20111b96", "filename": "files/20140114_R43344_dd19d3d1c1728fa534726fad7058773c20111b96.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817949/", "id": "R43344_2014Jan09", "date": "2014-01-09", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Crisis in South Sudan", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140109_R43344_1d1614041ce57f5527cd2ed52d679e27dc185479.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140109_R43344_1d1614041ce57f5527cd2ed52d679e27dc185479.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc272074/", "id": "R43344_2013Dec27", "date": "2013-12-27", "retrieved": "2014-02-03T19:46:03", "title": "The Crisis in South Sudan", "summary": "This report provides an overview of the recent humanitarian situation in South Sudan. The United States is the largest provider of bilateral foreign assistance to South Sudan and a major financial contributor to international peacekeeping efforts there.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20131227_R43344_9d7dbdf3caa451960b8fd314b81d68e3ca74ea4d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20131227_R43344_9d7dbdf3caa451960b8fd314b81d68e3ca74ea4d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign policy", "name": "Foreign policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign relations -- South Sudan -- U.S.", "name": "Foreign relations -- South Sudan -- U.S." }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign relations -- U.S. -- South Sudan", "name": "Foreign relations -- U.S. -- South Sudan" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Politics and government - South Sudan", "name": "Politics and government - South Sudan" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Humanitarian intervention", "name": "Humanitarian intervention" } ] } ], "topics": [ "African Affairs", "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs" ] }