USIP’s Jon Temin discusses the recent clashes and ongoing tensions between South Sudan and Sudan – and what can be done to prevent more violence.

March 29, 2012

USIP’s Jon Temin discusses the recent clashes and ongoing tensions between South Sudan and Sudan – and what can be done to prevent more violence.

Q: The armies of Sudan and South Sudan have directly engaged one another in recent days, with Sudanese military aircraft flying over South Sudan and with South Sudanese troops entering Sudan. What does this mean? Is another war starting between the North and the South?

Tensions between Sudan and South Sudan are at their highest point since the south seceded in July 2011. Even so, a return to full-scale war, along the lines of the hugely destructive two civil wars, seems unlikely. Both countries face very difficult economic circumstances, exacerbated by the shutdown of South Sudanese oil production in January. The cost of war would only add to the economic hardship, limiting both governments’ service delivery and patronage and thus further agitating already frustrated populations. There seems to be little desire for a return to war among the general populations who suffered greatly during the civil wars – though whether this sentiment is shared by both countries’ leadership is a different question. In each capital there are hawks who may be inclined toward further fighting for narrow purposes.

A major question now is whether the leaders of both countries, especially President Bashir in Sudan, can resist extremist influences and pull back from the violence of the past few days. There is some evidence that is occurring, but with the two armies so close to one another (reportedly only 500 meters apart in some areas), the environment remains combustible.

Q: How can violence be prevented and what do your foresee happening next?

To end the continuous ebb and flow of violence that we have seen for months now – particularly around the shared border – two things need to happen.

First, Sudan and South Sudan need to conclude seemingly endless negotiations on “post-referendum arrangements,” which include oil sector management, dealing with Sudan’s debt, and the status of South Sudanese living in Sudan and vice versa. Those negotiations, facilitated by an African Union panel, have made little progress over the past year, though there was a short-lived sense of an improved negotiating atmosphere recently, which is now likely gone. Second, within Sudan the status and governance of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, which border South Sudan and are currently racked by internal rebellion, must be resolved. The primary rebel movement in those two states – the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North – has long been linked to South Sudan, but also fights on behalf of some Sudanese (especially ethnic Nuba) who have been marginalized for decades. Until there are negotiated solutions to these two strands, a de-escalation in tensions is unlikely. Unfortunately there is little reason to believe that ongoing negotiations will reach successful conclusions any time soon, and they have surely been set back by the recent fighting.

 

Q: Will there be a presidential peace summit?

Sudan’s President Bashir and South Sudan’s President Kiir were scheduled to meet in Juba next week to discuss, in particular, the post-referendum arrangements, but the meeting now appears to be on hold, if not cancelled.

Expectations for the summit were high, but there was a similar meeting between the presidents in January that produced little, so there is no guarantee that the next meeting, whenever it occurs, will lead to a breakthrough. Given strong international condemnation of the recent fighting I wouldn’t be surprised if the summit is cobbled back together, though possibly to be held in Ethiopia (perceived neutral territory), not South Sudan. But whether the two presidents have the political space to make deals remains the key variable. Past agreements, including a recent, encouraging agreement on citizenship issues, have been harshly criticized by domestic constituencies, particularly in Sudan.

If the presidents and their negotiators are fearful of how any agreements will be received at home, their ability to compromise suffers, as do the chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome.

Explore Further

Related Publications

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

Friday, February 16, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Susan Stigant; Aly Verjee

This week, a new proposal for a power sharing government was tabled at the ongoing Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) peace talks for South Sudan. An earlier, 2015 peace deal also contained a formula for power sharing; that arrangement failed and the civil war re-ignited a year later. Power sharing arrangements are appropriate if certain conditions are met, but not enough has been done to ensure the latest proposal will overcome the obstacles present in South Sudan, according to Susan Stigant, USIP’s director for Africa programs and Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at USIP and a former senior advisor to the IGAD mediation, who comment on the proposal and suggest how it could be improved.

Democracy & Governance; Fragility and Resilience; Global Policy

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

Sunday, February 11, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Nancy Lindborg; Sarhang Hamasaeed

An international conference opens in Kuwait Monday to plan ways to rebuild Iraq and secure it against renewed extremist violence following the three-year war against ISIS. A USIP team just spent nine days in Iraq for talks with government and civil society leaders, part of the Institute’s years-long effort to help the country stabilize. The Kuwait conference will gather government, business and civil society leaders to consider a reconstruction that Iraq has said could cost $100 billion. USIP’s president, Nancy Lindborg, and Middle East program director, Sarhang Hamasaeed, say any realistic rebuilding plan must focus also on the divisions and grievances in Iraq that led to ISIS’ violence and that still exist.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism

Kurdistan and Baghdad: A Tangled Web Over Oil and Budgets

Kurdistan and Baghdad: A Tangled Web Over Oil and Budgets

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

By: Andrew Snow

The economy of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region is on the brink of collapse; only the central government in Baghdad can stop an economic free fall that’s already damaging the broader Iraqi economy. While a rapid, negotiated solution to this crisis is essential to stabilize and unify Iraq—and reassure investors needed for post-ISIS reconstruction—a host of complex issues over oil and the national budget stand in the way.

Economics & Environment

View All Publications