What is the context of the violent crisis in South Sudan?

If you are confused about Sudan and South Sudan, join the club! We in Africa, even right next door to Sudan and its new neighbor South Sudan, a new nation created just three years ago, are often mystified by strange events that are only hinted at in sporadic, dark and bizarre press accounts.

Clearly, part of the deeper problem with the Sudan crisis is that the world’s media is covering it without the resources that they would devote to a human tragedy of this size in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas. Unfortunately, we are used to Africans dying by the thousands, and that just doesn’t make headlines. It is likely, according to UN officials, that thousands of people have already died in South Sudan, but no one has hard numbers to count the bodies.

Although much blood has already been shed in South Sudan, things have gotten much worse in the last ten days. The focus of violence has increasingly fallen on civilians. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has ordered some 7,000 international police and military to be added to a similar number already stationed in the area around Juba, but this may not be enough to counter the forces of the two factions. from South Sudan fighting for the supremacy of South Sudan’s two main political heavyweights, Salva Kiir and his longtime collaborator and political ally Riek Machar. United Nations human rights officials on the ground have said there is no ceasefire in sight. Until Kiir or Machar win decisively, the conflicts and deaths will continue.

An overly simplified (but always helpful!) way of understanding the context in which the current violence has erupted in this arid part of East-Central Africa is based on ethnicity and religion. There were two steps in the process that created the current mess, the first related to the conflict between Muslims and Christians that created South Sudan as a new nation in 2011, and now the current conflict, which has arisen solely within South Sudan. when competing political figures vie for supremacy.

In the days of the ancient nation of Sudan, by far the largest country in all of Africa before it was divided, North and South Sudanese often had fights based on religion and ethnicity. The northern Sudanese, who are concentrated in Khartoum, the magnificent old Nile capital, are mostly light-skinned Arab Muslims. The people of South Sudan are predominantly Black African Christians. Muslims for decades regarded southerners as second-class citizens and did not hesitate to brutalize them. And so it was these black Christians who voted overwhelmingly (98 percent) to secede from Sudan as a new nation in 2011. This new nation was christened South Sudan.

The broader problems of greater Sudan briefly came to public attention in a brilliant spark of explosive global prominence a decade ago, when Hollywood movie stars sought to focus charitable donations on human misery in Darfur. The famous actor George Clooney lent his great personal charisma and his popularity to raise money for refugees. But then Sudan disappeared from the news, and now we find that the carnage and horror have resumed.

Some 300 US citizens were evacuated from the city of Bor, the capital of Jonglei province, a geographic hotbed of instability in South Sudan. Bor is an area of ​​newly discovered oil wealth, and this significantly complicates everything.

The US Navy’s huge, heavy Osprey planes, those magnificent aircraft that can move their engines to point skyward on landing to function as helicopters, have drawn fire over the past ten days as they tried to take out fleeing Americans. Meanwhile, thousands of citizens of other Western nations, including Canada, the UK and Australia, have chosen to stay in South Sudan and resist, hoping a peace plan can be cobbled together before the violence worsens. There may be some reason to be hopeful.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has this week pressed President Salva Kiir’s administration for a Christmas ceasefire (ironically, the celebration of Christmas used to be banned by the former government in Khartoum), albeit with mixed results. . The fight continues as I write this, according to most reports. Refugees flee to neighboring countries to the east, mainly Uganda and Ethiopia.

There are reportedly 20,000 displaced people in Juba, South Sudan’s dusty capital city. The international airport has been closed, perhaps to stem the tide of departures. There are another 15,000 refugees in Bor. All of these people fear for their safety despite the dusk-to-dawn curfews.

Some background may be helpful in understanding the new wave of clashes that escalated so dramatically in the last fortnight of December: President Salva Kiir is the head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the leading political organization that led South Sudan to independence from Khartoum. Since he came to power, even Kiir’s supporters have accused him of becoming despotic and paranoid, and more concerned with his personal wealth and status than providing stable leadership and governance.

Under Kiir as top leader, corruption in southern Sudan has gotten much worse than when Khartoum was in charge. In a comical incident a few weeks ago, Kiir even asked recalcitrant cronies, some of them cabinet ministers, to return the money they had stolen for personal use. The Kiir government, in short, is not governing.

The result is that the war-weary citizens of South Sudan are now perhaps even less happy than when the Muslim Arab rulers of Khartoum called the shots. Kiir is one of their own and yet he is oppressing them even more than the Muslims. This creates anger and frustration.

The violence began almost six months ago in July, when Salva Kiir sacked the entire executive level of his government and closed several key ministries. But the fighting has gotten much worse in the last six weeks, centered in the capital of Juba.

Ten days ago, President Kiir took off his usual black summer business suit and put on a khaki military uniform, the first time he has appeared in such a suit. It was a successful theater, although he failed to bring peace and lay down his arms.

Kiir has blamed his closest political associate, former Vice President Riek Machar, another founding member of the SPLM and a man of status and charisma equal to Kiir’s, of fomenting a coup directed against him. Kiir fired Machar from his position. Riek Machar has now formed his own military units to wage war against Kiir. Machar may well be an acceptable successor to Kiir, both in the minds of foreigners and South Sudanese. Many observers are now betting on Machar.

But it is difficult even for seasoned observers in neighboring countries to gauge the true depth of the political divide between Kiir and Machar, as they have quarreled before but usually managed to become friends again. However, there may be a new factor in the mix that bodes ill for conflict. This has been the clearly visible deterioration in Kiir’s health, which seems to have manifested itself in fits of rage, violence and terrible cruelty against former trusted associates.

Salva Kiir’s inability to lead effectively suggests the conflict will get worse before it gets better. Meanwhile, the flood of refugees into Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia continues. And the murder of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, continues in urban areas. And many of the remaining Europeans, taking cues from the Americans, are packing their bags to leave for London, Paris and Sydney to await better and safer days in Africa.