icon caret Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Line Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Whatsapp Youtube
Abyei Is Burning: Immediate SAF Withdrawal Critical
Abyei Is Burning: Immediate SAF Withdrawal Critical
South Sudan's Dismal Tenth Birthday
South Sudan's Dismal Tenth Birthday
Commentary / Africa

Abyei Is Burning: Immediate SAF Withdrawal Critical

Abyei is burning, again. After months of rising tensions and international attempts to diffuse a crisis between political factions and armies from Sudan’s North and South, Khartoum’s armed forces recently launched a combined ground and air offensive on the hotly disputed region, displaced tens of thousands, and dissolved the local government. Three weeks on, reports of looting and burning,  continue while the military remains as an occupying force. Their immediate withdrawal is critical if there is to be any chance for a sustainable solution in the troubled territory itself, but also to prevent Africa’s largest country from plunging back into war and spoiling South Sudan’s long awaited independence—now just one month away.

Straddling Sudan’s contested North-South border, sparsely populated Abyei is roughly the size of Connecticut; and despite popular misperception, its current value in terms of oil production is negligible and thus not the primary driver of conflict. Abyei has long been geographically, ethnically, and politically caught between North and South; the dispute at its core pits southern-aligned Ngok Dinka communities who reside in the area against nomadic Misseriya Arabs who migrate through the territory to graze huge cattle herds during the dry season.

Though beset by occasional conflict, the two communities lived in relative peace—even cooperated and intermarried—for generations. But the area has been a flashpoint in recent years, and as southern independence and the partition of the country became increasingly certain, uncertainty over the territory’s own future (whether part of North or South) stoked existential fears among its communities. Meanwhile, high stakes politics between elites in Khartoum and Juba meant the dispute assumed a character and a complexity far removed from this rural tract of land. Growing antagonism at the national level in turn served to harden positions on the ground, and the die of new conflict was all but cast.

With no feasible settlement on the horizon and Southern independence fast approaching, the two sides have sought to assert control of the territory–both in public rhetoric and, more tangibly, through aggressive posturing on the ground. Weeks of intense engagement from U.S., United Nations, and African Union officials had helped prevent the situation from boiling over, but a recent clash initiated by Southern forces sparked a disproportionate response from Khartoum’s army, and untold consequences.

That unwarranted attack gave the North’s military enough of a pretext on which to advance, take Abyei in breach of existing agreements, and assert control of the territory ahead of 9 July. But the maneuver is far more than a simple move to new war. In fact, despite dangerous rhetoric over the course of the last year, both North and South calculated that the cost of a return to war outweighed any potential gains—an equation that holds true, albeit tenuously, today.

Thus, Khartoum’s capture of Abyei—and aggressive posturing elsewhere—is aimed at exhibiting strength to domestic constituencies, influencing negotiations over the future status of the territory itself, and strengthening its hand at the negotiating table—where talks between North and South toward future arrangements on oil, debt, currency, security, citizenship, and their shared border have not yet produced a deal. In fact, the two sides’ negotiating teams were trading proposals on economic issues at the time of the invasion. Thus, while Abyei is important to Khartoum and its Misseriya constituency, it is also being used as a bargaining chip.

But the ruling National Congress Party in Khartoum—led by ICC-indictee President Omar al-Bashir must also consider the ramifications of its strategy, and its potential effect on the party’s survival and on the normalization of political and economic relations between Sudan—long a global pariah—and the international community. While the regime has rarely shuddered at condemnation from the West, failure to withdraw its forces from Abyei (and continued endangerment of civilians) could send them further down the road of international isolation and unduly punish ordinary northern citizens.

Bashir and his party have suffered politically from the impending partition of the country; they will lose a majority share of the country’s oil—the primary revenue stream—to the South come July, and they will for years be saddled by some or all of the country’s staggering $40 billion debt. That’s not to mention the still unresolved conflict in Darfur, which perpetuates both domestic instability and the ire of the international community.

Eager to see a resolution of Sudan’s conflict and a peaceful referendum on independence, the Obama administration put forward a path to normalization between Khartoum and Washington—two capitals which have long loathed and misunderstood one another. It pledged Sudan’s removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list (Khartoum once hosted Osama Bin Laden), an exchange of ambassadors, support for debt relief, and ultimately a lifting of U.S. economic sanctions.

But among the prerequisites was a peaceful resolution of the Abyei deadlock—something the recent invasion puts at considerable risk. Khartoum does not fully trust the U.S. offers tabled, and knows that stability will continue to be the top American priority in any case. But the White House and the State Department will not entertain all of Khartoum’s excesses, and thus promptly made clear that an overplaying of the regime’s hand could complicate—or even halt—the normalization package. This could well cost Khartoum more in the long run than it stands to gain from its current strategy.

Even more immediate is the possibility of a return to war in Abyei and elsewhere along the North-South border. Khartoum knows that South Sudan prefers not to risk jeopardizing its recognition as an independent country by getting embroiled militarily in Abyei or beyond—and as such may continue to squeeze the South for concessions. But the South’s deep-seated commitment to Abyei should not be underestimated. Nor should the risk of unintended escalation be ignored, particularly in a place where the proximity of ill-disciplined forces and proxy militias and the intensity of emotions make for a dangerous cocktail.

Op-Ed / Africa

South Sudan's Dismal Tenth Birthday

Originally published in Foreign Affairs

The world's youngest country needs an overhaul, Crisis Group Interim Vice President and Africa Program Director Comfort Ero and South Sudan Senior Analyst Alan Boswell write in Foreign Affairs.

Given South Sudan’s state of disrepair, it can be difficult to fathom that the world’s newest country was once synonymous with hope. A decade ago today, tens of thousands of elated South Sudanese sang and danced in the capital of Juba to celebrate their country’s independence from Sudan, while a parade of foreign dignitaries from China, the United States, and the United Nations arrived to offer pledges of financial support. After years of efforts to end the Sudanese civil war—Africa’s longest-running conflict—optimism reigned. After all, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir had defied skeptics by conceding the loss of a third of his territory and the source of his country’s massive oil wealth.

What a difference a decade makes. Today, South Sudan is failing. Its first years as an independent country were consumed by a devastating civil war, which has left up to 400,000 people dead and displaced another four million, a third of its population. A shaky 2018 peace deal has brought little relief. Millions suffer from chronic hunger and unchecked violence at the hands of local militias who stalk the countryside, and a new insurgency is simmering in the south. This bloody start presents a huge dilemma for the United States and other major Western donors, which have lambasted South Sudanese leaders for plundering the country’s oil wealth even as they remain on the hook for billions of dollars of lifesaving aid to the country.

But all is not lost. Although the risk of a return to all-out war is real, South Sudanese leaders and their external partners have an opportunity to reverse the mistakes of the past and establish the foundations of a more peaceful country. In order to turn the tide, they should focus on the main culprit of South Sudan’s botched birth: fractious internal politics. The country is too divided and too fragile to survive without a political pact securing a more consensual form of governance. Forging such an agreement is still possible, even if it means tossing aside South Sudan’s constitutional structure in the process.

To read the rest of this Op-Ed, please continue on the website of Foreign Affairs here.


Interim Vice President & Program Director, Africa
Senior Analyst, South Sudan