Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Congressional research reportOct 5, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Sudan and South Sudan:
Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
-name redactedSpecialist in African Affairs
October 5, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42774
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Summary
Congress has played an active role in U.S. policy toward Sudan for more than three decades.
Efforts to support an end to the country’s myriad conflicts and human rights abuses have
dominated the agenda, as have counterterrorism concerns. When unified (1956-2011), Sudan was
Africa’s largest nation, bordering nine countries and stretching from the northern borders of
Kenya and Uganda to the southern borders of Egypt and Libya. Strategically located along the
Nile River and the Red Sea, Sudan was historically described as a crossroads between the Arab
world and Africa. Domestic and international efforts to unite its ethnically, racially, religiously,
and culturally diverse population under a common national identity fell short, however. In 2011,
after decades of civil war and a 6.5 year transitional period, Sudan split in two. Mistrust between
the two Sudans—Sudan and South Sudan—lingers, and unresolved disputes and related security
issues still threaten to pull the two countries back to war.
The north-south split did not resolve other simmering conflicts, notably in Darfur, Blue Nile, and
Southern Kordofan. Roughly 2.5 million people remain displaced as a result of these conflicts.
Like the broader sub-region, the Sudans are susceptible to drought and food insecurity, despite
significant agricultural potential in some areas. Civilians in the conflict zones are particularly
vulnerable. Instability and Sudanese government restrictions have limited relief agencies’ access
to conflict-affected populations. Humanitarian conditions in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
have been at crisis levels for months, but an estimated half a million people remain largely
beyond the reach of aid groups. Logistical challenges constrain the delivery of relief for those
who have fled, primarily to remote refugee camps across the border in South Sudan. The
harassment of aid workers is a problem in both Sudans, further hindering aid responses.
The peaceful separation of Sudan and South Sudan was seen by some players as an opportunity to
repair relations between Sudan’s Islamist government and the United States. Those ties have long
been strained over Khartoum’s human rights violations and history of support for international
terrorist groups. Among the arguments in favor of normalizing relations with Sudan has been the
notion that the United States has few additional unilateral “sticks” to apply against Khartoum,
given robust sanctions already in place. Applying certain “carrots,” such as easing sanctions,
might encourage further political reforms, proponents say. The Obama Administration sought to
improve the relationship with Khartoum in 2011, given South Sudan’s successful referendum and
separation from Sudan, and Sudan’s cooperation on counterterrorism. The U.S. effort has been
impeded by ongoing reports of abuses, including allegations that Khartoum continues to commit
war crimes against civilians. Some observers argue that improving the relationship would reward
bad behavior. Relations are also complicated by the fact that several government officials, notably
President Omar al Bashir, have been accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide at the International Criminal Court in relation to the Darfur conflict.
U.S. relations with South Sudan, which are rooted in years of American activism and disaster
relief to the south during the civil war, remain close, though there have been signs of strain in
2012. The United States is the country’s largest bilateral donor, but the Administration has
expressed concern over certain actions taken by leaders in Juba that have, in its view, further
aggravated the relationship between the Sudans and the economic situation in both countries.
This report examines the shared interests and outstanding disputes between the Sudans after
separation, and gives an overview of political, economic, and humanitarian conditions in the two
countries, with a focus on possible implications for U.S. policy and congressional engagement.
Congressional Research Service
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Congressional Research Service
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Congressional Engagement on U.S. Policy Toward the Sudans................................................ 4
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5
The Separation ........................................................................................................................... 6
Outstanding Issues and Disputes ..................................................................................................... 7
Financial Arrangements ............................................................................................................. 8
Debts and Debt Relief ......................................................................................................... 9
Disputes along the North-South Border .................................................................................. 11
Abyei ................................................................................................................................. 11
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile ..................................................................................... 12
Normalizing Relations Between the Sudans ........................................................................... 15
South Sudan: Persistent and Emergent Challenges........................................................................ 16
Governance and Development Challenges .............................................................................. 17
Security Issues ......................................................................................................................... 19
Humanitarian Access in South Sudan ...................................................................................... 20
Sudan: Economic and Center-Periphery Tensions ......................................................................... 20
Political and Economic Pressures ............................................................................................ 21
Conflict in Darfur .................................................................................................................... 23
U.S. Policy Toward the Sudans...................................................................................................... 25
Obama Administration Policy and Engagement ...................................................................... 27
U.S. Sanctions and Economic Engagement............................................................................. 28
U.S. Assistance ........................................................................................................................ 30
Outlook for Congress and U.S. Policy ........................................................................................... 31
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Sudan and South Sudan ....................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Map of the Sudans’ Contested Border ............................................................................ 13
Figure 3. Map of South Sudan ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Map of Sudan ................................................................................................................. 21
Tables
Table B-1.Humanitarian Data at a Glance ..................................................................................... 36
Table C-1.U.S. Bilateral Foreign Assistance to Sudan and South Sudan ...................................... 37
Table C-2.U.S. Foreign Assistance for the Sudans, including Bilateral and Humanitarian
Assistance and Peacekeeping Contributions .............................................................................. 37
Table E-1.Current U.N. Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan and/or South Sudan ......................... 39
Congressional Research Service
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendixes
Appendix A. Status of Negotiations............................................................................................... 35
Appendix B. The Humanitarian Situation ..................................................................................... 36
Appendix C. U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Sudans ..................................................................... 37
Appendix D. Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix E. Peacekeeping Operations .......................................................................................... 39
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 39
Congressional Research Service
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Overview
The United States Congress has a long history of engagement on U.S. policy toward Sudan—
since the end of apartheid in South Africa, there is no country (now countries) in Africa on which
Congress has focused greater attention. This sustained, bipartisan focus has been driven in part by
diverse advocacy groups and public awareness campaigns on issues in Sudan ranging from
famine to modern-day slavery, religious persecution, genocide, and other violations of human
rights and humanitarian law. Terrorism concerns have overlapped with these policy debates.
Peace and stability within and between Sudan and South Sudan remain among the highest U.S.
foreign policy priorities in Africa, yet these goals remain elusive, even after several years of
seemingly positive momentum and multiple peace accords.1 In 2005, Sudan’s Islamist
government in Khartoum and the southern insurgency known as the Sudan People’s Liberation
Movement/Army (SPLM/A) signed a peace agreement to end Africa’s longest running civil war.2
That deal paved the way for a southern referendum on self-determination, after which South
Sudan, led by the SPLM in Juba, seceded in July 2011. Violence and insecurity continue to
plague the two countries, however, as evidenced by the presence of roughly one-third of the U.N.
peacekeepers deployed worldwide, who are stationed in the two Sudans as part of three different
operations.3 In both countries, overlapping conflicts between security forces and armed groups,
among ethnic groups, and between nomadic and farming communities have caused extensive
displacement and human suffering. International actors continue to press the Sudans to resolve
their outstanding disputes so post-war recovery and reconciliation can proceed.
The 2005 peace agreement did not resolve several significant issues between the governments in
Khartoum and Juba. They have continued deliberations on once-shared resources, such as oil;
disputed areas along their shared 1,200 mile border; and other related security issues. Progress in
the talks has been halting since separation, with a partial agreement on security and economic
cooperation reached on September 27, 2012 (see Appendix A). The parties have agreed to a
demilitarized border zone and a joint border verification and monitoring mission designed to
defuse tensions along the border. The two countries’ security forces remained heavily deployed
along or beyond their respective sides of their shared border after separation and have clashed on
several occasions. The implementation of agreements previously reached by the parties has not
kept pace with international expectations, leading to some skepticism about this latest accord. The
September agreement failed to resolve the status of several contested border areas, including the
disputed Abyei region. The deployment of peacekeepers to Abyei in mid-2011 defused a violent
stand-off between Sudanese and South Sudanese forces, but the majority of Abyei’s residents
remain displaced, and a political resolution remains outstanding.
1
In this report, the terms “South Sudan” and “the south” refer to what now constitutes the new Republic of South
Sudan, while “Sudan,” “Sudanese,” and “the north” refer to the present-day Republic of Sudan, unless otherwise
indicated in discussions of “unified” Sudan, prior to separation. “Khartoum” and “Juba,” the two countries’ respective
capitals, are also used to refer to their governments.
2
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 now composes the country’s armed forces.
3
The three operations are the U.N. Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), the U.N. Interim Security
Force for Abyei (UNISFA), and the African Union-U.N. Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID). See Appendix D.
Congressional Research Service
1
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Figure 1. Map of Sudan and South Sudan
Conflict has escalated in the past year in the Sudanese border states of Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile, between Sudan’s military and the SPLM-North, insurgents once formally aligned with
South Sudan’s ruling party. Fighting in these states is driven by local grievances against
Khartoum and has severely affected more than half a million people. Access by relief agencies is
Congressional Research Service
2
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
extremely limited. Another 205,000 have fled as refugees to South Sudan and Ethiopia.4 U.N. and
independent human rights investigations suggest that the Sudanese military may be responsible
for war crimes in the two states. These conflicts and the ongoing hostilities in Sudan’s western
Darfur region complicate U.S. relations with both countries and have led the Obama
Administration to defer efforts to begin normalizing relations with Sudan.
Critics of current mediation efforts suggest that a piecemeal approach to Sudan’s overlapping
conflicts has led to a focus on resolving one conflict at the expense of another, thus prolonging
the violence. Some in Congress and the Administration have called for a comprehensive
agreement that promotes democratic reform and “lasting peace throughout all of Sudan.”5
Khartoum has long resisted efforts to combine discussions with various opponents to the regime,
preferring to negotiate separately with the SPLM, the Darfur groups, and others. This approach
has yielded some positive outcomes, but it has also resulted in partially implemented agreements
that do not fully address regional grievances or resolve disputes that are fundamentally national
issues. In Darfur, a 2011 peace agreement supported by the international community has failed to
incorporate the region’s largest armed groups. Deteriorating security conditions in Darfur have
prompted the State Department to question Sudan’s commitment to implement the agreement.6
Independent observers suggest that the conflict “is far from approaching a sustainable resolution,”
despite a relative reduction in violence from the height of the crisis.7 U.S. Special Envoy for
Sudan and South Sudan Princeton Lyman outlined his view of the challenge in August 2012:
Sudan cannot deal with the ongoing troubles in Darfur, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, the
east, and elsewhere in the country with a system that does not meet the demands for greater
political space, for greater sharing of wealth and opportunity and for greater democracy.
Trying to suppress those demands militarily has led to continued conflicts. And the conflicts
have in turn led to new accusations of human rights violations. This is a vicious circle that
keeps Sudan from a new dawn.8
Groups opposed to the ruling party in Khartoum have yet to unite behind a clearly articulated
common vision for the country’s future. The major armed groups have, however, pledged
cooperation toward their near-term goal of regime change in Khartoum.
The Sudans appeared to engage in what some termed an economic “war of attrition” with each
other for much of 2012, creating mounting hardship and domestic pressure on both sides. South
Sudan halted oil production in January 2012 because of unresolved disputes with Sudan over
export arrangements and revenues from once-shared reserves, leaving both countries facing
massive budget shortfalls and inflation. The two sides reached a preliminary agreement in August
2012 on financial arrangements, including southern oil exports; the September deal may allow
production and exports to resume by mid-2013.
Given their revenue losses, both governments have pursued austerity budgets in 2012 and
prioritized security spending, leaving little for social services or development. As Appendix B
indicates, population displacement and food insecurity are significant problems in both countries.
4
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan Humanitarian Update: 2nd Quarter 2012, July 16, 2012.
The Sudan Peace, Security, and Accountability Act of 2012, H.R. 4169, as introduced.
6
State Department, “Deteriorating Security Situation in Darfur, Sudan,” Press Statement, October 4, 2012.
7
Claudio Gramizzi and Jerôme Tubiana, Forgotten Darfur: Old Tactics and New Players, Small Arms Survey Human
Security Baseline Assessment (HSBA) Working Paper 28, July 2012.
8
U.S. Special Envoy Princeton Lyman, “U.S.-Sudan Relations,” Address at the Atlantic Council, August 1, 2012.
5
Congressional Research Service
3
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Both governments have looked to donors and lenders to make up the near-term fiscal gap created
by lost oil revenue, thus pushing the United States and others to make difficult decisions
regarding fundamental strategic interests in the region and the relative priority of their objectives.
Congressional Engagement on U.S. Policy Toward the Sudans
Congressional action has often influenced U.S. policy toward Sudan. U.S. relations with Sudan
have long been turbulent, with the two countries routinely taking opposing positions on Middle
East and Africa issues. U.S. foreign aid to Sudan had risen substantially starting in the late 1970s
when Sudan was seen as a Cold War ally, but in the wake of the 1989 coup that brought Omar al
Bashir and the National Islamic Front (NIF) to power, diplomatic relations were downgraded and
aid was cut off. The Clinton Administration designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in
1993. By 1999, some Members of Congress who were sympathetic to the cause of Sudan’s
southern insurgents initiated efforts to tighten sanctions. At the same time they pushed to
authorize not only food aid but development assistance, including programs to build local
administrative capacity, for areas outside of Khartoum’s control—namely areas held by the
SPLM.9 In 2002, Congress also appropriated non-lethal assistance for the National Democratic
Alliance, a coalition of armed and unarmed opposition forces (including the SPLM), to
“strengthen its ability to protect civilians from attacks.”10 At the same time, Congress expressed
support for Bush Administration efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to Sudan’s civil war.
Several years later, conflict and human rights abuses in the diverse and historically volatile Darfur
region captured international attention and galvanized a campaign that led Congress and President
George W. Bush to accuse Khartoum of genocide and further tighten sanctions.11 Congress added
Darfur to the areas outside government control eligible to receive U.S. foreign aid and required
the President to develop a contingency plan for delivering relief aid to any areas where the
government denied access.12 In 2006, after the north-south war had ended, Congress introduced
additional economic and diplomatic sanctions on Khartoum to press for a resolution of the Darfur
conflict. It also authorized assistance to implement the north-south agreement, including military
aid to support the SPLA’s transformation from a guerilla movement into a professional army.13
Congress later supported the efforts of U.S. state and local governments to divest any assets in
companies that conduct certain business operations in Sudan, and required U.S. government
contracts to meet similar standards.14 Today, Members continue to explore various policy tools to
press the Sudanese government to end abuses and to facilitate a peaceful future for both Sudans.
Throughout this period of strained relations, the United States has remained the largest bilateral
donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of both Sudan and South Sudan. The United States
9
The House and Senate separately passed several versions of the Sudan Peace Act (in 1999, 2000, and 2001) before it
became law in October 2002 as P.L. 107-245. It authorized $100 million annually “to the areas of Sudan that are not
controlled by the Government of Sudan to prepare the population for peace and democratic governance, including
support for civil administration, communications infrastructure, education, health, and agriculture.”
10
The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2002, P.L. 107-115. H.Rept.
107-142, stated that the Bush Administration “can and should do more to support the democratic opposition in Sudan.”
11
The 108th Congress declared the Sudanese government’s actions in Darfur to constitute genocide in the House with
passage of H.Con.Res. 467 (422-0) and in the Senate with the adoption of S.Con.Res. 133, (by Unanimous Consent).
12
The Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, P.L. 108-497.
13
The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, P.L. 109-344.
14
The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, P.L. 110-174.
Congressional Research Service
4
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
also contributes the largest share of funding for the three U.N. peacekeeping operations. Statutory
restrictions limit U.S. development assistance to Sudan to humanitarian, health, demining, and
democracy aid. By contrast, South Sudan ranks among the largest U.S. aid recipients in subSaharan Africa. The United States has invested substantially in efforts to make the world’s newest
country viable, given its massive humanitarian and development needs. In total, U.S. spending on
both Sudans has approached $2 billion annually in recent years—most of it for humanitarian aid
and international peacekeeping operations. As fiscal constraints and competing domestic
priorities present Congress and the Administration with complex budget decisions, the levels and
types foreign aid to both Sudans may attract increasing attention and debate.
Background
For more than fifty years, north and south Sudan were unified as a country, but divided internally.
Together they constituted the largest country in Africa, with territory roughly equal in size to the
United States east of the Mississippi River. Their separation in 2011 followed decades of civil war
described broadly as a conflict between the “Arab” Muslim north and “African” Christian and
animist south.15 Ongoing conflict and unrest within and between the now-separate countries is
indicative of the complex political and cultural divisions that have plagued Sudan for decades.
After Sudan gained independence from Anglo-Egyptian rule in 1956, successive governments in
Khartoum perpetuated development disparities between the north and south that were, in part, a
legacy of colonial administration. Northern-led regimes espousing Islamist ideals have dominated
much of Sudan’s modern political history, often pressing policies aimed at forcing distant
provinces to conform to the center—Khartoum—rather than working to accommodate the local
customs and institutions of the country’s diverse population. Instead of forging a common
Sudanese identity, these policies exacerbated Sudan’s racial, cultural, and religious differences.
Government attempts to Arabize and Islamize the countryside (the so-called “periphery”) met
with resistance, not only from southerners, but from various ethnic and regional groups that felt
marginalized by central authorities.16 Dissatisfaction in the south sparked two related insurgencies
against Khartoum (1955-1972 and 1983-2005). Groups in other regions rose up periodically
against the government, citing local grievances, and some ultimately joined the southern rebels.
Revenues from Sudan’s oil reserves, which were discovered in 1978 and are largely concentrated
in the south, primarily benefitted the north, in particular state elites in Khartoum. Oil money also
financed the government’s countering of domestic insurgencies with force—first in the south, and
then also in the west and east. Sudan’s counter-insurgency campaigns did not discriminate
15
Sudan, when unified, was composed of more than 400 ethnic groups. Arab identity in the country has cultural, racial,
linguistic, and religious connotations that have been manipulated by northern political elites. Many northern groups
identify themselves as “Arab” based on lineage they trace back to traders from the Arabian Peninsula who settled and
integrated with the indigenous population centuries ago. Since independence, Sudanese politics have been dominated
by members of the Arabized “Riverine tribes” that live along the Nile north of Khartoum. The CIA World Factbook
states that “Arabs” comprise 70% of the population in post-separation Sudan—the Riverine Arabs are a small minority
among this broader grouping of Arab Sudanese. While all Sudanese are, in fact, African, the term “African” is often
applied to non-Arab ethnic groups, many of which have darker complexions, to differentiate them from Arab groups.
16
Official post-independence efforts to “Arabize” Sudan began with Gen. Ibrahim Abboud (president from 1958 to
1964), who declared Arabic the official language for administration and education and expelled Christian missionaries.
See Francis M. Deng, War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in the Sudan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution,
1995), and Robert O. Collins, A History of Modern Sudan (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
5
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
between fighters and civilians, and the government repeatedly questioned the neutrality of
international aid agencies and restricted their access to affected populations. The rebel groups
persisted, and among them the SPLA was the most successful in gaining ground against the more
heavily armed Sudanese military. The SPLA faced internal divisions in the 1990s, largely along
ethnic lines, that Khartoum fueled these splits by financing and arming from breakaway factions.
Along the north-south border, Khartoum also used its oil revenues to finance local Arab militias,
collectively referred to as the Popular Defense Forces (PDF), as a front line against the south.17
Civil war took the heaviest toll on the south—more than two million deaths; massive, long-term
displacement; and decades of suspended development—but it also came at a significant cost to
Khartoum. By 2002, as the government and the SPLM prepared to sign the first in a series of
accords that would end the war three years later, another armed uprising was brewing, in Darfur.
In response, as it had done with the PDF, Khartoum trained and armed local Arab militia, often
referred to as the Janjaweed, to join with the military to conduct what then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell termed in 2004 a “scorched earth policy toward the rebels and the African civilian
population.” Secretary Powell and President Bush declared these actions to constitute genocide.18
The conflict triggered a humanitarian emergency in which some two million Darfuris were
displaced and another 250,000 became refugees in neighboring Chad. As with the north-south
war, casualty estimates in the Darfur conflict vary extensively. Studies suggest that between
100,000 and 500,000 died in the conflict’s early years, some directly in violence and many more
from malnutrition and disease.19 For international actors pressing for a north-south peace
agreement, Darfur considerably complicated efforts to engage Khartoum.
The Separation
On July 9, 2011, South Sudan declared its independence. This came more than six years after the
SPLM and the government of Sudan signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) to bring
an end to over two decades of civil war between north and south. The CPA was based on a stated
commitment by both parties to a democratic system of governance, through which the SPLM and
the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) formed a unity government.20 The CPA enshrined the
south’s right to self-determination at the culmination of a 6.5 year implementation period
(hereafter “the CPA period”). Some saw the CPA as a framework for addressing southern
grievances within a unified Sudan, in part by devolving some authority to a semi-autonomous
southern government.21 It failed to do so, and southern Sudanese voted overwhelmingly in a
17
The PDF are paramilitary forces tasked through Sudan’s Popular Defence Forces Act of 1989 with assisting the
armed forces as ordered by the Sudanese president.
18
Testimony of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), The Current Situation
in Sudan and the Prospects for Peace, September 9, 2004.
19
See, e.g., Olivier Degomme, “Mortality in the Darfur Conflict,” (dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain,
February 2011), available from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at
http://www.cred.be/publications.
20
The CPA committed the parties to “a negotiated settlement on the basis of a democratic system of governance which,
on one hand, recognizes the right of the people of Southern Sudan to self-determination and seeks to make unity
attractive during the Interim Period, which at the same time is founded on the values of justice, democracy, good
governance, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, mutual understanding and tolerance of
diversity within the realities of the Sudan.” It set in motion a 6.5 year timeline, from January 2005 to July 2011, during
which the two parties agreed to work together in the context of a unified state.
21
Dr. John Garang, the long-time leader of the SPLM, died in a helicopter crash in 2005, months after the CPA was
signed. Garang had outlined a vision of a democratic, secular “New Sudan” that included both north and south, but with
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
January 2011 referendum to secede from the north. Six months later, the Republic of South Sudan
was recognized as the world’s 195th country, first by the government of Sudan, and then by the
United States, the African Union (AU), the United Nations, and others.
To the surprise of many observers, the January 2011 referendum and South Sudan’s July
independence day passed without conflict between north and south. Relations between the two
countries subsequently deteriorated, however, with the rhetoric on both sides increasingly
bellicose and uncompromising as tensions mounted in the borderlands.
Talks between the two sides have continued, and the negotiators have made some concessions
that are considered promising. Underlying security issues, however, continue to complicate their
relationship. South Sudan accuses Khartoum of backing “proxy” militias in its territory, as the
latter was widely believed to have done during the war. Likewise, Sudan accuses the SPLM, now
South Sudan’s ruling party, of providing support for insurgent groups operating within the
north—namely former divisions of the SPLA now known as the SPLA-N, as well as armed
groups in Darfur. Since late 2011, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have conducted periodic air
strikes across the South Sudan border, including in the vicinity of refugee camps, purportedly in
pursuit of SPLA-N and Darfuri rebels. In April, this prompted the SPLA to seize and temporarily
occupy Heglig, a disputed oil production area claimed by Sudan, from which South Sudan
accused Sudan of launching attacks. The SPLA later withdrew under international pressure.
Outstanding Issues and Disputes
Despite their formal separation, Sudan and South Sudan remain linked by—and divided over—a
range of shared interests and outstanding disputes. The CPA did not define the relationship
between north and south in the event of a southern vote for separation, and arrangements on
multiple issues were left unresolved when Sudan split. Among the disputed issues are those
related to their shared border, citizenship, and financial arrangements, including those pertaining
to revenues from the sale of South Sudanese oil that transits Sudan for export. Other
arrangements called for in the CPA, such as resolution of the final status of the contested border
region of Abyei and the implementation of “popular consultation processes” for the people of
Southern Kordofan (see below), have yet to be fully implemented.
Negotiations on these issues began in Ethiopia in 2010, under the auspices of the AU High-Level
Implementation Panel on Sudan (AUHIP), led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki.
Donors who had played a key role in the peace process, including the United States, offered
incentives to encourage Khartoum to recognize the result of the south’s referendum and ensure a
peaceful transition. Sudan’s military operations in the borderlands and related human rights
violations have discouraged the delivery of support to Khartoum. On both sides, many other
potential peace dividends have remained out of reach.
(...continued)
his death, advocates of separation, including his successor Salva Kiir, increasingly disengaged from efforts to pursue
democratic change in Khartoum. For many southerners, it seemed, the trauma of the war had fueled resentment against
the north for too long. Many observers also suggest that Khartoum did little to make unity attractive to southerners.
Congressional Research Service
7
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Financial Arrangements
The secession of South Sudan was a major financial blow to Sudan, which lost 75% of its five
billion barrels of known oil reserves. Throughout the war, the south received little benefit from its
oil resources, which were controlled by Khartoum. From 2005 to 2011, per the CPA, revenues
derived from southern oil were to be split evenly between north and south. Prior to separation,
when the revenue sharing arrangement expired, oil represented 90% of Sudan’s export earnings
and 60% of government revenues. Once oil revenues began to accrue to Juba under the CPA, they
comprised 98% of the south’s total revenues.22 When the land-locked south became independent,
it remained reliant on northern infrastructure to export its oil, which was pumped through
pipelines to the northern city of Port Sudan on the Red Sea for refining and export.
As the CPA period drew to a close in 2011, deliberations on the future management of South
Sudan’s petroleum sector, including pipeline rental, transit fees, port services, and joint
development options, were ongoing, and they were considered pivotal to other negotiations
between Juba and Khartoum. Sudan, seeking to offset the loss of its 50% share of the south’s oil
revenues, demanded oil transit and processing fees of $32-36 per barrel. South Sudan’s
significantly lower counter-offers of under $1 per barrel were more in line with international
standards for transit fees, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, but did little
to address Sudan’s massive revenue loss. With South Sudan dependent on Sudan’s refining and
export infrastructure to get its primary commodity to market, the international community views
the two countries as economically co-dependent, at least in the near term, and initially assumed
that this co-dependence could be a stabilizing factor in their relationship. In the past year, both
governments have demonstrated in decisions and public statements the flaws in this assumption.23
The extent to which the relationship between the Sudans had soured after separation became
apparent in January 2012, when South Sudan shut down all of its oil production. Juba accused
Khartoum of detaining outbound tankers and diverting more than $800 million worth of oil as it
was being exported through Sudan. By this time, South Sudan reported that it had not received oil
revenues for several months. Sudan acknowledged diverting oil, claiming that South Sudan owed
roughly $1 billion in unpaid transit fees—a figure Khartoum based on the fee rates it was
demanding in the negotiations.24 Days after halting production, South Sudan signed an agreement
with Kenya to build a new pipeline to the Kenyan port of Lamu as an alternative export route. It
has also explored the possibility of a pipeline through Ethiopia to Djibouti’s Red Sea port. Most
experts, however, surmise that South Sudan will struggle to find capital for such projects unless
new oil discoveries are made. By many estimates, construction of a new pipeline and new port
facilities will take years even if capital is forthcoming, leaving both governments with a massive
loss of much-needed revenue unless southern oil exports through Sudan resume.
The parties have discussed additional incentives that Sudan considers necessary to address its socalled “financial gap”—the near-term economic impact of losing the south’s resources. The two
sides came to a tentative agreement in August 2012 that was finalized in late September, based in
22
Oil statistics draw from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Sudan and South Sudan,” Country Analysis
Briefs, March 19, 2012, unless otherwise indicated.
23
In a July 9, 2012 Independence Day speech, President Kiir pronounced, “to the extent that we depend on others, our
liberty is incomplete.” Text of the speech is available at http://www.goss-online.org.
24
South Sudan had not paid transit fees since independence, but it had maintained a commitment to paying back
charges once the fees were agreed to by the negotiators.
Congressional Research Service
8
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
part on Juba’s offer of a direct cash transfer of more than $3 billion to compensate Khartoum for
lost revenues, in addition to the payment of transit fees. The package represents roughly one-third
of Sudan’s estimated financial gap. Khartoum will be responsible for filling another third and
expects the international community to cover the remainder through grants and debt forgiveness.
Khartoum also anticipates increased income from renewed trade opportunities when economic
sanctions are lifted. Advocacy groups have called for international actors to insert conditionality
into any financial support to Khartoum.25 South Sudan’s concession to offer Sudan the $3 billion,
which amounts to roughly 15% of its own revenues over a 3.5 year period, is unprecedented—
one of the world’s least developed countries would become, at the same time, both a major aid
recipient and a major donor. Some analysts have suggested that the offer may be perceived by the
people of South Sudan as a “multi-billion dollar lifeline” to President Bashir.26
South Sudan’s oil fields remained inactive after the August deal—both sides had tied its
implementation to the conclusion of talks on security issues. The September agreements address
some, but not all of those issues, but the parties have agreed that oil flows will resume in the
interim (see Appendix A). Experts say it will take months for production and exports to restart;
repairs to some facilities, which were reportedly damaged in air strikes, may take up to a year. In
the interim, both countries are likely to require short-term external assistance and/or loans. Both
countries are opening new blocks to exploration in the search for new revenues, which Juba hopes
will result in new finds that might spur investment for the construction of alternative pipelines.
Debts and Debt Relief
With separation, Sudan retained the full burden of its extant sovereign debt. Khartoum has
repeatedly endeavored to link that debt, estimated at more than $40 billion—much of it in
arrears—to the oil talks. Juba has refused to assume part of the debt, arguing that the south
received no benefits from the loans incurred by Khartoum during the war. Almost 90% is owed to
bilateral and commercial creditors, and Khartoum, having lost most of its oil revenues, is now
struggling to make debt payments. Some donors, including the United Kingdom, to which Sudan
owes $1 billion, and the United States, to which it owes more than $2 billion, have pledged debt
forgiveness if certain criteria are met. The State Department requested $250 million in its FY2013
budget to meet potential U.S. bilateral debt relief commitments under the Heavily Indebted Poor
Country (HIPC) framework (should Sudan become eligible). The $250 million package is the
estimated cost of forgiving 100% of Sudan’s debt to the United States. The obligation of funds,
currently prohibited by Congress through March 2013, would depend on Sudan’s ability to meet
both congressionally imposed requirements tied to debt relief, including those related to human
rights and state sponsorship of terrorism, and Administration conditions such as the resolution of
outstanding CPA issues.27 These are unlikely to be met under current circumstances, forcing
Khartoum to negotiate with its traditional financiers—the Gulf States and China.
25
See, e.g., Jenn Christian, “The Case for Conditioning International Financial Support to Sudan,” The Enough Project,
August 21, 2012.
26
European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, “Why Sudan Should Accept South Sudan’s Financial Package,” July 30, 2012.
27
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) prohibited funding to modify loans held by Sudan. The
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 prohibits activities for which funds were not appropriated in FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
9
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Impact of South Sudan’s Oil Shutdown
The loss of oil revenue has had a substantial impact on the economies of both countries in 2012. Both sides lost their
largest source of foreign exchange, and the cost of living has risen sharply. The implications for Sudan are evolving.
Unlike South Sudan, Khartoum does have some other existing sources of revenue from which to draw, and efforts to
diversify the economy are underway. Khartoum already had austerity measures in place when South Sudan separated
and the shared oil revenue arrangement ended. By early 2012, however, the worsening economic situation was
putting increasing pressure on the government. Inflation and cuts in fuel and sugar subsidies have triggered public
protests, which have drawn a harsh response from Khartoum and led some observers to question whether Khartoum
might ultimately face a broader “Arab Spring”-style uprising. The subsidy cuts have also drawn criticism from some in
the ruling party.
The economic impact of the oil shutdown in South Sudan has been more severe, but, to date, less visible.28 The
finance ministry has forecast that gross domestic product (GDP) will contract by 70% in 2012 as a direct result of the
shutdown; the indirect effect of reduced government spending will significantly further constrain the economy. The
country is estimated to have lost more than $3 billion in the first half of 2012—export earnings from which the
government would otherwise have drawn almost all its revenue.29 Juba has worked to increase non-oil revenues,
primarily through improved tax collection, but the tax base remains extremely limited. Initial austerity measures were
announced in March, but real budget tightening did not commence until mid-2012, at which time the government
began to draw from reserves. Under the new budget, the government has given priority to maintaining civil servant
salaries, notably including those of the security forces, and related spending for maintaining national security. Spending
on social services, including health and education, has been cut by 20%.30 Capital outlays and other development
spending have been reduced or suspended. The suspension of major infrastructure projects, particularly roads, will
further stifle South Sudan’s economic potential and hinder efforts to diversify the economy in the near term.
Because the majority of South Sudan’s population rely on subsistence agriculture and remain largely outside the cash
economy, measuring the impact of inflation on the population has been difficult. Rising costs and a scarcity of certain
market items have had a discernible effect in urban areas and those states that border Kenya and Uganda (they are
more exposed to cross-border trade).31 The government is the largest employer in the formal economy, and its
ability to maintain salaries and avoid large-scale layoffs until revenue flows resume may be critical to avoiding unrest.
Fuel shortages are an increasing problem (although very few South Sudanese own cars), affecting primarily trade,
government operations, and aid efforts. South Sudan is heavily reliant on food imports—despite significant potential
capacity for self-sufficiency—and rising costs have led the United Nations to revise its estimates of food aid needs.
The initial decision to cease production was greeted by widespread patriotic enthusiasm. In the context of public
expectations regarding post-independence development, however, domestic views of the decision have appeared
increasingly mixed.32 South Sudan has yet to experience the popular protests that have plagued Sudan. Fiscal discipline
will likely be a priority in the coming months until exports resume, and the government is seeking external financing,
while attempting to avoid loan terms that will create an unsustainable debt burden. The government secured a $100
million line of credit from Qatar in June for imports, namely food, fuel, medicine, and building supplies; it is expected
to be depleted before the end of 2012. Juba is reportedly in negotiations with an international bank for another $200
million credit line.33 The International Monetary Fund announced in September that South Sudan is eligible for
concessional borrowing. Western donors have been reluctant to provide direct budget assistance to the government,
based in part on corruption concerns.
28
Analysis is based on the author’s travel to South Sudan in August-September 2012 and multiple interviews in Juba.
South Sudan produced 340,000 barrels per day (bpd) prior to January; Sudan produces some 110,000 bpd in its own
territory. Prior to separation, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Sudan produced 470,000 bpd
in 2010, of which it consumed 98,000 bpd domestically. For more information, see UN IRIN, “South Sudan: Briefing –
Life Without Oil,” February 14, 2012.
30
South Sudan’s 2012/2013 budget is available at http://www.goss-online.org.
31
For more information on public attitudes in these states, see a recent survey conducted in Greater Equatoria by the
International Republican Institute (IRI), available at http://www.iri.org. In that survey, 95% of respondents said that
goods at local markets were more expensive than in mid-2011.
32
Ibid. According to the IRI survey, 49% of respondents supported the decision; 43% opposed it. More than threequarters of respondents expected that the decision would affect the amount of services the government could provide.
33
“South Sudan Seeks $200 million Credit Line for Imports,” Reuters, September 17, 2012.
29
Congressional Research Service
10
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Disputes along the North-South Border
Sudan and South Sudan have generally agreed to use the administrative dividing line between
north and south that the British used until Sudan’s independence in 1956 as their common border.
That borderline has yet to be demarcated, however, and approximately 20% remains disputed.34
The borderlands were the front lines of the civil war, and negotiations to conclusively define the
precise location of the border have been complicated by grievances and distrust among the
communities who live along it, and by the concentration of oil reserves in these areas. The
African Union has proposed that the Sudans maintain a “soft border” that would allow social and
economic interaction and promote peaceful coexistence among border communities. In three
border regions, Abyei and the states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, heavy military
deployments and unresolved political issues—fueled by local disputes over governance, land, and
natural resources—reignited simmering conflicts toward the end of the CPA period. Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile remain in open conflict. As a result, Sudan closed the north-south border
in 2011, halting the movement of civilians and all cross-border trade, and instituting harsh
penalties, including capital punishment, for violations. The parties agreed in the September 2012
accord to re-open the border.
Abyei
This region between Sudan and South Sudan was accorded “special administrative status” under
the CPA, and it has repeatedly been a flashpoint for violence between north and south.35 Under
the terms of the CPA, the residents of Abyei were to determine, through a referendum, whether to
retain their special status in Sudan or to join South Sudan. The referendum has yet to occur. Abyei
is home to the Ngok Dinka, a subset of South Sudan’s largest ethnic group, who were heavily
displaced during the war. The area has also long been used by the Misseriya, an Arab nomadic
group, who migrate south through Abyei seasonally to graze their cattle. Many Misseriya fought
in PDF militias allied with Khartoum during the civil war, while most Ngok Dinka supported the
SPLM. The Ngok Dinka accuse Khartoum of settling tens of thousands of Misseriya in the area
and arming them to fuel instability. During the CPA period, Khartoum accused the SPLA of
building its presence in the area and arming the local population.36 Territorial claims to Abyei
were once considered particularly contentious because of its oil reserves, estimated in 2004 to
represent almost a quarter of Sudan’s annual oil production. Production in Abyei subsequently
declined, however, and in 2009 an international court of arbitration ruled that region’s major oil
fields, including Heglig, were outside the area under consideration in Abyei’s referendum.37
Today, Abyei’s significance is driven much more by politics and cultural attachment than by oil.
The Abyei referendum was to have been held simultaneously with that of South Sudan, but
disputes related to the region’s border and voter eligibility delayed the process, and talks were
repeatedly postponed. Clashes between southern Sudanese forces and the SAF in May 2011, and
the SAF’s subsequent occupation of Abyei town, displaced some 100,000 people, most into South
34
See, e.g., Concordis International, More Than a Line: Sudan’s North-South Border, September 2010.
During the Interim Period, Abyei residents were considered citizens of both the northern state of Southern Kordofan
and the southern state of Bahr el Ghazal. The CPA was not the first peace agreement to accord Abyei the right to a
referendum on self-determination—the 1972 Addis Ababa agreement likewise did so, but was never implemented.
36
For more information, see, e.g., two reports by the Small Arms Survey: “Militarization in Abyei,” HSBA, October
2010, and Joshua Craze, Creating Facts on the Ground: Conflict Dynamics in Abyei, Working Paper 26, June 2011.
37
Per the court ruling, Diffra, the only field that remains in Abyei, represents roughly 2% of Sudan’s total production.
35
Congressional Research Service
11
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Sudan, where many remain today. In response to the violence, escalating tensions, and population
displacement, and following vigorous negotiations led by Ethiopia, the U.N. Security Council
passed UNSCR 1990 in June 2011, authorizing a new peacekeeping operation, the U.N. Interim
Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA), composed of Ethiopian troops. In late 2011, the Security
Council authorized UNISFA to also take on broader border monitoring responsibilities across the
entire north-south border, in coordination with Sudan and South Sudan. Both sides were slow to
respond to efforts to commence monitoring, due to disagreement on the borderline.
With the presence of UNISFA, the security situation in Abyei has remained tense but stable;
however, only a fraction of the displaced have returned. In 2012, the annual Misseriya migration
was peaceful for the first time in years.38 Sudanese and South Sudanese security forces
maintained a presence in the area in contravention of U.N. resolutions and a June 2011 agreement
between the parties until mid-2012, when South Sudan, and then Sudan, withdrew their forces.
South Sudan alleges that some Sudanese soldiers remain in Abyei disguised as “oil police,”
whom Khartoum has refused to withdraw. The two countries have yet to establish a local civilian
administration and police service, despite agreeing to do so; this has discouraged residents from
returning. As the parties continue to negotiate on Abyei’s final status, options reportedly
discussed include Khartoum ceding Abyei to South Sudan—through referendum or otherwise—in
exchange for Misseriya grazing rights and financial incentives, partitioning the area between the
Sudans, or placing the region under international administration.39
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, like Abyei, are resource-rich, culturally diverse areas along the
north-south border that received special administrative status under the CPA. The conflict that has
plagued these states for decades is emblematic of center-periphery struggles that have
characterized most of Sudan’s modern history. Unlike Abyei, however, the two states were not
granted the option of self-determination under the CPA, given that both lie north of the 1956
border. Instead, the CPA proposed a “popular consultation” process, an ambiguous mechanism
intended to offer greater autonomy for these states within Sudan.40
Many residents of these states, driven by their own grievances against Khartoum, sided with the
SPLA in the civil war. Southern Kordofan’s Nuba Mountains region was devastated by SAF air
and ground assaults and PDF militia attacks in the 1990s, when severe human rights violations
were reported by the State Department and others.41 Khartoum denied aid agencies access to the
region for 15 years. As a result, the population, which was forced into the hills by bombings and
largely unable to farm, had to rely on unauthorized relief flights outside the Operation Lifeline
Sudan (OLS) system.42 Congress was active in trying to get aid into these restricted areas from
the mid-1990s through the 2002 ceasefire brokered by the United States and Switzerland.
38
Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in Abyei, U.N. Document S/2012/68, January 27, 2012.
International Crisis Group (ICG), Negotiating Sudan’s North-South Future, Africa Briefing No. 76, November 23,
2010; and Enough Project, Sudan Peace Watch, December 21, 2010.
40
The CPA defined popular consultation as a democratic process through which the two states’ legislatures would
either endorse the special distribution of wealth and power given to those states under the CPA, taking into account the
views of the states’ residents, or require the state governments to negotiate a new agreement with Khartoum.
41
See, e.g., Rep. Frank Wolf, “Calling for Action Against Slavery in Southern Sudan,” remarks in the House,
Congressional Record (May 12, 1993), p. H2453. Wolf’s remarks reference declassified State Department documents.
42
OLS was a consortium of U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations established in 1989 to respond to
(continued...)
39
Congressional Research Service
12
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Figure 2. Map of the Sudans’ Contested Border
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Many people in the affected areas felt abandoned by the SPLM in the final CPA deal. Local
SPLM leaders remained popular, however, and together with other northern SPLM members they
formed a new political party, the SPLM-N. Mistrust of Khartoum remained high among SPLM-N
supporters throughout the CPA period. The areas also remained heavily militarized, with large
troop deployments by both sides, in contravention of the CPA. In Blue Nile, the CPA-mandated
(...continued)
humanitarian needs in the war-torn south through negotiations between the U.N., the government, and the SPLM. The
arrangement, which enabled one of the largest international relief efforts in history, allowed access to civilians in need
during ongoing conflict, but it also gave Khartoum effective veto authority over flights to certain areas. It additionally
granted both sides authority over which agencies could deliver aid.
Congressional Research Service
13
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
political processes, including the state elections and popular consultation effort proceeded, albeit
with delays, under the leadership of a former SPLA commander, elected Governor Malik Agar.
In Southern Kordofan, state elections, which were a precursor to the popular consultation process,
were repeatedly postponed, and tensions were high when they were finally held in May 2011.
Khartoum’s candidate, Southern Kordofan Governor Ahmed Haroun, who is sought by the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Darfur,43 defeated the SPLM-N candidate,
Abdul Aziz al Hilu, in a bitterly contested election.44 The Sudanese military then demanded that
local SPLA forces, who had remained stationed in the two states throughout the CPA period
(some as part of joint units), be immediately withdrawn to South Sudan. The SPLM-N rejected
Sudan’s demand, given that these fighters were residents of the two states, rather than of South
Sudanese origin; they argued that CPA-mandated processes for addressing their status remained
unfulfilled.45 Fighting broke out in Southern Kordofan in early June 2011, when Haroun ordered
that the fighters be forcibly disarmed. The SPLA-N quickly made territorial gains that appear to
have given them a military advantage against the SAF, despite heavy aerial bombardment.
Access to both states has been extremely limited since hostilities began in 2011, but reports by the
media and human rights groups suggest that the SAF and allied militia may be responsible for
grave human rights violations.46 According to a U.N. report from the first month of the fighting,
Instead of distinguishing between civilians and combatants and accordingly directing their
military operations only against military targets, the SAF and the paramilitary forces have
deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects including churches, and have engaged in
acts or threats of violence for the sole purpose of terrorizing them through targeted killings,
abductions, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and aerial bombardments resulting in forced
movements of the people of Southern Kordofan out of their homes and out of the state.47
The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report in August 2011
stating that actions by the Sudanese military “may constitute war crimes and crimes against
humanity.”48 High Commissioner Navi Pillay has reiterated concerns about the government’s
“indiscriminate aerial bombardments and scorched earth policies” in more recent statements.49
43
Haroun, according to the ICC prosecutor, was responsible for mobilizing the PDF militias in the Nuba Mountains in
the 1990s (a period and location outside the ICC’s jurisdiction in Sudan The International Criminal Court). Office of
the Prosecutor, Public Redacted Version of Prosecutor’s Application under Article 58 filed on December 2, 2011.
44
Abdul Aziz, who was the SPLA commander in the region during the civil war, had served as the state’s first
governor after the signing of the CPA. Carter Center monitors deemed the state’s 2011 election “peaceful and
credible”; others questioned the poll’s legitimacy.
45
Under the terms of the CPA, the joint units were to be dissolved during a six month window after the end of the
Interim Period (i.e., between July 2011 and January 2012), with the forces incorporated into one of the two armies.
46
UNMIS Human Rights Section, UNMIS Report on the Human Rights Situation During the Violence in Southern
Kordofan, June 2011; Human Rights Watch, “Sudan: Blue Nile Civilians Describe Attacks, Abuses,” April 23, 2012
and “Sudan: Southern Kordofan Civilians Tell of Air Strike Horror,” August 30, 2011; and reports by the Satellite
Sentinel Project, available at satsentinel.org.
47
UNMIS Human Rights Section, UNMIS Report on the Human Rights Situation During the Violence in Southern
Kordofan Sudan, June 2011.
48
Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), Preliminary Report on Violations of
International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Southern Kordofan from 5 to 30 June 2011, August 2011.
49
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, Opening Remarks at the Human Rights Council 21st
Session, September 10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
14
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
The security situation in Blue Nile initially remained stable after the outbreak of hostilities in
Southern Kordofan, but the issue of SPLA disarmament triggered violence in Blue Nile in early
September 2011, prompting President Bashir to declare a state of emergency in Blue Nile and
dismiss Governor Agar. Agar and Aziz, along with several Darfuri rebel groups, subsequently
formed the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), with Agar chosen as the alliance’s chairman. Its
stated aim is to overthrow the National Congress Party and establish a democratic state in Sudan.
AU efforts to mediate directly between Khartoum and the SPLM-N have been unsuccessful to
date. A framework agreement on political and security arrangements reached between the parties’
negotiators in late June 2011 was subsequently rejected by President Bashir. In May 2012, the
U.N. Security Council called on the parties to reach a negotiated political settlement, rather than a
military solution, based on that agreement. The Security Council adopted UNSCR 1997 (2011) to
establish a peacekeeping operation in the two states; Sudan has not consented to such a presence.
Throughout the current conflict, access by relief agencies to populations in both states has been
extremely limited, and humanitarian conditions have deteriorated dramatically.50 The violence
over the past year has kept residents from harvesting crops, and government restrictions have
prevented the flow of food and medicines. Khartoum has restricted aid access in governmentcontrolled areas and denied access to areas held by the SPLM-N. Experts suggest that the
condition of refugees arriving at camps across the border in South Sudan and Ethiopia is likely
indicative of conditions inside the two states—refugees who fled in 2011 were primarily fleeing
the violence and moving in anticipation of coming food shortages. By mid-2012, when the rate of
arrivals increased dramatically, the lack of food became an increasing motivation for flight.51
New arrivals to the camps are malnourished, leaving them particularly vulnerable to disease. AU,
U.N., and Arab League representatives have, to date, been unable to secure access to SPLM-N
areas from Khartoum under a so-called “Tripartite Proposal” for independent third-party monitors
and relief agencies, although several agreements toward this end have been signed.52 In the
absence of a ceasefire, a full-scale relief effort for the conflict zones appears unlikely.
Normalizing Relations Between the Sudans
The working relationship built between the NCP and the SPLM during the CPA period has
deteriorated dramatically in the past year. Inflammatory rhetoric, such as President Bashir’s vow
at a rally in April to free the south from the “insect” SPLM government and “eliminate this insect
completely,” has fueled mistrust, as have cross-border incursions, be they SAF air strikes in the
south or the SPLA assault on Heglig.53 Alleged support for rebels in each other’s territory further
complicates their relationship. Prior to the September 2012 deal, Khartoum had insisted that no
deal on outstanding issues, including southern oil exports, would be implemented until security
arrangements were in place to address South Sudan’s alleged support for Sudanese rebel groups.
50
See, e.g., “USAID, Sudan – Complex Emergency,” Fact Sheet #5, FY2012, August 17, 2012; Under-SecretaryGeneral for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos, Statement on Sudan, June 28,
2012; Statement by the President of the Security Council on the Reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, U.N.
Document S/PRST/2012/19, August 31, 2012.
51
Interviews with U.N. and other aid officials in Juba and Yida, South Sudan in late August 2012.
52
For advocacy views on this issue, see, e.g., U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Sudan:
Humanitarian Access into Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States,” Policy Brief, September 2012.
53
“Bashir Threatens South Sudan’s Ruling Party,” Al Jazeera, April 19, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
The relationship between South Sudan’s ruling party and the SPLM-N today is ambiguous. They
formally became two separate organizations on July 9, 2011, but remain tied by historic bonds
and close relationships. Senior SPLM-N officials were members of the SPLM leadership prior to
the south’s separation, and SPLM-N Secretary-General Yasir Arman was the SPLM’s presidential
candidate in the 2010 national elections.54 SPLM officials have expressed solidarity with
marginalized groups in Sudan, including the SPLM-N, but the government denies any formal link
with the insurgency. The relationship between the SPLA and the SPLA-N (the armed wing of the
SPLM-N) is equally complicated. Until separation, the armed units in Southern Kordofan and
Blue Nile comprised the 9th and 10th battalions of the SPLA. Many experts argue that Juba likely
no longer maintains command and control over these forces, and the Small Arms Survey, an
independent research unit based in Geneva, reports that while evidence suggests that the SPLA-N
has received some military support from the SPLA, “the majority of its supply derives from the
capture of SAF weapons on the battlefield.”55 Allegations of South Sudanese military support for
other SRF groups remain unverified, but multiple reports suggest the groups do enjoy safe haven
in South Sudan, despite a stated commitment by both Sudans not to harbor or support rebels.56
The U.N. Security Council has maintained a significant focus on Sudan-South Sudan issues and
has committed itself to a vision of “two economically prosperous states living side-by-side in
peace, security, and stability.”57 In May, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 2046 (2012),
outlining expectations that the parties reach agreement on outstanding issues by August 2, 2012;
that deadline passed without agreement. The September agreement addresses some, but not all, of
these issues, and the Security Council is expected to deliberate in October on the way forward.
South Sudan: Persistent and Emergent Challenges
The Republic of South Sudan emerged in 2011 not only as the world’s newest nation, but also as
one of its least developed. After almost 40 years of nearly continuous war, during which more
than four million people were displaced, its human development indicators are among the world’s
lowest, infrastructure is sparse, and literacy rates are extremely low. Almost half the population
may face food insecurity in 2012. South Sudan enjoys a bounty of natural resources and its
agricultural potential is enormous. However, with only one paved highway (funded by USAID),
running roughly 120 miles from Juba to the Ugandan border, accessing regional and world
markets will require years of large-scale investment. The government’s decision to halt oil
production and consequently cut its 2012 development budget, is expected to significantly delay
the pace of post-war recovery, despite considerable international good will and donor resources.
The majority of the population has appeared ready to give the government latitude and support, in
spite of rising pessimism about the economy and the government’s ability to deliver services.58
54
Arman placed second after Bashir, gaining 21.7% of the vote despite his decision to boycott based on fraud concerns.
Small Arms Survey, “Further Weapons Seized from SAF in Southern Kordofan,” July 2012.
56
Small Arms Survey, “Business as Usual: Arms Flows to Darfur 2009-2012,” Sudan Issue Brief 20, September 2012.
57
UNSCR 2046 (2012), May 2, 2012.
58
IRI, Survey of Greater Equatoria Public Opinion, May 21-June 15, 2012, available at http://www.iri.org. In that
survey, President Kiir and the army were viewed favorably by 80% and 81% of the surveyed population, respectively.
55
Congressional Research Service
16
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Governance and Development Challenges
South Sudan’s development challenges loom large, particularly given the extremely low rates of
literacy in the government and civil service. Despite its agricultural potential, the population
remains heavily dependent on rain-fed, subsistence farming, and output falls far short of needs.
Conflict and population displacement in parts of the country, inflows of southern returnees and
refugees from Sudan, and various environmental shocks place additional stress on South Sudan’s
limited resources and contribute to widespread humanitarian needs.59 The lack of government
revenues until oil exports resume places further strain on already limited service delivery and
massive demands on diminished development funding. Austerity measures will further delay the
government’s plans to develop primary transit corridors, which are unpaved and become
impassable in the rainy season. Infrastructure delays and security concerns may deter foreign
investment in the near term. The government has given priority to security and the rule of law in
its latest budget, but without new loans or grants it may be unable to fund even these sectors,
should the oil deal’s implementation be delayed. Donors look to South Sudan to take greater steps
toward fiscal discipline and transparency before they will consider additional direct support.
Figure 3. Map of South Sudan
Source: Congressional Research Service.
59
According to UNOCHA, more than 2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and over 331,000 refugees returned
to their communities in South Sudan, Abyei, Southern Kordofan, and Blue Nile during the CPA period.
Congressional Research Service
17
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
The United States, which is the single largest donor to South Sudan, has invested significant
resources in the country’s development. In December 2011, one month before the oil shutdown,
the United States hosted an International Engagement Conference for South Sudan, providing a
forum for Juba to showcase its development priorities and opportunities to foreign investors. The
United States and other donors continue to work with the government to improve its capacity to
govern and deliver social services transparently and effectively.60 In April 2012, South Sudan
became a member of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both of which
were already providing technical assistance. South Sudan is eligible for grants and concessional
financing from the World Bank and the IMF, although financing from any of the multilateral
financial institutions is not expected to provide the short-term relief Juba seeks in 2012. East
African countries are also contributing to the effort—several hundred civil servants from
neighboring countries have been detailed to Juba to provide skills training and fill capacity gaps.
High-level corruption is a major challenge. In May 2012, President Salva Kiir sent a letter to 75
senior officials who are reportedly suspected in the disappearance of several billion dollars in
government revenues. The exact amount missing is subject to debate, but South Sudan’s AuditorGeneral has confirmed that the government cannot account for at least $1 billion in revenues. A
sizeable portion of the missing funds is linked to a three-year old scandal involving grain imports
that were ordered to address food shortages but never received (this prompted a leadership change
at the Finance Ministry, but no officials have been prosecuted). President Kiir, who reportedly
stated in the letter that “the credibility of our government is on the line,” offered amnesty to those
who returned missing funds.61 Senior officials are required by law to report their income, assets,
and liabilities to a new anti-corruption commission, but it has little capacity to verify submissions.
South Sudan’s government is dominated by the SPLM, which won the presidency as well as the
majority of state and regional elections in April 2010.62 The next elections are scheduled for 2014.
The State Department reports that “newly-established governance institutions and systems remain
extremely fragile and vulnerable to corruption, while the responsibilities and expectations of the
national government have increased substantially.”63 In short, the challenges facing the
government are great, and its capacity is limited. Among its many tasks are adopting a permanent
constitution and transitioning to fully elected national and local governments, as required by the
current transitional constitution. The State Department views support for South Sudan’s
development of democratic governance and its ability to deliver services and ensure the rule of
law as critical. South Sudan is under pressure from human rights groups and donors to hold
security forces and officials responsible for reported abuses. The development of legal and
regulatory frameworks to protect basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, and to
address issues of property ownership and labor rights, may serve as important benchmarks for
donors and investors alike.
60
For an overview of U.S. and other donor government initiatives, see Fact Sheet by the White House Office of the
Press Secretary, “Supporting South Sudan’s Vision for the Future,” December 15, 2011.
61
“South Sudan Officials Have Stolen $4 Billion: President,” Reuters, June 4, 2012.
62
The April 2010 elections were Sudan’s first multiparty, relatively democratic elections since 1986. The U.S.-based
Carter Center, which observed the polls, concluded in its December 2010 report that they did not meet international
standards, but that “despite persistent challenges ... observers noted an important democratic opening across the country
during the candidate nomination phase, campaigning, and in the lead-up to the elections, particularly in Southern
Sudan.” Interference in the campaigns by security agencies, particularly the SPLA, was reportedly widespread.
63
State Department, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
18
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Security Issues
South Sudan faces a range of persistent and emergent security threats that will pose challenges for
years to come. The potential for localized insecurity in some areas is high. South Sudan is awash
in small arms, and armed cattle raids and violent disputes over land and water rights are common.
Inter- and intra-ethnic fighting claims thousands of lives annually. The SPLM was driven by an
internal battle in the 1990s, largely along ethnic lines, and the ethnic grievances that sparked that
conflict still lie beneath the surface of South Sudanese politics.64 Boundary disputes with Sudan
remain a significant concern. Both sides have large numbers of troops deployed near the border,
increasing the possibility that isolated skirmishes could quickly devolve into broader conflict. In
the event of SAF military operations, the SPLA has limited ability to defend against air strikes.65
Militias remain active in parts of the country, complicating stabilization and recovery efforts. As
part of its reconciliation efforts with various southern political and armed groups, South Sudan’s
military has absorbed tens of thousands of fighters from the militias, some of which were
allegedly backed by Khartoum during the war.66 Several militia leaders were given amnesty. The
2010 elections, however, spurred the creation of new militias, as some who felt excluded from the
political process resorted to armed resistance against the state.
In Jonglei, South Sudan’s most populous state, a militia led by David Yau Yau is causing
increasing concern. The SPLM has accused Khartoum of providing Yau Yau with material
support, namely weapons.67 Militias in Unity and Upper Nile states also remain a threat. The
formerly Ugandan-based armed group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), once also reportedly
supported by Khartoum, continues to threaten and displace South Sudanese communities near the
borders of the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, although the
threat it poses is localized in comparison to other armed groups. South Sudan and Uganda
publicly accused Khartoum of resuming support for the LRA in 2012 and suggest that LRA leader
Joseph Kony may be hiding in the border area between the Sudans.68
In parts of South Sudan, the number of deaths due to interethnic violence, sometimes related to
cattle raiding, has increased dramatically in recent years, and the violence appears increasingly
politicized. In Jonglei, retaliatory attacks between the Lou Nuer and the Murle ethnic
communities have resulted in large-scale population displacement and humanitarian need in the
past year.69 Local authorities have limited capacity to address these conflicts. The U.N. Mission in
South Sudan (UNMISS), which was established in 2011 and is smaller than its predecessor,
UNMIS, has faced major logistical challenges such as poor roads and a shortage of helicopters as
it has worked to deploy peacekeepers to the area. The SPLA has conducted a civilian
disarmament campaign in the state with mixed reviews; some communities have raised concerns
64
The two primary SPLM factions, led by John Garang, a Dinka, and Riek Machar, a Nuer, reunited in the early 2000s.
Machar is now Vice President of South Sudan; President Kiir is a Dinka. Another faction leader who also rejoined the
SPLM, Lam Akol, later left and now leads an opposition party, SPLM for Democratic Change (SPLM-DC). There is a
perception that the Dinka dominate the government, despite President Kiir’s appointment of a diverse cabinet in 2011.
65
ICG, South Sudan: Compounding Instability in Unity State, Africa Report No. 179, October 17, 2011.
66
In Need of Review: SPLA Transformation in 2006-10 and Beyond, Small Arms Survey, November 2010.
67
“S. Sudan Accuses Sudan of Supplying Arms to Rebel Group,” Reuters, September 23, 2012.
68
See, e.g., “Rebel Chief Kony ‘in Sudan-S. Sudan Border Areas,” AFP, April 30, 2012
69
An estimated 170,000 people were affected by communal violence in Jonglei in early 2012. UNOCHA, South Sudan
Consolidated Appeal Mid-Year Review 2012, July 4, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
19
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
that disarmament is not being equitably enforced. Possible linkages between the militia activity in
Jonglei and rising tensions among the Nuer and Murle communities raise questions about the
capacity of the government, and UNMISS, to protect civilians should the situation deteriorate.70
The police service in South Sudan lacks the capacity to address many of these threats, leaving the
SPLA to play a significant internal security role. The State Department reports that some SPLA
stabilization and civilian disarmament activities have caused tensions with communities who
claim that the SPLA is neither politically neutral nor well disciplined; some of these operations
have reportedly resulted in displacement and deaths. 71 The State Department has also
documented various human rights violations by SPLA troops. Some, but not all, of those accused
of serious abuses have faced military justice. Some analysts suggest that the continued presence
of senior SPLA officers at all levels of the South Sudanese government obscures the concept of
democratic civilian control.72 Given the many years of war from which South Sudan is emerging,
the development of truly civilian leadership may take time. Donors are pursuing programs to
promote governance skills along with a broader understanding of democratic concepts.
Humanitarian Access in South Sudan
Access to much of South Sudan is severely constrained during the rainy season, given the poor
state of roads. As a result, humanitarian operations there are among the most expensive in the
world. Communities throughout the country have been affected by recent flooding. The lack of
all-weather roads to the camps where refugees from Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile have
concentrated has forced aid agencies to airlift relief at significant expense. In some camps the
rains have also contributed to the spread of water-borne diseases among the already vulnerable
population. The U.N.’s refugee agency reports that mortality and malnutrition rates at the camps
are above emergency thresholds. Aid groups are currently working to improve water, sanitation,
and hygiene conditions. Yida camp in Unity state is the largest refugee settlement, with more than
60,000 people who have fled Southern Kordofan. Aid agencies can currently only access the
camp by air, and its proximity to the Sudan border is a serious security concern for aid officials.
Refugees have resisted calls to move. The SAF bombed Yida in November 2011; no casualties
were reported. Insecurity in parts of the country periodically impedes access to other populations
that have been internally displaced. Aid agencies report that isolated incidents of harassment of
relief workers have become an increasing problem; donors have registered complaints with Juba.
Sudan: Economic and Center-Periphery Tensions
The Republic of Sudan faces an array of social, political, and economic challenges that are in
many ways as daunting as those confronting its new southern neighbor. President Bashir’s
National Congress Party has thus far staved off the large-scale popular protests that several North
African and Middle Eastern counterparts faced during the “Arab Spring,” but economic pressure
is mounting. Sudan’s intelligence and security forces have been quick to respond to student-led
uprisings that gained momentum in mid-2012. The government has reportedly warned against the
public use of excessive force against protestors to avoid creating martyrs for the movement. Still,
70
Interviews by the author in Juba, August 29-September 2, 2012.
State Department, 2011 Human Rights Report: Sudan, May 2012.
72
Centre for International Governance Innovation, Security Sector Reform Monitor, November 2009.
71
Congressional Research Service
20
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
several protesters were killed by police in Nyala, in Darfur, in late July. Reports of torture and
lengthy detention without trial have prompted criticism from the U.S. government and others.73
Some analysts suggest that rifts within the NCP and the armed services are increasingly apparent,
and many contend that decision-making has been consolidated among hardliners in the military. 74
Figure 4. Map of Sudan
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Political and Economic Pressures
As the government continues to struggle with multiple armed insurgencies in Darfur, the
rebellions in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile have opened a new southern front in Sudan’s array
of internal conflicts. These are costly engagements that the Sudanese government can scarcely
afford—Sudan’s economic growth is estimated by the IMF to have slowed 3.9% in 2011, and is
expected to shrink by more than 7% in 2012. The government’s willingness to use force against
restive regions has drawn international condemnation and thus far precluded Sudan from
normalizing relations with many Western countries, including the United States, despite
significant counterterrorism cooperation, according to the State Department. Sudan continues to
rely on other countries, such as China, Russia, and Qatar, for financing and arms acquisitions.
Sudan has acknowledged a need to diversify its economy and to focus on the development of its
73
74
See, e.g., Human Rights Watch (HRW), “Sudan: Torture, Abuse of Demonstrators,” July 11, 2012.
ICG, Divisions in Sudan’s Ruling Party and the Threat to the Country’s Stability, Africa Report 174, May 4, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
21
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
agricultural potential, but the government’s multiple military operations place an increased
burden on an already tight government budget and may deter much-needed foreign investment.
The economic strain has placed increased political pressure on President Bashir and the NCP. By
some accounts, many Sudanese hold Bashir personally responsible for the loss of South Sudan
and its oil revenues, even within his own party. Some Islamist hardliners reject any concessions
by Khartoum in the current north-south talks.75 An alliance of opposition parties known as the
National Consensus Forces (NCF) continues its call for major political reforms, namely a new
constitution that enshrines basic rights and protect pluralism. The NCF is composed of Sudan’s
historic opposition parties—the Sufi sectarian-based Umma Party and Democratic Unionist Party
(DUP), and the Communist party—as well as former members of the National Islamic Front who
broke with Bashir. According to the State Department, the 2010 elections, in which Bashir won
the presidency, did not meet international standards.76 The NCF has called on the NCP to involve
all parties, armed and unarmed, in a national dialogue and has urged the international community
to press for a holistic approach to Sudan’s myriad conflicts.
Sudan’s opposition groups, including the NCF and the armed SRF, appear to share the short term
aim of changing the government in Khartoum, but their parties’ visions for post-NCP governance
differ. Perhaps as a result, the young urban Sudanese who have led the anti-government protest
movement, including members of Girifna (“We’re Fed Up”), have no formal relationship with
any particular opposition party or coalition, leaving some to question whether these seemingly
disparate movements can mount a cohesive challenge to NCP rule. Many Sudanese see the
traditional parties as weak and disorganized—in short, “all talk and no action,” and these parties
have yet to launch a coherent campaign to capitalize on the rising economic discontent.77
Within the NCP, reports of large-scale state corruption, including allegations directed at Bashir
himself, have led to calls for internal party reform. Pragmatists within the party have stressed the
need to draft a new permanent constitution, although many observers suggest such efforts are
unlikely to lead to serious reforms in the way the NCP governs. The government appears
increasingly sensitive to criticism, particularly of its austerity measures and subsidy cuts, as
evidenced by multiple incidents of harassment of newspapers in 2012. Whether the SRF, the
opposition parties, or the protest movement may pose a serious threat remains to be seen—some
view the greatest potential threat to Bashir’s rule as coming from rival party members or
segments of the security forces. Bashir’s position among Sudanese Islamists also continues to be
challenged by his former ally turned political rival Hassan al Turabi, a member of the NCF.78
Sudan has been designated for over a decade by the State Department as a Country of Particular
Concern for its serious and systematic violations of religious freedom. Blasphemy and
defamation of Islam are illegal and apostasy (conversion from Islam to another religion) is
punishable by death. Laws against indecent dress and other offences against morality and public
order are applied. After an interlude of improved religious tolerance during the CPA period,
75
“Sudanese Editor Wars Government of Popular Backlash Against Agreement with Juba,” AFP, October 1, 2012.
State Department, 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights: Sudan, May 2012.
77
Sudan: Assessing Risks to Stability, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), June 2011.
78
Turabi, who once led the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan, was a leading ideological figure behind the National Islamic
Front, the Islamist movement through which Bashir came to power. Turabi led the reorganization of the NIF into the
NCP, but the two leaders differed on various issues and in 1999, as Turabi attempted to consolidate his own power
within the party, Bashir dismissed Turabi as speaker of the National Assembly and dissolved the parliament. Their
followers subsequently split into 2 parties—the NCP and Turabi’s Popular Congress Party (PCP).
76
Congressional Research Service
22
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
reports suggest that religious freedom violations are increasing, and that state-sanctioned “hate
speech” by Islamic clerics is on the rise. The influence of Salafism is reportedly growing.79
Attacks on churches and Sufi Muslim sites are of concern, and some Salafist groups appear to be
specifically targeting opposition groups. Salafist imams have issued fatwas and heretical charges
against Turabi and Sadiq al Mahdi, who is head of the Umma party and the Ansar religious sect.80
Some observers suggest that the government has ignored, if not encouraged, the violent rhetoric
of Salafist groups, and Khartoum’s initial public response to calls for protests against Western
embassies in September 2012 drew criticism from Europe and the United States.81 Protesters set
fire to the Germany Embassy, and at least two protesters were killed by police in demonstrations
on September 14 outside the U.S. Embassy. Reports suggest that an estimated 4,000 people were
involved in the protests, which occurred after Friday prayers. Vice President Joseph Biden called
his counterpart to assert the Sudanese government’s responsibility to protect diplomatic facilities
and ensure the protection of diplomats. Bashir’s government deployed additional police to
provide security near the embassies, but rejected a U.S. plan to deploy Marines to increase
security of the embassy facilities and personnel. Non-emergency U.S. diplomatic personnel were
temporarily evacuated from Khartoum, but the situation has since appeared to stabilize.
Conflict in Darfur
The conflict in Darfur continues to elude resolution, despite successive peace agreements and the
presence of the world’s largest, and most expensive, peacekeeping operation. The central
government has historically struggled to govern the distant region.82 Underlying tensions between
Darfuri groups over land, water, and grazing rights had driven low-level violence in this arid land
for decades. Arms flows to the region by both internal and external actors, including neighboring
Libya and Chad, further fueled the violence. Described in 2004 by the State Department as “the
worst humanitarian and human rights crisis in the world,” what began as a conflict primarily
between Arab and non-Arab ethnic groups, namely the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa, quickly
deteriorated into a civil war characterized by “widespread and systematic” rape, torture, killings,
forced displacement, and the looting and destruction of hundreds of villages.83 The crisis drew a
massive humanitarian response in the mid-2000s, stemming the casualties, but continuing
insecurity in the region has discouraged almost two million displaced persons from returning to
their homes.84 In effect, the conflict created a large semi-urban population with few means of
sustaining themselves economically. Many of the displaced remain reliant on food aid to survive.
Efforts to mediate peace accords in Darfur have been complicated by the repeated fracturing of
rebel groups. The government of Sudan and one rebel faction, the Liberation and Justice
79
State Department, International Religious Freedom Report for 2011, July 30, 2012, in accordance with P.L. 105-292.
Jamal Al Sharif, “Salafis in Sudan: Non-Interference or Confrontation,” Al Jazeera Center for Studies, July 3, 2012.
81
The protests were reported to be linked to a U.S. film with an unflattering depiction of the prophet Mohammed.
Protestors reportedly targeted the German Embassy in response to German right wing demonstrations in front of Berlin
mosques and to a German press freedom award granted to a cartoonist who had negatively depicted Mohammed.
82
For background on Darfur, see, e.g., J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, Darfur: The Long Road to Disaster
(Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2008).
83
State Department, Documenting Atrocities in Darfur, September 2004; and Report of the International Commission
of Inquiry on Darfur to the U.N. Security Council Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564, January 25, 2005.
84
Julie Flint and Alex de Waal, Darfur: a New History of a Long War (London: Zed Books, 2008); Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan Humanitarian Update: 2nd Quarter 2012, July 16, 2012.
80
Congressional Research Service
23
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Movement (LJM), signed the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) in July 2011. As a
result of that agreement, which the United States has guardedly supported, President Bashir
announced the establishment of two new states in the Darfur region: East and Central Darfur
States (there are now five Darfur states, comprising an area roughly the size of Spain). The
creation of new states and other political positions that are part of a new Darfur Regional
Authority (DRA) has allowed Khartoum to accommodate a larger range of political actors, but
promised investments in the region have yet to materialize. The U.N. Secretary-General reports
that provisions of the DDPD have yet to be implemented despite “modest progress,” and that a
shortage of government funding means that peace dividends remain unrealized.85 Critics of the
new dispensation suggest that Khartoum has used the new territorial divisions to further dilute the
influence of groups opposed to the government. Khartoum has also reportedly shifted its support
from Arab militias to new non-Arab groups to spur tensions between ethnic communities over
land and political power, significantly changing the conflict dynamics in the region.86
The main Darfuri insurgent groups—the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), which has been
linked to Turabi’s Popular Congress Party, and the two main factions of the Sudan Liberation
Army (SLA)—rejected the DDPD. These groups have instead achieved a tentative rapprochement
and aligned themselves with the SPLM-N under the banner of the Sudan Revolutionary Front,
which has broadly outlined a national agenda for the groups’ struggle against Khartoum.
Sudan and the International Criminal Court
In 2007, the U.N. Security Council granted the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction over certain serious
crimes committed in Darfur. Despite the issuance of two ICC warrants, President Bashir, the first head of state to
face an arrest warrant from the ICC, continues to reject calls to appear before the Court to answer allegations of
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.87 Former interior minister Ahmed Haroun, who allegedly
mobilized the Janjaweed militias and currently serves as governor of Southern Kordofan, and alleged Janjaweed militia
leader Ali Kushayb also continue to elude arrest. Several Darfuri rebel leaders sought in a separate case appeared
before the Court in 2011. In March 2012, the Court issued another arrest warrant, for Sudanese defense minister
Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein. Hussein was interior minister and the government’s special representative in Darfur
in 2003-2004. The Sudanese government has denounced the warrants and does not recognize ICC jurisdiction (it
signed, but never ratified the Rome Statute); it has also impeded ICC investigations in the country.
The African Union has struggled to determine how to respond to an arrest warrant issued against the head of state of
one of its members. Most AU countries are State Parties to the Rome Statute and thus bound to execute the Court’s
warrants, but to date none has moved to do so. Bashir has visited Chad, Kenya, and Malawi, all signatories to the
Rome Statute, since the ICC issued the arrest warrant against him. In 2012, after the death of her predecessor,
Malawi’s new president, Joyce Banda, announced that Malawi would refuse to host Bashir at a planned AU Summit.
AU officials protested the decision, and Banda subsequently announced that Malawi would no longer host the event.
The U.N. Security Council has required U.N. member states to maintain an arms embargo on
Darfur since 2004, and yet, as the ongoing violence indicates, there is no shortage of weaponry in
the region, much of it of Chinese, Russian, and Belarusian origin.88 One recent independent report
suggests that “arms supplies to Sudanese government forces and proxy militias in Darfur ... have
been almost entirely unimpeded by the actions and policies of the international community,
including the ineffectual U.N. arms embargo on Darfur.”89 The Security Council extended and
85
UNSC, Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur, U.N.
Document S/2012/548, July 16, 2012.
86
Gramizzi and Tubiana, op. cit.; Small Arms Survey, “Business as Usual: Arms Flows to Darfur 2009-12,” op. cit.
87
The U.N. Security Council conferred jurisdiction over alleged war crimes in Darfur to the ICC in 2005.
88
Small Arms Survey, “Business as Usual: Arms Flows to Darfur 2009-12,” op. cit.
89
Gramizzi and Tubiana, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
24
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
expanded the embargo in 2005 to include a ban on offensive military flights in the region, which
Sudan has repeatedly violated.90 President Bashir’s rapprochement with President Idriss Déby in
Chad appears to be holding, with both sides having reportedly ceased their support for rebels
operating in the other’s territory. Consequently, weapons flows from Chad and Libya, formerly a
destabilizing influence under Muammar Qadhafi, appear to have diminished.
According to U.N. reports, the government has increasingly restricted the movements of the AUU.N. Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), impeding its ability to resupply and implement its
mandate.91 UNAMID currently remains the largest and most expensive peacekeeping operation in
the world. In July 2012, the U.N. Security Council voted to reconfigure and downsize the
operation by more than 3,000 troops. When fully implemented, the reconfiguration will make
UNAMID the second largest operation, after the one in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
U.S. Policy Toward the Sudans
The United States has found itself pursuing multiple, and at times conflicting, aims in Sudan.
Balancing these objectives has occasionally placed Congress and the Executive Branch at odds.
Ending the human suffering and related human rights violations associated with Sudan’s distinct
but overlapping conflicts has been the overarching goal of U.S. policymakers for more than two
decades. With finite attention and resources, however, U.S. policy toward Sudan has at times
appeared to many to prioritize resolving one conflict at the expense of another.
The United States played a key role in facilitating the north-south peace process and ensuring that
the parties signed the CPA. Critics of U.S. policy during the CPA period suggest, however, that
the United States and other influential international actors shifted their focus from monitoring and
maintaining progress on CPA implementation to the unfolding disaster in Darfur. In doing so,
they failed to sustain pressure on Juba and Khartoum to meet certain critical benchmarks in the
peace process. When attention shifted back to the south as its 2011 referendum approached,
Darfur mediation efforts appeared to become a secondary priority. In late September 2012, as the
United States and others cautiously welcomed the latest agreement between the Sudans, the SAF
reportedly conducted air strikes against civilian targets in Southern Kordofan and North Darfur.92
Negotiating humanitarian access to afflicted communities during these conflicts has required
compromise, and at times has moderated calls for a more confrontational approach toward
Bashir’s regime. Similarly, U.S. pursuit of counterterrorism objectives in the broader region has
led successive administrations to seek dialogue and cooperation from Khartoum.
U.S. policy toward Sudan evolved from one of isolation in the early 1990s under President Bill
Clinton to a policy under President George W. Bush that focused on achieving reforms through
increased diplomatic engagement with Khartoum.93 The Clinton Administration, which named
Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, identified Sudan as a “rogue state” and supported
90
The Security Council further extended the embargo in UNSCR 1945 (2006) to require states to seek end-user
documentation for all arms exported to Sudan. China abstained from the vote.
91
See, e.g., the most recent report of the Secretary-General on Darfur, U.N. Document S/2012/548, op. cit.
92
“Sudan and South Sudan Poised to Sign Deal,” Al Jazeera, September 27, 2012; State Department, “Deteriorating
Security Situation in Darfur, Sudan,” Press Statement, October 4, 2012.
93
Africa Policy in the Clinton Years: Critical Choices for the Bush Administration, CSIS, 2001; Former Assistant
Secretary for African Affairs George Moose interview at http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00739.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Uganda as “frontline states” to contain Khartoum, and to provide support to
the SPLA. In 1996, under Western pressure, Sudan expelled Osama bin Laden from the country.
Relations between Washington and Khartoum deteriorated further in August 1998, when, in
response to the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, President Clinton ordered the bombing of
a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum purportedly linked to bin Laden.
By 1999, the U.S. policy approach was shifting, and President Clinton appointed former Member
of Congress Harry Johnston to serve as a special envoy to work with allies in support of a new
regional peace process for Sudan. In early 2001, under President Bush, the United States and
Sudan began talks on terrorism, and the Bush Administration formed a Sudan Task Force to
review and improve coordination of U.S. policy. President Bush appointed another special envoy,
former Senator John Danforth, who took a new approach to the north-south war by proposing
four confidence-building measures to the parties: a ceasefire in Nuba Mountains, days and zones
of tranquility for humanitarian access in the south, the formation of a U.S.-led commission to
investigate slavery,94 and the cessation of attacks on civilians. Both parties were receptive, and the
peace process moved forward. Throughout the CPA talks, the U.S. government never expressed a
preference for unity or separation, although sympathies for the southern cause were apparent. The
U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, which had suspended operations in 1996, re-opened in 2002.
By spring 2004, attention on Darfur was building, coinciding with commemorations of the 10th
anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.95 In September 2004, based on an investigation into
reported atrocities in Darfur, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before Congress that the
government of Sudan and the Janjaweed militias had committed genocide in Darfur. In his
testimony, he noted a coordinated, “consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities—killings,
rapes, burning of villages—committed by Janjaweed and government forces against non-Arab
villagers.” Powell directly implicated the military in the attacks, and declared there to be evidence
of a specific intent to destroy “a group in whole or in part” under the 1948 Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which Sudan is party. Meanwhile, an
International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur established by the U.N. Security Council
recommended that a list of individuals be investigated for possible crimes against humanity,
leading to the Security Council’s first referral to the ICC. The Commission of Inquiry differed
with the U.S. determination that the situation in Darfur met the legal standard of genocide.
From 2004 onward, the U.S. media focused substantial attention on Darfur, and the coverage,
combined with advocacy pressure, led to calls for military intervention. Bush Administration
officials weighed concerns that action on Darfur might undermine the north-south peace process,
however, and the international community struggled to get Sudan’s compliance to deploy a more
robust peacekeeping operation to the region. Then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick was
sent to mediate a peace agreement for Darfur, but the violence continued. By late 2006, Bush
envoy Andrew Natsios threatened a “Plan B” if attacks on civilians persisted and Khartoum
continued to oppose the AU-U.N. force; the details of the plan were never made public.96
94
See the Report of the International Eminent Persons Group, Slavery, Abduction and Forced Servitude in Sudan, May
22, 2002. The Group found that “the pattern of slave taking that has developed since the start of the civil war is, to a
substantial degree, the product of a counter-insurgency strategy pursued by successive governments in Khartoum.”
95
For further discussion of Darfur advocacy efforts, see Rebecca Hamilton, Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the
Struggle to Stop Genocide, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011).
96
Glen Kessler, “Bush Approves Plan To Pressure Sudan,” The Washington Post, February 2007.
Congressional Research Service
26
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
The ICC issued its first arrest warrants related to Darfur in 2007, and in 2008 the Prosecutor
applied to the court for an arrest warrant for Bashir. The Bush Administration, which had declined
to veto the ICC referral despite its opposition to the ICC, rejected calls by Khartoum for the
Security Council to suspend its referral of the ICC cases, prompting Sudan to deny a visa to thenSpecial Envoy Rich Williamson, who stated in congressional testimony:
The Government of Sudan, the Arab Militias, and rebel leaders all have blood on their hands.
Make no mistake; this ‘genocide in slow motion’ continues.... Khartoum’s policy in Darfur
has been the same tactic they used in the South, to ‘divide and destroy.’ By manipulating
tribal divisions, creating militias from Arab tribes, forcing people from their homes, and
separating them from their tribal leaders, the government has created a lawless environment
in Darfur that it can no longer control.97
Obama Administration Policy and Engagement
The Obama Administration appeared poised to take a hard line against Khartoum when President
Obama took office. His foreign policy team included outspoken advocates such as Samantha
Power, who in 2004 criticized the United States and others as “bystanders to slaughter” in Darfur.
Power argued at that time that U.S. officials should focus less on whether the killings in Darfur
met the definition of genocide and instead focus on “trying to stop them.”98 A former Clinton
Administration official, Susan Rice, who was appointed to serve as President Obama’s U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, had in 2007 called for the next President to impose tougher
sanctions on Khartoum, “support efforts to unify the rebel groups” in Darfur and a seek a
negotiated agreement to end the conflict, and “implement and robustly enforce, with NATO, a nofly zone.” She also called on Congress to authorize the use of force “in order to end the
genocide.” She and several others joining the Administration publicly expressed the view that the
United States had a legal and moral responsibility to end the atrocities in Darfur.99
In 2006, when they were Senators, Joseph Biden, now Vice President, along with Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, cosponsored S.Res. 559, calling on then-President Bush to take
immediate steps to stop the violence in Darfur, including through the implementation of a no-fly
zone. As a presidential candidate, Obama referred to a “moral imperative” to bring an end to the
violence in Darfur, saying “we can’t say never again and then allow it to happen again.”100
President Obama appointed a new special envoy, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration,
in 2009. Gration initiated a policy review, and in October 2009, the State Department announced
a new policy toward Sudan, under which the CPA, Darfur, and counterterrorism cooperation were
each identified as primary priorities that would be addressed through a mix of pressures and
incentives to achieve progress on all three. Among the incentives proposed was a pledge to
investigate whether Sudan met the legal requirements to be removed from the state sponsor of
terrorism list, in return for Khartoum allowing the south’s referendum to proceed unimpeded.101
97
Testimony of Richard S. Williamson, SFRC, The Continuing Crisis in Darfur, April 23, 2008.
Samantha Power, “Remember Rwanda, but Take Action in Sudan,” The New York Times, April 6, 2004.
99
Susan E. Rice, “The Genocide in Darfur: America Must Do More to Fulfill the Responsibility to Protect,” The
Brookings Institution, October 24, 2007. See also, Merrill A. McPeak and Kurt Bassuener, “Creating a No-Fly Zone in
Darfur is the Best Way to Halt the Atrocities,” The Washington Post, March 5, 2009.
100
Video interview with Barack Obama, uploaded by the Save Darfur Coalition on YouTube on November 26, 2007.
101
Mark Landler, “U.S. Revises Offer to Take Sudan Off Terror List,” The New York Times, November 7, 2010.
98
Congressional Research Service
27
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
The Administration’s strategy also stressed the need to engage with both allies and “those with
whom we disagree” to advance peace and security in Sudan, and declared that decisions
regarding incentives and disincentives would be based on “verifiable changes in conditions on the
ground,” rather than “process-related accomplishments” such as the signing of agreements.102 The
strategy further asserted that Sudan would not be able to use cooperation on counterterrorism
objectives, while “valued,” as a “bargaining chip” against U.S. priorities toward Darfur and the
CPA. The Administration sought assistance from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
John Kerry, who had made multiple trips to Sudan, to reinforce this message.
After South Sudan’s independence, the Administration committed itself to a policy of “supporting
the emergence of two viable states at peace with one another and their neighbors.”103 In April
2012, acknowledging the Sudans’ deteriorating relationship, President Obama admonished both
parties, saying “Your future is shared. You will never be at peace if your neighbor feels
threatened. You will never see development and progress if your neighbor refuses to be your
partner in trade and commerce.” The State Department has identified this message as the “core”
of the Administration’s policy toward the Sudans. The Administration has been publicly critical of
both Sudan’s aerial and artillery attacks against South Sudan and South Sudan’s attack on Heglig,
and has demanded that South Sudan cease any support for the SPLM-N. Administration officials
also continue to register “grave concern” with the delayed implementation of agreements on
humanitarian access in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, stressing Khartoum’s responsibility to
act with urgency. President Obama has welcomed the September 2012 accords between Juba and
Khartoum, expressing the hope that they will spur the resolution of Sudan’s other conflicts.
U.S. Sanctions and Economic Engagement
The United States maintains an array of sanctions against Khartoum through Executive Orders
and congressionally-imposed legal restrictions. Initial sanctions were imposed in 1988, when
economic and security assistance was frozen because of Sudan’s debt payment arrears to the
United States. Additional limits on non-humanitarian aid were proposed by Congress in 1989 to
protest government restrictions on aid access, and by early 1990 all non-humanitarian aid was
suspended because of the military coup. Some sanctions date to the late 1990s, when Sudan was
named a state sponsor of terrorism, a designation still in effect. Others relate to abuses conducted
during the civil war. Further sanctions were imposed more recently—several relate specifically to
the Darfur conflict. As a sovereign state, South Sudan is no longer subject to those restrictions.
However, given the interdependence of some sectors of the two economies, U.S. businesses are
prohibited from engaging in certain activities with South Sudan without prior approval from
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). U.S. sanctions related to Darfur prohibit
transactions by U.S. nationals in Sudan’s petroleum and petrochemicals sectors.104 U.S. law
supports efforts by state and local governments, universities, and pension funds to divest from
foreign companies operating in certain sectors of Sudan’s economy.105 Legislation proposed in the
House of Representatives would expand the sanctions regime to target governments or persons
that assist Khartoum in human rights violations by providing Sudan with military equipment.
102
State Department, “Sudan: A Critical Moment, A Comprehensive Approach,” Media Note, October 19, 2009.
Testimony of Special Envoy Princeton Lyman, House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights,
A Comprehensive Assessment Toward U.S. Policy in Sudan, October 4, 2011.
104
Executive Order 13412, October 13, 2006; the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-344).
105
The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, P.L. 110-174.
103
Congressional Research Service
28
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Sudan’s Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism
Sudan became a safe haven for Islamic extremist groups in the early 1990s, when the government began to actively
support the activities of terrorist groups. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as “Carlos the Jackal” lived briefly in
Sudan, until he was captured by French intelligence agents in Khartoum in 1994, as did the Palestinian terrorist Abu
Nidal. Osama bin Laden used Sudan as a base of operations beginning in 1992 to support various jihad efforts around
the world, before he was expelled in May 1996. While in Sudan he operated a network of businesses, including a
construction company that built several major roads in the country. He quickly became one of the largest landowners
in Sudan, and his agricultural investments gave him control of much of the country’s commercial farming sector. His
companies employed Al Qaeda members and financed the group’s development, and he purchased large tracts of land
on which to train militants. During this time, Al Qaeda was linked to the attempted assassination of Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak in 1995, while he was visiting Ethiopia, by the militant Egyptian Islamic Group. The
assassination attempt was allegedly carried out with support from Sudanese intelligence, and Sudan’s refusal to hand
over individuals implicated in the plot led to U.N. Security Council sanctions in April 1996.106
In 1993, the Clinton Administration placed sanctions on Sudan for its support of terrorism. The country remains on
the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, although the State Department has considered Sudan to be a “cooperative
counterterrorism partner of the United States” in recent years.107 Despite this cooperation, several U.S.-designated
terrorist groups continue to have a presence in Sudan, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which has
increased its presence since late 2011, according to the State Department. Sudan does not consider Hamas to be a
terrorist group. Sudan’s engagement with another State Sponsor of Terrorism, Iran, remains an area of concern.
Independent experts have documented Iranian defense transfers to Sudan, which are not voluntarily reported to the
United Nations.108 There is periodic media speculation, and accusations from Israel that links Iran to alleged weapons
shipments through Sudan bound for Gaza.109 The State Sponsor designation makes Sudan subject to a ban on armsrelated exports and sales, controls over exports of dual-use items, prohibitions on economic assistance, and various
financial and other restrictions. In the 112th Congress, legislation was introduced—H.R. 895—that would require the
Administration to maintain these restrictions until it certifies that Khartoum is “no longer engaged in training,
harboring, supplying, financing, or supporting in any way,” the Lord’s Resistance Army or its leadership.
In January 2008, an American USAID employee, John Granville, and his Sudanese driver were murdered by gunmen in
Khartoum. A previously unknown group, Ansar al Tawhid, claimed responsibility; the State Department identified the
gunmen as sympathetic to Al Qaeda, calling themselves part of Al Qaeda in the Land Between the Two Niles. Four
Sudanese were sentenced to death for the murders but later escaped from a maximum security prison. Only one, the
son of a prominent Salafist leader, was recaptured, and in April 2012 Sudan’s Supreme Court commuted his sentence
to a $2,000 fine. Granville was not the first U.S. official killed in Khartoum—U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel, Jr. and his
deputy George Curtis Moore were assassinated by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September in 1973.
In an effort to expand trade with South Sudan, a key priority for U.S. engagement, OFAC issued
two general licenses in late 2011: one to authorize activities relating to South Sudan’s petroleum
sector (including paying pipeline and port fees) and another to authorize the transshipment of
goods, technology, and services through Sudan to and from South Sudan.110 South Sudan is now a
beneficiary of the Generalized System of Preferences program, and Congress added it to the list
of countries eligible for benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in P.L.
112-163; South Sudan now awaits a presidential determination on its AGOA eligibility.
106
UNSCR 1054 (1996) imposed diplomatic and travel sanctions on Sudan for its failure to extradite suspects in the
assassination attempt and for its continued support of terrorist activities. The sanctions were lifted in 2001.
107
State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2011, July 31, 2012.
108
Mike Lewis, Skirting the Law, Sudan’s Post-CPA Arms Flows, Small Arms Survey, September 2009; Sudan Human
Security Baseline Assessment, “SAF Weapons Documented in South Kordofan,” Small Arms Survey, April 2012.
109
“Were the Israelis Behind the ‘Mystery’ Air Strike in Sudan?” Time, April 6, 2011; “Car Blast in E. Sudan,
Khartoum Points to Israel,” Reuters, May 22, 2012; “Rockets and Meetings,” Africa Confidential, May 25, 2012.
110
American involvement in refining South Sudanese petroleum in Sudan remains prohibited under U.S. sanctions.
Congressional Research Service
29
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
U.S. Assistance
Unified, pre-July 2011 Sudan was consistently among the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid, not
only in Africa but globally, for over a decade. U.S. assistance, including bilateral aid, emergency
humanitarian aid, and support for peacekeeping operations, has totaled over $1 billion annually in
recent years. FY2013 is the first year for which the State Department and USAID have requested
assistance separately for the new country of South Sudan.111 A breakout of U.S. assistance to the
North and South respectively is available in Appendix C. The United States provided more than
$274 million in humanitarian assistance to South Sudan in FY2012, and over $296 million to
vulnerable populations in Sudan, two-thirds of which supported efforts in Darfur.
The State Department has referred to the consolidation and strengthening of the new nation of
South Sudan as the biggest governance challenge in Africa in FY2013. U.S. assistance to the
country is guided by a USAID transition strategy to increase internal stability.112 The bulk of
proposed development assistance to the country aims to build government and civil society
capacity and economic infrastructure, and to mitigate local conflict. According to the State
Department’s budget request, U.S. assistance to South Sudan in FY2013 would “accelerate
progress in the critical areas of governance, rule of law, conflict mitigation, economic
development, delivery of basic services, and security sector reform.” Efforts to build the country’s
agricultural capacity and reduce its dependency on food aid are a central component of economic
growth objectives. USAID reports that its existing development strategy relied on a level of
government ownership by South Sudan that may be unrealistic in view of Juba’s current austerity
budget, and some programs in the health and education sectors have been revised with the aim of
preserving and protecting basic service delivery until oil revenues begin to accrue again.113 Some
longer-term institution building programs in these sectors have been postponed. Proposed
FY2013 aid funding would also continue State Department efforts to help transform the SPLA
from a guerilla army to a professional military force subordinate to civilian leadership and
protective of human rights, and to build the capacity of the nascent police force. Military
assistance for both Sudans is subject to congressionally-mandated restrictions related to the use of
child soldiers, although President Obama issued a presidential waiver in September 2012
exempting South Sudan (along with Libya and Yemen) from the restrictions.114
In Sudan, where some forms of U.S. assistance remain constrained by congressionally-imposed
restrictions, FY2013 development assistance is expected to focus on, among other priority areas,
peace building and conflict mitigation in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, Darfur, and other
marginalized areas. In addition to bilateral aid to the two Sudans, roughly 40% of the State
Department’s FY2013 request for global Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA, the foreign aid account that covers the U.S. share of assessed expenses for international
peacekeeping operations and tribunals) is allocated for the three U.N. operations in the Sudans.
111
Foreign assistance appropriations for FY2013 have yet to be finalized. P.L. 112-175 continues funding for aid
accounts at the FY2012 enacted level (with a 0.612% increase) through March 2013. Country allocations, if not
specified in FY2012 enacted legislation, are left to the discretion of State and USAID, in consultation with Congress.
112
USAID, South Sudan Transition Strategy 2011-2013, June 2011.
113
Interviews with USAID officials in August 2012.
114
South Sudan is designated by the State Department as a Tier 2 Watch List country for human trafficking, and
forcible conscription of children by armed groups, including official security forces, reportedly continues, despite
efforts by the SPLA to eliminate child soldiers from its ranks. Sudan is ranked a Tier 3 country, because the State
Department views the government as not making significant efforts to combat trafficking. The ongoing recruitment of
children makes both countries subject to penalties under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-457).
Congressional Research Service
30
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Outlook for Congress and U.S. Policy
The United States faces a complex range of policy options as it considers the way forward for
engagement with the two Sudans. Members of Congress may debate whether they concur with
the Administration’s current approach or wish to guide U.S. policy toward either country in a
different direction. Previous congressional action on Sudan may provide lessons and examples.
Advocates and experts may have new ideas on the merits of various “carrots” and “sticks,” or
other policy options to promote peace and stability in both countries.
Given the complexity of U.S. relations with the Sudans, President Obama has continued to use a
special envoy to coordinate policy toward both countries. The envoy oversees an expanded team
of State Department personnel that includes the Sudan and South Sudan country desks.115 The
President appointed a U.S. Ambassador to South Sudan in 2011, after independence; the United
States has not had an ambassador to Sudan since 1997. The Embassy in Khartoum is led by a
chargé d’affaires. The appointment of an ambassador would likely be viewed by Khartoum as a
key step toward improving relations, and some contend it would raise the caliber of the bilateral
dialogue. Critics contend that such an appointment would signal that the United States accepts
engagement with Khartoum, in spite of the regime’s abuses. If the President were to appoint an
individual for the post, the Senate nomination hearing and vote may serve as a venue for
Congress to reexamine U.S. engagement with Sudan. Possible security concerns related to
enhancing the U.S. diplomatic presence in Khartoum also may factor into executive branch and
congressional decisions on this issue.
Trust between Khartoum and the United States is low. Khartoum seeks to improve the
relationship, cognizant that this might bolster its international standing and aid its efforts to
reengage with multilateral financial institutions. In Sudan’s view, the United States has repeatedly
“moved the goalpost” on lifting sanctions. From the perspective of many U.S. officials, though,
Sudan continues to commit “violations of human rights and modern rules of war ... so grave as to
make it impossible to proceed” with efforts to modify the current sanctions regime.116 Sudan’s
history of partially implemented peace accords also remains a prominent consideration for many
in Congress and the Administration. Should the Administration decide to ease certain sanctions
against Sudan, possibly in exchange for concessions from Khartoum, changes to some restrictions
would require congressional action. For the Administration to remove Sudan’s state sponsor of
terrorism designation, for example, the Secretary of State must report to Congress that there has
been both a change in leadership and in policy in Khartoum.117 Public law requires that certain
other restrictions against the government remain in place until Khartoum complies with specific
conditions outlined in P.L. 108-497, P.L. 109-344, and current appropriations legislation.
Congress continues to monitor ongoing reports of serious violations of human rights and
humanitarian law in parts of Sudan. Khartoum’s crackdowns on peaceful anti-government
115
Amb. Princeton Lyman currently serves as the sixth U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, with support from Amb. Dane
Smith, who serves as Senior Advisor for Darfur.
116
U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan Princeton Lyman, “U.S.-Sudan Relations,” Address to the Michael
Ansari Center of the Atlantic Council, August 1, 2012.
117
Section 620(A)(c)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 specifies that the Secretary must certify that “there has
been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government of the country concerned; that the
government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; that the government has provided assurances that it will
not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”
Congressional Research Service
31
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
protests in 2012, its ongoing violations of basic rights and freedoms across the country, and its
perceived tolerance for violent rhetoric espoused by Salafist clerics all complicate the U.S.-Sudan
relationship, as do its repeated air strikes in South Sudanese territory. Khartoum continues to use
its sovereignty as a shield—access by aid groups, human rights monitors, and peacekeepers to
populations in conflict areas is routinely denied by the government, in contravention of
international humanitarian law.118 The United States and the United Nations have condemned
attacks against civilians and stressed the need for improved humanitarian access to Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile, but government restrictions on aid to opposition-held areas continue.
The Obama Administration has called the humanitarian crisis “profoundly unacceptable,” and
Khartoum’s “business-as-usual approach ... intolerable.”
Some in the advocacy community, invoking the “responsibility to protect” concept, contend that
the international community should do more to protect civilians—namely increase diplomatic
pressure to negotiate immediate humanitarian access. Should Khartoum continue to impede
access, though, some proponents have urged collective measures such as imposing sanctions,
establishing safe zones and/or no-fly zones, or deploying a protection force to the two states.119
Some have called for international actors to deliver aid across the borders of South Sudan and
Ethiopia into the afflicted areas with or without Sudan’s permission, as Congress first authorized
the U.S. government to do in Sudan in 1999.120
The U.N. Security Council remains divided on how to respond to Sudan’s ongoing violations of
human rights and UNSC resolutions. Proposals to extend the arms embargo and ban offensive
military flights beyond Darfur would likely be opposed by some on the Council. Similarly, the
deployment of a U.N.-mandated force to the two states without Khartoum’s consent appears
improbable, unless a ceasefire is reached. There appears to be little appetite for foreign military
intervention, such as the implementation of a no-fly zone, an option once advocated for Darfur by
individuals now in the Obama Administration. Russia and China, which abstained from voting to
authorize a no-fly zone for Libya in 2011, now appear adamantly opposed to the concept in other
conflict situations, such as Syria, viewing it as a potential vehicle to pursue regime change.
Should Sudan and South Sudan fail to make further progress on negotiations, and should
118
In 2009, Sudan expelled 13 international NGOs operating in Darfur after the ICC issued its arrest warrant for
Bashir, accusing them of spying. In June 2012, four NGOs were expelled from the east. Sudan was hostile to initial
proposals for a U.N. force in Darfur—in 2006, Bashir warned that Darfur would be a “graveyard for U.N. forces if they
were deployed. “Al Bashir Says Sudan ‘Would Fight’ U.N.-Sponsored Forces in Darfur,” Agence France Presse (AFP),
August 15, 2006. Sudan did not accept UNSCR 1769 (2007), which authorized the UN force, for almost 10 months,
until some UNSC members threatened to tightened sanctions. Sudan continues to constrain UNAMID operations with
bureaucratic roadblocks, such delaying the approval of visas or holding equipment at port. The U.N. Panel of Experts
for the arms embargo has faced similar challenges with visas. For an overview of customary humanitarian law
applicable during armed conflicts, see the International Committee of the Red Cross database at
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf.
119
Jenn Christian, “Shifting the Burden: The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and the Humanitarian Crisis in Sudan,”
September 13, 2012. The concept of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity was outlined in a 2009 by the U.N. Secretary-General in U.N. Document
A/63/677 available at http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml.
120
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-113), Congress authorized food aid for “groups engaged
in the protection of civilian populations from attacks by regular government of Sudan forces, associated militias, or
other paramilitary groups supported by the Government.... Any such assistance shall be provided separate from and not
in proximity to current humanitarian efforts... In considering eligibility of potential recipients, the President shall
determine that the group respects human rights, democratic principles, and the integrity of ongoing humanitarian
operations, and cease such assistance if the determination can no longer be made.” Congress reiterated support for the
distribution of relief to areas affected by government-imposed flight bans in the Sudan Peace Act (P.L. 107-245).
Congressional Research Service
32
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Khartoum continue to delay implementation of the Tripartite Proposal for humanitarian access,
the Security Council may be inclined to impose economic sanctions on one or both parties.
Some Members of the 112th Congress have proposed additional punitive measures on Sudan. The
Sudan Peace, Security, and Accountability Act of 2012, H.R. 4169, which has been referred to
committee, would direct the President to develop a strategy to end serious human rights abuses
and promote peace and democratic reform in Sudan. It would impose sanctions on any person or
government found to contribute to Sudan’s capacity to commit abuses through the transfer of
military equipment and on any ICC member state that fails to execute an ICC arrest warrant.
While the relationship between Washington and Juba, which has been characterized by President
Obama and Secretary Clinton as a “partnership,” is markedly warmer than that with Khartoum, it
too is tempered by concerns about human rights abuses and corruption. The United States has
invested considerable foreign assistance resources to lay the foundation for development of South
Sudan. Tensions between Khartoum and Juba threaten that progress. Under austerity measures,
Juba has allocated more than half its budget to security, much of which goes to salaries for
soldiers and maintaining readiness. Some observers view this as emblematic of patronage to a
bloated military at the expense of development priorities that are being met in part with U.S.
assistance funds. Others, however, express concern that South Sudan’s internal security situation
has appeared increasingly fluid in the past year. They argue that maintaining the morale and
loyalty of the army to the government may be key to ensuring stability and state viability in the
near term, and to protecting donor investments in the country’s development.
Alleged support by South Sudan’s government for insurgent groups in Sudan further complicates
U.S.-South Sudan relations, and the Obama Administration maintains its position that the
conflicts in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Darfur must be resolved peacefully, rather than
militarily. Some Sudan watchers contend, however, that South Sudan’s long armed struggle
against Khartoum, and the pressure it placed on the government, was the only effective tool to
ensure that the aspirations of southerners were achieved. The SPLM-N leadership argue that they
are willing to negotiate with Khartoum, but that they, like the SPLA before them, have been
forced to fight against government aggression for peace, democracy, and justice.121
The goal of protecting civilians in South Sudan raises key questions for Congress, given ongoing
insecurity in parts of the country. South Sudan’s security forces have the primary responsibility
for that role, but their capacity is limited. As Congress considers the Administration’s security
assistance requests for these forces, it may seek to assess the extent to which such support might
both enhance their capacity and improve their behavior. Human rights groups continue to report
abuses by some units, and incidents between various armed actors, including some elements of
the SPLA, and relief agencies—ranging from the commandeering of vehicles and raiding of aid
compounds to violence—are also of serious concern.
UNMISS, which is charged with advising and assisting the South Sudanese forces to fulfill their
civilian protection role, also has a mandate to directly protect civilians under imminent threat of
violence, “within its capabilities and in its areas of deployment.” The lack of infrastructure in
South Sudan and the peripheral areas of Sudan significantly complicates these efforts, as does the
shortage of helicopters available for U.N. operations. Furthermore, some have questioned
UNMISS’s capacity to protect civilians from harm by the SPLA, should the need arise. Neither
121
The SPLM-N maintains a page on Facebook.com, on which it posts its positions and public statements.
Congressional Research Service
33
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
UNMISS nor the SPLA have the capacity to protect civilians from air strikes by Sudan—some,
including a former U.S. Special Envoy, have suggested that the United States should provide
South Sudan with anti-aircraft weapons to deter and defend against future attacks.122 Should the
Administration take that step, it would undoubtedly worsen relations with Khartoum.
As discussed in this report, the deteriorating relationship between Juba and Khartoum in the past
year led South Sudan to cease oil production, thereby cutting its primary source of revenue and
further squeezing Sudan, which was already struggling under the loss of the south’s resources.
After decades of war, distrust between the two governments is high. The September 2012
agreements reached by the parties are a positive step, but the border remains a tinderbox. The two
have spent more than a decade in negotiations, with some notable successes—namely the
peaceful circumstances of their separation in 2011—but several previously signed agreements
remain only partially implemented, thus fueling renewed conflict. The economic and political
pressures on both governments are a reminder that the possibility of state collapse in either
country cannot be discounted. In the near term, although they now exist as separate countries,
Sudan and South Sudan remain bound together in U.S. policy, and executive and congressional
decisions that affect U.S. relations with one country may, for better or worse, impact the other.
122
Andrew S. Natsios, “To Stop the War on South Sudan, the U.S. Should Send Weapons,” The Washington Post, May
11, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
34
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendix A. Status of Negotiations
Status of the Negotiations Between Sudan and South Sudan
The negotiating teams from Khartoum and Juba returned to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on September 3, 2012, to resume
talks on outstanding issues. While some concessions had been made prior to the August 2 deadline established by the
U.N. Security Council, they fell short of the agreement called for in UNSCR 2046 (2012). This round of talks
concluded on September 27, after a summit of the two Presidents, with the signing a series of agreements on security
and economic cooperation. They do not, however, represent a comprehensive agreement on unresolved disputes,
which both sides, and the Security Council, had previously demanded. Several security-related issues, including the
status of contested border regions, have been left for future talks. Those talks are likely to be complicated by ongoing
allegations of support for rebel groups by both sides. Following an anticipated report from AUHIP Chair Thabo Mbeki
on the progress that has been made, the Security Council may set a new deadline for the parties to resolve their
remaining disputes. Below is a summary of the status of the deliberations.
Financial Arrangements – In August, Sudan and South Sudan agreed to a tentative deal on oil and related financial
transfers, it was signed on September 27. As part of the deal, fees and tariffs associated with southern oil transiting
Sudan have been set, averaging $10 per barrel. Additionally, South Sudan will provide $3.028 billion in transitional
financial assistance (TFA) over a 3.5 year period to Sudan. The TFA is aimed at partially addressing the financial gap
Sudan faces as a result of the loss of southern oil revenues, estimated by the IMF at almost $8 million. South Sudan’s
TFA payments to Sudan will commence after oil exports resume, which experts anticipate will occur in early 2013 if
implementation of the agreement proceeds as expected. The parties also agreed to cooperate on banking and
monetary policy in the September accord. Also, as part of the deal, South Sudan has committed to advocate for
international debt relief for Khartoum. Some observers suggest the AU mediators may overestimate the willingness of
donors to provide Khartoum with funds to cover the remainder of its shortfall.
Border Monitoring – The AUHIP has proposed an administrative common borderline that the parties have agreed
to use to define a Safe Demilitarized Border Zone (extending 10 km on either side of the line). The borderline does
not prejudice a final decision on the border, but is to be used by a joint entity, composed of political and security
officials from both sides, to oversee implementation of border-related deals and resolve related disputes. South
Sudan, which had previously accepted the borderline, had noted its concern that the AUHIP borderline places four
out of five of the disputed areas north of the line, and thus under the administrative control of Sudan until the final
border is defined. Sudan rejected the borderline until South Sudan conceded to withdraw its forces from the fifth
area, a 14 mile stretch between Northern Bahr el Ghazal and East Darfur that is one of the richest grazing areas in
the region. South Sudan pressed unsuccessfully for all the disputed areas to be demilitarized. The talks have yet to
formally address areas along the border controlled by the SPLM-N, which is not part of the negotiations, and the
monitors’ ability to patrol those sections remains unclear.
Resolving Border Disputes – The proposed demilitarized zone is only a short-term, partial fix for long-standing
disputes along the north-south border. The parties have yet to agree on the modalities for resolving ownership of the
contested border areas. South Sudan proposes that any disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties be submitted
for international arbitration, while Sudan maintains that the parties should resolve them through negotiations. South
Sudan remains concerned that disputed areas such as Abyei could remain under de facto Sudanese control for an
indeterminate time. An AUHIP panel of experts is expected to provide the parties with a non-binding opinion on how
the border disputes should be resolved.
Citizenship – The parties have reached agreement on “four freedoms” for nationals of both countries, namely the
freedoms of movement and residence, as well as the freedom to undertake economic activity and to own property. If
the spirit of the agreement is followed by both sides, it should allow some 500,000 people of South Sudanese origin
who remain in Sudan to formally live and work there, and allow Sudanese nomadic groups such as the Misseriya to
continue their seasonal migrations into South Sudan. As with other issues, implementation of any citizenship
arrangements may be linked to the status of relations between the two governments.
Abyei – Abyei’s final status remains in question and represents one of the most intractable issues between the
parties. South Sudan continues to call for resolution through a referendum for Abyei residents, as agreed to in the
CPA. It maintains that eligible voters be defined as all members of the Ngok Dinka and any other individuals who have
had a “continuous and uninterrupted residence and domicile within the Abyei area,” for no less than three
consecutive years immediately prior to January 9, 2005. Sudan, by contrast, would have Abyei’s status determined by
the two countries’ presidents, and has proposed partitioning the region.
Congressional Research Service
35
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendix B. The Humanitarian Situation
Table B-1.Humanitarian Data at a Glance
(Estimated figures, August-September 2012)
SOUTH SUDAN
Population at risk of food insecurity
4.7 million
Population in need of emergency food aid
2.9 million
Conflict-Related Displacement in 2012
167,930
Verified Returns from Sudan to South Sudan since October 2010
661,410
Refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo in South Sudan
18,000
Civilians displaced from Abyei
77,000
- number of whom have returned to areas north of the River Kiir
10,030
- number of whom remain displaced from north to south of the river Kiir
67,000
Refugees from South Sudan in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Egypt
83,500
SUDAN
Population in need of emergency food aid nationwide
4.2 million
Population in need of food aid in Darfur
3.3 million
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Darfur
1.7 million
Returns of Darfur IDPs and Refugees to their place of origin in 2011
178,000
Civilians in Southern Kordofan severely affected by conflict
520,000
- number of whom are in SPLM-N held areas
350,000
Civilians in Blue Nile severely affected by conflict
145,000
- number of whom are in SPLM-N-held areas
70,000
Refugees from Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in South Sudan
180,700
Refugees from Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in Ethiopia
30,400
Refugees from Darfur in Chad
288,000
Refugees from Sudan in Egypt
25,000
People of South Sudanese origin in Sudan who may need assistance to return to South Sudan
500,000
Source: U.N. OCHA, Sudan Humanitarian Update: 2nd Quarter 2012, July 17, 2012; USAID, Sudan Complex
Emergency Fact Sheet #5, FY2012, August 17, 2012; South Sudan Complex Emergency Fact Sheet #5, September 30,
2012.
Note: The population of Darfur is estimated at 7.5 million. The populations of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
are approximately 2.5 million and 832,000, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
36
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendix C. U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Sudans
Table C-1.U.S. Bilateral Foreign Assistance to Sudan and South Sudan
($ in thousands)
Accou
nt, by
year
GHPUSAI
D
GHPState
INCL
E
ESF
FFP
TOTA
L
1,100
209,133
238,626
1,100
N/A
31,100
1,000
N/A
40,600
NADR
IMET
FMF
PKO
SUDAN
FY2011
Actual
26,393
FY2012
Estimat
e
30,000
FY2013
Request
37,600
2,000
2,000
SOUTH SUDAN
FY2011
Actual
34,848
12,036
223,431
25,000
2,800
763
41,870
54,634
395,382
FY2012
Estimat
e
44,210
12,036
305,360
32,000
2,800
800
58,000 15,000*
470,206
FY2013
Request
36,010
16,600
288,499
27,404
2,800
750
40,000 15,000*
426,598
200
Source: State Department FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) for Foreign Operations.
Notes: * The FY2012 and FY2013 figures for both countries 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.
Table C-2.U.S. Foreign Assistance for the Sudans, including Bilateral and
Humanitarian Assistance and Peacekeeping Contributions
($ in millions)
Bilateral Aid
to Sudan
Bilateral Aid
to
South Sudan
Humanitarian
Aid
Peacekeeping
TOTAL
FY2011
30
341
502
679
1,552
FY2010
399
-
1,100
431
1,930
FY2009
377
-
623
937
1,937
FY2008
393
-
844
830
2,067
Funding,
by year
Source: Bilateral aid and peacekeeping figures drawn from State Department CBJs; humanitarian aid figures,
which cover both USAID and State emergency assistance, are drawn from USAID’s Complex Emergency
Situation Reports for Sudan and South Sudan.
Note: FY2011 is the first year for which bilateral aid figures for South Sudan are available separately.
Congressional Research Service
37
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendix D. Acronyms
Acronyms
AMIS: African Union Mission in Sudan
AUHIP: African Union High-Level Implementation Panel
CPA: Comprehensive Peace Agreement
DDPD: Doha Document for Peace in Darfur
DRA: Darfur Regional Authority
DUP: Democratic Unionist Party (an opposition party in Sudan)
JEM: Justice and Equality Movement (an insurgent group in Darfur)
LJM: Liberty and Justice Movement
NCF: National Consensus Forces (an alliance of opposition parties in Sudan)
NCP: National Congress Party (Sudan’s ruling party)
NIF: National Islamic Front
PCP: Popular Congress Party (an opposition party in Sudan)
PDF: Popular Defense Forces (Sudanese government-backed militia)
SAF: Sudan Armed Forces (the Sudanese military)
SDBZ: Safe Demilitarized Border Zone
SLM/A: Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (an insurgent group in Darfur)
SPLM/A: Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (South Sudan’s ruling party and its
army, respectively)
SPLM/A-N: Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army – North (formerly a recognized
opposition party in Sudan, became an insurgent group in 2011)
SRF: Sudan Revolutionary Front (an alliance of insurgent groups in Sudan)
UNAMID: United Nations – African Union Hybrid Mission in Darfur
UNISFA: United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei
UNMIS: United Nations Mission in Sudan
UNMISS: United Nations Mission in South Sudan
Congressional Research Service
38
Sudan and South Sudan: Current Issues for Congress and U.S. Policy
Appendix E. Peacekeeping Operations
Table E-1.Current U.N. Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan and/or South Sudan
Authorized
Strength/Currently
Deployed
Date of
Establishment
Authorizing
Resolutions
U.N.-AU Hybrid
Mission in
Darfur
(UNAMID)
est. July 31, 2007;
assumed duties from
AMIS Dec. 31, 2007
Res. 1769 (2007);
2063 (2012)
U.N. Interim
Security Force
for Abyei
(UNISFA)
June 27, 2011
Res. 1990 (2011);
2024 (2011); and
2047 (2012)
4,250 authorized
6,633 deployed
U.N. Mission in
South Sudan
(UNMISS)
July 9, 2011
Res. 1996 (2011);
2057 (2012)
7,900 authorized
6,633 deployed
Operation
25,987 authorized 2007
20,890 authorized 2012
21,607 deployed
U.S. Assessed
Contribution
FY12–$518,178,000;
FY13–$512,330,000
FY12–$0
FY13–60,000,000
FY12–$0
FY13–$238,665,000
Source: United Nations and U.S. State Department Congressional Budget Justification for FY2013.
Notes: The resolutions listed denote the original authorization and changes to the mandate or size of the force;
other resolutions adopted to extend the term of the operations are not listed. Deployment figures from August
2012. UNAMID was preceded by the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). The mandate of another peacekeeping
operation, the U.N. Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) was terminated in July 2011 at the request of the government of
Sudan. UNMIS’s mandate covered South Sudan, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and the disputed Abyei region.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in African Affairs
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
39
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.