The Issue

After decades of bloodshed, South Sudan won independence in 2011. However, it soon descended into crisis. Despite having large oil reserves that could fuel a strong economy, South Sudan emerged as one of the world’s least developed countries. Its government was dysfunctional. Political and ethnic rivalries between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar caused the government to effectively collapse in late 2013, plunging the country into a civil war marked by ethnically targeted attacks. 

In the opening months of the conflict, it quickly became clear that the violence could lead to a severe humanitarian crisis. By April 2014, more than one million people had been driven from their homes and, as food shortages grew acute, nearly one-third of the country’s population were at severe risk of starvation.

Although a UN peacekeeping mission has been present in South Sudan since 2011, this new crisis led other countries, including the United States, to consider launching their own humanitarian interventions to establish or maintain peace and ensure access to humanitarian aid. Such interventions would be guided by the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2005 after they failed to prevent a number of genocides. According to this doctrine, countries have a responsibility to intervene in other countries in cases of crimes against humanity or genocide. However, this norm is not legally binding and its use in some cases has been controversial. Still, the underlying principles of R2P could provide a basis for the United States to take action in South Sudan.

Decision Point—Set in May 2014

South Sudan is in its fifth month of civil war. So far, all attempts to reach a ceasefire have quickly failed. Recent reports suggest the war reached a new level of violence after South Sudanese opposition forces took control of the northern city of Bentiu and killed hundreds of civilians there. It seems likely that fighting will continue to escalate, subjecting civilians to more violence and possibly even leading to genocide. At the same time, drought, destruction, and the loss of the agricultural workforce will reduce South Sudan’s already scarce food supplies. The result is predicted to be a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions. 

In this context, the United States faces significant pressure to act. The United States could increase its involvement in current peace talks or cut funding to the warring parties, but these options take time. Meanwhile, South Sudanese civilians are suffering. National Security Council (NSC) members are thus meeting to debate a more immediate question: Should the United States pursue a direct humanitarian intervention in South Sudan? Supporters of intervention could invoke the R2P doctrine, arguing that conditions in South Sudan resemble those at the onset of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, which claimed as many as one million lives. Yet NSC members need to weigh the possible good that an intervention could accomplish against the significant dangers and the costs that it would entail.