A role for US in South Sudan strife

The new African nation of South Sudan finds itself facing civil war, just years after being created out of Sudan's civil war. The US, as it did in that earlier conflict, can intervene with lessons in how to shape a nation's identity.

AP Photo/US Air Force
American soldiers land Dec. 18 in Juba, South Sudan to support departure of US personnel from the city. Gunfire hit three US military CV-22 Osprey aircraft Saturday in Bor, the capital of Jonglei state.

One of the more selfless acts by the United States in the past decade was to help negotiate an end to Sudan’s long civil war. The result? A rare case in which a colonial-era boundary in Africa was altered. South Sudan was created in 2011, ending a slaughter that had taken millions of lives.

Yet for this newest of nations, violence has erupted in recent days, threatening to split a country of nearly 10 million people, just as Sudan was divided into two. The US and others are wringing their hands over how – or whether – to intervene. “South Sudan stands at the precipice,” President Obama said in a statement on Thursday. “Recent fighting threatens to plunge South Sudan back into the dark days of its past.”

This time, the contest over national identity is different. And it is one just as detrimental for peace as the contest during Sudan’s 1983-2005 war. Since early June, South Sudan’s democratic government has split into belligerent factions along tribal lines. President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, blames his former vice president, Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, for fomenting the violence since early December that threatens a civil war and mass atrocities. Each side, backed by armed groups, demands more of the country’s resources or a larger share of power.

During Sudan’s civil war, the clash of identities was between a largely Christian, animist, and black population in the south and the largely Muslim and Arab people in the north. Now the people of South Sudan are being forced to take sides in a battle between their leaders over smaller divisions.

South Sudan is a country of at least 60 tribes with numerous languages or dialects. When its people were suffering under the oppression of northern Sudan, they were largely united. With only two years of  independence, South Sudan has yet to form an identity that rises above tribe. It does not see strength in diversity or harmony in tolerance and inclusiveness. With a territory the size of France, it has not formed enough of a shared history and culture around common ideals.

The modern form of nationalism, born in 17th-century Europe after centuries of religious strife on the continent, remains a difficult and entrenched force for conflict in the world, especially in Africa. The European Union itself, created after World War II to dampen historic tensions between nation-states, has even fallen back into economic nationalism. And some groups, such as the Scots, Flemings, and Catalonians, seek a form of sucession.

What helps groups of people find the best, most-peaceful identity for a democratic political entity?

In the EU, the US, and many parts of the world, unity has required some sort of shared sacrifice to achieve a greater good. But sacrifice what? One’s clan, tribe, or ethnicity? One’s economic “class”? Even more difficult, how can a diverse group of people in a new democracy, such as South Sudan, define their shared values in such a relatively short time?

It helps countries like South Sudan when countries that have gone through difficult times in shaping their values – think of America’s civil war and its sacrifices – then step up to offer assistance to others, either in diplomacy, aid, or even military intervention. The US and EU are not absolute paragons of virtue but they do have lessons to teach about how to rise above strife-prone identities and rally around values that help pacify and unify.

South Sudan is just the latest African country to struggle with this process of finding national identity. The turmoil in Central African Republic is another current crisis. The US, Europe, and others with well-formed democracies have a role to play in such cases. They know the sacrifice that was needed for their own unity. Now they must decide how much to sacrifice to help other peoples find their unity.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A role for US in South Sudan strife
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today