Violence is again escalating in South Sudan due to historical ethnic tensions and political factors. Uganda’s recent military intervention complicates peace efforts, with the White Army attacking government forces in Nasir County. The situation requires urgent dialogue and community engagement to prevent a civil war, while international response remains crucial but lacks decisive action.
The resurgence of violence in South Sudan is linked to historical tensions between the Nuer and Dinka communities, exacerbated by a political split in the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in 1991. As of early March 2025, political strife has led to increased hostilities in Upper Nile State, raising concerns about the potential for civil war, especially following Uganda’s military intervention at the South Sudan government’s request.
Opposition factions in South Sudan have expressed dissatisfaction with Uganda’s involvement, which has halted discussions on a cooperative military structure. This intervention challenges the fragile 2018 power-sharing agreement between President Salva Kiir, First Vice-President Riek Machar, and other leaders, which previously ended a five-year civil conflict. Jan Pospisil, a researcher of South Sudanese politics, has analyzed the underlying discontent contributing to this situation.
The recent violence erupted when the White Army, a militia supporting the Nuer community, attacked South Sudan People’s Defence Forces in Nasir County on March 2025, resulting in nearly 50 fatalities and numerous injuries. The government’s aggressive response, including aerial strikes and arrests of opposition leaders, has further aggravated tensions while the White Army claims its actions were defensive, reflecting the ongoing ethnic and political divides.
Historically, conflicts in South Sudan stem from a power struggle within the SPLM that intensified after the group’s division. The White Army emerged from Nuer community defense initiatives during this infighting and operates independently of political control, complicating current perceptions of their motivations and actions. Recent attacks by the White Army appear to be reactions to provocations rather than coordinated political strategies.
Unlike the civil war of 2013, which saw Dinka troops attacking the Nuer-majority Nasir, the current conflict has arisen from distinct provocations. February 2025’s incidents, triggering retaliatory violence, have showcased the incapacity of government forces, undermining the authority of the national army and inviting increased violence from the White Army.
Efforts to de-escalate tensions must prioritize dialogue and community demobilization while avoiding punitive measures against opposition figures. Engaging local leaders who can negotiate with White Army factions can create pathways for peace, especially as the rainy season approaches, which complicates military operations.
Internationally, while there have been denunciations concerning the violence, actionable responses remain limited. The UN’s call for restraint must acknowledge the complex dynamics governing the White Army. The absence of strong statements decrying the arrests of opposition figures risks reinforcing the government’s narrative justifying military responses. A comprehensive approach emphasizing de-escalation, political resolution, and community engagement is essential for avoiding a return to civil war.
The increasing violence in South Sudan, rooted in longstanding ethnic tensions and complicated by political dynamics, threatens to unravel fragile peace agreements. To avert a return to civil conflict, the South Sudanese government must engage in constructive dialogue while refraining from punitive actions against opposition figures. Such efforts should be complemented by international support that acknowledges the complexity of local military mobilizations and advocates for lasting political solutions.
Original Source: eastleighvoice.co.ke
