Rising Violence in South Sudan: Challenges and Pathways to Peace

South Sudan is experiencing increasing political tension and violence, particularly in Upper Nile State, raising fears of a civil war resurgence. The Ugandan military involvement complicates the conflict, hindering dialogue among opposing factions. The White Army’s independent actions and historical grievances complicate the current crisis, necessitating comprehensive peace negotiations and international intervention to prevent further escalation.

In recent months, South Sudan has experienced heightened political tensions and an alarming escalation of violence, particularly in Upper Nile State, prompting fears of a potential return to civil war. In March 2025, the Ugandan government deployed troops to South Sudan upon the request of its government, involving aerial bombardments targeting combatants. Opposition groups in South Sudan reacted adversely to this intervention, halting their participation in vital discussions aimed at creating a joint military system, thus jeopardizing the 2018 power-sharing agreement that ended a prolonged civil conflict.

On the ground, violence has erupted, prominently marked by attacks from the White Army—a militia representing the Nuer community—against the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces in Nasir County. This confrontation resulted in approximately 50 fatalities and significant injuries, with the White Army claiming self-defense as its motive. The historical backdrop of the violence can be traced to long-standing ethnic tensions, notably between the Nuer and Dinka communities, and the political rift from the 1991 split of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

The situation has escalated further following provocations leading to violent clashes between the White Army and government forces. Unlike the civil war outbreak in 2013, which was characterized by organized military engagements across ethnic lines, recent White Army actions appear decentralized and reactionary rather than guided by a unified political directive. Incidents such as the White Army’s attack on soldiers gathering firewood have spiraled into wider conflict, leading to a significant defeat for the national army, which amplifies the government’s instability.

In the government’s response, there has been a push to scapegoat opposition figures, with arrests being made that seemingly aim to destabilize the opposition rather than address the root causes of the violence. The strategic narrative framed by governmental officials attributes these militia attacks to orchestrated efforts by opposition leaders, an assertion that overlooks the historical independence of the White Army.

To mitigate the risk of descending into civil war, it is imperative for the government to engage in inclusive dialogue and demobilization efforts. Avoiding arbitrary arrests driven by humiliation and discontinuing indiscriminate violence against civilians is paramount. Utilizing the window before the upcoming rainy season to establish confidence-building initiatives could facilitate peace, particularly through negotiations with influential community leaders connected to the White Army factions.

The international response has thus far been limited, with the United Nations condemning the violence but failing to address the nuanced dynamics of the conflict, especially regarding the independent actions of the White Army. An explicit call for the cessation of repression against opposition figures is essential to bolster the fragile transition process in South Sudan. Without such firm international advocacy, existing governmental narratives may continue to justify severe military actions, undermining any prospects for a peaceful resolution.

The situation in South Sudan is critically fragile, marked by escalating violence and deep-rooted ethnic tensions. The recent deployment of Ugandan troops and the emergence of the White Army pose significant threats to peace, jeopardizing the fragile power-sharing agreement established in 2018. Addressing these challenges requires meaningful dialogue, strategic community engagement, and a concerted international effort aimed at de-escalation and political reform. Only through collaborative efforts can South Sudan hope to avoid a return to the devastating civil war that marred its early years.

Original Source: theconversation.com