The violent clashes in Nasir on March 3rd and 4th, where the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces (SSPDF) were attacked and dislodged by the White Army, serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of South Sudan’s peace process. This latest escalation underscores the deep-seated tensions that persist despite years of negotiations and peace agreements. As political and military actors engage in a blame game, the risk of renewed conflict looms large, threatening the gains made since the signing of the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS).
Understanding the Nasir clashes
The SSPDF has justified its deployment in Nasir as a routine troop rotation, citing the presence of government forces in the area for over a decade. However, widespread speculation suggests that the move was part of a broader disarmament strategy targeting Nasir and Ulang counties—an initiative that met strong resistance from local armed youth, commonly known as the White Army. The perception that the deployment was aimed at forcibly disarming communities without adequate consultation or security guarantees triggered an immediate and forceful backlash, leading to the White Army’s takeover of Nasir town.
This development is particularly concerning given the historical tensions between government forces and local armed groups. The White Army, a loosely organized but highly responsive community defense force, has long played a role in local security and self-defense, especially in areas where trust in national security institutions is weak. Any perceived threat to their autonomy—such as an uncoordinated disarmament campaign—has the potential to spark violent resistance, as seen in Nasir.
The broader security context
The Nasir clashes are not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of deeper structural issues plaguing South Sudan’s security sector. The 2018 peace agreement outlined critical security arrangements, including the unification of armed forces, disarmament, and the restructuring of the national army. However, five years later, implementation remains slow and uneven.
Key provisions of the agreement, particularly in Chapters 1 and 2—covering governance and security arrangements—have seen limited progress. Instead of a cohesive and professional security force, South Sudan remains plagued by fragmented armed groups operating under parallel command structures. This disunity not only undermines stability but also erodes public confidence in the state’s ability to provide security.
Attempting to enforce disarmament without first resolving these structural weaknesses is a recipe for disaster. The continued presence of multiple armed factions—some integrated into formal security institutions and others operating independently—creates a volatile environment where any security intervention is viewed through the lens of political and ethnic rivalry. Without a trusted and unified security apparatus, any effort at disarmament is likely to trigger resistance and violence.
Implications for the peace process
While the clashes in Nasir may not immediately derail the peace process, they represent a serious warning sign. South Sudan is at a critical juncture where unresolved security challenges, political instability, and economic hardships could converge to reignite widespread conflict.
The inability to enforce security arrangements undermines not only national stability but also the credibility of the peace process. If armed groups continue to act autonomously and challenge state authority, the risk of localized conflicts escalating into a broader national crisis increases significantly. The Nasir incident has already shifted the political and security landscape, raising fears that similar clashes could erupt in other parts of the country where tensions remain high.
The role of regional and international actors
To prevent further deterioration, urgent action is needed from regional and international actors, particularly the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union (AU), and the United Nations (UN). These bodies played a crucial role in brokering the 2018 peace agreement, and they must now take a more assertive stance in ensuring its full implementation.
IGAD and its member states must intensify diplomatic engagement with South Sudan’s leadership to push for the unification of forces and meaningful security sector reform. The AU, which has emphasized the importance of silencing the guns across the continent, should play a more active role in supporting mediation efforts and holding parties accountable for violations of the peace agreement. The UN, through its peacekeeping mission (UNMISS), must continue to monitor and document security incidents while providing technical and logistical support for peacebuilding initiatives.
Additionally, international partners, including the United States, the European Union, and donor agencies, must reinforce their support for security sector reform and community-based peace initiatives. Strengthening local governance, enhancing civilian protection mechanisms, and promoting reconciliation efforts at the grassroots level will be crucial in preventing further conflict.
The way forward: Prioritizing de-escalation and dialogue
Moving forward, South Sudanese leaders must take urgent steps to de-escalate tensions and prevent further violence. This requires shifting the focus from militarized interventions to confidence-building measures that foster trust among communities and security institutions.
Key Steps to Address the Crisis:
- Immediate De-escalation Measures: The government and opposition leaders must engage in direct dialogue with community leaders, including representatives of the White Army, to address grievances and negotiate a peaceful resolution to the standoff in Nasir. Uncoordinated military interventions will only worsen the situation.
- Security Sector Reform: The unification of forces must be prioritized to eliminate parallel command structures and build a national army that is representative, professional, and trusted by all communities. Without this, security operations will continue to be viewed as partisan, fueling further resistance.
- Inclusive Disarmament Strategies: Disarmament efforts should be preceded by robust community engagement, ensuring that local populations understand the benefits of disarmament and have alternative security mechanisms in place. Simply seizing weapons without addressing underlying security concerns will not bring sustainable peace.
- Strengthening Local Governance: Many conflicts in South Sudan are fueled by governance failures at the local level. Investing in local leadership structures, empowering traditional authorities, and ensuring community participation in decision-making processes can help mitigate tensions.
- Regional and International Support: IGAD, the AU, and the UN must adopt a more proactive approach in facilitating security arrangements, monitoring violations, and holding parties accountable. Their involvement should go beyond diplomatic statements to tangible actions that drive implementation forward.
Conclusion
The clashes in Nasir should serve as a wake-up call for South Sudan’s leaders and peace partners. The country stands at a crossroads where decisive action can either consolidate peace or lead to renewed instability. The choice is clear—South Sudanese leaders must demonstrate genuine political will, prioritize national unity over short-term interests, and commit to the full implementation of security arrangements.
If security sector reform and confidence-building measures are not urgently pursued, the peace process risks losing credibility, and the cycle of violence could once again engulf the nation. The Nasir incident is not just a local crisis—it is a reflection of deeper systemic issues that must be addressed to secure South Sudan’s future.
The writer, Malual Bol Kiir, is a South Sudanese peace advocate. He can be reached at malualbk2005@gmail.com
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.