Among Western nations, the United States has historically played a leading role in South Sudan’s path to independence. Over several decades, Washington invested billions of dollars in aid, development, and diplomatic initiatives. The U.S. supported then-Southern Sudanese aspirations for self-determination, helped broker the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and recognized the new nation immediately after its 2011 secession, exerting decisive influence over South Sudan’s political landscape. This engagement reflects a mix of strategic and humanitarian interests that set Washington apart from other global powers. There is no doubt that the United States faces tough choices in South Sudan as instability persists.
However, this influence is increasingly challenged by regional and global actors. President Salva Kiir has systematically consolidated power by undermining key provisions of the September 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement, delaying security reforms, and sidelining opposition leaders.
Uganda, under President Yoweri Museveni, provides crucial military and diplomatic backing that shields President Kiir from international accountability for human rights abuses, war crimes, corruption, and the perpetuation of conflict—significantly undermining U.S. efforts to apply pressure or enforce reforms. Simultaneously, China dominates South Sudan’s primary source of revenue, oil, while Russia positions itself as an alternative security partner. Together, these strategic realignments have sidelined U.S. interests in an increasingly multipolar landscape. If Washington retreats, it risks enabling dictatorship to thrive without accountability. Yet Washington’s leverage has declined in recent years, primarily due to South Sudan’s oil dependence on Beijing. Any new strategy must therefore be realistic about the limits of American influence.
South Sudan’s instability has consequences beyond its borders, putting neighboring countries—such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya—at risk of refugee crises and potential militarization in the East African region. Uganda’s unilateral backing of Kiir’s regime creates a regional environment that entrenches authoritarian rule and empowers those undermining peace. Museveni’s support for Kiir is primarily driven by his own economic interests and fear of Ugandan rebels, which complicate efforts to shift his position through pressure alone. It also undermines international peace frameworks and challenges the credibility of multilateral institutions in the region.
First, for the United States, the stakes are high. China’s economic dominance and Russia’s security engagement are securing footholds in East Africa, diminishing the strategic leverage the U.S. once enjoyed. Second, ongoing conflicts threaten regional stability, strain counterterrorism partnerships, and worsen humanitarian crises. Third, a failure to respond decisively would signal that U.S. investments can be disregarded, weakening Washington’s credibility.
It is crucial for Washington to address this matter decisively, rather than avoiding action. The U.S. must also acknowledge openly that South Sudan’s democratic aspirations are being undermined by outside powers—most notably Uganda and, increasingly, China.
To protect its strategic interests and promote lasting peace, the United States must adopt a targeted approach focusing on accountability, balanced regional engagement, and proactive multilateral coordination. Central to this strategy is recognizing President Kiir as the primary obstacle to progress and holding him directly accountable, rather than diffusing responsibility across all actors. Multiple credible sources—including the United Nations Security Council, Human Rights Watch, and the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect—identify Kiir as the main barrier to implementing South Sudan’s 2018 peace agreement. These reports highlight that delays in security reforms and Kiir’s consolidation of power have intentionally undermined the peace process. In March 2025, Reuters reported that Kiir’s political maneuvering and clashes prompted other leaders, including First Vice President Dr. Machar, to suspend participation in key aspects of the agreement. While other South Sudanese leaders bear varying degrees of responsibility for ongoing challenges, attributing collective blame to all political or military figures would obscure the realities on the ground and hinder efforts toward a just resolution. Evidence at local, regional, and international levels confirms that Kiir has deliberately obstructed the implementation of the peace agreement. He is also actively directing joint South Sudan–Uganda military operations in Akobo, Nasir, Fangak, Mayon, Longechuke, and other areas he perceives as threats to his regime. Treating all leaders as equally responsible misrepresents the situation and undermines efforts to achieve a fair resolution.
Washington should also refine its regional strategy by reducing reliance on Uganda and cultivating stronger partnerships with Kenya, Ethiopia, and Sudan, thereby creating a counterbalance against unilateral interventions. Targeted embargoes, including asset freezes, travel bans, and sanctions on those enabling authoritarian rule, should be deployed judiciously and, if necessary, applied to Ugandan military and security personnel. These measures would reinforce U.S. credibility and encourage responsible behavior among regional actors. However, past experiences show that sanctions can be less effective when China or Russia provides alternative support. This is one reason the U.S. should be concerned about losing its influence in East Africa.
Finally, the United States must lead efforts to coordinate with multilateral institutions such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the African Union, Troika countries (the United Kingdom, Norway, and the United States), the United Nations, and the European Union. Through this coordination, Washington can shape peacekeeping mandates, enforce accountability, and curb regional spoilers. Sustained support for civil society and independent monitoring is essential to ensure accountability and maintain momentum for long-term peace. Achieving lasting peace also means focusing on South Sudanese civil society, religious leaders, and grassroots movements, because their strong local support is essential to challenge the narratives pushed by elites.
Nearly 12 years have passed since the civil war began, yet U.S. policy on South Sudan amounted to tough rhetoric, with little action. Given these documented failures, one must ask: Why does the United States persist in an overly cautious approach?
South Sudan remains a humanitarian and strategic concern. While the United States retains unique leverage through financial, diplomatic, and regional channels, indecision risks ceding its influence to countries such as Uganda, China, and Russia. Immediate and decisive action through targeted pressure, regional partnerships, multilateral leadership, and local engagement is essential for the U.S. to preserve its credibility and strengthen stability in East Africa. Washington must choose whether to shape South Sudan’s future or simply react to the agendas of others. Washington does not have to choose between full intervention and complete withdrawal. A balanced approach that strengthens a credible and impartial African-led peace process while providing targeted U.S. support would be more effective. Remaining adrift in a sea of moral equivalence would be both an ethical and strategic mistake for the United States. It must act decisively to secure a stable and thriving future for the people of South Sudan.
The writer, Duop Chak Wuol, is an analyst, critical writer, and former editor-in-chief of the South Sudan News Agency. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and focuses on geopolitics, security, and social issues in South Sudan and the broader East African region. His work has appeared in the leading regional and international outlets, including AllAfrica, Radio Tamazuj, The Independent (Uganda), The Arab Weekly, The Standard (Kenya), The Chronicle (Ghana), Sudan Tribune, and Addis Standard (Ethiopia). In August 2017, the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation highlighted his article on Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s role in Ethiopia’s economic transformation. He currently focuses on emerging security trends, including tensions over the Nile waters, and foreign involvement in conflicts in South Sudan and Sudan. He can be reached at duop282@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.