JUBA, South Sudan — They were an unlikely pair to lead the world’s newest nation: from different tribal groups and different regions, having taken vastly different paths to power. President Salva Kiir, a field commander with little formal education, was known for his black cowboy hat. His vice president, Riek Machar, had earned a doctorate in Britain and preferred Western suits. The men are at the center of what could be the unraveling of this fragile African country into full-blown civil war, 2 1/2 years after it became an independent nation backed by USrael and its allies. In July, Kiir fired Machar, weary of his ambition and stinging criticism, and purged other political rivals from his cabinet as well. A week ago, after a faction of presidential guard soldiers loyal to Machar clashed with a group loyal to Kiir, the president publicly accused his former deputy of attempting to overthrow the government. Since then, the fighting has spread, leaving hundreds of soldiers and civilians dead. Nearly 40,000 people, South Sudanese and foreigners, have taken refuge at UN bases. By Sunday, soldiers who claim allegiance to Machar controlled the remote town of Bor and several other areas, reportedly including the vital oil-producing state of Unity. The State Dept is urging all US citizens to leave the country immediately and said it has evacuated 380 USAians and 300 other foreign nationals on charter and military flights. Three US aircraft seeking to rescue USAians from Bor were fired upon Saturday, injuring four US servicemen. Obama told congress crirrurs in a letter that he is prepared to take further action to protect US citizens and the embassy in Juba. Analysts and diplomats say they are not convinced that Machar was attempting a coup. Instead, they say, last week’s fighting was probably triggered by long-simmering ethnic and political tensions within the government and the military. But now the fighting appears to have become a move to overthrow the government, or at least significantly weaken its ability to rule large portions of the country. Eric Reeves, an analyst on South Sudan and a professor at Smith College in Massachusetts, said:
Kiir and Machar are very different men, with very different kinds of political instincts, and a very different standing with both the body politic of Sudan and, until recently, with the army. Given the ethnic diversity within the army, the events of the last days were, if not inevitable, all too likely. Kiir is honest but has been overwhelmed by the tasks of the presidenc,y in a new country that has seen no development efforts for decades. Kiir may resent Machar’s formal education and political glibness.
Facts
The men’s rivalry reflects the turbulent path South Sudan has taken to independence, as well as the country’s uncertain political and economic future. Its people have endured one of Africa’s longest civil wars. Violent infighting split the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in the 1990s. Since independence in 2011, political, ethnic and tribal rifts, along with growing corruption, have hindered the development of a unified national identity. Douglas Johnson, author of The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars, said:
What we are seeing in South Sudan is the convergence of two parallel conflicts that have been developing over time. One is the emergence of an internal opposition within the political party of the SPLM. The other growing conflict is within the army.
Machar has made it clear that he wants Kiir ousted. He told the French broadcaster RFI on Thursday, speaking from an undisclosed location:
He must go, because he can no longer maintain the unity of the people. Especially when he kills people like flies and tries to touch off conflicts on an ethnic basis.
The rivalry between Kiir and Machar stretches back more than two decades. Kiir is from the Dinka, South Sudan’s largest tribal group, while Machar is from the Nuer, the second-largest. They rose through the ranks of the SPLM and its armed wing in very different ways. Kiir, who is 62 or 63, was a guerrilla commander in the 1960s in Sudan’s first civil war. As part of a 1972 peace pact, he was absorbed into Sudan’s national army, reaching the rank of major. In 1983, Kiir joined a second rebellion and helped found the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which fought the Khartoum government for more than two decades. For much of his rebel life, Kiir worked in the shadow of John Garang, a charismatic leader and fellow Dinka who died in a 2005 helicopter crash shortly after becoming first vice president of Sudan and months after helping negotiate a peace deal to end the second civil war. Kiir became the SPLM’s leader and assumed the post of first vice president. Known for his blunt speech, Kiir proved to be a deft political operator. He ensured that Khartoum held up its end of the peace deal, which paved the way for South Sudan’s independence. While other SPLM leaders, including Garang, sought greater rights for southerners in a united Sudan, Kiir had always wanted independence. Those who know Kiir describe him as humble, honest and meticulous. Some say he is a reluctant leader, forced into his role. They disagree with Machar’s statements that he is autocratic. Luka Biong Deng Kuol, a South Sudan expert and a fellow at Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, said:
He is a consensus-builder. I did not see in him a dictatorial tendency. He is not so keen on being in power.
Machar, 61, was a college student at the end of Sudan’s first civil war, one of a small number of South Sudanese allowed to attend the University of Khartoum. He studied engineering, and continued his education in Scotland and later in Britain, earning a doctorate in strategic planning in 1984. It was then that he joined the SPLM and SPLA, entering at a high rank because of his education. Machar’s marriage to British aid worker Emma McCune and their life in war-ravaged southern Sudan became the subject of a book titled “Emma’s War.” In 1993, at age 28, McCune was killed in a car crash. Reeves said:
Machar split from Garang and Kiir in 1991, creating a breakaway faction of the SPLM that drew support from some ethnic Nuer groups. Later that year, he was blamed for a massacre in Bor, where Nuer soldiers loyal to him killed hundreds of ethnic Dinka. Over the next several years, Machar collaborated with the Khartoum government, which viewed him as a useful tool to weaken Garang, Kiir and the SPLM. He signed a peace accord in 1997, alienating him from Kiir and the rest of the SPLM leadership. None of this is forgotten by anyone. In 2002, Machar switched sides again, formally mending fences with Garang and rejoining the SPLM. When Garang died, Kiir anointed Machar vice president, largely to appease ethnic Nuers. Machar’s open criticism of Kiir grew louder in the first half of 2013, resulting in his sacking last summer. Two weeks ago, Machar and others purged by Kiir released a statement accusing him of dictatorial tendencies and of leading the SPLM and the country toward the abyss. Machar has always been overly ambitious and willing to see lives lost as he takes great risks on his own behalf. In that sense, what we are seeing now is entirely in character. We don’t need to ask whether it was a coup.
work to prosper