It was considered one of the world’s great successes when South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011. After many unhappy years as a region of Sudan, the new country declared its independence with crucial support from the outside world, particularly the United States.

Now, less than 2½ years later, South Sudan appears to be on the verge of a potential civil war. Since an alleged coup attempt Dec. 15 fighting between rebels and government forces has killed at least 500 people, injured four U.S. troops and left entire cities disputed.

The roots of South Sudan’s conflict extend back much further than the country’s 2011 independence. And, while all internal conflicts are complicated, this one is especially so. But you might say that, in the most general terms, there are three big forces driving the conflict:

South Sudan is very poor and underdeveloped, and resource scarcity tends to fracture politics and exacerbate ethnic conflict.

The same forces that helped South Sudan win independence — militias, strongly felt tribal identities — also set it up for today’s conflict.

More narrowly, the president fired the vice president, starting a political dispute that may have been the match to South Sudan’s tinderbox.

Let’s go through those one by one.

Poverty exacerbates rifts

Being poor does not in itself make a country prone to conflict. The problem is when resources are scarce and there isn’t a good system for distributing them. That forces people to compete for resources. And that competition can cause social divides to widen. In South Sudan’s case, the divides are ethnic.

South Sudan is especially susceptible to this problem because its economy is a very unlucky mix of poor people, a poor state and rich resources. South Sudan’s GDP per capita is about $1,000, one of the lowest in the world. Its infrastructure is practically nonexistent, with only a few dozen kilometers of paved road across a nation the size of Texas. But the country has an awful lot of oil.

That means that South Sudan is poor in ways that make people more likely to compete for resources, because individuals don’t have very much, and that the country is rich in ways that make people more likely to compete, in this case for control over the oil.

Seeds of internal conflict

The decades before South Sudan’s independence are complicated.

In the simplest terms, its history was defined by half a century of fighting between the politically dominant, ethnically Arab north and the politically weaker, ethnically sub-Saharan south. Rebel groups in the south wanted more autonomy from the north. They had to fight very hard to get it (although they owe a lot to the north, which behaved so terribly that it galvanized world opinion in favor of the south).

The thing, though, is that South Sudan is actually pretty ethnically diverse. South Sudan, like a number of other countries in sub-Saharan Africa — and particularly this region of it — is defined by borders that have very little to do with the actual people there. The earlier, unified version of Sudan had been carved out, in part, by European and especially British colonialism. The long-running conflict between the country’s north and its south was, like many wars in post-colonial Africa, partly a consequence of European cartographers having forced disparate groups into artificial borders.

The idea of South Sudan is too new for most people to have internalized it as their national identity, and the old unified Sudan was too hated and in any case too artificial. So people have defaulted to an ethnic or tribal identity.

The country’s demographic composition is just about right for people to divide violently along ethnic lines. The largest group, the Dinka, only makes up about 15 percent of the population. The next-largest, the Nuer, are about 10 percent. There are dozens of other ethnic groups that speak dozens of languages. As Stephen Saideman, a political scientist who studies ethnic conflict, wrote this year, “In societies that have very little diversity, there is no opportunity for (ethnic) violence. For societies where there is a great deal, there is no threat of dominance. But in places where there are a few groups that rival each other, then the threats they pose to each other or at least one to the others can be severe.”

So, in South Sudan, you previously had lots of ethnic groups organizing along ethnic lines so that they could come together (if imperfectly and inconsistently) to fight the north. Now they have lost that unifying enemy but still have the ethnic organization, and are being pushed toward competition by the economic conditions we talked about earlier. Worse, South Sudan’s history of the last few decades has been one where the state doesn’t have a monopoly on violence; militias have had a lot of that power. So it is much easier for people to resort to militias as a sort of default, making it much more likely for political or ethnic disputes to turn violent.

Rivalry turns ethnic

This is where we get into this week’s conflict. The president since independence, Salva Kiir, is an ethnic Dinka. His former vice president, Riek Machar, is a Nuer. Kiir saw Machar as a rival — probably with some reason — and fired him in July.

Kiir and Machar are the two most powerful people from their ethnic groups in a country where ethnic grouping is very important. So a fight between those two men was bound to exacerbate tension between their respective ethnic groups, which also have lots of other people in positions of power.

On Dec. 15, some soldiers loyal to Kiir clashed with soldiers loyal to Machar. Kiir accused Machar of trying to stage a coup, although that is probably not what happened. Since then, fighting between the respective groups has spread, with forces loyal to Machar now having seized small but significant pieces of territory.

Eric Reeves, a Smith College political scientist who studies South Sudan, told my Washington Post colleague Sudarsan Raghavan that, given the ethnic diversity within the army, “the events of the last days were, if not inevitable, all too likely.”

“If not inevitable, all too likely” is a good description for South Sudan’s conflict. There is nothing inherent to the people of South Sudan that makes them any more or less prone to conflict than people from any other countries. But there are certain economic, demographic and political factors that, in any country, make internal conflict more likely. A significant number of those factors are present in the world’s youngest country, and to a dangerously high degree. South Sudan is just unlucky.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.