Humanitarian Intervention in South Sudan in 2014 (NSC)

Set in May 2014. Rival South Sudanese factions have fought a civil war since the end of 2013, causing mass displacements, tens of thousands of deaths, and widespread hunger. Negotiations between the leaders of these factions—President Salva Kiir and rebel commander and former Vice President Riek Machar—are stalled, and South Sudan’s dry season approaches, signaling intensified fighting and a humanitarian crisis of potentially historic proportions. Already, about two million South Sudanese have been driven from their homes, and food shortages and health needs have grown acute. Observers fear an eventual famine. Although a United Nations peacekeeping mission is present in South Sudan, other countries, including the United States, have begun to consider additional action to protect civilians. The president has asked the National Security Council for options on whether and how the United States could pursue a humanitarian intervention in or around South Sudan. NSC officials will need to take into account the pressure on the United States to act, including the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), as well as the significant costs, benefits, and risks of unilateral or multilateral intervention.

South Sudan is in its fifth month of civil war. So far, all attempts to reach a ceasefire have quickly failed. Recent reports suggest the war reached a new level of violence after South Sudanese opposition forces took control of the northern city of Bentiu and killed hundreds of civilians there. It seems likely that fighting will continue to escalate, subjecting civilians to more violence and possibly even leading to genocide. At the same time, drought, destruction, and the loss of the agricultural workforce will reduce South Sudan’s already scarce food supplies. The result is predicted to be a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions. 

In this context, the United States faces significant pressure to act. The United States could increase its involvement in current peace talks or cut funding to the warring parties, but these options take time. Meanwhile, South Sudanese civilians are suffering. National Security Council (NSC) members are thus meeting to debate a more immediate question: Should the United States pursue a direct humanitarian intervention in South Sudan? Supporters of intervention could invoke the R2P doctrine, arguing that conditions in South Sudan resemble those at the onset of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, which claimed as many as one million lives. Yet NSC members need to weigh the possible good that an intervention could accomplish against the significant dangers and the costs that it would entail. 

CFR Education extended simulations use a variety of pedagogical tools to create an effective, meaningful, and memorable learning experience for students that builds their global literacy. Students will develop crucial skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Students will complete authentic assessments that feel relevant: instead of five-paragraph essays and book reports, students will write policy memos and participate in a role-play of a meeting of a foreign policy–making body. There are no right or wrong answers in actual policy deliberations, and there are none here, either; students will walk away from this experience with an appreciation for the complexity of policy questions.

In this simulation, students will learn about the National Security Council, as well as meeting these learning outcomes specific to this simulation:

Concepts

Issues

This section presents context, potential benefits and drawbacks, and other information about the policy options outlined in the case that you may find helpful as you guide the role-play and assess students.

The United States played a significant diplomatic role in South Sudan starting from  the beginning of the twenty-first century. It helped broker the 2005 peace agreement that ended Sudan’s second civil war and paved the way for South Sudanese independence. Since brokering the peace, the United States also made substantial investments in funding Sudan’s development. Washington provided more than $6 billion in humanitarian aid between 2005 and 2010. After South Sudan gained its independence, the United States continued to invest in development efforts in the new country. It also supported and helped to fund UN peacekeeping missions in the region. 

Although some policymakers argued that South Sudan had little economic or geopolitical significance for the United States, many moral and political factors created pressure for U.S. intervention. The first was preventing atrocities and reducing the violence and loss of life in South Sudan. Many observers criticized U.S. responses to past humanitarian crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide. They argued that the United States should have done more to prevent atrocities. As the crisis in South Sudan gained attention, the United States faced pressure to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights. Additionally, because the United States helped broker the 2005 peace deal that led to South Sudan’s independence, seeing the new country spiral into genocide and famine risked signaling the failure of a significant American diplomatic effort.

With the threat of escalation looming, policymakers in Washington had serious incentives to address the civil war in South Sudan. Still, any response came with possible costs. Military intervention especially carried severe risks to U.S. personnel and threatened to become an expensive endeavor. Depending on how NSC members assess the risks and potential benefits, various options for a direct intervention are available. The first question, nevertheless, is not how to pursue a humanitarian intervention but whether to pursue one at all.

NSC members had three main policy options to consider.

Intervention in South Sudan 

A direct military intervention by the United States and any willing partners could have the greatest effect on conditions in South Sudan. However,  it would also be the riskiest and most expensive option. A direct intervention could take two main forms.

Exclusively humanitarian intervention 

The United States and any partners could conduct a humanitarian intervention to distribute aid inside South Sudan but not seek to enter the conflict itself in any way. The only goal would be to relieve human suffering. Personnel would negotiate with parties in South Sudan. However, they would not use force if they encountered resistance to their efforts to distribute assistance. U.S. troops would be authorized to fire only if they or civilian aid workers were in imminent danger. 

An exclusively humanitarian intervention could ensure civilians are protected while minimizing the risk to U.S. personnel. Still, bringing aid directly to displaced persons within South Sudan would require a major effort. Given the poor condition of the roads and other infrastructure in South Sudan, the United States and any partners would need helicopters to assist in the delivery of aid. In addition, helicopters would be needed to deliver generators, communications equipment, and shelters to facilitate and sustain the operation. The military would also need to establish and enforce no-fly zones to protect troops and aid workers on the ground. Also, an intervention under these rules would only be possible if Kiir explicitly allowed the United States and any partners to enter the country. Most significantly, this option would not put an end to the fighting. Intervention forces and aid workers would need to wait for other diplomatic efforts to secure an end to the fighting, leaving them in harm’s way for potentially years to come.

Humanitarian intervention with peace enforcement

This option would be the most ambitious. Its goal would be to address the conflict itself while simultaneously helping to relieve human suffering. It would require the same elements as the previous option to enter South Sudan, set up aid delivery stations, and protect aid workers, but it adds another military element: enforcing peace among the warring parties. To do this, U.S. and any partner forces would start by declaring a mandatory ceasefire and working to physically keep the warring parties apart. If that failed, troops would then need to become involved in peacemaking. This would entail forcibly creating the conditions to make a peace deal possible. For example, peacemaking could include taking control over territory or attacking other parties to make them unable to continue fighting. Either way, this operation requires significant military action. U.S. forces would be authorized to open fire on any party to the conflict, if necessary. U.S. troops would also be allowed to use force to defend civilians as well as themselves, their equipment, and aid personnel or supplies.

Intervention in neighboring countries to provide humanitarian aid

In the first months of the civil war, nearly five hundred thousand South Sudanese refugees fled to bordering countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. Most observers expected that those numbers would continue to rise. Governments of these countries and UN agencies would likely welcome assistance from the United States and partners in providing food, shelter, security, and medical care to refugees as their numbers grew.

This option would involve sending civilian employees and funds to support humanitarian efforts already on the ground surrounding South Sudan, rather than deploying a major military force. However, some U.S. military personnel would be needed to ensure safety. Cargo aircraft and helicopters would also be needed to reach otherwise inaccessible places. This approach would require fewer personnel and less equipment than a direct intervention in South Sudan. It would show that the United States was taking action to relieve the suffering of the South Sudanese people while putting few Americans in harm’s way and incurring fewer economic costs than an intervention in South Sudan would. Military personnel and aircraft from the United States and any partners would enter only those countries whose governments approved, making such an intervention consensual. Overall, this option would limit risks and costs, but it would not aid people within South Sudan, nor would it get at the root causes driving the conflict. 

No or minimal involvement

Given the costs, risks, and complications of the other options, restraint deserved as much consideration as direct action. It would save taxpayer dollars and keep U.S. aid workers and troops out of harm’s way. Furthermore,  a poorly executed U.S. military intervention could inflame tensions, sparking more fighting and loss of life. The United States could continue or even increase its financial support for relief efforts undertaken by nongovernmental organizations and UN agencies and devote funding and diplomatic support to facilitating negotiations. It could also impose additional sanctions on individuals involved in the conflict. Such an approach would likely decrease U.S. influence in South Sudan’s affairs, yet it holds some chance of improving the situation while avoiding a direct U.S. intervention. However, this option would not provide the same level of relief to those suffering in the crisis as the others.

To add spice or challenge to the role-play, partway through the discussion throw in one of the following flashpoints—additional hypothetical developments that fit within the case’s existing decision point—or create your own. 

After introducing a flashpoint, you might want to help students refocus their discussion by considering critical questions such as these:

CFR Education extended simulations are project-based learning activities. Project-based learning (PBL) leads to better learning outcomes and improves skills, and is more fun than traditional instructional methods. The website that students will navigate throughout the simulation is divided into several parts:

In the NSC Guide, students will learn about the National Security Council, the body they will be simulating. Included are details on its history, how it works, who its major players are, and more. There is also a video interview with experts who have served on the body.

In the Case Notes, students dive into the actual situation they will be trying to solve in their simulation. At the beginning is a clear decision point: the question that students will debate during the role-play. This is followed by detailed background material and a discussion of the role that the United States plays.

Preparation and Role-Play includes details on the various roles students could take on, guidelines for the memorandum they will write (the student playing the role of president has a slightly different task), as well as an outline of how the discussion will flow during the role-play.

The Wrap-Up is an important part of the project and includes reflection questions and guidelines for reflecting in a class discussion and in a second memorandum. For historical cases, this section also includes a short description of how the decision point was addressed by policymakers in real life.

The simulation also includes Student Resources, which include a reading list to support research, additional directions and exemplars for writing assignments, and other tips students may find helpful.

Once students have read the simulation and prepared their position memos, here is how we recommend structuring the role-play:

Tips for the National Security Advisor
In Round 1, call on everyone for their opening statements, keeping to a strict time limit—if students have more to say, they can say it in Round 2. The president doesn’t have a specific time limit, but you should keep things moving by not letting the president get bogged down on one issue or policy option.

In Round 2, students do not need to follow a prescribed speaking order; you can call on them as they raise their placards. Work to include everyone and prevent anyone from dominating. As debate goes on, remind students they can change their minds. If it will help move things along, help students see when they are agreeing with each other without realizing it. Feel free to pose questions or propose discussion topics if you feel that certain issues are not receiving adequate consideration. Ultimately, it’s up to you to judge when Round 2 has run its course and it is time to move on to Round 3. You will want to move on when all policy options have been discussed and all of the president’s questions have been answered. The room does not need to come to a consensus—every option just needs to have a fair airing.

In Round 3, ask students to make a final case for their positions. If, during the course of the discussion, some students seem to have coalesced into blocs, you could ask one student to present on behalf of the bloc. If consensus seems possible, you could work toward it; if not, just make sure each option has been clearly presented to the president. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and the president does not need to choose the most popular option.

Tips for the President
Before Round 1, review all the position memos, if you can. During Round 1, as students are presenting their opening statements, you can ask questions to clarify or help draw out the differences between one policy option and another. Try not to get too deep in the weeds, though—that is what Round 2 will be for.

In Round 2, you can take a more active role. If you have concerns about a policy option, ask questions; if some policy options seem stronger than others, say so. If an element of the issue is not being discussed, raise it.

In Round 3, once you have heard all the policy options, it is all down to you. You should choose whichever policy option you think is best, or combine the strongest elements of several different options. Remember, the NSC is not democratic and is an advisory, not decision-making, body. There is no vote, and you do not need to choose the most popular option. Your decision must be made and announced before the wrap-up discussion, although the written presidential directive can come later.

Tips for Online Classes

We suggest conducting the role-play in three rounds, and that three-round structure is a helpful way to approach chunking the role-play for online learning as well. You can conduct each round synchronously or asynchronously.

In round one, participants present their positions.

In round two, participants debate the various policy options.

In round three, debate begins to coalesce around the policy options that the president favors.

Each CFR Education extended simulation involves writing assignments that help students think through policy options and reflect on their learning experience.

In NSC cases, there are three types of writing assignments.

Simulations (on the student-facing side) have instructions for written assignments, and samples for each of these writing exercises. You can also find sample rubrics below.

Samples:

Below are sample rubrics for your use in assessing the writing students will do as part of this extended simulation.

These are single-point rubrics. Jennifer Gonzalez, who writes the blog Cult of Pedagogy, has a great explainer, but the bottom line is that single-point rubrics are relatively easy for students to digest but still have all the advantages of giving structure to instructors’ feedback.

NSC Position Memo Rubric

NSC Presidential Directive Rubric

NSC Written Reflection Rubric

Downloadable rubrics are available here: