When Does Aid Become an Obligation? The Case for South Sudan

When the world’s youngest nation is consumed by chaos, does a superpower have a moral obligation to intervene, or are we simply masking geopolitics as a "just war"?

South Sudan is one of the world’s newest countries, having been founded in 2011, and has had problems and conflicts almost every day of its existence. The history of the people in South Sudan has been one filled with war and chaos. Congress will vote on whether or not to send military aid that will serve in both a protective role and a humanitarian role. This essay will be an analysis of the justice of conducting this military support. It will cover all six of the requirements needed to “go to war” under Jus ad Bellum: just cause, right intention, public declaration by proper authority, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality.

Jus ad bellum, or the justice of going to war, is a theory that has been developed for years and will continue to develop. When analyzing the situation in South Sudan and what the U.S. should do, it is important to look at the history between the countries. For years, the U.S. has aided the people of South Sudan in the form of money and military equipment (Hamilton, 3&5). The first requirement, just cause, is probably the most important if you are going to go to war, or in this case, send military aid to another country. The people of South Sudan fought the oppression and tyranny of the Sudanese government for years and they went through two civil wars to attain independence. Now they are suffering the same things due to their own government. Thousands of people have been displaced and soldiers are running through the country destroying property, killing, and raping people. The United Nations (U.N.) declared a famine in parts of South Sudan (Gettleman, 3). Overall, the country is a mess, and innocent people are in danger. All of this constitutes just cause to send troops and supplies to help rehabilitate this adolescent country. 

The U.S. also has the right intentions for going into South Sudan, this has been America’s foreign policy for the last few decades. Going into countries to help rebuild and provide humanitarian aid. Sudan has received the third largest amount of aid from the U.S., just behind Iraq and Afghanistan (Hamilton, 5). What we do in those two countries is exactly what the U.S. is trying to do in South Sudan, provide help for those who need it. As stated earlier, this decision is going to be made by Congress. This will fulfill the public declaration requirement, and it is being done by the proper authorities. Evidence has shown that this is the last resort. The U.S. has been aiding the people of South Sudan for over two decades (Hamilton, 2). Money and equipment have not been solving the issue, and it only seems to be getting worse. Therefore, the final attempt to solve the problem would be to send actual troops and front the effort to rehabilitate this country. 

For this mission, which Congress is deciding whether to vote on or not, the probability of success is high. The U.S. has not intentions to invade South Sudan or go to war with the country or any group in the country. Although this action falls under Jus ad Bellum, it is not a traditional war. This is more of a non-classical scenario, just as most situations in the modern world are. With that being said, for the mission of stopping violence and providing humanitarian aid, the probability of success is high given the proper time and resources. Lastly, the proportionality of this action appears to be fair. As stated earlier in this essay, all horrific things that have happened in South Sudan, the actions of reinforcing a U.N. peacekeeping force seem to balance out against what is going on. Acts such as “soldiers chopped up babies and threw the body parts in a river” (Gettleman, 6) deserve a proper response. Therefore, military support seems to be a proportional response. 

There will always be those people who counter the argument that this is a just act. They will say that the U.S. is a country itching for war and looking for every opportunity to get into one. This is not true; the U.S. has every right to help aid a country that they have a history with. International laws established by the U.N. Security Council state that countries can defend themselves or other countries if they are victimized by armed attack. That is exactly what the people of South Sudan are under, an armed attack. Others will argue that the U.S. is just trying to get its foot in the door, so it can seize the oil-rich land of South Sudan. If one were to look at all the reasons that are laid out in this essay, it is evident that it is not the intention. There have been fears of genocide in the country (Gettleman, 4). The U.S. is in every manner just to send help to the people of this war-torn country. 

An overall recommendation to the U.S. Congressional Representatives is to vote yes to the resolution to send U.S. Military support to the country of South Sudan. The U.N. needs help and clearly does not have control of the situation. Under the rules and parameters of Jus ad Bellum, the U.S. is justified to do this and assuming that they will conduct operations in South Sudan under the rules of Jus in Bello, there will be no negative repercussions for helping the country rebuild itself and create a safe home for the thousands currently affected.