SHORT NOTE: 016

South Sudan: Sam Hogg's British Diplomacy Tracker

and

Mar 28, 2025

As a reminder: all opinions expressed in these Telegrams are my own personal opinions, not my employers. This is a project I run in my free time looking at issues under the geopolitical radar.

I’ve been travelling this week. 
As a result, this note is very short. 
Normal service resumes next week.

Hello,

Writing about US strategy in the Middle East this week, Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead argued, “with so much going on, it’s more vital than ever to distinguish between the deep trends bringing lasting change to the region and the dramatic but ultimately less important events that often dominate the headlines.” How do we separate these things, and why should we? What’s the strategic argument and or economic thinking for doing so?

Handily, Bank of England economists tangentially explored these two themes in a recent paper. They looked at how geopolitical shocks, such as wars or international crises, impact economies and found that larger shocks create disproportionately bigger impacts. The researchers differentiated between geopolitical 'Acts' - real, tangible events like military invasions - and geopolitical 'Threats' - signals of rising tensions or threats of conflict, or loosely what Russell Mead identifies independently as “important events” versus “deep trends.” That may sound obvious, but it’s worth digging into the findings.

Their findings suggest that these two categories produce strikingly different economic responses. Acts typically cause immediate economic damage by reducing demand, suppressing prices, and slowing economic activity. In contrast, Threats significantly heighten economic uncertainty, prompting speculative increases in commodity prices, especially oil, and raising future inflation expectations.

Using a statistical technique called Vector Autoregression (VAR) [I know], which analyses how economic variables react to unexpected events over time, the researchers showed that small geopolitical events usually lead to mild market swings and limited economic impact. However, once a shock reaches a critical size, comparable to major events like the Gulf War or 9/11, its economic consequences escalate dramatically, far exceeding what standard linear models predict.

For example, moderate shocks (two standard deviations above normal, as shown on the chart above) might reduce consumer spending by around 0.2% and equity markets by roughly 2%. But severe shocks (eight standard deviations) trigger consumption drops nearing 2%, equity market falls of around 10%, and sharp spikes in market volatility, measured by the VIX index, of up to 14 points. In the simplest terms possible: severe shocks lower spending and market values approximately four times more than moderate shocks, and increase volatility roughly eight times more.

What to make of this if you are a mover and shaker in Westminster? First, don’t be put off by the numbers and equations. Despite the intimidating maths, there’s political alpha to be found in the reams of bank reports, analyst notes and annual results that get published constantly. Plug the numbers into an LLM and ask it to explain what’s going on. Get familiar with doing this. This is how we learn!

This, from the BoE report, shows part of a model on how economic variables respond to "geopolitical risk shocks." Normally, a shock affects the economy directly (linearly), but here there's also an extra non-linear effect (for example, squared effects), meaning bigger shocks can have disproportionately larger impacts than smaller shocks.

Second, these findings imply a clear need to make sure strategic economic forecasting and policymaking include these models. Linear economic models, those assuming proportional responses to shocks, may significantly underestimate the real impact of major geopolitical events. And third, this is good evidence that policymakers should be pushing for robust, scenario-based planning and stress-testing, accounting explicitly for the amplified effects of severe geopolitical shocks.

— Sam Hogg

🫵 This project grows through word of mouth. Please consider sharing it; it helps me. I’ll keep it free as a thank you 🫵

Keir Starmer, Britain’s Prime Minister, travelled to France for a Coalition of the Willing meeting. He met the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte. Britain cautiously welcomed the latest update on the Russia- Ukraine front.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, delivered a Spring Statement on Wednesday. Defence and security were mentioned nearly 40 times. The Government shared further information on its development aid plans: crucially, it stated the budget would now be fixed in cash each year, rather than rising or falling based on economic performance.
In South Sudan, Britain withdrew most of its diplomatic staff as the country plunged into further violence. Ambassador David Ashley remained in post with a select team. Germany and Norway closed their embassies. Brits have been advised to leave the country.
The third annual UK-France All Military Chiefs meeting took place in London, bringing together the heads of the defence forces for both countries, alongside the heads of the Armies, Navies and Air Forces. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff, said “The combined convening power of Britain and France is immense.”
The Government accepted recommendations put to it by the Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council. It committed to a comprehensive strategy aimed at diversifying and securing telecoms infrastructure to mitigate geopolitical risks, reduce economic vulnerabilities, and establish global technological leadership.

1. SOUTH SUDAN

KEY POINTS:
The situation in South Sudan continues to deteriorate. South Sudan’s President, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is from the Dinka ethnic group, and the SPLM (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement) ruling party.
Its Vice-President, Riek Machar, is from the Nuer group, and the oppositon party SPLM-IO (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition).
The South Sudanese government has bombed Nasir, a Neur opposition-controlled area, and Uganda has moved heavy weapons across the border.
Some Western embassies closed in the capital, Juba, moving operations to Kenya. Britain’s remained open but with a stripped down staff. Brits are urged not to travel to the country, and those who choose to remain have been encouraged to stock up and prepare shelter in place plans.
Sudan is a specific focus of Foreign Secretary David Lammy, although he rarely mentions South Sudan relative to its northern neighbour.

On Wednesday, the British Embassy in Juba announced it was reducing staff due to escalating political tensions and insecurity and advised against all travel to South Sudan. Fighting was reported on the outskirts of the city. Germany and Norway closed their embassies, with the latter moving HQ to Kenya; British Ambassador David Ashley remained in post, on the ground, despite the mounting threats.

Quoted

“The United Kingdom is strongly urging South Sudan’s leaders to use their influence to urgently de-escalate the situation and prevent further violence.”

British Embassy Juba

Sudan War Monitor

, a collection of journalists and open-source intelligence analysts, have provided several insightful briefings and reports on the latest developments. South Sudan is teetering on its worst crisis since the last civil war in 2018. The key points for British policymakers are as follows:

The South Sudan People’s Defense Forces, the government’s army affiliated with President Kiir, launched incendiary airstrikes on Nasir, a stronghold of the Nuer-affiliated White Army militia, killing at least 21 civilians. A helicopter also attacked nearby Longechuk County.
The White Army is a loose militia group organised along clan lines, loosely allied to the SPLM-IO, led by Vice President Riek Machar.
Machar himself is reportedly under de facto confinement, signalling the complete breakdown of trust within the unity government along ethnic lines.
Foreign militaries are reportedly involved:
- Uganda has deployed troops and heavy equipment to South Sudan, likely to support President Kiir.
- Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), accused of horrific acts against humanity, clashed with the SPLA-IO [the SPLM-IO’s military wing] near the Sudan–South Sudan border in Renk County. RSF forces ambushed a high-ranking SPLA-IO unit allegedly headed to Sudan’s Blue Nile state to collect weapons from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
  - The UAE has long been alleged to be supporting the RSF.
- A high-ranking Sudanese military commander, Lt Gen Yasser Al-Atta, further escalated regional tensions by threatening military action against South Sudan and Chad.

When South Sudan became independent in 2011, the United Kingdom was one of the first countries to diplomatically recognise the fledgling nation. In the following decade, bilateral relations have typically centered around aid. Trade is severely impacted by the country’s weak infrastructure, continued insecurity, and underdeveloped markets, and British firms play a limited role in the country’s major industry, oil.

Beyond pushing for de-escalation, it’s not yet entirely clear what the British Embassy in Juba is hoping to achieve. Similar calls from the Pope and other African nations have been ignored. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has frequently highlighted that Sudan is an issue he cares deeply about, and one which he feels Western leaders and analysts often ignore. However, his public comments and interest doesn’t seem to extend south of the border, beyond thanking Juba for the role its played in trying to limit the conflict to its north.

Noted

It has been over a year since Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report.

British Diplomacy Tracker

SHORT NOTE: 016

South Sudan: Sam Hogg's British Diplomacy Tracker

1. SOUTH SUDAN

Discussion about this post