The United States Congress has a long history of engagement on U.S. policy toward Sudan—since the end of apartheid in South Africa, there is no country (now countries) in Africa on which Congress has focused greater attention. This sustained, bipartisan focus has been driven in part by diverse advocacy groups and public awareness campaigns on issues in Sudan ranging from famine to modern-day slavery, religious persecution, genocide, and other violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Terrorism concerns have overlapped with these policy debates. Peace and stability within and between Sudan and South Sudan remain among the highest U.S. foreign policy priorities in Africa, yet these goals remain elusive, even after several years of seemingly positive momentum and multiple peace accords. In 2005, Sudan's Islamist government in Khartoum and the southern insurgency known as the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) signed a peace agreement to end Africa's longest running civil war. That deal paved the way for a southern referendum on self-determination, after which South Sudan, led by the SPLM in Juba, seceded in July 2011. Violence and insecurity continue to plague the two countries, however, as evidenced by the presence of roughly one-third of the U.N. peacekeepers deployed worldwide, who are stationed in the two Sudans as part of three different operations. In both countries, overlapping conflicts between security forces and armed groups, among ethnic groups, and between nomadic and farming communities have caused extensive displacement and human suffering. International actors continue to press the Sudans to resolve their outstanding disputes so post-war recovery and reconciliation can proceed. The 2005 peace agreement did not resolve several significant issues between the governments in Khartoum and Juba. They have continued deliberations on once-shared resources, such as oil; disputed areas along their shared 1,200 mile border; and other related security issues. Progress in the talks has been halting since separation, with a partial agreement on security and economic cooperation reached on September 27, 2012 (see Appendix A ). The parties have agreed to a demilitarized border zone and a joint border verification and monitoring mission designed to defuse tensions along the border. The two countries' security forces remained heavily deployed along or beyond their respective sides of their shared border after separation and have clashed on several occasions. The implementation of agreements previously reached by the parties has not kept pace with international expectations, leading to some skepticism about this latest accord. The September agreement failed to resolve the status of several contested border areas, including the disputed Abyei region. The deployment of peacekeepers to Abyei in mid-2011 defused a violent stand-off between Sudanese and South Sudanese forces, but the majority of Abyei's residents remain displaced, and a political resolution remains outstanding. Conflict has escalated in the past year in the Sudanese border states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile , between Sudan's military and the SPLM-North, insurgents once formally aligned with South Sudan's ruling party. Fighting in these states is driven by local grievances against Khartoum and has severely affected more than half a million people. Access by relief agencies is extremely limited. Another 205,000 have fled as refugees to South Sudan and Ethiopia. U.N. and independent human rights investigations suggest that the Sudanese military may be responsible for war crimes in the two states. These conflicts and the ongoing hostilities in Sudan's western Darfur region complicate U.S. relations with both countries and have led the Obama Administration to defer efforts to begin normalizing relations with Sudan. Critics of current mediation efforts suggest that a piecemeal approach to Sudan's overlapping conflicts has led to a focus on resolving one conflict at the expense of another, thus prolonging the violence. Some in Congress and the Administration have called for a comprehensive agreement that promotes democratic reform and "lasting peace throughout all of Sudan." Khartoum has long resisted efforts to combine discussions with various opponents to the regime, preferring to negotiate separately with the SPLM, the Darfur groups, and others. This approach has yielded some positive outcomes, but it has also resulted in partially implemented agreements that do not fully address regional grievances or resolve disputes that are fundamentally national issues. In Darfur, a 2011 peace agreement supported by the international community has failed to incorporate the region's largest armed groups. Deteriorating security conditions in Darfur have prompted the State Department to question Sudan's commitment to implement the agreement. Independent observers suggest that the conflict "is far from approaching a sustainable resolution," despite a relative reduction in violence from the height of the crisis. U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan Princeton Lyman outlined his view of the challenge in August 2012: Sudan cannot deal with the ongoing troubles in Darfur, Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, the east, and elsewhere in the country with a system that does not meet the demands for greater political space, for greater sharing of wealth and opportunity and for greater democracy. Trying to suppress those demands militarily has led to continued conflicts. And the conflicts have in turn led to new accusations of human rights violations. This is a vicious circle that keeps Sudan from a new dawn. Groups opposed to the ruling party in Khartoum have yet to unite behind a clearly articulated common vision for the country's future. The major armed groups have, however, pledged cooperation toward their near-term goal of regime change in Khartoum. The Sudans appeared to engage in what some termed an economic "war of attrition" with each other for much of 2012, creating mounting hardship and domestic pressure on both sides. South Sudan halted oil production in January 2012 because of unresolved disputes with Sudan over export arrangements and revenues from once-shared reserves, leaving both countries facing massive budget shortfalls and inflation. The two sides reached a preliminary agreement in August 2012 on financial arrangements, including southern oil exports; the September deal may allow production and exports to resume by mid-2013. Given their revenue losses, both governments have pursued austerity budgets in 2012 and prioritized security spending, leaving little for social services or development. As Appendix B indicates, population displacement and food insecurity are significant problems in both countries. Both governments have looked to donors and lenders to make up the near-term fiscal gap created by lost oil revenue, thus pushing the United States and others to make difficult decisions regarding fundamental strategic interests in the region and the relative priority of their objectives. Congressional action has often influenced U.S. policy toward Sudan. U.S. relations with Sudan have long been turbulent, with the two countries routinely taking opposing positions on Middle East and Africa issues. U.S. foreign aid to Sudan had risen substantially starting in the late 1970s when Sudan was seen as a Cold War ally, but in the wake of the 1989 coup that brought Omar al Bashir and the National Islamic Front (NIF) to power, diplomatic relations were downgraded and aid was cut off. The Clinton Administration designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993. By 1999, some Members of Congress who were sympathetic to the cause of Sudan's southern insurgents initiated efforts to tighten sanctions. At the same time they pushed to authorize not only food aid but development assistance, including programs to build local administrative capacity, for areas outside of Khartoum's control—namely areas held by the SPLM. In 2002, Congress also appropriated non-lethal assistance for the National Democratic Alliance, a coalition of armed and unarmed opposition forces (including the SPLM), to "strengthen its ability to protect civilians from attacks." At the same time, Congress expressed support for Bush Administration efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to Sudan's civil war. Several years later, conflict and human rights abuses in the diverse and historically volatile Darfur region captured international attention and galvanized a campaign that led Congress and President George W. Bush to accuse Khartoum of genocide and further tighten sanctions. Congress added Darfur to the areas outside government control eligible to receive U.S. foreign aid and required the President to develop a contingency plan for delivering relief aid to any areas where the government denied access. In 2006, after the north-south war had ended, Congress introduced additional economic and diplomatic sanctions on Khartoum to press for a resolution of the Darfur conflict. It also authorized assistance to implement the north-south agreement, including military aid to support the SPLA's transformation from a guerilla movement into a professional army. Congress later supported the efforts of U.S. state and local governments to divest any assets in companies that conduct certain business operations in Sudan, and required U.S. government contracts to meet similar standards. Today, Members continue to explore various policy tools to press the Sudanese government to end abuses and to facilitate a peaceful future for both Sudans. Throughout this period of strained relations, the United States has remained the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of both Sudan and South Sudan. The United States also contributes the largest share of funding for the three U.N. peacekeeping operations. Statutory restrictions limit U.S. development assistance to Sudan to humanitarian, health, demining, and democracy aid. By contrast, South Sudan ranks among the largest U.S. aid recipients in sub-Saharan Africa. The United States has invested substantially in efforts to make the world's newest country viable, given its massive humanitarian and development needs. In total, U.S. spending on both Sudans has approached $2 billion annually in recent years—most of it for humanitarian aid and international peacekeeping operations. As fiscal constraints and competing domestic priorities present Congress and the Administration with complex budget decisions, the levels and types foreign aid to both Sudans may attract increasing attention and debate. For more than fifty years, north and south Sudan were unified as a country, but divided internally.