Heritage Foundation: The U.S. should cut diplomatic ties with the
government of South Sudan
Posted: May 3, 2017 by PaanLuel Wël in Junub Sudan, Reports
0
1 Vote
Read the full report here: Heritage Foundation: The U.S. should cut
diplomatic ties with the government of South Sudan and to Hold the
Combatants Accountable (PDF)
obama
President Kiir with President Obama of the USA at the White House, Washington DC
SUMMARY: Two years after South Sudan gained independence in 2011, the
country plunged into a brutal civil war driven by long-standing
economic, political, and ethnic grievances, with various leaders
exploiting those grievances in their quest for power and access to
state resources. The primary warring factions have committed extensive
war crimes and repeatedly violated the cease-fires brokered by the
international community with strong U.S. support. The U.S. has failed
to substantively hold the combatants accountable for flouting the
agreements they have signed or for their deliberate attacks on
American citizens and diplomats. To protect its interests in South
Sudan, the U.S. must change to a policy of holding the South Sudanese
leadership accountable for its many crimes, which should include
stopping all diplomatic engagement with the government of South Sudan
and the opposition, building a painful sanctions regime targeting
anyone facilitating violence, and bypassing the elites to engage
directly with the South Sudanese public when possible.
KEY TAKEAWAYS: South Sudan has descended into a massive ethnic civil
war. The primary warring factions broke each of the numerous
agreements brokered with strong U.S. support. More negotiations are
doomed to fail in the current context and will enable the South
Sudanese leadership, which is committed to violence. The U.S. should
cut diplomatic ties with the government of South Sudan and anyone else
responsible for the violence against civilians and Americans.
Accountability in Practice: In order to (1) punish the South Sudanese
regime for attacking Americans, and (2) encourage peace in South
Sudan, the U.S. should:
Cut diplomatic ties with the government of South Sudan and others
behind the violence. This will include shuttering the U.S. embassy in
Juba, evacuating all American diplomatic personnel, and ceasing all
formal dialogue with the government of South Sudan and with the
opposition. The U.S. should explicitly identify those government
entities in South Sudan with which U.S.-funded organizations may
engage, as some local government offices might be sufficiently distant
in operations from the central government, and sufficiently interested
in peace, to be worth engaging.
Build a comprehensive sanctions regime targeting anyone involved
in fomenting violence, including Salva Kiir and Riek Machar. South
Sudanese leadership will respond only to pressure that affects them
directly. It will take time and active diplomacy with neighboring
countries to gain their support, and some countries will likely refuse
or cheat anyway. The U.S. will have to focus on building a coalition
of the willing, and must be prepared to monitor the sanctions closely
and enforce them vigorously. The U.S. can build a painful regime
unilaterally if necessary, as virtually all international bank
transfers pass through American banks to be converted into dollars,
making those transactions subject to U.S. law.
Expel back to South Sudan, and freeze and seize the assets of, any
relatives of the South Sudanese leadership who have benefited from the
pillaging of South Sudan. At least one was attending an American
university in 2016. Others drive luxury vehicles, jet about the globe
in first class, and live in luxurious villas in foreign countries.94
“War Crimes Shouldn’t Pay: Stopping the Looting and Destruction in
South Sudan,” The Sentry.
The U.S. should pressure the countries harboring those relatives
to expel them and freeze their assets. There is recent precedent for
this with Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the son of the president of
Equatorial Guinea.95
Martin de Bourmont, “Accused of Looting Millions, Son of African
Leader Stalls Trial,” The New York Times, January 4, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/world/africa/teodoro-nguema-obiang-mangue-guinea-looting-trial.html?_r=1
(accessed March 7, 2017).
Build a coalition of the willing for an arms embargo, and name the
entities that violate it. A comprehensive arms embargo is unlikely
since a U.S.-backed U.N. proposal for one has already failed. South
Sudan is also awash in weapons, so an embargo will not have an
immediate effect. However, over the long term, even a partial embargo
would make it more difficult for the combatants to replenish their
weapons stocks. A partial embargo would also expose those countries
that do not participate to the reputational damage associated with
funneling weapons into a disastrous conflict.
Expel the South Sudanese ambassador and all South Sudanese embassy
personnel from the United States. This will demonstrate to the regime
that it has missed its many opportunities to engage in good faith with
the U.S., and that the U.S. is serious about holding it accountable.
Restrict the movement of South Sudanese officials attending U.N.
activities in New York City. The U.S. is obliged to allow officials,
even those under a travel ban, to attend United Nations’ meetings in
New York City. However, the U.S. government does not have to allow
them free access to the rest of the country, and so should impose a
25-mile movement limit on any South Sudanese official attending a U.N.
meeting in New York City, and on any South Sudanese U.N. staff with
links to those behind the violence.96
The U.S. has in the past applied such restrictions on diplomats
from Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Libya,
Romania, Russia, Sudan, and Vietnam, among others. For an articulation
of the U.S. policy, see United Nations, “Travel Regulations,
Immigration, Entry Visa Dominate Proceedings in Meeting of Host
Country Committee,” July 9, 2007,
http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/hq656.doc.htm (accessed February 22,
2017). For a partial list of countries that have come under the
restriction, see Marvine Howe, “U.N. Panel on U.S. Ties Faces
Weightier Issues,” The New York Times, October 17, 1988,
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/17/world/un-panel-on-us-ties-faces-weightier-issues.html
(accessed February 22, 2017). For an example of the U.S. restricting
the movement of U.N. staff members from a specific country, see United
Nations, “Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country,”
2006, https://usun.state.gov/sites/default/files/organization_pdf/218090.pdf
(accessed February 22, 2017).
Outline a path to re-engagement based on measurable benchmarks of
progress. Benchmarks should include concrete steps demonstrating
combatants’ commitment to peace, such as a cease-fire that is
respected, the establishment of a framework for an inclusive
reconciliation process, and facilitating the delivery of emergency aid
to needy populations.
Determine which developments would trigger spontaneous U.S.
diplomatic re-engagement. The situation in South Sudan could change
sufficiently that the U.S. should spontaneously re-engage with
diplomacy. The new context could include the rise of new leaders
genuinely committed to peace, the formation of an inclusive political
movement with broad grassroots support, or a successful organic
reconciliation process with a reasonable chance of further success.
Articulate U.S. strategy to the public and to partners. An
accountability-based approach might be misinterpreted as abandoning
South Sudan. The U.S. should clearly and consistently communicate that
it is, in fact, designed to bring stability to South Sudan and stop
the suffering there as quickly as possible.
Engage directly with the South Sudanese public where possible.
Bypassing those at fault for the violence to engage directly with
South Sudanese citizens could embolden those seeking peace and drain
support from those perpetrating violence. Such engagement could
include radio programs promoting reconciliation and describing
American support for the South Sudanese people, and supporting
grassroots South Sudanese organizations and movements working to bring
peace.
Determine whether the proposed African Union–run hybrid court to
try South Sudanese war criminals can be effective, and, if so, support
it. The August 2015 peace agreement provided for the African Union to
establish the Hybrid Court for South Sudan to try any South Sudanese
implicated in war crimes. The U.S. should wait to see if the African
Union creates the framework for an effective court. If it does, the
U.S. should support it, as the court would be another means for
holding those fomenting the violence accountable.
Urge all American citizens to leave South Sudan. The government
and the opposition may retaliate against any Americans still inside
the country.
Officially investigate South Sudanese corruption. Private
organizations have already exposed some of the South Sudanese
leadership’s corruption, but the U.S. government should use its
resources and expertise, or sponsor a competent organization, to
document the corruption as comprehensively as possible. The results
should then be released publicly.
Engage with neighboring countries to build consensus for unified
action. Bringing a measure of peace to South Sudan will require the
international community to behave in as unified a manner as possible.
The U.S. should focus on building a coalition that can act when the
moment is right in South Sudan.
Lead an international effort to deliver emergency aid, but only in
a way that reasonably ensures that it remains out of government and
rebel clutches. There is a long history of South Sudanese armed groups
seizing humanitarian aid and manipulating it to punish enemies.97
Scroggins, Emma’s War, pp. 256 and 257, and Claire Metelits, “Back
to the Drawing Board: What the Recent Peace Agreement Means for South
Sudan,” Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, October
22, 2015,
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/750
(accessed March 7, 2017).
Delivering emergency aid without armed groups benefiting will
require creative delivery methods and tough decisions that will likely
mean that sometimes aid will not reach people who need it, but over
the long term will save more lives by not buttressing the groups
fighting the war.
Require any U.S.-funded organizations still operating in South
Sudan to reasonably ensure that their operations do not benefit any of
the warring groups. Donor aid in South Sudan has at times
inadvertently fueled corruption and conflict, and empowered warring
groups.98
Daniel van Oudenaren, “Politicised Humanitarian Aid Is Fueling
South Sudan’s Civil War,” IRIN, February 27, 2017,
http://www.irinnews.org/opinion/2017/02/27/politicised-humanitarian-aid-fuelling-south-sudans-civil-war
(accessed February 27, 2017); Lindsay Hamsik, “A Thousand Papercuts:
The Impact of NGO Regulation in South Sudan,” Humanitarian Practice
Network, January 2017,
http://odihpn.org/magazine/a-thousand-papercuts-the-impact-of-ngo-regulation-in-south-sudan/
(accessed February 27, 2017); and “The Taxmen: How Donors Lost
Millions in South Sudan’s Forex Market,” Radio Tamazuj, undated,
https://tamazuj.atavist.com/understanding-south-sudans-collapsing-health-system#chapter-1017381
(accessed February 27, 2017).
Not only does the U.S. government have a responsibility to
American taxpayers to ensure that their money is not wasted, it also
has a responsibility to ensure that the same money does not exacerbate
the problem it is meant to mitigate.
Mobilize the international community to help front line countries
with refugees. More than 1 million South Sudanese have already fled
their country, and receiving states will need further help to house
and feed them.
Document the crimes inside South Sudan for use in any future
trials and reconciliation processes. A U.S. withdrawal will make this
more difficult, but there are still ways to gather information on what
is happening, such as interviewing refugees, analyzing satellite
imagery, and consulting with organizations still operating in South
Sudan and neighboring countries that have strong intelligence on South
Sudan.
Request that Congress commission a study on what went wrong with
U.S. engagement in South Sudan. The U.S. invested a great deal of
energy, time, and money into South Sudan, only to have the country
fail quickly and spectacularly. The U.S. government needs to determine
what went wrong with its South Sudan policy to ensure it does not
repeat the mistakes, and to be accountable to taxpayers for the
billions of dollars it spent with no return. An unclassified version
of the report should be publicly released.
None of these recommendations is a silver bullet. Many of them have
flaws, loopholes, and work-arounds. Collectively, however, they can
demonstrate to the South Sudanese leadership the costs of abusing
American citizens and manipulating the U.S. government, and could
precipitate change inside the country to the point where the U.S. can
diplomatically re-engage with the hope of making a difference.
A Difficult and Painful Road Ahead
The short history of South Sudan is one of the most disappointing
stories on Earth. At independence it had immense international
goodwill and support, yet the rivalries and cleavages that led to so
much violence in the past quickly led the new country into ruin. The
IGAD-led process that the combatants repeatedly manipulated and
flouted is stalled with no prospects for success in the future without
a dramatic change in the situation inside the country. U.S.
credibility is gone, leeched away by consistent failure to follow
through on its many threats and entreaties.
The U.S. has few options left. Its best hope for protecting its
interests is to re-orient to an accountability-based strategy and to
punish the regime for its continuous malfeasance that included attacks
on Americans. The accountability approach may also inspire any
elements of the South Sudanese regime or society that are genuinely
interested in peace. Continued pointless negotiations and the failure
to substantively pressure the South Sudanese regime merely emboldens
those responsible for the violence, and ensures the continued
victimization of the people of South Sudan.
—Joshua Meservey is Senior Policy Analyst for Africa and the Middle
East in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy, of
the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security
and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob
View this message at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14or7zkxfJQiyunRm0Tc5oFmJ0tXdGqLgbKB-5N0spKbs3A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
