Making sense out of South Sudan unprecedented politics
Article
Comments (0)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
By Lako Jada Kwajok
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world was bipolar
regarding political alliances. America was the leading superpower of
the Western bloc of nations while the Soviet Union controlled the
Eastern bloc with an iron fist. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was
never a match to any of the two camps. It never succeeded in placing
itself as a third world power in practical terms. The reason was that
many of the member states were one way or another affiliated with the
two camps. Moreover, it encompasses a group of countries that have
little in common. The Western bloc follows capitalism while communist
and socialist ideologies ruled the Eastern bloc. The Non-Aligned
Movement hasn’t got an ideology of its own to make it a cohesive bloc.
The fall of the Soviet Union ushered in a new era in international
politics marked by unipolar world order. It made America the dominant
superpower with unrivalled influence over global affairs. I believe
that era is coming to an end with the rapid growth of Chinese
influence across the world and the resurgence of Russia as a
superpower to reckon with. However, international politics and
cooperation have more often been influenced by political ideology
rather than mutual interests. The prominent example is the policy of
boycott that was used for over half a century by the USA and China
against Cuba and Taiwan respectively.
In the case of South Sudan, a new sort of international politics seems
to be at work. It’s whereby ideological affiliation plays a lesser
role in defining international cooperation. Monopoly by one superpower
and loyalty to it particularly in the field of armament appear to be
practices of the past. It’s common knowledge that if a country has
military cooperation including arms deals with the Western bloc, it
will have none with the Eastern bloc and vice versa. Of course, it’s
understandable that each side would not want its military secrets and
technology to be accessed by the other side. It’s a rule of thumb that
seems to have been overlooked in South Sudan’s arms deals. The
knowledge of weapons shipments to the regime in Juba from China,
Ukraine and Russia (countries that were previously part of the Eastern
Bloc) - has been in the public domain for a while. Also, we do know
that an Agreement of Military Cooperation and Training does exist
between the government of South Sudan and the USA. We have never seen
something like it before. The situation is certainly one of a kind
whereby you find Western Bloc countries and Eastern bloc countries
"collaborating" to arm an embattled regime.
The wonder never ceases when you ponder over the Israeli and Egyptian
involvement in South Sudan’s affairs. There is a case before the
Israeli Supreme Court submitted by the Israeli Human Rights Activists
demanding a criminal investigation into alleged unlawful arms deals.
It’s regarding the role of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Foreign
Affairs officials and Israeli arms dealers in supplying weapons that
were used to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. It
transpires that the Galil Ace assault rifles were sold to the
government of South Sudan but ended up being used to arm the Mathiang
Anyoor government militia.
Israeli involvement in South Sudan’s affairs may not be a surprise to
many people given the fact that Israel has always been a sort of an
ally to the South Sudanese since the birth of the Anyanya movement in
the sixties of the last century. However, Egyptian involvement on the
side of the government is something unprecedented. Historically,
Egyptian policies have consistently been hostile to the South Sudanese
aspirations. Egypt has been all along on the side of the Northerners
since the time of President Jamal Abdul Nasser. Although its policy
towards South Sudan did change following the signing of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on January 9, 2005 - still the
relations remained formal or at best described as a friendly
relationship that lacks warmth. Egyptian Foreign policy towards the
region is majorly driven by its need to lobby as many countries as
possible to bolster its agenda in the International Conference of the
Great Lakes Region (ICGLR). Now we hear of Egyptian arms supplies to
the regime in Juba coupled with agreements for cooperation in various
fields. It makes one wonder - what happened to the Arab league policy
of boycotting any African country that has an active military and
diplomatic ties with Israel? Some of you may know that you will not be
given an entry visa to Sudan if your passport carries an Israeli
stamp. In fact, the following translated Arabic phrase is found on
Sudanese passports (For all countries except Israel). It’s an Arab
League directive; therefore, I would expect a similar expression on
Egyptian passports. It’s amazing that with such level of antagonism,
how could the two countries supply arms to the same client and work in
the same vicinity training the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA)?!
During the war of liberation, Russia and China were clearly on the
side of Sudan government frustrating attempts by the US and its allies
to impose sanctions against Sudan at the UN. The Americans were the
only heavy-weight ally that the SPLM/SPLA got on its side. A paradox
arose in December 2016 when the US sought an arms embargo against the
government of South Sudan at the UN Security Council (UNSC). In the
face of Russia wielding a veto against the arms embargo - the US was
left with no choice other than withdrawing its draft resolution before
being put for voting. It looked like the Western bloc of nations, and
the Eastern bloc of nations swapped their sides. Furthermore, the
American position in itself displayed the second paradox when judged
against US actions. Almost around the time when it was seeking the
arms embargo; it renewed the Military Cooperation Agreement with the
Republic of South Sudan. What happened highlighted the inconsistency
that marked the US policy towards the regime in Juba since the war
broke out in December 2013.
Contemporary world history never witnessed such meddling into a
Sovereign State’s internal affairs by neighbouring countries on the
scale seen in South Sudan. The Ugandan military intervention in late
December 2013 and Early January 2014, brought up questions regarding
the legality of the act in international law. The regime in Juba
claimed that an agreement was in place between the two countries that
permitted the Uganda People’s Defense Force (UPDF) to intervene. But
the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), that is tasked to ratify such
agreements was unaware of the existence of anything of that sort. Even
if there were to be a Mutual Defense Treaty, it would have sanctioned
UPDF intervention in the case of foreign invasion but not in a civil
war. Uganda was only safeguarding its enormous economic interests in
South Sudan and would resist any attempts for regime change at all
costs. It’s not a secret that many South Sudanese are pointing fingers
at Uganda as the entity behind the demise of General George Athor, and
the disappearance of opposition leader Peter Abdul Rahman Sule and
General Elias Lino Jada.
Kenya is the second beneficiary of the Juba government after Uganda.
It has dominated the financial and banking system in South Sudan. Some
Kenyans were given influential government positions Like Dr Renish
Achieng Omullo. She was appointed as Special Envoy to the Federal
Republic of Germany by a Presidential Decree. While some highly
qualified South Sudanese were denied positions for the ridiculous
reason of being overqualified, a foreigner gets employed in a
sensitive post in a country that does not lack qualified persons. It’s
up to the reader to draw his or her conclusions as to why such a thing
could happen.
However, the most disturbing aspect of the relation between the two
governments is the involvement of the Kenyan government in the
kidnapping and deportation to Juba of the opposition operatives. James
Gatdet Dak, the former spokesman for Dr Riek Machar, was the first
victim of the sinister cooperation between the Kenyan government and
the regime in Juba. Subsequently, it didn’t take long for the Kenyan
ally to lend Kiir’s government a helping hand by making the Human
Rights activists Dong Samuel Luak and Aggrey Idri disappear from the
streets of Nairobi.
The track record of the Juba government has shown to the world
unsurpassable irresponsibility. Its policies do not promote unity and
peaceful coexistence among the diverse communities nor do they project
the image of South Sudan as a Sovereign State. There is no doubt that
the regime has utterly failed in all aspects of governance.
The international community would be ill-advised to continue
entertaining the notion that sustainable peace could emerge from the
ashes of the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Republic
of South Sudan (ARCSS). The High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF)
would neither work nor the National Dialogue (ND) that was launched by
Kiir’s regime. It’s apparent that the international community has got
limitations to what it could do and the obvious example is its failure
to impose an arms embargo on the government of South Sudan. We also do
remember how the Rwanda genocide unfolded under the watch of the UN
and the superpowers. We should bear in our minds as South Sudanese
that many in the international community and the regional powers are
in our country pursuing their private agendas and interests. As we
speak illegal gold mining is being carried out vigorously by various
foreign entities and other precious resources are being plundered as
well. The regime has leased or sold large pieces of land to foreign
individuals and firms, not to mention putting the country under
massive debts by borrowing large sums of money from abroad. It’s
committing a generational theft that would certainly lend our future
generations in the red from the start.
Right now South Sudan gives the impression of a place where there is
plenty to gain for everyone except the South Sudanese people. It has
become a safe haven for international fortune hunters, thieves and
crooks. But the blame for what has become of the Republic of South
Sudan falls squarely on the military junta and the self-serving
politicians in Juba. Many lessons could be learned from the above
account to avoid being misled and disappointed. The central point
though is that salvation from the failed regime will not come from
abroad but from the people of South Sudan. The way forward has never
been clearer than at any time since the start of the conflict. For
peace to be realised and flourish on our soil - Kiir’s regime must go
either through an inclusive new Peace Agreement whereby accountability
is paramount or the hard way through other means.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
--
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/CAJb14oq_tcdjb%3D9_OAwL-50%2B2jf9nZo-Tnm%2BKDRnbkC_9c4WFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
