South Sudan: A State Made with Peace
By Brian Browne
9/24/12
Introduction to Comparative Politics
PSC 1001W
Professor Teitelbaum
Jeremy Streatfeild
South Sudan: A State Made with Peace
It is argued that the most advanced European states relied on war making to become the global powers they are today, and that therefore violent conflict is necessary for state building. But can we apply the idea that state building is reliant on war making to today’s developing nations? I argue that for South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, state building will be best achieved through peaceful means.
A main argument from the supporters of the idea that war making is the best means of state building is that war leads to increased government revenue. They say war unlike any other event, justifies a government’s decision to raise taxes. This is because when people feel like their lives are endangered, they are willing to pay higher taxes for protection. After the external security threat is gone, tax rates typically stay high, allowing the government to have enough money for state building initiatives, like investment in infrastructure and education.
For South Sudan, there are several security threats, partly due to internal tribal conflicts and the Lord’s Resistance Army, but mostly from neighboring Sudan (with whom South Sudan has been fighting in a civil war for a majority of the past 50 years). Similarly, Sudan has had its share of internal violent conflicts, yet the government’s tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (the latest statistics are on pre-separation Sudan) is only about 6.3% compared to most developed nations which are in the area of 20-30%.
Oil accounts for 90 percent of Sudan’s exports and 98 percent of South Sudan’s state revenues. Neither country’s government can last for long without oil. Tax collection from nomadic peoples and from largely agrarian sectors of the economy that are dispersed across landscapes with poor infrastructure will never amount to much compared to the tax revenue gained from oil in the modern era. Whether or not people find higher taxes to be more justified, the cost of obtaining the taxes outweighs the benefits. A more developed, diversified economy will enable the government to increase its revenues, as more people will enter the formal market, while allowing a cushion against its current reliance on oil. Furthermore, because continued fighting is just what keeps foreign investment from pouring into the resource rich country, allowing it to diversify and connect via imports with a global market (which are also much easier to tax), war making cannot be a viable path forward.
In addition, for the Sudans, an external economic threat is stronger than an external security threat. When the two countries couldn’t agree on oil transit fees, South Sudan shut down the flow of oil, threatening the economic collapse both countries. In addition to the threat of economic collapse, the UN Security Counsel threatened further sanctions on the two countries if they do not reach a comprehensive peace deal by this week. The international community, with the aid of modern media technology, is aware of the conflict between the Sudans. With modern transport and weaponry, foreign aid (whether in the form of military or emergency supplies) impedes on a war making country’s ability to take advantage of weaker nations. This is because of an irreversible trend by the international community of intervening in the affairs of other nations. For the past several days the two countries’ leaders have been scrambling to reach a security deal. This shows that the outdated idea of war making as state building does not take into account the modern international community.
Ultimately, war making takes money from other spending initiatives. When the two nations demilitarize, they will be able to focus spending on education, infrastructure, and healthcare. Looking to successfully developing nations like Brazil, and copying its “Bolsa Familia” plan will be useful for the two countries. As the two countries are essentially in their infancy, investment is needed for a new, healthier, educated work force and a more complete network of infrastructure to emerge.
It is also argued that a government that can successfully defend its people is granted more legitimacy by its people, building a sense of nationalism that is necessary for state making as well. But not all national heroes are war heroes. Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma are both role models for peace, while being national icons of their respective countries. Similarly, there is still much pride and excitement from South Sudan’s peaceful independence from Sudan.
To summarize, the difference between state building for 16th century Europe compared to South Sudan today includes the advancement in technology (especially media and transportation), modern NGOs and foreign aid, the power of the international community and international organizations such as the UN, a globalized post industrial economy, national leaders as international icons of peace. South Sudan must use its economic leverage, along with international supporters, to make a comprehensive peace deal with Sudan. Once the security threat is gone, the nation will in fact grow its economy, increase state strength through higher tax revenues, and be able to invest in its people and infrastructure. This peaceful process is the only process for South Sudan to successfully build a modern state.
About Post Author
