SANCTIONS ON JUBA: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY??
By Amer Mayen Dhieu, Brisbane
Under chapter VIII of UN Charter, the United Nation has been frequently enforcing “sanctions” on states and non-state actors as a tool to restore peace and order in the world. On small states, the United State of America, acting as the “global policeman”, uses sanctions to repel aggression against them or other allied countries, restore human rights order or put pressure on those nations supporting aggression against other weak states such as the current case in the Crimea.
However, just after the end of the Cold War, many policymakers in world capital cities and reputable research from academicians put pressure on UN with great concern for and doubt about the effectiveness of sanctions on targeted countries. This pressure put UN Security Council in an awkward position to coin such terms as “Smart Sanctions”. By Smart Sanctions, the UN Security Council claims to be only targeting specific individuals with financial sanctions, travel ban and diplomatic sanctions and certain regimes with Arms embargoes.
On the 3rd of April 2014, President Obama of the United State of America issued a statement listing sanctions about to or had been enforced on South Sudan in relation to the current military situation in the country. In justification for the sanction on Juba, President Obama stresses that “Those who threatened the peace, security or stability of South Sudan, obstruct the peace process, target UN Peacekeepers or are responsible for human right abuse and atrocities will not have a friend in the United State and run the risk of being sanctioned”.
The one-million-dollar question is: can sanctions help the already failing state of South Sudan? I am going to argue that the sanctions are not going to be effective because both the government and the rebels do not care about the citizens of South Sudan or about their international reputation. Therefore, if both parties to the conflict don’t care about the lives and welfare of their own citizens and supporters and nor about how they are perceived by the international community, why would anyone think that the sanctions would bring any positive change to the ongoing conflict in the country?
First and foremost, what message would the imposition of sanctions on Juba say about who is responsible for the crimes committed in the aftermath of the December 15th skirmish? What message does it convey to the general public of South Sudan? To me, it is too inconclusive and hard for any side (rebel or government) to accept responsibility for the killing, destruction and displacement meted out upon South Sudanese citizens. With confusions and war panic still reigning across the country, both sides are still blaming each other for an alleged genocide committed with horrible memories of rapes, absurd killings, and other human rights abuses.
Nevertheless, both sides are said to have committed crimes against humanity, with rebels in Bor, Akobo, Malakal and Bentiu and government in Juba. If that is true, it is the case that both sides are threatening the stability of South Sudan and are responsible for human right abuse and atrocities. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by Washington are both directed on the Government of South Sudan and the rebels. Rebels are said to be celebrating the imposing of sanctions on South Sudan and yet, they are part of the saga. The sanctions are imposed on the government as well as on the rebels.
However, will the sanctions serve their purpose in Juba and other places occupied by rebels? As I mentioned above, I think the sanctions will not achieve their intended goal because the government doesn’t care about the citizens and the rebels don’t care about their supporters. Secondly, both sides to the conflict don’t give a damn about their international reputations. The rebels believe that the US government is targeting President Kiir, not them. According to South Sudan’s Minister for information, Michael Makwei Lueth, the government considers the move from Washington to be an implicit support to the rebellion. The government in Juba believes that it can survive the sanctions if the alternative is to reward Riek Machar for his “failed military coup” against the government.
Secondly, the history of sanctions and their effectiveness in the past is ridden with failures and adverse effects on unintended targets. For example, the UN Security Council enacted crippling economic sanctions on Iraq’s oil in the 1990s. The sanctions were intended to bankrupt and bring down the government of President Saddam Hussein. But instead, financial difficulties occasioned by the sanctions only affected the averaged Iraqis. It resulted in chronic hunger and disease outbreak, leading to the death of nearly one million Iraqis. Going through this example make you wonder if the enforced sanctions will serve their purpose in the current conflict of South Sudan or will simply exacerbate the situations by affecting not the intended leaders but the averaged South Sudanese people.
To me, the Obama Administration may not have thought through the whole business of sanctions properly and thoroughly. I am not saying sanctions are no longer effective but only to those who cares about their citizens and of their international reputations. Despite being a member of the United Nations and now aspiring for Arab League membership, South Sudan has already lost credibility for good international reputation. Last year, for instance, it was ranked the 3rd failed state just next to Somalia—a country with no government at a time. Moreover, South Sudan was among the top most corrupt states in the world.
For the US to enforce such sanctions on a country with half of its population being illiterate and poor, top government officials being the most corrupt, and the government being the cause of political instability, is more like using man own sword to kill him. This means that the general public of South Sudan is being killed using their fellow citizen’s sword. Mostly, it is the sword of the government officials and rebels. These government officials and rebels have got nothing to lose: not their own citizens and supporters, not UN membership, or international reputation.
Because the government and the rebels have nothing to lose, they would not care about stopping the conflict, human right abuse and atrocities in the country. But if the sanctions won’t serve their envisioned purpose, should there be another quick and most effective way for the United State of America to stop this conflict and save the nation from failing apart? If there is, and I think there is, that way is urgently needed, not these sanctions that won’t put any effective and urgent pressure on the government and the rebels.
AMER@ 2014
About Post Author
