Armed foreign intervention versus state capacity building in South Sudan
5 min readBy David Mayen Ayarbior, Juba, South Sudan
July 20, 2016 (SSB) — The African Union Summit in Kigali has added its unanimous voice to IGAD and UN Security Council that an intervention force be sent to Juba to protect strategic infrastructure and ‘restore peace and security’ in South Sudan. According to the UN Secretary General who was in attendance, the task might be undertaken by mainly African forces under the auspices of a reinvigorated UNMISS mandate.
It is not clear whether replacement of forces (e.g. Bangladeshi replaced by Ugandans and Kenyans) could be negotiated so as to maintain the same figure of 12, 000 UNMISS forces whose increment the President categorically rejected even before the summit began. They have now sent that strong resolution to the UN Security Council for consideration and logistical support.
In my previous article, my general argument against buffer zones and foreign (western) intervention was that they have often made things worse rather than better. Nevertheless, as an international security academic and analyst I must also spare time to objectively project to our citizens and decision makers the other side of the same coin.
Considering all angles of the debate helps us in formulating a better understanding of the difference between western humanitarian intervention (invasion) and continental/regional security enhancement of state capacity. Both could be confused to mean the same thing, yet they are starkly different.
We may need to underline the fact that African-led state capacity enhancement missions like of ECOMOG in Sierra Leone and AU/EAC in Somalia have been largely successful in helping those countries restore peace and order. In 2013, Uganda’s UPDF intervention played a vital role together with SPLA in preventing IO forces from advancing to Juba and a possible state collapse.
In fact, rare cases of UN state capacity enhancement might also exist. For instance, MONUSCO in Congo (DRC) have helped President Kabila defeat M23 rebels to extend state control over the western Kivu province. The 12, 000 UNMISS force are here and may have enhanced our state capacity in many areas and may be preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in our country by hosting and feeding hundreds of thousands of vulnerable women and children.
Hence, much as I/we may be strongly against western military intervention (invasion) in principle, some citizens and analysts would prefer African capacity enhancement forces who generally do not have regime change agendas in their ‘intervention’ schemes.
Successful negotiations with the AU about their area of deployment as-well-as ‘redlines’ such as air and land ports or exemption of Juba could easily make them positive additions to state capacity rather than otherwise. We have seen IGAD chiefs of staff on SSBC (SSTV) discussing ‘something’ with our security authorities which presumably relate to state capacity enhancement.
But as a start, to begin negotiating logically with IGAD and AU (for or against their proposal) we must acknowledge that neighboring countries are stakeholders in civil wars. In our case, our one million refugees in East Africa and many more in Sudan and Ethiopia invariably create social, security and economic burdens for those states.
Loss of state control over some territory, lawlessness and small arms proliferation together feed into cattle rustling, rebellion and banditry in neighboring countries. Civil war and loss of territorial control to rebel groups in Congo (DRC) provided sanctuary for Joseph Konyi, Uganda’s ADF (Allied Democratic Force), Rwanda’s Interhamwe, and many other armed groups. Massive human flight is also a future- not only present-regional security threat. It (presence of refugees) is always a ticking time bomb which creates security problems between neighboring states, thereby transforming ‘internal affairs’ into region-wide security affairs.
For example, the security concept of “refugee warrior communities” demonstrate that refugees from victimized communities have often used refugee camps as bases to regroup, train and re-launch attacks against their countries. Rwandan refugees in Kampala led by Paul Kagame, Congolese refugees in Rwanda (Banyamulenge) led by Joseph Kabila, and Afghan refugees in Pakistan led by Gulbaddin Hekmatyar and later by Taliban all used their refugee status to regroup and train before they succeeded in invading their countries where they established new regimes.
Therefore, even though we might strongly disagree with their resolution, we must acknowledge that African leaders in Kigali discussed our case with mindsets which are not like our own. Theirs were not unduly consumed by the virus of tribal-based mutual hatred currently shredding our social fabric and destroying the promise which accompanied the birth of South Sudan. Our African brothers (and the world at large) have the advantage of being able to examine the bigger picture of our conflict environment without emotional prejudices.
All in all, South Sudan is a new state that should not be expected to have requisite capacity to effectively manage multiple rebellions over different regions. Such security conundrum could even cripple African super powers like Nigeria and South Africa, let alone our new nation-state. Institutional capacities, whether security, political or economic take time to develop. It is not shameful that we have not yet developed that state capacity.
Because of multiple and senseless rebellions, a mass exodus out of our country by citizens and foreigners is currently underway. Markets have been destroyed by known and unknown gunmen in Juba, Wau, Malakal, Yei, Maridi, Yambio, etc. Senior civil servants work for a whole month but cannot buy two bags of anything from their salaries if they get it on time. Dogs no longer bark because of malnutrition. People on the streets are sarcastically joking under stress about a new refugee camp in Sudan called ‘Bashiir Malesh’ (Sorry Bashiir) to which they want to take their children. But hope is still alive.
South Sudan and its suffering people need the support, sympathy, empathy, and state capacity building from the entire world be it World Bank, IMF, Troika, EU, AU, IGAD, IO, IG, etc. All those energies must be pooled together to urgently rescue this great country and it resilient people.
Mayen Ayarbior has a Bachelor Degree in Economics and Political Science from Kampala International University (Uganda), Masters in International Security from JKSIS-University of Denver (USA), and Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of London. He is the author of “House of War (Civil War and State Failure in Africa) 2013” and currently the Press Secretary/ Spokesperson in the Office of South Sudan’s Vice President, H.E. James Wani Igga. You can reach him via his email address: mayen.ayarbior@gmail.com.
About Post Author
