Foreign intervention in South Sudan is likely to discredit UNMISS and destabilize regional stability
By Makwei Achol Thiong, Bor, Jonglei state
July 22, 2016 (SSB) — It is two weeks now after the fatal incident around the Presidential palace in Juba. Calm has returned to the city and everyone seems to be back to normal business including Juba University where students will have their Examinations starting today.
However, major debates have focused on the proposed “Military Intervention” by foreign troops in South Sudan. Citizens have sprung to life, after the dollar stampede, to demonstrate against this proposed intervention when there are over 12,000 soldiers and police serving for the UN in the country.
What you need to know about the proposed Foreign Military Intervention!
The proposed military intervention which shall include components such as the use of attack helicopters, addition of more troops and supply of more arms and ammunitions to be used by UN forces and other forms of intervention is a sensitive agenda and is seen, by many, as an invasion of a sovereign nation.
If the UN will use the attack helicopters within its compound, then the flight space within the compound will be very small for it and may fly out of space which is already an invasion of the space not meant for them. This is more likely to aggress the Army since the helicopter isn’t a humanitarian plane. This is more likely to cause war and more military intervention of the regional and international forces to fight the government, hence invasion of South Sudan.
If the UN intends to annex Juba International Airport as part of its UNMISS camp in Juba and then use it to fly its attack helicopters, then this is a red-line for any sovereign state. This means that the issue of attack helicopters to be used by the UN forces is not safe and can be associated with aggression.
As for additional troops, the current Protection of Civilians (PoCs) sites have not failed to accommodate those displaced in the recent fighting. What is funny is that, IDPs have even started discrediting the PoCs themselves and have resorted to sheltering in churches, schools and other public places which have no military protection when displaced. Something is becoming unusual about the PoCs themselves!! Therefore, there is no need to bring in more troops in order to open up more UN camps.
Why is the proposal of Military Intervention increasingly becoming less popular in South Sudan?
South Sudanese citizens are exceedingly patient, highly unified against external aggression and hope for better tomorrow, regardless of today’s hunger and misery and therefore they can’t be pushed on what they don’t deserve. They have prevailed over war burden, dollar terror and government bankruptcy, but have remained patient until the ARCISS was signed and have continued to be tolerant until today. So little is the achievement you can get after compelling them, as external force, to hardships and other punishments.
Any insistence would mean extending the mobilization to the sympathizers and more solidly giving birth to a breed of difficult block; ready for war, either offensively or in self-defense. This would negatively impacted on the current spine that President Salva Kiir holds and would want to build the future on.
If you can recall how ICC has become very insignificant, then the UN missions are more likely to become the second victim of the lost vision of major international institutions. Many failures of the UN missions have been cited by the demonstrators across South Sudan and if it reached that moment, when all the common people will know about all these negatives, including even reported rape cases as in other countries, then the UN would be less trusted. And this stage isn’t very far. Continued resurfacing of major UN failures continues to discredit such an important institution.
How does the current political standing in South Sudan affect the region?
There are varying interests of the neighboring countries in South Sudan. The recent Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) only recognize four main axis of dividing power, the government, the SPLM/IO, Former detainees and other political parties. The last grouping seems divided; majority as sympathizers of the government while few others are either with the SPLM/IO or Former detainees.
The region (IGAD) and neighbors seems to also follow this political inclination in South Sudan. Uganda is seen as closer to the government while Ethiopia is seen closer to the SPLM/IO. Kenya isn’t clear but since it bailed out the Former Detainees, it seems to incline towards this direction. Sudan seems to have lost hope in supporting the SPLM/IO because of its unreliability and constant radioactivity. Therefore, there is a disunited region and neighbors and hardly can they forge anything meaningful to bring lasting peace to the country.
It is likely that disunity in the approach to intervention in South Sudan by the region, shall spills over other important agenda that the region would want to address now or in the future. Thus, the situation would negatively spiral; from South Sudan issue to regional political instability!!
The Impact the proposal of Foreign Military Intervention may have on the UN mandate in South Sudan!!!
During the 2013 crisis, UN mandate came under scrutiny following series of irregularities including the confiscation of UN convoy carrying arms and ammunitions by land in Lakes state and a batch carrying Anti-tank rocket launcher in Bor town while using Nile River route to reach Bentiu. Though UN did apologize that time, a sharp shadow was casted on UNMISS in the country. It is easy to forget and equally easy to recall that the same UNMISS wants more troops and be approved and provided with attack helicopters.
This political motives put lives of men and women serving in the UNMISS at risk, on the most costly and least probable success missions. Many innocent soldiers serving for the UNMISS have already lost their dear lives on situations that would have been avoided and it isn’t good to draw crisis closer to them again on more risky missions that aren’t effective life-saving approaches.
The leadership of the UN has to recognize that illiteracy rate is very high in South Sudan. Therefore, any policy that is wrongly or rightly perceived by the citizens as to put the sovereignty of the country in jeopardy is more likely to even hamper the work of humanitarian workers working in the country leave alone the blue helmets.
So, what can be done about the situation now?
I would answer this by asking the question that: what are all the efforts of the region and international community meant for? I think, without politics, the answer is to bring about political stability in South Sudan. Therefore, if there is this consensus, then the region and the international community should stand with the choice of the people of South Sudan on “No to Foreign Military Intervention”, support the ARCISS instead of abrogating it through military intervention and support president Salva Kiir and His two Deputies throughout the Transitional period to the general elections in 2018.
You can reach the Author through the email: makweiachol@yahoo.com
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address, city and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
