The politics and consequences of IGAD intervention in the Republic of South Sudan
By Hon Arop Madut-Arop, Nairobi, Kenya
August 14, 2016 (SSB) — In this article, I will discuss, first the role the international community and United States of America should have played as soon as peace descended on South Sudan in 2005. The second part will discuss how some IGAD countries are making it difficult for peace to reign in South Sudan, magnificently, for their own vested interest. This part is also intended to make South Sudanese particularly the politicians to be aware of the fact that, the IGAD is not the same IGAD they knew in the past. Rather, it is the IGAD run and managed by new breed of leaders for their own survival. I will conclude the article with what the international sponsored regional proposed arms embargo and economic sanction will bring to bear on peace to reign in the Republic of South Sudan.
WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FAILED TO DO FOR PEACE TO REIGN IN SOUTH SUDAN
At the onset, I would like to start my article of what the people of South Sudan had expected from the international community and particularly the United States of America, who midwifed the birth of their country as an independent state and Britain as the former colonial master, to a lesser extent.
Firstly, the people of South Sudan had expected that, the international community would have come in and help them start sustainable socio economic development in their new country. They have, on the top, also expected the rehabilitation of the projects and infrastructure totally destroyed during the war. This could have been carried out through the pledged multi-donor fund as soon as the peace descended on the South Sudan in 2005. The people of the South Sudan had also expected that, the international community would assist their young nation to organise itself politically, socially and economically. The huge missed spent internationally pledged sum of money, could have also assisted the new state to harmonise its people, who have been scattered by the successive wars to different parts of the world, and where they had acquired different cultures, as they converged in their new found country.
Secondly, the people of South Sudan had also assumed that, the United States Government, which midwifed the birth of their young nation, would have been at the forefront of friendly countries that would have come in, with its abundant resources and expertise in all disciplines in aid and assisted them as soon as their region, had become an independent state. This could have been the noble USA government start of socio economic development in the world youngest country. This could have undoubtedly enabled the people of South Sudan established democratic system of governance, the US is well renowned. Instead, USA waited until the South Sudan descended into the senseless destructive December crisis and started holding stick on the warring parties without carrots.
Furthermore, the people of South Sudan do believe very much that, US Government in particular, is well placed to influence international community, not to destroy this unfortunate vulnerable five years old country with a threat of the use of economic sanctions and arms embargo. The silent majority of the people of South Sudan strongly believe that, USA Government would rather seek consultation with all the experts in the country, some who have made researches and have written books about the people of the South Sudan, about how best, it will take to bring amicably solution to the ongoing crisis in their younger nation.
Thirdly, the people of South Sudan have too, expected Britain, as a former colonial ruler, knowledgeable of the historical development and the social fabric of South Sudan people, could have guided the European and the IGAD partners; not to speculate or think of punishing South Sudan. The people of South Sudan have also expected that, Britain would have rather pursued better ways of bringing peace to the world youngest nation, regardless to how long it may take to bring peace. Britain was also expected to have assisted South Sudan in the hope that; like other former colonies, she would join the Commonwealth of Nations. Unfortunately, Britain has been in the forefront of the people that are planning, on no clear ground, to punish South Sudan whose people have been suffering because of its colonial legacy.
Fourthly, the people of South Sudan had also expected the United Nations, whose purpose of its existence it is to moderate, mediate and reconcile all the disputes that arise between UN member states actors in any conflict arising, should have not sided with the IGAD mediators, some of whom the people of South Sudan believe are wolves in sheep cloak.
Regrettably, the United Nations’ lack of neutrality was recently revealed by its very Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who have continuously made statements which are inconsistent to the role of the United Nations as a peace making and global regulatory body to resolve issues between nation states and not intervene in internal matters of one individual member state. Undoubtedly, the Secretary General statements do clearly endorse the imposition of economic sanctions and arms embargo on the two parties to the ongoing conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.
As a peace making body, the people of South Sudan expect that UN should rather resort to high ground diplomacy aimed at effort to find ways and means of providing solutions amicably to the South Sudanese people, regardless to how long it may take to bring acceptable permanent peace to South Sudan. Precisely, the decisions recently reached by the IGAD countries in connivance with the Troika and European partners to impose a solution on the two warring parties on the ongoing crisis in South Sudan; this apparent good intentioned move, may sadly, add more fuel to the already smouldering fire.
Regrettably, the UN and Troika countries have not learned lessons, from Britain and the United States; when they innocently and on impromptu reports declared war on Iraq on the assumption that the latter possessed weapons of mass destruction. Recently, the British Royal Commission, formed to look into the alleged present of weapons of mass destruction by President Saddam Hussein regime; had announced that, there were no alleged weapons of mass destruction found, to the embarrassment of the two world greatest nations. If they did learn lessons from the unfortunate Iraqi invasion, USA and Britain would think twice about their new crave of adventure in South Sudan.
In a nutshell, the silent majority of people in South Sudan, have been expecting US, as an assumed friendly country to South Sudan, should have not allowed herself dragged into supporting the IGAD countries, some of which apparently, have vested interests; like the republic of Sudan for instance, that has directly or indirectly, been, allegedly fanning the rebellion in the South Sudan, in effort to reclaim its lost paradise. The following are bitter experiences which came as a result of misguided actions, and which should be good reminders to the international community, US and Britain to avoid pushing South Sudan into such regrettable situations.
THE IGAD IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND IMPLICATIONS OF ITS PLANNED INTERVENTION IN SOUTH SUDAN.
Basically, it would be important to define what the word IGAD stands for, as food for thought, for the benefit of those who do not know what this important regional body is all about. Importantly, the word IGAD is an abbreviation of the inter-governmental authority for development. Fundamentally, this regional body came about in the eighties when five eastern African countries, Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda, apparently concerned of what the desertification encroachment would bring to bear on their region, met together in Addis Ababa and formed what became known, at the onset, as the intergovernmental agency for desertification and development (IGADD). But as this important body became well evolved and organised, the term was changed and became known simply as the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD). In this regard, IGAD was conceived and born as a developmental body and not a political entity, to say the least.
Essentially, the first interest the IGAD countries had on South Sudan came about following the intensification of the Sudanese conflict, which was galvanizing and appeared to engulf the entire country by the hour. In effort to avert the impending catastrophe on one of the founding member state (Sudan), IGAD set up a sub-committee for peace in Sudan. The IGAD Sub Peace Committee was chaired by the former Kenyan President, Daniel arap Moi.
As the chair of this important regional body, President Moi delegated his foreign affairs minister to bring the two warring parties together to devise ways and means of how to bring peace to Sudan, at a round table conference. President Moi, whose tribe has blood affinity with the people of South Sudan, decided to unite the South Sudanese leaders, the Khartoum based Internal Front and the SPLA/SPLM, in order to discuss peace with Sudan government as a united front.
During the meeting arranged and convened in Nairobi, in September 1987, attended by the leaders of the South Sudanese political parties namely, the Union of Sudan African Parties (USAP) and the Sudan people Liberation Movement (SPLM), President Moi told them that, it would be better and easier for them to discuss peace with the Sudan government as a united Front. President Moi; added that, Kenya would spare no efforts and resources to make sure that peace and stability is restored peace for the benefit of the people of South Sudan. But, when the war galvanized and appeared to take its operations to the very doorsteps of the Sudan Capital, Khartoum, and in effort to salvage its member state (Sudan), with the approval of IGAD heads of state and government, President the two principal leaders of Sudan government and the SPLM were brought together in a serious face to face talk aimed at attainment of peace and stability, in their war ravaged country. This later move led to the signing of the Machakos Frame Work Peace Agreement through which final peace deal could be reached.
It was against this backdrop, that President Moi appointed General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, who was then the Chief of general staff of the Kenyan National Army, to exert serious efforts to bring peace to the IGAD member nation state, Sudan. At this juncture, General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, brought the two Sudanese warring principals to a roundtable conference namely: the then Sudanese regime strongman and First Vice President, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, and the SPLA/M rebel leader, Dr John Garang de Mabior. It was there and then that the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA), was successfully negotiated and finally signed on January 9th, 2005. As we all know, the African longest conflict, which had lasted for more than two decades, with a loss of over two million lives, was finally brought to a halt. That was fair enough. But what has become of the IGAD of today?
However, having described, IGAD briefly in its historical setting and the positive role that it had played to bring peace to South Sudan, which led to its birth as an independent state and which subsequently became a member of the IGAD regional organisation, it will be instructive to discuss the new IGAD in its current perspective. Regrettably, the current IGAD, is not the same IGAD the people of South Sudan initially knew in the eighties. It was not IGAD with the same aims and principles of which it was launched. It is an IGAD run by new breed of leaders with their own vested interests to protect, in case of Kenya and Ethiopian, and to reclaim the lost paradise, in case of Sudan, as indicated in the following discussion.
Firstly, the republic of the Sudan, which had grudgingly conceded for the breakaway of its oil rich region, South Sudan, has been and still is, desperately trying to move heaven and earth to reclaim its lost paradise. Hence Sudan, for all intent and purposes, would like to see South Sudan weaken by all means not to exist comfortably as an independent state at its next door. It is apparently in that setting that Sudan has been engaged in proxy wars in the South Sudan. It was also in this light that Sudan had influenced the making of the current impracticable peace agreement, plausibly designed not to be implemented but in the hope that the South Sudan warring parties would resist its implementation, a move which would invite the wrath of international community and approve the imposition of economic sanction and arms embargo on its former colonial region.
Undeniably, Sudan is at the forefront of the IGAD ongoing attempt to bring intervention force to disarm and strain the warring parties in the South Sudan. If, God forbid, South Sudan, were to collapse; economically to maintain itself and to function as a government, Sudan with nostalgia, would immediately move in and re-annex it to its ungovernable nation of God.
Paradoxically, despite the clear fact that Sudan has been fighting ceaseless destructive wars for decades against those who are opposed to its Islamic agenda, yet no leader of the IGAD countries in which she is a founding member, has ever raised a finger and condemned President Omar al Bashir for killing thousands of his own citizens in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile states to near annihilation. Instead, IGAD countries are protecting the Sudanese leader Omar al Bashir from indictment by the Permanent Criminal Court’s for having committed crimes against humanity by massacring his own citizens.
Secondly, Ethiopia leader, who is leading the move to bring in regional intervention forces to destroy the Republic of South Sudan, apparently for his own interest, has forgotten or intends to ignore the vital fact that, his regime has been and is continuing fighting against the Oromia and Amhara Liberation Fronts, from the largest ethnic regions in the country. Ethiopian, present leader, very survival is pinned on the support of the people of the Gambella western region, largely inhabited by the Nuer nationality.
In that light, Ethiopian leader, would be too glad to have a Nuer in Juba as the president, in a move which would plausibly, please Ethiopian Nuer citizens, whom he believes will steadfastly continue to defend his regime against the Oromia and Amhara rebels.
Thirdly, President Uhuru Kenyatta, reportedly, has implicit problem with South Sudan President, Salva Kiir, allegedly, as a friend of the Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga. There are circumstantial allegations that, President Uhuru Kenyatta, is very angry with President Salva Kiir for supporting his arch enemy Raila Odinga during the last Kenyan elections, which he nonetheless, won.
It might have been that circumstantial allegations that President Uhuru Kenyatta has been giving South Sudanese rebel leaders, VIP treatments, while at the same time, posing as an honest broker in effort to bring about durable peace deal to South Sudan. Understandably, the above allegations can give credence to his current move to bring in regional force, apparently to cause a regime change in order to have a leader of his own choice, on the throne of South Sudan for obvious reasons.
At this premise, one would like to ask whether, South Sudan is the only country at war with itself in the IGAD region! Understandably, the three leaders of Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya do not need to be told that, the entire region is awash with rebellions. If the IGAD leaders are really genuine and serious about making peace to reign in the Republic of South Sudan, they should rather jointly condemn out rightly, all the rebellions in the region. They would thereafter take joint action against the rebel leaders who would not cooperate to accept comprehensive peace to reign in his country. Sadly, Sudan, Ethiopian and Kenyan leaders, with vested economic interest, have unfortunately, singled out the rebellion in the Republic of South Sudan, as a special rebellion which needs urgent attention and special treatment.
Otherwise one would ask, what is so special about South Sudan rebellion that, the three eastern African leaders are hell bent to destroy her by holding their sticks on her with a threat of sanctions, in case its leaders do not cooperate to stop the war and accept peace? For fairness sake, will it not be better for the IGAD countries to bring the same pressure, which is now being brought to bear on the South Sudan, equally, on the rebel leaders in other conflict affected countries in the region? I leave these two questions as food for thought for those who will read this article.
In a latest development, General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, speaking to the media last week appealed to IGAD Plus to leave South Sudan people alone to sort out its own problems. General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, in his speech to reporters, strongly underlined that, left alone, the traditional leaders in the South Sudan, are better placed to bring peace to South Sudan than the IGAD Plus countries. One would totally agree with General Lazaro assertion, because during the war (1983-1988), the SPLA forces under the Command of General Salva Kiir Mayardit and the South Sudan independent movement forces led by Dr Riek Machar that had been fighting deadly wars against one another, were brought together by the Nuer and the Dinka traditional leaders at Wunlit village in western Upper Nile region where reconciled. Remarkably, the Wunlit experience was a prelude to the subsequent successful negotiation and the signing of the CPA at Naivasha Lakeside Resort, Kenya in 2005.
THREE BITTER EXPEREIENCES REVIST AS FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR IGAD PLUS LEADERSHIP
As food for thoughts for the IGAD Plus leaders, their present move to interfere in the internal affairs of South Sudan, will predictably complicate matters than providing solutions to the conflict they are trying to resolve. The implications of their intended intervention in the Republic of South Sudan could, at best, be demonstrated by what happened, in the not very distant past, to three oil rich countries which were once peaceful and prosperous. Somalia, Libya and Iraq are the three bitter experiences in point.
The first bitter experience to revisit in effort to support my argument has to do with the fate of Somalia. As we all know, as soon as Somalia obtained her political independence, its people in a short spell of time managed and organised their country politically and ideologically. Under President Siad Bare, Somalia adopted a socialist mode of development. But as the Somalia people, were planning to move their country forward to progress and prosperity, unfortunately, through the connivance of former colonial masters, President Siad Barre, was overthrown; accusing him, allegedly, as a communist oriented leader. After the overthrow of President Siad Bare, the republic of Somalia, the once peaceful and prosperous country, was unfortunately split overnight, into two hostile and weak countries; north and south.
Whereas, the people of northern Somalia (Somaliland), appear to be coexisting harmoniously to a certain extent, the people of Southern Somalia (Somalia Republic); despite the fact that they are indigenous and homogeneous; speaking the same one language, having the same culture and the same religion, Islam, have been fighting mercilessly and ceaseless wars, without remorse, among themselves: tribe against tribe, one sect against another sect, ethnic groups against other ethnic groups. Even the current attempt by eastern African countries to bring peace to reign, the Republic of Somalia unfortunately is not at peace with itself and has not yet become a state.
The second bitter experience to revisit, has also to do with Iraq. As we also know, President Saddam Hussein, during his four and half rule, managed and stemmed out, the Iranian sponsored Shi’ite religious group fanaticism. But when the USA led coalition launched attack on Iraq and killed President Saddam Hussein, the hell broke loose as the oil rich country, has, miserably, been turned into breeding grounds for terrorism. Currently, terrorists roam about, killing thousands of their people and destroying properties at will, without due regard to humanity or religious ethics. As I write, no neutral bodies have come up with genuine plans to bring the Iraqi western sponsored government, and rebels to negotiate peace in amicable manner.
The third bitter experience to revisit as food for thought has also to do with what has been happening in another oil rich country, Libya. When President Muamar al Gadhafi, who had for forty-two years, controlled Islamic fanaticism and stemmed out religious bigotry, was killed by NATO allied countries. With no alternative democratic systems put in place, Libya has become a breeding grounds for terrorism. Regrettably Libya has become ungovernable with three governments in place: one in Sirte, the second in Tripoli and third in Benghazi. Unfortunately, thousands of its citizens have been pushed into what the western media euphemistically called the desperate journeys. Tragically thousands of Libyans are perishing daily at the Mediterranean Sea, as they try to cross over to reach the European countries that are responsible for the demise of their once stable and prosperous country.
As a dire caution and advice to the IGAD countries, they should avoid the Somalia, Iraq and Libya bitter experiences to happen by all means to the world youngest nation, the Republic of South Sudan. Advisably, IGAD and the international community should rather resort to high ground diplomacy in their effort to bring peace to South Sudan. The better approach that would succeed to bring peace to the South Sudan is for the international community and the IGAD Plus countries to consult with experienced experts who best know the history of South Sudan and the social fabric of its people.
THE IMPACT OF ARMS EMBARGO AND ECONOMIC SACTIONS ON SOUTH SUDAN AND CONSEQUENCES
Looking critically at what may happen, if economic sanction and arms embargo were imposed on the South Sudan, as presently being proposed by the IGAD Plus countries with the UN sanction, and; in the event, I strongly believe that several predictable scenarios, would happen. These possible scenarios are enumerated here below for scrutiny and perusal.
Firstly, it is my humble opinion that, the pre-conceived impromptu arms embargo by some IGAD and Troika countries will not address the situation in South Sudan because, the country is already awash with thousands of illegal arms in the hands of scores of tribal militias and armed cattle rustlers, roaming at will in the countryside. With no armaments coming from outside the, government may embark on black market arms sale or alternatively resort to disarming and collecting thousands of illegal weapons and use them to defend itself against external intervention, as they did during the Anya Nya and SPLA wars of liberation.
Secondly, as a consequent of the proposed economic sanction; the government of South Sudan, apparently with no money to maintain itself, may survive at the skin of its teeth. Understandably, South Sudan with no sufficient resources to meet its obligations, as a government; many of its officials and workers that would be affected negatively by the economic sanctions, may be forced to leave the cities and walk to the countryside; where they will be faced with the similar bitter experiences of the Republic of Somalia, God forbid. In any case the IGAD leaders not be reminded that, the people of South Sudan for fifty years, fought voluntary wars against the successive Sudan governments without having a government of their own and external help.
Thirdly the IGAD countries need not be told that, the people of South Sudan have been fighting their wars of liberation without external help; first for seventeen years 1955-1972 and later 21 years 1983-2005. IGAD countries should understand that, if the long term economic sanctions and arms embargo did not bring peace to reign in the Sudan and Zimbabwe for instance, it will never bring peace to South Sudan.
In conclusion, it is very worrying that, this important regional body has become an NGO which is being run by interest groups. Advisably the international community and IGAD countries should approach the ongoing conflict in the South Sudan without prejudice and with wisdom.
Hon Arop Madut Arop, holds a Diploma in philosophy of Education and pedagogy and MA in international Journalism. He is the author of two books: Sudan Painful Road to Peace, a full story of the founding and development of SPLM/SPLA (2006) and The Genesis of political consciousness in South Sudan (2012). He is also author of a number of unpublished books. He can be reached at gotnyiel122@hotmail.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 from.
About Post Author
