INTRODUCTION

On 16 December 2013, the world in general and Africa in particular woke up to shocking tragic news of an armed conflict in South Sudan — African newest nation. The news of a coup attempt that was followed by brutal armed violence, that gradually evolved into a full-fledged civil war in South Sudan, has once again raised the issue of whether Africa’s much talked about upward economic rise and possibility of claiming the 21st century is just fantasy. Skeptics of Africa’s economic take off are smiling while Afro-optimists are left with a feeling of shame and disappointment. It is therefore vital that a close inspection of the emerging conflict in South Sudan be carried out with the hope of comprehending and mastering the dynamics of the challenges that Africa’s newest nation is facing. Hopefully, insights generated might help restore sanity among the belligerent forces and those trying to intervene. A caveat is necessary since as the adage goes: ‘in war the first casualty is truth.’ In the heat of war it is very difficult to arrive at an objective analysis of the actual causes of a conflict. Usually accusations and counter accusations cloud accurate vision or political reality and a lot is at stake, not to mention economic and strategic interests. And yet if a lasting solution is to be found for a complex conflict such as the one we have in South Sudan, objective analysis of issues is the only option.

COST AND HORROR OF THE ARMED CONFLICT IN SOUTH SUDAN

Available information so far suggests that the conflict in South Sudan has already created an enormous humanitarian disaster that has claimed hundreds of lives, with over a million people displaced, tens of thousands of them fleeing to neighbouring states of Uganda, Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia. Food shortage has reached worrying proportions and relief agencies are already overstretched. Pictures in the local and international media portray gruesome scenes of destruction and despair. Women and children with household items are depicted on the long march to safe havens. No one needs evidence that the armed conflict has taken a toll on a population that had just recovered from decades of war. The often heard phrase is: ‘Why did South Sudan take this dangerous path to dealing with a political problem?’ The question in everyone’s mind is: did South Sudanese learn a lesson from their decades of war against the Khartoum government?

The neighboring states of Uganda and Kenya have been hit hard as far as the economic cost of the war is concerned. Thousands of Kenyans and Ugandans have been working in South Sudan and others have been engaged in business. All this has grounded to a halt. Reports suggest that thousands of Ugandans and Kenyans are still trapped in South Sudan. It is hard to estimate the amount of income that both countries have lost in terms of exports to a country that was just beginning to get organized economically.

CONFLICTING AND COMPETING NARRATIVES

What is most surprising about the South Sudan armed conflict are the competing and conflicting narratives that are being created. Depending on whom you ask, the conflict is being portrayed as: ethnic animosity gone wrong; internal political strife between President Salva Kiir and his former vice president Dr. Riek Machar; an ideological conflict born of unresolved issues; interference from neighboring states; finally, global and international interests. It has to be stated from the outset that a conflict of this magnitude cannot be a result of one factor. An armed conflict of this nature is clearly a result of multiple factors, with some more significant that others. So it is not an either or option. So before a lasting solution can be found for the conflict, some coherent explanation about the nature and causes of the conflict is necessary, lest a wrong remedy is prescribed. Attention should be paid to both immediate and remote causes of the conflict.

It is difficult to sustain the thesis that South Sudan conflict just erupted as some form of unplanned chaos. Agency theory does not permit such a proposition. Human beings, especially as groups, tend to act with some clear objective and with a mission in mind, even if this often times is concealed from others. With this assertion, we can then speculate on who the agents of this conflict could be. Because of the fact that the conflict has taken place inside the borders of South Sudan, the first suspects are clearly South Sudanese themselves. The conflict did not start as an act of external aggression. The actors in the conflict have gradually emerged as peace talks commenced. Riek Machar and Salva Kiir have emerged as the main protagonists with followers. While it is an over-simplification to label the conflict as ethnic, pitting Dinka against Nuer, the ethnic dimension to the conflict cannot be overruled entirely. Here it is important to invoke the theory of politicization of ethnicity in African politics. A theory should help explain a social phenomenon. Across Africa, with a few exceptions, most states struggled for independence with a dominant ethnic group taking the lead in the political struggle. Once independence was gained, the hard process of nation building commenced. It is common knowledge that that factor of ethnicizing politics and politicizing ethnicity has been a major cause of political instability in most African states, especially where political elites consolidated their political power by manipulating ethnicity. So the fundamental question for South Sudan as she gained independence three years ago was: can Sudan avoid the curse of ethnicizing politics as has been the case in most African states? Did South Sudan have leaders who could rise above ethnicity in favour of the common good? It is only South Sudanese who can genuinely answer these hard question.

State formation takes time and is not just an event of hoisting a flag at independence. This makes us raise the next question of nation building that is only tested by a constitutional dispensation and strong party politics. How does South Sudan fair on this index? Of course three years is a very short time to assess the democratic credentials of a country. Even states that have been independent for 50 years such as Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi are still struggling with the challenge of consolidating democracy. Why did we naively imagine that South Sudan would do the magical thing and become a full-fledged democracy in just three years? And this is not to justify the armed conflict, but to bring some sense of realism to the discourse and call for more attention to the long process of nation building and consolidation of democratic institutions.

COMPLEX GEOPOLITICS AT PLAY

The theory of geopolitics amidst increasing globalization and regional integration suggests that no war can be a purely internal affair. Today more than ever before the fortunes of one country are intimately tied with the fortunes of other countries; so that question is not whether there are some countries behind the conflict, but rather which ones and for what motives. Interests of immediate neighbours range from security to economic. To the north we have Sudan that was all along at war with SPLA. Unconfirmed reports point to President Bashir being party to the conflict in some indirect way. It is any one’s guess on whose side he would likely be. If the past trend is anything to go by, Riek Machar was in the past allied to Bashir—old habits die hard, even though in politics there are neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests. To the south we have Uganda and Kenya. South S udan was in the process of joining the East African Community. Can the two countries of Uganda and Kenya abandon a potential regional buddy at an hour of greatest need? This is in addition to the economic and security interests already mentioned for both Uganda and Kenya. This is the context in which we can understand the rapid deployment of Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) and Kenya Defense Forces (KDF) in South Sudan. And this is where the issue gets complicated in terms of peace processes. Can Uganda and Kenya play a double role of militarily intervening to protect the needy neighbour and play the role of peace maker in the framework of a negotiated settlement? This is why Ethiopia was the obvious option for hosting the peace talks. But the venue alone cannot resolve the challenges of complex geopolitics. Very rare diplomatic skills will have to be deployed to end the current impasse in South Sudan.

South Sudan is situated in the larger complex conflict zone known as the Great Lakes region where armed conflicts have the tendency to spill over into neighboring states. The hope that many observers are nursing is that the South Sudan conflict does not spill over into neighboring states thus worsening the already dangerous situation. IGAD, the organization under whose rubric the peace talks in Addis Ababa are being held, did well to initiate a peace process. The international community with the UN and AU have all supported this initiative, but the results are still wanting. Hardly did the peace process calling for a cease-fire, than war resumed. There is doubt that the warring parties are fully committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

What is the way-forward?

It is not easy to prescribe an easy way out of this complex conflict. It is not yet clear for how long the conflict will go on. The main issues of contestation are not yet fully known just as all the major actors are yet to emerge. First, it is vital to first lay bare the main issues behind the conflict—a task that requires the major actors in the conflict. It seems that a piecemeal approach will not bring about lasting solution. If there are any issues that were not resolved, this is the time to do so. One also might need to look closely at the constitution to detect some contradictions—for a constitution is the major instrument of conflict resolution.

Second, external interventions need to be well coordinated to avoid conflict of interest among various actors. Even though the conflict in South Sudan took many by surprise and might have occasioned unprincipled interventions from some neighbors, it is important that respective countries that have intervened go to the drawing board and seek the mandate of respective legislative bodies of the intervening countries, with a clear statement of why the intervention backed by appropriate constitutional provisions. Of vital importance is also a time frame of when to pull out, lest any intervention makes the peace process complicated. Unilateral interventions can complicate the situation further, especially where the conflict has complex internal factors that need a political solution. Norms for intervention under international law are well known and tested.

Third, the international community needs to be more pro-active and take charge of humanitarian assistance and if need be the UN should also provide a stand-by force to enforce the cease-fire. The faster this is done the better, so that the warring parties don’t take hard-line positions and thus make the peace process impossible. And if the situation becomes too complex, the UN has a mechanism to declare a UN trusteeship as a more lasting solution is worked out. This of course should come as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted.

Fourth, a comprehensive peace agreement is the way to go. This is what helped end the SPLA war with Khartoum government and there is no reason why this framework cannot be explored. Let no party to the conflict be deceived that quick military gains will bring about lasting peace. We have observed several countries torn apart by protracted wars because of failure to reach a comprehensive solution to deep-seated grudges.

While some pessimism has engulfed most people about the prospects for peace in South Sudan, there is still room for cautious optimism. Not all is lost. There is so much to be gained by both sides to the conflict if a peaceful solution is found soon than later. South Sudan is still supported by the international community and the neighbors are eager to help out of their own self interest. It is not wishful thinking to predict that the South Sudan conflict can be resolved in a few months if the right steps are taken as outlined above. The region of the Great Lakes and the Greater Horn of Africa in which South Sudan is located, is rich in mineral and human resources, and all efforts need to be made to ensure stability and constitutional framework for good governance, as the only sustainable solution to guarantee equitable development. Fighting over these resources instead of developing them for the good of all is indeed a tragedy and a scandal.

* Dr. Odomaro Mubangizi is Editor of the Justice, Peace and Environment Bulletin, Dean of Philosophy Department and teaches philosophy and theology at the Institute of Philosophy and Theology in Addis Ababa.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.