Ampleforth OAs

Peace or Pieces? by Ferdinand von Habsburg-Lothringen (E87)

Ferdinand von Habsburg-Lothringen has spent 15 years in Sudan and South Sudan working with the Catholic Church, international NGOs and the United Nations. He is currently serving as Strategic Planning Advisor to the Country Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in South Sudan after 2 years in the Maldives as Advisor to the UN Resident Coordinator on Social Cohesion and Governance.

Many Sudanese had continued to feel deep bitterness and resentment over the past: the millions of dead and maimed, the immeasurable suffering of refugees and internally displaced, deep-rooted poverty and the decades of lost opportunities. A sudden divorce from the North seemed by far the best way to move forward for millions of South Sudanese who voted for separation in a referendum[1]. But this abrupt change has exposed even further just how divided each of these two new dispensations are and how conflicts have run deeper and further into the fabric of societies than previously thought.

On 9th July 2011, South Sudan was declared the world’s newest nation[2], followed rapidly by applications for membership to the African Union, East African Community and numerous other global and regional bodies. The exuberance of South Sudanese was palpable, with optimism for a brighter future and deep joy and pride at having weathered numerous conflicts, famines and marginalisation both domestically and internationally but ultimately maintaining unity of purpose.

The euphoria and optimism have, over the last months, begun to fade somewhat as the continued negotiations between Sudan and South Sudan on oil, borders and a number of other core issues threaten stability domestically and regionally. The global economic crisis has hit both countries hard threatening to undo the legacies of centralised economic control and unsustainable networks of patronage while strong backing of their internal security apparatuses at a politically-sensitive time has given citizens even less sense of security and a growing malaise that the future is no longer as bright. Many have observed that their leaders rarely represent them, or appear to understand them anymore, while others note that corruption has reached unprecedented levels[3].

On the rise, the re-emergence of deep political differences within both countries, and the continued ties of opposition groups and military resistance across the new border have offered a familiar but dangerous road for both nations to interfere and weaken each other – a very divisive, high risk strategy. Pointing towards real or imaginary threats on the border is serving the purpose of rallying flagging political support and increasing zeal in certain quarters for renewed conflict, while deflecting domestic criticism of the economic situation which, certainly for Sudan, has become its biggest concern. Excising the very significant income from oil that was mainly situated in South Sudan from its national budget has left it extremely vulnerable. The Opposition has been quick to notice this and while those more established and often more divided parties in Khartoum are debating their collective strategy, others such as the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N) have been goaded into military action, the result of which has been 2 new and destructive conflicts in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States. Indiscriminate aerial bombardments, heavy ground offensives and denial of humanitarian access to rebel-held areas by the Government have taken their toll on civilians.

South Sudan has recently also seen some of the most violent conflicts of the last decade with what appears to be traditional cattle raiding reaching unprecedented proportions with thousands dead in the last year alone and tens of thousands displaced. On closer analysis, the mode of violence indicates more organised structures than those of a traditional one, calling thousands of youth armed with semi-automatic weapons to gather, with a political/military objective of a mass assault on their neighbours’ economic, political and social structures. The absence of government and its law enforcement agencies as well as growing rift between the traditional leadership and the youth have left a vacuum now filled by men defending their communities and livelihoods. Contempt for ineffective administrations, a deep-rooted anger at being targeted by their neighbours and a legacy of numerous small arms coupled with a militant society have made the Government’s task even harder.

Many observers see the violence in Sudan and South Sudan as linked through transfers of weapons, as well as technical, political and financial support to militias to undermine each other’s fragile states - a legacy of proxy wars that lasted from 1983 to 2005. The speed with which one of the most significant peace agreements in the Horn of Africa in the last decade has unravelled has shocked many observers. Revenues from oil are in plenty, the full support of the international community has appeared constant, political will between the parties to the conflicts could be found – and yet 2012 already appears to be a particularly bad yer for the two nations.

Whilst high-level negotiations continue in Addis Ababa between the two countries, few doubt that local conflicts must stop. Citizens are seeking peace dividends, and a way out of these spiralling conflicts. Their politicians sitting at a distance have become embroiled in the violence, seeking to capitalise on the opportunities arising, the rift between government and people appears to grow ever bigger. Can this be repaired? Here, optimism is quietly expressed, though the challenges appear overwhelming to those caught in the violence.

Where do the domestic solutions lie for the world’s newest country?

Governance – A new, professional, ethnically-diverse administration must re-focus its efforts at the local government level, bringing with it a culture of transparency and accountability. At its heart, the mantra of service to the people must be a daily reminder that to move from the past, its errors must not be repeated. Contributions from citizens must be welcomed not feared, and robust mechanisms institutionalised to encourage dialogue at all levels.

Security – the Government of South Sudan’s visible presence and its application of the rule of law, as well as provision of physical security to its citizens must be part of an ongoing commitment to rebuilding the nation and exerting authority at all levels together with a sense of accountability through a stronger judiciary. A professional, truly national army and police force that are seen to serve their citizens rather than to oppress them will go a long way to allaying fears that the new is more of the old disguised in sheep’s clothing. Forcibly disarming militant communities when borders are porous, armed groups are rampant and policies and laws on arms control are only just being established would appear counter-productive. Rather a visible presence and reassurances of protecting people and property may serve to instil confidence that weapons are no longer necessary.

Economic – ensuring an oil fund for the people of South Sudan, one that is transparently and equitably managed between the States and their peoples, while urgently exploring new bases for diversifying an economy so dependent on its oil[4] would go a long way. Building new opportunities for key economic interest groups such as pastoralists could build greater local resilience and empower communities.

Grassroots – civil society needs to be strengthened to provide a base of opinion to challenge Government, while local and national religious groups can help lead reconciliation and peace processes.

This article does not represent the official opinion or viewpoint of the United Nations. The opinions and any errors are the author’s alone.