Thursday, February 27, 2014

South Sudan: To intervene or not to intervene? That is the question.


Ever since the violence in South Sudan erupted last December, the discussion has moved from why the conflict occurred to whether it is wise for foreign countries to intervene. Already China is working towards ending the violence due to its reliance on oil in South Sudan. China has a large investment in that area and if the conflict continues it will likely prove financially detrimental to China. 

Uganda, for example, intervened very early in the conflict for economic reasons. They believe it was right to have intervened however  "it should have been done under the auspices of IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) or the AU (African Union). Government says we intervened on behalf of a legitimate government that was elected to power" according to Mwambutsya Ndebesa a lecturer of History and Development Studies at Makerere University. 

In his comment below, Bill alluded to the fact that there are likely many factors that have driven conflict in Sudan.  Driving Sudan’s conflict are political, ethnic, tribal and religious friction, income inequality, resource competition and greed. These aliments are not exclusive to Sudan however.  The African continent is host to over a third of all developing countries in the world despite, for many, a break from colonialism some 50 years ago.  Unfortunately, many countries are still stuck at the bottom, struggling to satisfy basic necessities; a condition that promotes more instinct based behavior. 

Additionally, terrain and changing weather patterns accompanied by growing populations and health issues such as HIV are adding increased pressure on already weak governments.  Without the means to restore order by themselves, the Sudanese and South Sudanese governments may soon welcome foreign intervention.

In a recent statement by Susan Rice, National Security Advisor to President Obama, she endorsed mediation by IGAD, “The United States strongly supports the efforts of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediators, Ambassador Seyoum Mesfin and General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, to secure a cessation of hostilities and to resolve the conflict in South Sudan peacefully through talks being held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  This crisis must be ended swiftly through a negotiated settlement in order to prevent the escalation of a dangerous conflict that neither the people of South Sudan, the region or the international community can afford.” 

It is clear that intervention in the form of mediation is the best first step.  No one wants South Sudan to become a failed state, however the U.S. and others who are not physically close to South Sudan, need to stay out of the conflict. The US and other developed nations such as China need to let other African countries and African international bodies deal directly with the warring parties.  Foreign support to mediator countries is the best way for the US and other non-African countries to help.   Through neighbor-to-neighbor mediation and interaction and resisting the urge to take sides, African countries can begin to increase dialogue, exercise cooperation, and build trust.  And that may build relationships that can prevent conflict in the future.










Sunday, January 5, 2014

Violence in South Sudan


The peace was short-lived. Two and a half years after secession from Sudan due to religious opression, South Sudan is experiencing conflict of its own. Violence has broken out after President Salva Kiir accused his Vice President, Riek Machar, of staging a coup. In July, Kiir went on to fire Machar and the rest of his cabinet after hearing Machar's plan to run against Kiir in the 2015 presidential election.

Both Kiir and Machar are of the same political party: Sudan's People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). However, they differ in their ethnic backgrounds, Kiir being a Dinka and Machar being a Nuer. The friction between those two rival tribes has erupted into violence.

The White Army, an ethnic Nuer rebel group, is set on marching towards the town of Bor, a government-controlled city viewed as a strategic one.

Why do some African states continue to be plagued with constant violence and civil war? Additionally, why are coups a primary form of achieving power? It could be due to the great number of tribes/political groups/etc. in African states competing individually for power and too little effort towards coalition building. Because of this competition for power, groups will do anything to stay in power, and other groups will do anything to force them out.

The South Sudan conflict is unfortunate as the country was doing well: peaceful and showing some signs of stability. Hopefully the issue can be resolved without outside help as that may create the best opportunity for sustainable progress.

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/opinions/2013/12/south-sudana-s-salvakiirneedstoputhisblackhatbackon.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2013/04/south-sudan-politics

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0721/South-Sudan-5-key-questions-answered/Why-did-the-Republic-of-South-Sudan-secede-from-the-North

Thursday, December 26, 2013

And we're back!


The demands of being a high school senior have kept me away for the last couple of months. For the next 90 days I will be focusing on Africa. The recent news of Nelson Mandela's passing, violence in South Sudan and the unrest in Mali will provide much content for analysis and discussion.

It's great to be back.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Attack in Damascus



This past Wednesday, an attack involving Syrian rebels and government troops in a 'rebel-ruled' neighborhood in Damascus has left hundreds dead. Much evidence suggesting the use of chemical weapons has sparked an international outrage and questions regarding whether the US will take action. Last year President Obama said Syria's use of chemical weapons would be crossing a line and if they were utilized, Obama would change his stance.

Iran has also spoken out warning against Western intervention. They believe there is proof the Syrian rebels were responsible for the attack.

So far neither the Syrian government nor the rebels have admitted to using chemical weapons. Regardless of who was responsible, the effects of the attack are horrendous.

The questions that linger are these: Will the US intervene? Who was behind the attack?


Warning: the above video is quite graphic.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/08/24/Iran-s-Rowhani-points-to-chemical-weapons-use-in-Syria-.html
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-accuses-rebels-using-chemical-weapons-141457992.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20130824-msf-confirms-hundreds-dead-thousands-injured-syria-suspected-chemical-attack


Friday, August 9, 2013

More babies = more power?



I came across an article about the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's desire for Turkish women to have more children. Turkey's birth rate has declined in recent years and Erdogan is not satisfied, "It's my right as president to say that it's beneficial that women give birth to at least three children". 

Last year, Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babcan said "Population means power. Twenty-seven countries sit there at the table, but when Germany and France decide on something, those with populations of 1.5 million to 2 million like Estonia and Latvia are hardly having any say". 

Being a young woman and having strong opinions regarding women's rights, I don't think he has the right to 'mandate' any sort of birth quota. While Turkey's PM does have the right to say it certainly, doesn't mean he should enforce this idea. "If [President Vladimir] Putin was able to say such a statement in Russia [telling women to have three or more children], why can't I say it in Turkey?" 

As far as regarding having power in the EU, I'm not sure how population affects power there. I can't find a straight answer regarding that but from what I have found I can deduce that population does in fact equal power. Correct me if I'm incorrect. 

This post was a bit different than usual. Just an interesting article that caught my eye. Let me know your thoughts. 


Monday, July 22, 2013

General James Mattis: Middle East Policy



General James Mattis gives a very insightful talk about policies regarding the Middle East. His remarks about Egypt are very interesting (32 minute mark). He makes a comment about Egypt and whether or not the revolution there should be labeled a 'coup'. General Mattis believes the US needs to be careful about passing laws that put us in "legal boxes". He says this prevents us from doing things that are in our own best interest and that prevention is problematic for the next generation. 

I mention this because of the good point Otto made on my last post regarding keeping the American people's best interest in mind. 

Personally I agree. We should have the ability to act in our best interest whether it's involving ourselves in a conflict or not. 

Let me know what you think!



Thursday, July 11, 2013

No support for U.S. in Egypt conflict



President Muhamed Morsy of Egypt was ousted last week due to a revolution or a military coup (depending on how you want to interpret it). He was pushed out of power due to Egypt's weak economy, corruption, and for heading an Islamist government; (Morsy is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood).

The United States is in a tough position. When Mubarek was pushed out of power last year, we were at first supportive of Morsy and the free elections. Since then we have changed our tone because of Morsy's backing by the Muslim Brotherhood. Now that Egypt is in turmoil, we are faced with a decision regarding whether or not to intervene and whether or not to continue providing aid to Egypt. If in fact a military coup was the cause of Morsy's ousting, the U.S. cannot continue providing aid. Decisions must be made and soon because the Egyptians are not happy with our neutral stance.

Regardless of whose side the Egyptians are on, pro-Morsy or anti-Morsy, all of them collectively dislike the U.S. at the moment. Non-Islamist Egyptians are angry because they believe the U.S. has "cozied up" to the Muslim Brotherhood while Islamist Egyptians are accusing the U.S. of being the cause of Morsy's ousting.

An Egyptian aircraft mechanic remarked, "Now the Brotherhood are fighting us in the streets, fighting to take back power, and America is sitting on the fence. We ask for one thing from America: support the people, not the army, not the Brotherhood."

What will the U.S. do? Is there a way to stay politically neutral while still helping the Egyptian people? Whatever the U.S. decides to do, we must keep the best interests of the people in mind.


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2013/07/10/Washington-vilified-on-both-sides-of-Egypt-s-divide.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/world/meast/egypt-whats-next/index.html?hpt=wo_c1