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.
