South Sudan with capital Juba is a country in northeastern Africa. Young state has a population over 11 million people with diverse ethnicity of 18 ethnic groups.Among the largest ethnic groups are Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk. Unlike the predominantly Muslim population of Sudan, the South Sudanese follows traditional religions, while a minority is Christians. South Sudan has six neighboring countries and is divided into ten states.
After independence on July 9 2011 country had no internal capacity to build all of the institutions that takes to build a successful state. Following several decades of civil war with Sudan, industry and infrastructure in South Sudan are severely underdeveloped and poverty is widespread. Between 1955 and 2005, Sudan and South Sudan experience conflict and war for all but few years. Relationship between countries is of special importance since South Sudan relies on pipelines, refineries and Port Sudan’s facilities in Red Sea in Sudan.South Sudan has the third largest oil reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa and it is estimated that 75% of all the former Sudan’s oil reserves are in South Sudan. There are still conflicts between two mentioned countries. Beside oil dispute there is also ongoing border dispute in the region of Abyei, over land. South Kordofan and Darfur are still open topics. Oil production in South Sudan and its dependence on oil has an impact on the economic situation.
It is acknowledgeable that South Sudan has some of the worst health indicators in the world. More than half of the population lives below the poverty line. Based on The Fund for Peace and itsFragile states index, country was the most fragile state in the world in 2014. The youngest country in the world has suffered internal conflicts since its independence.Fighting started on 15 December 2013 after President Salva Kiir accused his ex-vice president, Riek Machar of an attempted coup. Conflict spiraled out of control and spread across the country.Machar assumed leadership of “rebellion” and the army split as clashes occurred around the country.Violence began along ethnic lines, but the dynamics are very complicated.The political crisis and the break-up of security forces affected states in South Sudan in different ways. Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile and Central Equatoria (Juba County) have seen the worst of the fighting. In Lakes and Warrap States were and still are thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs). In the other four remaining states there was no fighting and only small numbers of IDPs. It is sad and frustrating that South Sudan, with catastrophic humanitarian crisis and civil war does not even hit the headlines anymore.
Since the fighting started tens of thousands of people have been killed, and more than 1, 5 million are IDPs. According to World Food Program (WPF) 2, 5 million people in country urgently need food. Based on World Health Organization (WHO) life expectancy in the country is only 55 years. There are also a lot of refugees in and outside the country. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that more than 500,000 individuals have crossed the borders to seek refuge in neighboring countries. The number of refugees in the country is 259,232. Amnesty International and other international organizations reported of systematic and widespread human rights violations. There is also no accountability for crimes and atrocities. Children are forcibly recruited on both sides of the conflict. Furthermore, sexual and gender-based violence is constantly reported. The legacy of civil war and chronic underdevelopment impact heavily on the ability of the new state to provide basic services and respond to humanitarian needs, rendering communities vulnerable to the effects of insecurity, displacement, food shortages, outbreaks of disease and seasonal floods.
There are different options or courses of action that should be considered in order to resolve problems in South Sudan. We have seen negotiations and mediation in South Sudan but they do not reflect the diversity of armed groups and interests in the country and region. In 2014 Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) began mediating a political dispute between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) which escalated into an armed conflict between forces loyal to President Kiir and those loyal to Riek Machar. East African sub-regional body began mediating between the government of South Sudan and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-in Opposition (SPLA/M-IO). A cessation of hostilities agreement was signed in January 2014 and also on 9 May, but fighting continued. In June negotiations was broadened to include other stakeholder groups. IGAD leaders further authorized the IGAD region to intervene directly in South Sudan to protect life and restore peace. To date, there is no agreement between the fighting parties. The conflict cannot be resolved by engaging only two of the nearly two-dozen armed groups in the country and ignoring groups that had not yet engaged in fighting. There is a nationwide trend of fragmentation of armed groups.
In order to reach peace in South Sudan African Union (AU) established a Commission of inquiry in March 2014. The commission was given three month mandate to investigate human rights violations and other abuses during the armed conflict. Report that still has not been made public is an assurance of accountability for crimes and atrocities. The body decided not to release the report because it feared that its publication would disrupt peace negotiations.
The UN Security Council in December 2013 approved an increase in the military strength of the UN mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to 12,500 troops and 1323 police personnel. The focus of UNMISS is on protection of civilians, monitoring and investigating human rights, humanitarian assistance and supporting the implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement. After failed talks in March this year the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution to impose sanctions on any party that disrupts efforts to restore peace in South Sudan.
Civil war and conflicts have disrupted agriculture and food production. More than seven million people are put at risk of hunger and disease. Humanitarian organizations do not have access to all people in need. There were even reports of obstructing UN mission UNMISS in the country and that puts even greater risk to stability and peace. No free access to lands and the plant corps because of fear of violence has a negative impact on every aspect of the country.
What needs to be done in South Sudan? There is an urgent need for humanitarian assistance and adequate funding. Agreements which were signed in January and in May must be respected by both parties – Government of South Sudan and opposition – SPLM/A-IO. All fighting groups must be considered. Violence against civilians must stop. Crisis Group recommends national dialog, a new constitution, credible elections, addressing the root causes and redefining relations between the state and its citizens. Despite the wealth of natural resources, especially oil, water, gold, silver, iron ore and copper South Sudan remain one of the poorest countries in the world. Problems related to livelihoods, economic development, lack of basic services and extremely weak infrastructure need to be addressed. Due to lack of maintenance, qualified staff, equipment, medicine, medical centers and schools barley function. A new approach is required from UN Security Council. An arms embargo should be posed. There should be an examination of sources that fund the war and actions that will enable leaders from using oil revenues to fund further conflicts. Engagement with the wider community is needed. China is the largest investor and buyer of South Sudan’s oil, and some of the 700 troops of its troops are in the UN peacekeeping force. USA and Washington played a key role in winning independence from Khartoum in 2011. USA and China should persuade Uganda and Sudan to de-escalate the conflicts and pressure their South Sudanese allies to work toward agreements that will enable further development and peace.Cross-border activities should be reduced. So far two agreements to end hostilities have been signed, but the fighting still continues. The one scheduled in March did not come to a light but we hope negotiations will bring more results in the future. Establishment of the hybrid court system with international assistance and independent investigations is needed. There can be no reconciliation without accountability.
Africa becomes area of global competition
The widespread view of Africa as one huge problem point on the planet’s body characterized by pandemics, hunger, poverty and wars – the so-called “Afropessimism” – has now been replaced with an approach which was launched by global powers as they compete for economic and political presence on the continent. After a lull, Russia has joined the race as well.
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, “African states are steadily gaining political and economic weight, asserting themselves as major pillars of the global multi-polar system and enjoying ever more say in making decisions on the most critical issues of the regional and global agenda.” Significantly, Africa accounts for about one third of the votes in the UN.
After Russia made an impressive “comeback” in the Middle East, Moscow became attractive for states seeking alternatives to the old political and economic ties. The first African country to do that was the war-torn Central African Republic, and the next to follow was Sudan, a country facing a similar challenge. Then more countries did the same. At present, more than 30 African countries have reached agreements with Russia which envisage the development of geo-resources, the supply of produce of the military-industrial complex, and the training of army personnel and law enforcement forces. Among the most significant contractors are Algeria, Egypt, Angola, Uganda and Nigeria.
The consistent and rarely publicized efforts of the Russian diplomacy resulted in the first Russia-Africa summit, which was held in Sochi on October 23-24. The day earlier, the Russian-African Economic Forum opened in Sochi too. Of the 62 African legal entities officially recognized by the UN, the Russian forum was attended by heads of state of 43 countries while another 11 participated at minister and ambassador level. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi represented both Egypt and the African Union.
During the Sochi forum, Russia and African countries signed more than 500 agreements worth about 800 billion rubles. Considering the low solvency of African partners, the participants came to agreement to set up a $ 5 billion trade support fund. The success of the forum prompted the decision to hold it regularly, every two years.
China seems to be Russia’s top economic competitor on the Black Continent. Beijing offers African countries big but easy loans and builds social infrastructure facilities on a gratuitous basis. China attaches great importance to “soft power” by promoting cultural and scientific contacts in an attempt to form loyal national elites. Every year thousands of Africans are granted scholarships to study at Chinese universities. As a result, ten years ago, China snatched from the United States its leadership as Africa’s trade and economic partner thereby becoming one of the major investors and donors to African countries.
Since the beginning of the century, the China-Africa Cooperation Forum has been held regularly, with nearly four dozen African countries joining the One Belt One Road mega-project.
And finally, (as investments have to be protected) in 2017, a Chinese military base appeared in Djibouti, the first beyond the bounds of the PRC.
Simultaneously, Africa’s growing dependence on Chinese financing may become one of Russia’s competitive advantages as the continent starts to look for alternative partners.
The United States has unintentionally been contributing to this, by criticizing the policies of Moscow and Beijing in Africa. Washington has become seriously concerned with measures to repulse the “expansion” of China and Russia. In December 2018, the Trump administration presented a new strategy for Africa, or in fact, a plan to counteract the activity of Russia and China on the continent. There have been numerous official statements to this effect. “These countries are expanding their financial and political influence to Africa by applying “aggressive” practices and acting for their own benefit, which poses a threat to US national security,” – the then adviser to the American president, John Bolton, said, as he unveiled the program. It turns out that the United States is acting in Africa to the detriment of its own interests?
China bore the brunt of criticism. Bolton, as usual, lashed at Beijing for many things, but above all, for using loans to enslave the Black Continent. Last summer, during the US-Africa business summit in Maputo, the United States launched the Prosperous Africa Economic Program. The Program’s ultimate goal is the same – to contain the growing influence of Russia and China by expanding trade with countries of the continent, by promoting American technology and by boosting assistance in the anti-terrorism campaign. According to Bolton, the new approaches will allow African countries “to remain independent in reality, not in theory”. But for the rhetoric, there is little new in the American approach.
Europe boasts traditionally strong positions on the African continent. After they gained independence, the authorities in many former French colonies’ capitals installed monuments to Charles de Gaulle. African countries are interested in cooperating with the European Union in three interrelated areas: peacekeeping, which is so critical for the Black Continent, receiving economic and humanitarian aid, and assistance in the anti-epidemic effort.
In turn, the EU is more set on measures to thwart illegal migration from the African continent, which is its top priority for now. Simultaneously, the EU is trying to be realistic about the economic and political potential of African partners. As far back as in April 2000, Cairo hosted the first EU-Africa summit, attended by heads of state and government. Seven years later, the Strategic Partnership Agreement for Trade and Democracy was signed in Lisbon, designed to boost economic and political ties and calling for “genuine cooperation” and partner equality.
Nevertheless, the number of Europeans present on the continent has been dwindling. Even the French who until recently affected the political situation in Francophone Africa have become fewer in number. According to the authoritative French weekly Le Point, Paris “is losing ground here,” and should thus “come to its senses”, as its influence and economic weight on the continent are steadily declining.
Incidentally, Ankara embarked on cooperation with the continent years ago. The first summit on Turkey’s cooperation with African countries (mainly Muslim) was held in 2008. This year the third summit took place. Since 2010, the government has been following the so-called “African Strategy.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry has proudly reported on its website that the two parties have been demonstrating mutual interest in bilateral ties, which becomes clear from the following figures: while in 2009 there were only 12 Turkish representative missions on the Black Continent, today their number totals 39. And African countries have increased the number of their diplomatic missions in Ankara threefold – from 10 to 33 – over the same period.
Speaking of the prospects for cooperation between Russia and Africa, we can say first of all that Russia is one of the top ten exporters of food products to African markets. Secondly, Moscow is one of the major suppliers of military produce to the continent – the value of military contracts in 2019 is expected to exceed $ 4 billion. Thirdly, local consumers are quite satisfied with the price-quality ratio of many Russian-made products. And the contractors can pay for these goods: Africa accounts for up to one third of the developed mineral reserves, and given that surveys were not always carried out at the appropriate level and did not cover all resources-rich areas, there are more. So, the fourth area of Russia-Africa cooperation is geological prospecting work.
Addressing the Sochi forum, President Putin made it clear to African guests that Russia had no intention to repeat the mistakes of the USSR, which was determined to multiply the number of political pseudo-allies at the expense of economic feasibility. The United States and the EU have also reiterated the mutually beneficial nature of trade and economic relations. Moreover, all actors regularly write off Africa’s debts, and Moscow is no exception.
And finally, it is necessary to point out that Western countries invariably make this cooperation conditional on the “right”, from their point of view, foreign and domestic policies of their contractors. Russia has a clear edge here as it does not seek to force its opinion on anyone, be it Europe or the African continent.
From our partner International Affairs
Moscow’s Institute for African Studies Marks its 60th Year
The Institute for African Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences was founded 60 years ago, precisely in 1959. Since then it has undergone various changes and carried out huge scientific research on Africa.
Professor Dmitri Bondarenko, the deputy director, discusses some aspects of its most current achievements, challenges and the future. Here are excerpts from the interview conducted by Kester Kenn Klomegah:
Institute for African Studies marks its 60th year. Can we look at its performance, at least, during the past five years? What are the landmarked activities during the past half a decade?
The 60th anniversary is a good reason for looking both back at the results to date and ahead. If I could speak further about the achievements of the most recent years, I would mention first and formost, we try our best to organize fieldwork in Africa, although we are limited in our possibilities rather rigidly.
The landmark activities during the last five years in the academic sphere are as follows: the 13th and 14th conferences of Africanists (2014, 2017) – this is the Institute’s “brand conference”. Every time, it brings together about 500 participants from all over the world, including many African countries. The next, 15th, conference will take place in May 2020; 48 panels with about 10 presentations in each are included into its preliminary program.
In the last five years, several important conferences were organized together with foreign partners – from Slovenia, Portugal and, what is especially important, from Tanzania. The conference took place in Dar es Salaam in March 2019 and brought together scholars from 13 states. The next conference in Tanzania is scheduled for November 2020.
Several dozen books have been published in the last five years, among probably the most important of which are: Federalism in Africa: Problems and Prospects (in Russian and English), edited by Igho O. Natufe and Khristina M. Turyinskaya (2015), Tropical Africa: Evolution of Political Leadership (in Russian) by Tatiana S. Denisova (2016), Islam, Global Governance and the New World Order (in Russian) by Leonid L. Fituni and Irina O. Abramova (2018).
Assess the importance of its research, in form of consultancy, for government institutions and private both in Russia and Africa?
This importance is definitely growing, especially in the most recent years. State institutions and business companies seek the Institute’s consultancy services more and more often nowadays. In particular, the Institute played an important role in the preparation of the Russia-Africa summit in October 2019.
As we are a research institution, my firm belief is that just academic research should be our primary task. The situation has been changing during the last few years. Today the importance of Africa for Russia in different respects, including political and economic, is recognized by the state, and the Russian Foreign Ministry and other state institutions dealing with the Russian-African relations in various spheres, not just purely political, ask us for our expert advice on different points quite often.
What are the current challenges and hindrances to research Africa these years? Do you have any suggestions here on how to improvement the situation?
The situation now is much better for African studies than for a long time before. In particular, today there are much more opportunities for doing fieldwork in Africa. Russian Africanists and their work are becoming better known in the global Africanist community. Quite a lot of junior researchers join the academy nowadays. In my assessment, African studies in Russia are on the right road.
The challenges our African Studies are facing now are the same as the whole Russian Academy are facing, and they are mainly related to the bureaucratic pressure on research institutions.
How about academic cooperation with similar institutions inside Africa? Do you exchange researchers and share reports with African colleagues?
At the moment, the Institute has Agreements on Cooperation or Memorandums of Understanding with 18 universities and research institutes from 12 African states and currently there are negotiations with two more institutions from one more country.
As noted above, many African scholars come to our conferences, and we had and will have jointly organized conferences with particularly Tanzanian partners. Our partners help organize the Institute researchers’ fieldwork in their countries the outcome of which, besides other points, are joint publications (for example, with our colleagues from Tanzania and Zambia).
It is important to say that African colleagues regularly publish their articles in “The Journal of the Institute for African Studies”. We also have book exchange programs with some of our African partners. However, we do not have well-established exchange of researchers with our African partners, especially because of financial difficulties from both sides.
Besides, I must say that not all African partners, even those with whom we have official Memorandums of Understanding or Agreements on Cooperation, are really active in supporting ties with us, some of them do not initiate any joint projects and remain passive when we propose something. Nevertheless, we do have good and diversified ties with many African partners.
And the future vision for the IAS? How would you like the IAS transform, or say, diversify its activities especially now the Kremlin prioritizes Africa?
As I see it, the Institute’s forseeable future will be based on two main developments. On the one hand, it will more and more become a “think tank” for the state and business, and most probably, this development will dominate.
On the other hand, I hope the Institute will remain as a research institution where fundamental studies into different aspects of African and African diaspora’s past and present are done. The Institute for African Studies has the potential and capacity for combining both trends at a high level and far into the future.
As it becomes clearer from the discussion, I see the prospects for the Institute’s further development, in attracting more young researchers with their energy and new visions and approaches, in extending fieldwork in Africa, and in broadening international cooperation with Africanists worldwide.
We Should Exempt Africa from the Russia–UK Geopolitical Confrontation
Today neither Russia nor the United Kingdom can claim a leadership role in Africa. London reached the peak of its influence here between World War I and World War II, when the British Empire had a larger part of the continent under its direct control. Moscow’s heyday in Africa goes back to the 1960s – 1970s, with the Soviet Union having played the role of the main overseas supporter of various national liberation movements. The odds are that in the XXI Century African countries’ destinies will depend more on the logic of the emerging US – China global competition than on any decisions taken in the Kremlin or at Downing Street, 10.
Moreover, today both Russia and the UK have limited economic, political and strategic interests in Africa, compared to some other parts of the world — e.g. Europe or the Middle East. Arguably, this is the main reason why Africa does not look as toxic for Russia–UK relations as some other regions do. However, we cannot rule out potential clashes between the two powers in various present or future crises and conflicts in Africa. We should avoid underestimating the likely benefits of Russia–UK cooperation, even if it remains quite limited.
Many current trends suggest the role of Africa in the international system will continue to grow over time — both in terms of global challenges that the continent is likely to generate and in terms of global opportunities that it is going to offer. If everybody’s attention seems to be focused on the Middle East today, tomorrow it might well shift to Africa. Russian and UK stakes on the continent are likely to grow, while the price of an uncontrolled confrontation is expected to increase.
Moscow and London have to start working on how to contain risks and cut costs of this confrontation. Ideally — on how to exempt Africa from their geopolitical confrontation altogether. The first important step might be to try to agree on an appropriate ‘code of conduct’ on the continent, which could be applied not only to Russia and the United Kingdom, but also to external players in general. Africa may well be an ideal place to test new ideas about such controversial notions as responsibility to protect, failed state, hybrid war or regime change. London and Moscow are more likely to reach an agreement on many African crises than on more sensitive matters like Ukraine or Syria. At the same time, with an understanding on ‘rules of engagement’ in Africa in hand, it would be easier to approach highly divisive cases in Europe or in the Middle East.
Another area for potential Russia–UK collaboration or, at least, for coordination in Africa could be the area of ‘African commons’. The continent is in desperate need of essential public goods, the demand for them is huge and our two nations could do better avoiding old-fashioned competition and increasing the efficiency of their respective assistance projects in Africa. Take, for instance, the domain of general and higher education and human capital development in Africa, where both the UK and Russia have considerable experience and overlapping comparative advantages. Another area for potential cooperation is public health, which will require substantial investment, as well as personnel training and emergency management. Joint projects in infrastructure development, including private-public partnerships, constitute yet another opportunity.
In the security domain, Russia and the United Kingdom could explore options for more intense interaction in fighting international terrorism coming from Africa or targeting African countries. At the same time, Moscow and London could consider enhancing their respective roles in the UN led peacekeeping operations in Africa and demonstrating more appetite for consorted votes within the UN Security Council. They can work together in fighting piracy in the dangerous waters of the Gulf of Guinea, and so on.
It is evident that any Russia–UK interaction in Africa or about Africa cannot and will not be completely separated from the rest of their bilateral relations. If we fail to settle the core problems dividing Moscow and London today, this divisive agenda will continue to limit opportunities for cooperation in Africa as well. However, the Africa of today and especially the Africa of tomorrow will be too important for the world at large to approach it only as an extension of the ongoing Russia–UK confrontation. It is one of the most apparent cases, in which an exemption would not be a manifestation of weakness or cynicism, but rather a demonstration of political wisdom and a strategic foresight.
From our partner RIAC
Latin America and Caribbean on the Brink of Massive Solar Power Growth
Latin America and the Caribbean could grow their installed solar capacity by a factor of 40 by 2050, a new...
The geopolitical substance of the fall of the Berlin Wall
Currently the material break, rather than the real fall, of the Berlin Wall is at the core of many strategic...
Hilton Named Official Hotel Partner of the Chicago Theatre
Hilton and The Madison Square Garden Company (NYSE: MSG) are pleased to announce that Hilton has been named the official...
Another Sign of Turkey Turning Away from U.S.
On November 6th, Ibrahim Karagül, who is an extremely influential Turkish media baron and newspaper columnist, and is considered to...
ADB Project to Promote Rural Entrepreneurship in Nepal
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has approved a $50 million loan for a project that will improve the livelihoods and...
Climate change: Scientists warn over impact on food security and oceans
UN climate scientists presented MEPs with new evidence on how climate change is affecting food production and oceans. The Intergovernmental...
Cybersecurity: A Crucial Element of Socio-economic Stability and Prosperity
Cybersecurity has become a key safeguard to future socio-economic prosperity and stability as industries are transitioning towards data- and technology-driven...
Intelligence2 days ago
Psychological programming and political organization
Middle East3 days ago
Americans return to Syria for oil
Middle East3 days ago
US-Iran confrontation amid Lebanon, Iraq protests
Defense3 days ago
Strategic Instability in the Era of Information and Communication Technologies: Crisis or the New Norm?
International Law2 days ago
Validity of Reservations of Bangladesh against Article 2 of CEDAW
Reports3 days ago
Health spending set to outpace GDP growth to 2030
Energy News3 days ago
UNIDO and Morocco’s MASEN to strengthen cooperation to deploy renewable energy technologies
African Renaissance3 days ago