The high-risk gamble of sending more British troops to South Sudan

Britain’s decision to send additional troops to South Sudan^[1], announced on Thursday, looks like a high-risk gamble in the absence of a credible peace process for ending a three-year-old civil war that has killed thousands and displaced about 1.7 million people.

The decision follows a weekend deal between the UN and the Juba government, under strong pressure from the US, for a 4,000-strong “regional protection force” to improve security around the capital, scene of lethal violence and gang-rapes in July that UN peacekeepers woefully failed to halt^[2].

But officials close to South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, have questioned the deal amid suggestions he resents western interference and the presence since 2011 of a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force^[3]. Thus the fear is the 400 British troops already deployed or soon to arrive will be sucked into an unpredictable political and military morass.

The government spokesman Michael Makuei said key issues regarding the protection force were unresolved. “We need to agree on armament, on deployment, on the timeframe … If we don’t agree, nobody will enter South Sudan. Anybody who enters without our consent is an invader^[4],” he said.

Salva Kiir, South Sudan’s president, with Samantha Power and members of a UN security council delegation in Juba. Photograph: Justin Lynch/AP

Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, who led a security council delegation to Juba at the weekend, reportedly exchanged sharp words with Kiir over the security situation. During the July fighting, several senior US diplomats narrowly escaped death after their convoy was shot at^[5] by Kiir’s presidential guard.

“We’re going to want to see a significant acceleration in operational discussions about the deployment of the force,” Power said. “There are very conflicting signals because there are some who, if they had a choice, would expel UNMISS [the UN peacekeepers] tomorrow,” Power said.

Having played a lead role in facilitating South Sudan’s independence and providing billions in aid, the US and Britain have responsibility for preventing a descent into chaos. But the bitter conflict pitting Kiir and his Dinka tribal base against his former vice-president, Riek Machar, and his Nuer allies is far from over.

Machar fled to Khartoum following the July clashes, while his rebel SPLA-IO forces are concentrated in the Equatoria and Upper Nile regions. Ministers have been talking of new military offensives to “eliminate” the rebels^[6], who are supported by the Sudan government of Omar Bashir.

Kiir’s backers also suspect the UN and Ethiopia, a US ally, of favouring Machar. For this reason, proposals backed by the regional power bloc, IGAD, that Ethiopian troops join the Juba protection force could prove counterproductive. South Sudan^[7] has recently cosied up to Eritrea, Ethiopia’s foe, which is viewed as a rogue state in the west.

Displaced people walk next to a razor wire fence at the UN compound in Juba. Photograph: Jason Patinkin/AP

The proposed new force would protect the UN mission, western embassies and aid workers, up to a point, but may do nothing to help South Sudanese victims of the war. Their plight is desperate. Médecins Sans Frontières warned last month that tens of thousands lacked access to basic healthcare.

Critics say a long-term international strategy for South Sudan is lacking^[8] and that by concentrating attention on force protection, the western powers risk neglecting the more important peace process and the country’s pressing humanitarian needs.

The claim by Michael Fallon, the British defence secretary, that sending reinforcements would help to curb “the instability that leads to mass migration and terrorism” is questionable, too, given that there is no Islamist element to the conflict and most displaced South Sudanese just want to go home.

More likely, Britain is responding to American pressure while trying to maintain the fiction of global reach.

References

1. ^{^} decision to send additional troops to South Sudan (www.theguardian.com)
2. ^{^} UN peacekeepers woefully failed to halt (www.theguardian.com)
3. ^{^} the presence since 2011 of a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force (www.un.org)
4. ^{^} Anybody who enters without our consent is an invader (www.reuters.com)
5. ^{^} narrowly escaped death after their convoy was shot at (foreignpolicy.com)
6. ^{^} have been talking of new military offensives to “eliminate” the rebels (tamazuj.atavist.com)
7. ^{^} South Sudan (www.theguardian.com)
8. ^{^} say a long-term international strategy for South Sudan is lacking (radiotamazuj.org)