The crisis unfolding in South Sudan: It could be a repeat of the Rwanda catastrophe

In 1994 the Clinton administration was blamed for inaction as genocidal killings claimed 800,000 lives in Rwanda. Although violence began when Uganda invaded Rwanda in 1990, killings degenerated along ethnic lines — Hutus versus Tutsis — after Rwanda’s president was assassinated in 1994.

President Trump and the world today face a similar dilemma in Africa. Ogoing massacres in South Sudan, precipitated by political crisis, have adopted ethnic components: Dinkas versus Nuers.

Reported war crimes by government soldiers loyal to President Salva Kiir include wiping out entire villages and “ethnic cleansing.” Aid workers, including Americans, have been raped. Food supplies are blocked even as the UN says five million of the country’s 13 million people face hunger.

By last March, 50,000 people had died; tens of thousands more have since perished. UN human rights official Yasmin Sooka recently said: “The stage is being set for a repeat of what happened in Rwanda and the international community is under an obligation to prevent it.”

How did things go so wrong for South Sudan just six years after independence? The country was part of Sudan. After independence from Britain in 1956, Southerners fought for liberation from the Arab-dominated north, which tried to impose strict Islamic law. Southerners practice Christianity and African religions.

Finally, in 2005, the Bush administration brokered a peace deal. Southerners voted 99% for independence. Guerrilla army leaders Salva Kiir, a Dinka, and Riek Machar, a Nuer, became president and vice president, respectively. The U.S. pumped in billions of aid dollars. More money came from South Sudan’s 300,000 daily barrels of oil production.

Today, South Sudan is unraveling because of: lack of trust between Kiir and Machar; Kiir’s multiple power-grabs; and, meddling by Uganda’s ruler, Gen. Yoweri Museveni, who seeks regional hegemony.

Imposing an international trusteeship has been floated to stop things from spiraling out of control. South Sudanese, after struggling for freedom from Khartoum for 50 years, would likely fight this.

A more viable solution is for Kiir and Machar to agree to an immediate ceasefire; total disarmament except for equal number of bodyguards; demobilization; and a transition period of, say, six years leading to internationally organized elections.

Why could this work, unlike past attempts? Neither Kiir nor Machar would control armies; they would remain main players in South Sudan’s leadership. A UN and African Union army could protect South Sudan from aggressors, including Uganda’s Museveni, while a police force would protect citizens. A disciplined, ethnically-balanced professional army would be trained. The 16,000 UN soldiers now in South Sudan lack clear mandate and mission; they’ve merely watched the atrocities.

During transition Kiir and Machar could rotate the presidency and vice presidency. Other new political parties could be allowed to register, and to field candidates when elections are organized.

After Rwanda’s apocalypse, it would be an ugly stain on the world’s collective conscience to abandon South Sudan.

Allimadi hails from Uganda. He publishes The Black Star News and is an adjunct professor at John Jay College in New York.

Join the Conversation:

facebook^[2]

Tweet^[3]

References

1. ^{^} This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (www.bing.com)
2. ^{^} facebook (www.bing.com)
3. ^{^} Tweet (twitter.com)