SOUTH SUDAN - A COUNTRY BEING DESTROYED BY ITS SCHEMING LEADERS BEFORE IT CAN BE BUILT INTO A NATION?

What dream or vision do Kiir and Machar have for the people of South Sudan?

There really is too much madness going on in the world, notwithstanding the fact that there are lots of good things going on as well. Of course, while it is good for ones sanity to be mindful that it is not only bad things which are happening, it really is the case that the 'good things' are fine and do not need the attention of the world, whereas the bad ones, the wars, conflicts, famine, corruption and strife, which appear to resist all attempts to improve them, or to do so as speedily as the particular situation seems to demand.

Take the case of that newly created nation, South Sudan. This country was carved out of Sudan, a country inhabited by people of Arab African and African African, if you will, origins, and comprising a number of different tribes, or ethnic groups.  Sudan is a country which has experienced decades of instability, including inter-tribal and inter-regional conflicts, including the war with the former SPLA - Sudan People's Liberation Army - guerrilla movement of the late John Garang, who died in 2005. As tended to be the case with guerrila movements, the SPLA had internal problems, which resulted in a breakaway movement.

Sudan has also had, in the past, more than its fair share of military coups, which only added to the longstandinging instability issues affecting the country, instead of improving its chances of having peace.

 For the people of South Sudan, which is still beset by internecine violence between the African Sudanese, their new dawn or opportunity to shine began with the international community having brokered the setting up of a separate independent state in the southern region of the country, and calling it South Sudan. Now, it might have been that the rationale behind this bold and, at least, at the time, apparently logical step, was to try to bring the enmity between Arab Sudanese and African Sudanese to an end, by giving the southern African tribes their own country. 

Not so, it is now transpiring, as the leaders of the two dominant tribes - Salva Kiir (of the Dinka people) and Reik Machar (of the Nuer people) - set about restarting the second internecine conflict which they have had since the birth of South Sudan in  2011, when they voted to secede from the rest of Sudan.

And so we have a situation where, as tends to too often be the case, tribal or ethnic affiliations, exploited by the respective tribal leaders, have become a formidable obstacle to the attainment of peaceful coexistence between different people and precludes stability and security prevailing on them.

The people of South Sudan had probably expected that, with the secession of their owe piece of the former intact country, they would have been able to live in peace, plant and harvest their crops and become self-reliant, and even rich, but their leaders are not going to make peace and stability comes between them and power and riches. And so, the war continues, as does the dying and suffering, with no peace at all, as Ray Charles bemoaned.

Can South Sudan realises it full potential, starting as a new nation; albeit, not free of the perversity of the human conditon?

It is difficult to see how this madness, which is so typical of some African countries, will end. Is it going to have to be with the death either or both Salva Kiir and Reik Machar? Or will one or the other do what is probably most unlikely, walk away from the government and the competition for absolute power?  Or, what is probably more likely, they will continue to sacrifice the lives, health, safety and prosperity of the South Sudanese, for their own self-interests?

Clearly, further division of South Sudan, probably on ethnic or tribal lines, into two separate countries, would not be a very desirable solution, since the essence of a reputable country is that people of different ethnic groups, religions and cultures should be able live peacefully within it, with their first loyalty being to their country. 

A nation with 'warring tribes or ethnic groups' does not merit the description of being a nation, although it might merit being called 'a country.' 

It seems to me that probably the biggest misadventure in this project to set up South Sudan, was the failure to help their government to form a professional army, which should have been the only de jure and de facto armed force in the country.


In the meantime, consideration could be given to exploring the option of the South Sudanese having another general election to decide who and which parties should form their government; even at the risk of some renegade factions returning to the bush to restart a guerrilla war, This, of course, has always been a big part of the problem for guerrilla armies taking power; they are oftentimes hopeless at and/or are unwilling to make the necessary transition from war and the law of the gun, to civilian life and civility.  We have seen an example of this with Robert Mugabe, who thinks that the ZANU-PF revolution and Zimbabwe are his personal property to do with them whatever he will.

Can Kiir and Machar avoid doing a Robert Mugabe?

South Sudan as a custom built haven of peace and prosperity?