Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:04:59 +0200
Analysis: Should Uganda withdraw from South Sudan?
HIGHLIGHTS
* Ugandan troops helped stop rebels capturing Juba
* Ugandan presence could weaken IGAD
* Tensions among S Sudan neighbours
KAMPALA, 30 June 2014 (IRIN) - As South Sudan's peace process stalls,
questions are being raised about Uganda's military involvement, with some
analysts saying it is impeding regional efforts to broker a peace deal.
Although the 23 January Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed by both
principals in the conflict, South Sudan President Salva Kiir and opposition
leader Riek Machar, called for the phased withdrawal of all foreign troops
in South Sudan, the Ugandan People's Defence Force (UPDF) has yet to do so.
"We continue to support the implementation of the 23 January Cessation of
Hostilities agreement, which called for the withdrawal of all outside forces
from South Sudan," Erin Rattazzi, acting spokesperson of the US Department
of State's African Bureau, told IRIN.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has hinted that Uganda would withdraw
troops once the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the
regional body mediating between the warring parties, of which Uganda is a
member, deploys its Protection and Deterrent Force. But it is unclear when
the force will become operational.
Securing Juba
In December, Museveni sent in military personnel and aircraft to stop what
it later <http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article51085> called a
possible genocide from happening in South Sudan. Parliament
<http://www.irinnews.org/report/99494/doubts-over-uganda-s-military-interven
tion-in-south-sudan> retroactively authorized the mission, which was
originally intended to evacuate thousands of Ugandan businessmen living in
South Sudan, and protect key government interests, such as the airport and
State House.
However, the role of the army changed to one of preventing a massacre from
happening in Juba.
Museveni averted "colossal loss of lives and property" in the capital and
prevented the South Sudanese government from retaliating to the advance of
the White Army, made up of predominantly Nuer youth militia by mobilizing
their own "allied ethnic groups to wreak havoc"
<http://suddinstitute.org/assets/Publications/Ugandas-InvolvementAwolich.pdf
> according to Abraman Awolich, a founder of the Juba-based Sudd Institute.
"Given what unfolded after the so-called White Army, in their tens of
thousands, took control of Bor, had they managed to reach Juba, genocide
would have occurred because they had the intent to kill, loot and destroy
both public and private property," Awolich added.
It is unclear how much control Machar has over the White Army, and to what
extent they would respect a ceasefire order.
"The breakdown of security and the rule of law during the post-CPA
[Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed between Khartoum and South Sudan in
2005] era, especially in rural areas, has necessitated continued
militarization of youth and the use of revenge to provide a sense of
justice, including compensation for the loss of lives and property," noted a
<http://file.prio.no/Publication_files/Prio/Breidlid%20and%20Arensen%20%2820
14%29%20-%20Anyone%20who%20can%20carry%20a%20gun%20can%20go,%20PRIO%20Paper.
pdf> report on the role of the White Army released in June by the Peace
Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).
"While they cooperate militarily against the government in the current
conflict, they have fought in parallel and under different command
structures," said the authors of the report.
While agreeing that Museveni
<http://http:/www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/tragedy-averted-ugan
da-involvem-201421516624107495.html> "averted a disaster" and potential
genocide in the capital, Panther Alier, a former "Lost Boy" who returned to
do development work in the newly independent Republic of South Sudan
believes that their help is no longer as needed. (The Lost Boys were
orphaned children who trekked hundreds of kilometers to flee Sudan's
1986-2005 civil war).
"Their presence at the moment is only to help psychologically," he told
IRIN. "This is only two battalions and their role in a protracted war would
only be minimal."
But, he noted, Ugandan troops "have done more good than harm."
Uganda's "one-sided" role
Some worry that Kampala is now contributing to the continued stalemate.
Akshaya Humar, Sudan and South Sudan policy analyst at the Enough Project,
said Uganda's military actions have been "deeply politicized", with the
South Sudan government claiming that it was necessary to protect Juba, and
the opposition using the intervention to delay implementation of the
cessation of hostilities agreement.
"Uganda's continuing presence in the country undoubtedly affects the balance
of power of the conflict," she told IRIN. "For peace talks to yield a
durable and holistic solution, a much more inclusive approach must be
conceptualized. The withdrawal of Ugandan fighters and arrival other IGAD
forces could serve as a significant point of leverage to ensure that these
broad-based conversations are initiated."
"Any presence of foreign troops in South Sudan has to be under the auspices
of the regional bloc or the United Nations and the troops must come from
countries perceived [to be] or that are actually neutral," Nicholas Opiyo, a
political analyst in Uganda, told IRIN.
"Uganda's role in the conflict has been one-sided - not as referees but as
fighters on the side of the Kiir forces. They are therefore part of the
problem and cannot be part of the solution," he said.
South Sudanese church groups have also argued that Uganda's military role is
problematic.
"Outside help is necessary, but should not be allowed to set local agenda
for the process of peace and reconciliation," Reverend Bernard Suwa,
secretary-general of the Committee for National Healing, Peace and
Reconciliation (CNHPR), told IRIN. "As you may be aware, war has since
become an enterprise and we should not allow external forces to manipulate
the process of reconciliation to their own selfish gain."
Unfair criticism?
The South Sudanese ambassador to Uganda, Samuel Luate Lominsuk, however,
disagreed strongly. "The call for Uganda to withdraw its troops from South
Sudan is irrelevant. The troops are there to provide peace and security. The
rebel delegation wants Ugandan troops out so that they can walk to the
capital Juba to destabilize our country," he said.
"Uganda will only pull out its troops after the deployment of IGAD regional
Protection and Deterrent Force to fill the gap on the ground. If they leave
without the IGAD force on the ground, this will create a vacuum to reverse
the current peace and stability," he added.
Ugandan President Museveni appeared to echo the sentiment. "We have no
problem [withdrawing]. We don't have any more to do there. We have achieved
the purpose for which we deployed there, keeping peace and reconciling the
two [Kiir and Machar]," he said. "We went there to stop fighting. We didn't
want South Sudan to collapse. Our brothers have a chance now to rebuild
their country."
But with
<http://https:/docs.google.com/file/d/0B5FAwdVtt-gCRElfc2UtNjBkcUx4MndPTl9XQ
WN4ckRMdGZF/edit> peace talks adjourned for "consultations" following the
boycott of the talks by the opposition on 10 June, it appears unlikely that
Uganda will withdraw soon.
Regional tensions
Stephen Oola, a transitional justice and governance analyst at Makerere
University's Refugee Law Project, told IRIN that "peace in South Sudan is in
the best interest of Uganda," but Uganda's military involvement would be
unlikely to achieve that purpose.
"If peace-talks fail, and worse, if it fails because of Uganda's action as a
stumbling block, then history will judge us hastily and the consequences
might be dire. Not only would IGAD as an institution for peaceful resolution
of conflict amongst member states weaken, but it will be clear that Uganda
is indeed an occupying force," he said.
For some observers, self-interest also motivated Uganda's military
involvement.
"Yoweri Museveni assiduously cultivated close personal ties with South
Sudanese President, Salva Kiir. The scenario most feared by Uganda is an
outright victory by the opposition forces," said Berouk Mesfin, a senior
researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Africa. "This would
lead to Kiir's removal from power, which would be a strategic setback to
Uganda and erode its capacity to influence future developments in South
Sudan."
It has led to increasing tensions among South Sudan's other neighbours. "The
conflict is already taking a regional dynamic," said Opiyo. "The only
difference is that these foreign countries have not been actively fighting
against each other. The tensions, however, are clear."
"Regionalization of this crisis would be very concerning. We are working
closely with partners in the region, and especially with IGAD, to help
facilitate a peaceful resolution to this conflict," said Rattazi. "Their
role has been critical in bring the parties to the table. We would oppose
any effort by outside actors to expand or escalate the conflict."
So-aps/cb
<http://www.irinnews.org/Photo/Details/201403191011060768/Ugandan-president-
Yoweri-Museveni-R-and-South-Sudan-president-Salva-Kiir-Mayardit-L>
http://www.irinnews.org/photo/Download.aspx?Source=Report&Year=2014&ImageID=
201403191011060768&Width=490
Photo: UN Photo <http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/>
Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni (R) and South Sudan president Salva Kiir
Mayardit (L)
(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)