Question:
The Ethiopian Foreign Minister, Tedros Adhanom, announced that the negotiating delegations from the Government of South Sudan and those loyal to Riek Machar would arrive in Addis Ababa today, January 1, 2014, for peace talks. He added, "I am concerned that the continuation of fighting in Bor might obstruct the start of these talks." The fighting there alternates between retreats and advances, with one side controlling it at one time and the other at another... Since December 15, 2013, South Sudan has witnessed violent battles that are feared to turn into a civil war, which began after Salva Kiir accused his deputy, Machar, of attempting a coup against him...
The question is: What lies behind all of this? Does it have a connection to the colonial competition between America and Europe over the region? Or is it a local tribal rivalry?
Answer:
To answer this, we must review the local reality and its attachments, then the international positions and their appendages:
It is well known to everyone that America is the one that supervised the implementation of the secession of South Sudan and the establishment of a state therein. This occurred after it created a secessionist movement called the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) in 1983, led by its agent John Garang, to contain all rebels and their movements into one single movement. This is from one side. From another side, America brought Omar al-Bashir and his clique to power in 1989 to consolidate its influence in the country and subsequently implement the idea of separating the South. This is exactly what happened, and Sudan—both North and South—became a fixed base for American influence. Nevertheless, Europe, particularly the British, due to their previous influence in Sudan along with the agents they possess there, continued to try to intervene whenever possible to restore their influence to Sudan, or at least to share even a small portion of influence there with America.
It is also well known that Britain pioneered the idea of secession before America, playing on the chord of secession in Sudan since 1955. Later, when America established Garang's movement in 1983, Britain tried to have its men within this movement. At that time, Riek Machar was in Britain studying industrial engineering and strategic planning. He returned to Sudan to join this movement since its inception. A conflict and fighting broke out between him and its leader at the time, John Garang, leading him to split from the movement in 1991. John Garang used to accuse Riek Machar of being an agent for the British and claimed that Machar's wife, Emma McCune, who was English and worked under the cover of a British relief organization, was an employee of British intelligence. Garang called the war that took place between him and Machar "Emma's War"; she was killed in 1993 in Nairobi in a traffic accident. Machar tried to pave his own path toward secession away from Garang’s movement by forming a separate secessionist movement, particularly in 1997 when he began talks with Omar al-Bashir as an independent secessionist party. However, he did not succeed in this. Instead, the SPLM led by Garang remained the prominent and influential force. Therefore, Machar, prompted by the British, tried to return to it. Due to the weight of his "Nuer" tribe, America agreed to his return despite knowing his reality. It directed Garang to agree to his return to contain and control him under his leadership because America recognized his weight due to the presence of his tribe behind him, which is the second-largest tribe in the South. Nevertheless, disputes continued between them within the movement when Garang did not appoint him as the second-in-command, instead appointing Salva Kiir, who was of a lower rank than him in the movement.
The recent fighting has spread to include other areas beyond the capital, extending to the town of Bor, the capital of Jonglei, and Torit, the capital of Eastern Equatoria state. Reuters reported on December 18, 2013, quoting a spokesperson for the South Sudanese army confirming that the army lost control of the city of Bor, then the army regained it, and then Machar's forces returned to control much of it, as reported in the news on January 1, 2014. In fact, reports just recently indicated that Machar's forces control it after the withdrawal of Salva Kiir's army.
The Government of South Sudan admitted on December 26, 2013, that rebels had seized some oil wells and controlled half of Malakal, the capital of Upper Nile State, which is the main oil-producing state. Meanwhile, a presidential spokesperson in South Sudan said their forces were fighting to prevent rebels loyal to Machar from controlling the other part. The battles affect half of the country that seceded—meaning five out of ten states: Jonglei, Unity, Central Equatoria, Upper Nile, and Eastern Equatoria. This indicates that matters have reached a significant extent, where rebel forces seize cities and regions, and after losing them, attempt to regain them. All this indicates that matters may not end easily. Three days after the fighting intensified, the UN Secretary-General stated that he was "deeply concerned about the situation in South Sudan." He said it was a political crisis requiring a quick resolution through political dialogue and that there were fears of violence spreading to other states, noting, "we have seen signs of that," according to the BBC on December 18, 2013.
The position of America, the dominant power there, toward these events was one of intense alarm, and it moved quickly to contain the situation:
a. U.S. President Barack Obama sent a letter to Congress stating: "I am monitoring the situation and may take action to support citizens and property, including our embassy in South Sudan" (AFP, December 23, 2013). Four American soldiers were wounded when fire was opened on their aircraft near Bor airport on December 21, 2013. The American President explained in his letter that "these soldiers were part of a group of about 46 military personnel who arrived on CV-22 aircraft to participate in the evacuation of Americans from South Sudan" (Reuters, December 20, 2013). He said, "Recent fighting threatens to drag South Sudan back into the dark days of its past," emphasizing that "the future of the country today is at risk," adding that "the United States will remain a steadfast partner of Juba" (BBC, December 20, 2013).
b. A White House statement after Obama's meeting with National Security Advisor Susan Rice and other senior aides stated: "Any attempt to seize power through the use of military force will result in the end of long-standing support from the United States and the international community." The statement said: "Obama emphasized that South Sudanese leaders have a responsibility to support our efforts to secure American personnel and citizens and pointed out that this conflict can only be resolved peacefully through negotiations" (Associated Press, December 22, 2013).
c. Kerry, while sending Donald Booth as his special envoy to South Sudan, said: "It is time for the leaders of South Sudan to control the armed factions under them and to immediately cease attacks on civilians and end the wave of violence between different ethnic and political groups." He said: "I called President Kiir and asked him, as the president of all South Sudanese, to protect the citizens of Sudan and work toward reconciliation" (France 24, December 21, 2013). Jennifer Psaki, the U.S. State Department spokesperson, said that "Secretary of State John Kerry stated clearly that the continuation of violence will destroy what was achieved during South Sudan's independence" (BBC and Associated Press, December 22, 2013).
d. The American envoy Donald Booth met with Salva Kiir and discussed with him "a set of measures to stop the destructive violence in South Sudan." Booth stated that "Salva Kiir is ready to start talks with Riek Machar to end the crisis without preconditions as soon as his counterpart decides" (German News Agency DPA, December 24, 2013). Booth clarified that he met 11 detained members of the SPLM in Juba and confirmed that these individuals are safe and being treated well.
e. The agency quoted the U.S. Department of Defense saying, "The United States moved forces from Spain to Djibouti to be ready to provide assistance when requested."
f. The positions of America's agents regarding South Sudan were on the side of Salva Kiir, particularly in Uganda, Ethiopia, and the UN:
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said his country would support the IGAD mechanisms to reach a peaceful settlement to the crisis in South Sudan. Museveni threatened to pursue Vice President Riek Machar wherever he might be if he rejected these mechanisms (December 30, 2013, Al Jazeera Net). The Ugandan newspaper New Vision reported on Friday, December 20, 2013, that Ugandan soldiers were deployed in Juba at the request of the South Sudanese government to restore security to the capital, which is witnessing unrest. The newspaper said an initial unit of Ugandan special forces helped secure the airport and assisted in evacuating Ugandan nationals from Juba after clashes between rival units in the South Sudanese army in recent days (Al Jazeera, Saturday, December 21, 2013).
As for Ethiopia, its Foreign Minister Tedros, who is the head of the IGAD delegation, seemed keen on conducting negotiations in Ethiopia, considering Salva Kiir as the head of state and Machar as a rebel or dissident! All of this tilts the balance of negotiations in favor of Salva Kiir.
As for the United Nations, which is primarily moved by America, the Security Council decided to double the international peacekeeping forces in South Sudan from 6,000 to 12,500 personnel, indicating that matters are viewed with great seriousness. The UN representative in Juba, Hilde Johnson, stated on December 25, 2013, that what is happening in the country is a power struggle and the fighting cannot be based on ethnic grounds. She emphasized the need for the parties to sit at the negotiating table to derive effective solutions for the current crisis (Reuters, December 25, 2013). Furthermore, this representative threatened that the UN might resort to using force to protect civilians under Chapter VII of the organization's charter.
All this indicates that these events are not in America's favor and are harming its influence in this region, having even threatened the lives of American soldiers. Therefore, it has moved at the highest levels and threatened to end the support provided to South Sudan. The secession of South Sudan was one of the most important American achievements during the Obama era; therefore, America does not want to lose, after a short period, what it built in South Sudan during Obama's tenure. It appears there is a serious threat to what America achieved in imposing its influence in the region after obtaining concessions—considered high treason—from the regime of Omar al-Bashir that it never dreamed of. Thus, it was able to implement its colonial project of separating the South from Sudan and placing it under its influence and colonialism.
This is in addition to the positions of America's agents and the UN mentioned earlier, which tend to help Kiir and work hard by pressuring Machar to negotiate or threatening him with force and Chapter VII.
As for the European position, it has been noted that the European media, particularly the French and British, have shown interest in Riek Machar, being keen to conduct interviews with him and focusing on his actions from the first day. They promote the idea that the ongoing fighting between him and Salva Kiir's government is ethnic or tribal to fuel the conflict and exploit it in their favor against America, which has managed to exclude European influence to a large extent and holds the reins of the issue without giving them a role in shaping events, participating in agreements, or manufacturing a separate state there:
a. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) conducted an interview with Machar on December 18, 2013, in which he said that "the violence that broke out in the capital Juba is the direct responsibility of Salva Kiir," and accused him of trying to cover up his government's failure by accusing Machar of a coup attempt. He accused Kiir of "inciting tribal and ethnic violence." He added that "there was no coup attempt and the fighting broke out due to a conflict between members of the Presidential Guard." The BBC added that political tension in the country has escalated since South Sudan's President Salva Kiir dismissed his deputy Riek Machar last July. Reuters reported on December 26, 2013, in a call with Machar, saying, "I am in the bush and doing my best to improve my negotiating position."
b. Radio France International conducted an interview with Riek Machar on December 19, 2013, in which he said, "I call on the SPLM, the ruling political party, and its military wing (the SPLA, the country's armed forces) to oust Salva Kiir from his position at the head of the country." He said, "If he wants to negotiate the terms of his stepping down from power, we agree. But he must leave, because he cannot maintain the unity of our people, especially when he resorts to killing people like flies and tries to ignite an ethnic war." This was in response to the negotiation offer made by Salva Kiir the previous day. France International reported on December 25, 2013, Machar saying, "Yes, we are ready for talks and I have formed my delegation."
This interest from European media in Riek Machar indicates a positive view by the Europeans toward the man and his actions, whereas the American media ignored him.
c. In addition to the European media movement, Britain is moving through its agents in Kenya. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta arrived in South Sudan on December 26, 2013, to hold talks with President Salva Kiir. The Kenyan President, who met with Salva Kiir for mediation, said: "South Sudan is an emerging state that must leave behind everything that distances it from its development program and must show wisdom and stop the loss of innocent lives" (Reuters, December 26, 2013). He is hinting at Salva Kiir and accusing him implicitly, indicating that Kenya represents a position opposed to Salva Kiir and in favor of Riek Machar. This is an expression of the British position. Kenyan officials, part of the East African ministerial mediation group, said they urged government forces and rebels in South Sudan loyal to Machar to start negotiations on neutral ground. Kenyan spokesperson Karanja Kibicho told reporters: "We believe that negotiation is the solution, and Kenya is ready to provide this space" in Nairobi. He said: "Although both sides agreed to negotiations, it remains unclear when and where they will take place. Each side is taking very hardline positions" (DPA, December 24, 2013). Thus, the British, through Kenya, want to play an influential role so they can return to South Sudan.
From this review:
a. We weigh the possibility that Machar and those with him were encouraged by Britain in their movement and that they have a relationship linking them to it. Britain is working to return to South Sudan to play an influential role so it can regain its influence there. This is confirmed by the fact that Machar's movement has greatly disturbed America, which moved at the highest levels and quickly from the first day to contain the situation. America threatened to end support for the South if the rule changed and was seized by coup plotters or rebels. Its planes were fired upon and its soldiers wounded in areas under Machar's control, as reported... Thus, America doubled the number of UN forces to be able to control matters.
b. It becomes clear that the issue is not a struggle between American agents over power, but rather, most likely, a struggle between agents loyal to two different colonial sides. If it were a struggle between agents belonging to the same colonial power, it would not have reached this extent. It is worth noting that America is working on building the state of South Sudan, which is not more than two and a half years old. The secession of the South is considered one of Obama's greatest achievements during his term, so he does not want his colonial project to fail during his own tenure.
c. It is observed that Salva Kiir is a sincere agent for America, and it wants to nominate him for another term to rule and reinforce his authority. Therefore, it agreed to the removal of all those ambitious for the presidency and those who challenge him, who have old disputes with him, headed by Riek Machar. America accepted their presence in the so-called SPLM with the intent of containing them and placing them under its supervision, because if they remained in different movements, these movements outside its control would become an entry point for competing European countries, especially Britain, thereby obstructing its projects...
d. It is not likely that Britain will succeed in this movement by toppling Salva Kiir and replacing America, because America has moved quickly and put all its weight into failing that movement. This is in addition to the notable activity of its agents regarding this issue: Uganda, Ethiopia, the UN... As the head of the IGAD delegation, the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, announced the acceptance of both parties to negotiate, this means tipping the scales in favor of the government because when negotiations occur between a government and those revolting against it called "rebels," it means the government's side is stronger.
e. Europe, especially Britain, will try to exert effort in pushing Machar's movement and his tribe to obtain a share of power... Although the chance of success for this is not high, as Kiir rejected it categorically, saying in a previous interview with Al Jazeera that "Machar should not be rewarded for his rebellion, and he has no right to share power in the country" (Al Jazeera, January 1, 2014), in addition to the intense interest from America and its agents in supporting Kiir.
Therefore, what is expected is that the Government of South Sudan will continue in its American line with a method of appeasing Machar due to the weight of his Nuer tribe... Nevertheless, the fire remains under the ashes, capable of being ignited by any gust of wind that stirs the fire, as is the nature of competition between colonialists over areas of influence...