South Sudan Independence: Thousands of Peacekeepers to be Sent to Prevent it Becoming Failed State

Mike Pflanz, Telegraph (London), July 7, 2011

The UN Security Council will vote on sending up to 7,000 armed blue berets to the Republic of South Sudan, which wins independence from its former enemy Sudan at midday on Saturday.

Ban Ki-moon has recommended that the new mission should focus on protecting civilians–with force if necessary–and on reforms to the police, army and justice systems.

There are fears that from its outset, the world’s 193rd country will be unable adequately to police its territory, guard its borders or protect its eight million citizens.

Sudan’s majority Christian south fought its Muslim north for 38 of its 54 years of independence from Britain, and the hangover of that war is almost a million guns, mostly in civilian hands in the south.

The southern army, born from the rebel force which fought the war, is bloated with troops and drains as much as 60 per cent of South Sudan’s annual budget. One diplomat in Juba quipped that it was “in essence the state’s welfare system”.

The police force, provincial administration, courts and tax systems are, at best, stumbling, raising the risk of widening public anger among a population expecting an instant windfall from independence.

“We need to be modest in managing the expectations of what South Sudan can achieve, and how quickly,” said George Conway, deputy head of the UN Development Programme’s office in Juba, South Sudan’s capital.

“There has been good progress since the end of the war, but real change is going to be generational.” In reality, the Republic of South Sudan will from its first days easily fulfil most requirements of a failed state.

Separated from the more advanced north, it will also immediately knock Zimbabwe off the bottom spot on the index of human development.

At least 80 per cent of the population is illiterate–rising to 92 per cent for women–the majority of civil servants did not finish secondary school and there are estimated to be fewer than 500 trained doctors in a country the size of France.

A 15-year-old girl is more statistically more likely to die in childbirth than she is to finish school.

“It’s fair to say that these are political and security challenges that would tax even the most developed countries,” said a senior Western diplomat in Juba.

“South Sudan is facing all of them, and all at once.” There was little evidence of the severity of that challenge in Juba yesterday.

Ahead of tomorrow’s independence ceremonies, roads that were dirt a year ago are now freshly laid with asphalt.

Armies of women swept streets as government gardeners hastily planted bougainvillea bushes on the main roads preparing for an onslaught of VIPs.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, leads the delegation from London. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, will represent the Obama administration.

So many presidential planes from other African countries are due to land at the city’s ramshackle airport in the coming hours that civilian flights have been cancelled for two days.

“We are very happy to show the world the best of our new country,” said Abraham Mayom, 32, a mechanic working on a Chinese-made motorcycle by the roadside.

“But what of next week, or next month, or next year? We are like a baby not yet able even to crawl. We will need help for long before we are up on our two feet walking alone.” Almost £90 million of British aid will flow through the small Department for International Development office in Juba this year–almost £12 for each Southern Sudanese man, woman and child.

DfID is also outsourcing chunks of its work in Sudan to private British firms, including Mott McDonald, Atos Consulting and the Adam Smith International, which manage schemes focused on security, justice and government practice.

Even Sudanese refugees who fled to Britain during the civil war are returning home to invest money and spread technical know-how picked up during their education overseas.

Albert Rehan, 38, who won asylum in Britain in 1995, now runs a recruitment consultancy with offices in Juba and in Holborn, London, specialising on filling technical and managerial level jobs in South Sudan’s booming private sector.

“I’m still struggling to find good candidates,” he said, sipping sweet black tea under a mango tree in central Juba.

“But that’s because now clients demand people with the right skills for the job, not just the right family name. That in itself gives us reason to be optimistic.” That optimism must be tempered, however, by key planks in the peace deal that have still not been secured.

There is no agreement on sharing oil, which lies mostly under southern soil but must be refined and exported through the north. It is unclear how foreign debts, borrowed when Sudan was unified, will be repaid once it splits.

Of most concern, however, is the border between the two new neighbours.

Its precise route has not yet been decided. Already Omar al-Bashir, the president in the north, is accused of supporting loyal militia in the south to raise rebellion, especially in the oil-rich Abyei state.

Tens of thousands of northern civilians are still fleeing south after repeated bombing raids against them by the Sudan Air Force, under the instructions of Mr Bashir who is already wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

“The increasing violence and human rights violations this year underscore the need for a robust and flexible peacekeeping presence in South Sudan,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • John PM

    Hmmm….???

    I love some of the names in this article.

    Ban Ki-moon, has a nice ring to it; he could be the boy next door or perhaps our next president. And of course, Omar al-Bashir he could be president too.

    The American “Dream” in all its multicultural splendor!

    Just one question, who will be the Democrats’ nominee and who the Republicans’?

    After all, that’s what really “matters!”

    As always, God help us all!!!

  • Sissy White

    Another beggar nation, worse than Bangladesh, worse than Haiti and even worse than Detroit.

    Needless to say, that on Saturday, when they gain “independence”, by Sunday they will be on welfare, sponging off America and the rest of White Europe.

  • sbuffalonative

    I wonder how much continued fighting there would have been between the South and the North after the American Civil War had each side agreed to separation.

    A political solution is unlikely to bring peace to Africans.

    The division of resources is another issue that I wonder about if the United States ever tries to separate. No matter how much resources where given to non-whites, their failures would be blamed on white states having gotten the better deal.

  • PLWagner

    The people of South Sudan have acquired what white nationalists in America want – the right to live in their own country, without being ruled by other races. From 1956, the date of Sudan’s independence, to 2011, the blacks of South Sudan were ruled by an alien race – the Arabs of Northern Sudan. Arabs carried out genocide against the blacks, and 2 million blacks were killed. Since South Sudan has about 8 million people, the genocide wiped out 25 percent of the blacks of South Sudan.

    White nationalists should admire South Sudan’s successful war of independence, and they should hope and pray that the white nationalist cause in America and Europe will succeed, without the dreadful loss of life that the blacks endured in Sudan. We should wish the blacks of South Sudan well, as they seek to build prosperity for themselves. They are starting out from absolutely rock bottom, and things can only get better. South Sudan is a major oil producer, and they can assist Americans in getting cheaper gas prices at the pump.

    The reason why I am so generous in my comments towards South Sudan, is because of the prevailing tradition that pro-white activists have to be anti-black. For too long, the case for white nationalism has been made by pointing out supposed black genetic deficiencies in IQ and moral behavior. What if, tommorrow, a group of scientists provides indisputable proof that the IQ and behavioral differences between blacks and whites, are purely cultural and environmental in origin? Would that undermine the case for white nationalism? Is it possible for a person to respect and admire blacks, but still support white nationalism?

    I met a couple of South Sudanese refugees at a church in Boston in 2002, and they seemed to be very nice. If I was to meet them today, I would encourage them to go back to their country, and use the skills they learnt in America to help their people. I happen to think that the diversity of human races is a wonderful thing, but that diversity can only be maintained if people live in different countries. South Sudanese have the darkest skins of any group of humans, and they are even blacker than the West Africans, who are the ancestral group of black Americans. Such a unique racial type deserves to be preserved and studied, to see what unique genes or disease resistance it possesses.

    Koreans, the Negritos of the Philippines, Eskimos, Pygmies, Amazon Indians, and Maoris, are also unique races that should be studied, if research on race differences is permitted. It is in that spirit that white European nations should be preserved, by being kept at least 98 percent white.

    White nationalists must develop a totally new approach, that will allow them to appeal to white liberals. White nationalists must appeal to those influential white liberals who believe that blacks of Southern Sudan are genetically equal to whites in intelligence and moral behavior. The liberals must be made to see that, by encouraging the blacks of South Sudan to stay in their country, rather than by bringing them to America in large numbers, they would be promoting true multi-culturalism and human racial diversity on this planet. Without the support of a significant number white liberals, white nationalism will not succeed.

  • SKIP

    Does ANYONE seriously think that the muslims of the North are gonna just lay there and allow the oil revenue of the South to get away from them and allow Christians to control it?? People! the bloodshed is only beginning. We will probably be supporting the muslims because of our muslim ass kissing government and our muslim president, AG and of course the MUSLIM head of NASA.

  • Madison Grant

    Q: Since every black-run nation in history is a failed state, how will thousands- or even millions -of peacekeepers prevent this one from following suit?

    A: They won’t, but they will spend millions/billions of your tax $ trying.

  • Anonymous

    4- PLWagner – Poppycock, blacks are incapable of creating a civil society, or much of anything else.

    5 – Madison Grant – Dead on.

  • Anonymous

    “Even Sudanese refugees who fled to Britain during the civil war are returning home”

    ——————————————————-

    This is the only good thing I read in the whole article.

  • shaunantijihad

    What do you mean “prevent”?

  • Bantu Education

    Even Sudanese refugees who fled to Britain during the civil war are returning home to…..

    Bring members of their extended families back to Britain and to get their hands on some of the whitey money pouring in….

  • Soprano Fan

    A lot of people here seem to think that Sudan’s civil war was between white Arab Muslims in the north, and Bantu Christians in the south. It was not – it was between TWO Bantu factions, one Arabic-speaking and Muslims, and the other, a Christian faction. Indeed, Sudanese president Omar Bashir looks like Al Roker, not Moammar Qaddafi.

    I get the impression that the “diplomats” are more alarmed that a million guns are in the hands of South Sudan civilians, than they were over the government-sponsored slaughter that led to South Sudan’s independence in the first place. To them ,only governments should have guns.

    Look how well that turned out.

  • Anonymous

    If South Sudan needs thousands of armed foreign soldiers (“peace keepers”) to keep them in line, then they haven’t achieved much of an “independence”, have they? Oh well, it will be another black African disaster area either way.

  • Anonymous

    This foreign intervention is at the request of the oil companies, who need a secure environment to work in. Thousands of blue berets will keep the indigenous population in line, for the benefit of private investors.

    Sure, like Haiti, we’ll pick up the tab and call it “humanitarianism”.

  • ATBOTL

    The “Arabs” in Sudan are like 90% black by ancestry.

  • Cassiodorus

    Less than a month old and already a complete failure: that’s remarkable even by African standards.

  • Jack

    “Sudan’s majority Christian…”

    They are not Christians.

    When will we stop these ridiculous evangelicals from their heretic “soul saving?”

    “…—with force if necessary…”

    Really? With real bullets? Or does he mean strongly worded memos?

    “…which wins independence from its former enemy Sudan at midday on Saturday.”

    Looting, raping and burning to start at 12:01.

    UN will get around to protecting them after they’re all dead and taken over by muslims.

  • Laager

    @ PL Wagner

    You wrote”

    “The people of South Sudan have acquired what white nationalists in America want – the right to live in their own country, without being ruled by other races. From 1956, the date of Sudan’s independence, to 2011, the blacks of South Sudan were ruled by an alien race – the Arabs of Northern Sudan. Arabs carried out genocide against the blacks, and 2 million blacks were killed. Since South Sudan has about 8 million people, the genocide wiped out 25 percent of the blacks of South Sudan.”

    Allow me to edit your piece as follows:

    The white people of South Africa have been unable to acquire what white liberals in the world are preventing them from achieving – the right to live in their own country, without being ruled by other races. From 1902, the date when Britain conquered the Afrikaners in order to own and control the Transvaal goldfields, to 2011, the white Afrikaners of South Africa were ruled by an alien race – first the British (1902 -1948) and then the 9 black tribes of South Africa (1994-2011). Both British and Blacks have carried out genocide against the white Afrikaners – 27,000 women and children were killed in the concentration camps during the Anglo-Boere War (1899-1902) and 40,000 have been killed since “freedom” and black majority rule in 1994. Since South Africa has about 5 million whites (60% Afrikaner & 40% English), the current genocide (1994-2011) has wiped out 1% of the whites of South Africa. A further 1,000,000 [1million = 20% of white population] have emigrated to find safety and employment, and another 800,000 live as destitute refugees within the country of their birth. They are denied access to the job market through AA & BEE legislation [similar to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany]. The Govt denies them any support benefits as they are classified as “previously advantaged” and are wholly dependent on survival from white charities. By contrast blacks are entitled to a wide array of state benefits – paid for by taxes levied on the whites.

    ====================================================

    The question I ask is this:

    If you support independence and self determination for the South Sudanese in the land of their birth,

    do you support

    independence and self determination for white Afrikaners in the land of their birth?