South Sudan is subjected into Big Brother USA bullying

By Steve Paterno

December 12, 2010 — “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” declared President Theodore Roosevelt, as he set the tone for what he envisioned to be a diplomatic approach for a country that was about to assert global dominance. The recently released Wikileaks secret cables from the US embassies around the world, show in nearly all cases, America deploys coercive diplomacy, full of threats, unrealistic demands, and promises of incentive in case of compliance. It is realpolitik practiced at its core, with America always dictating the terms in line with what it desires. In almost every incident, the distinction between ally and foe is blur, and it is those who perceived themselves as allies are the ones who find themselves in shock with the contradictory US actions.

In the case of South Sudan, it has been the US ally or at least on the surface, it is perceived to be the US alley. America helped broker a peace deal there. It fully supports the independence of South Sudan. The US pumps millions of dollars in South Sudan in terms of aides, infrastructure building, capacity enhancement, security maintenance and social services delivery. The US goes as far as rallying its allies, especially the South Sudanese neighboring countries to help maintain a long sustaining peace and prosperity in the new to emerge state. America even collaborates with these allies in some of its projects that it undertakes in South Sudan.

In a twist of irony, it was none other than those allies, which found themselves at risk of facing the wrath of US sweeping sanctions, for the simple act of support to South Sudan. The case in point is an incident of Kenya consignment of weapons to South Sudan. Apparently, both the US and Kenya agreed on modernization of South Sudanese armed forces through training and equipping them with lethal firepower to withheld any Khartoum’s offenses. Accordingly, Kenya has kept part of its deal by consigning weapons to South Sudan with full disclosure to the US.

However, by September of 2008, a ship loaded with millions of dollars worth of military hardware (mostly T-72 battle tanks), consigned by Kenya from Ukraine en route to South Sudan was hijacked by Somalian pirates off the coast of Africa. The pirates PR department, which is ever media savvy, announced the content of the cargo, its final destination, and demanded ransom. The media quickly picked up on this sensational story and the news exploded. Kenya found itself in an embarrassing situation that it had to publicly confirm the hardware belonged to Kenyan military, but not bound for South Sudan as reported by the press. In earlier 2009, ransom of over three millions was paid and the ship, its cargo, and the crew were released.

It is here that the US intervened and threatened Kenya that it should not transfer these military hardware into South Sudan or else Kenya will risk “sweeping sanctions.” Base on the Wikileaks released, the discussions between US and Kenyan officials, left Kenya without any option. The US made it clear that Kenya could never use a third country as a means of transfer. That Kenya could not also obtain any waiver to pass these hardware to South Sudan armed forces. Any move in transferring the hardware to South Sudan would be in contravention to the US laws and would result into “sweeping sanctions” against Kenya. Of course, Kenya would incur huge financial loses in adding these hardware into its arsenal when it did not need them.

Kenya was left perplexed by US position. Kenyan officials felt that America abandoned its commitment to South Sudan and questioned whether the “US is rethinking the CPA, increasingly shifting its support to Khartoum, and/or now seeking a unitary state in Sudan.” The softly spoken Big Brother with big stick (America) required nothing short of Kenya than full compliance. The US even went as far as confronting the Ukraine for completing the transactions of weapons destined for South Sudan. As Ukraine tried to deny that the end-user of those weapons was not South Sudan, but Kenya, America produced the actual contract of the purchase and satellite imagery as evidence, and then threatened Ukraine to face consequence if it was going to lie to the US. The Ukrainians were at least embarrassed and reluctantly promised to comply.

This whole incident played out like a bully in the neighborhood, going around making demands from the other weak kids, but the truth of the matter is, this is serious real world politics in motion, with the lives of millions of people at stake. South Sudan is on verge of conducting a referendum for its independence. The fear is that war may break out any time between the South and Khartoum, and in that instant, the South may need to defend itself in one way or another. Regardless, whether there will be war or not, it is inevitable that an independent South Sudan will still require strong allies such as Kenya and the US. Nonetheless, the US contradictory position is not going to help the cause of South Sudan, that of US or of its allies. At best, such contradictory position creates mistrust and sense of betrayal. America cannot claim that it supports the modernization of South Sudanese armed forces and at the same time denying equipping them or worst yet, threatening the allies from lending their support.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]