User's blog

Author: user

  • ಅಮೆರಿಕಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಟ್ಟಿ ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವಂಥ ಪೆಟ್ಟು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿತೆ ರಷ್ಯಾ!

    Original link here

    ಅಮೆರಿಕವು ರಷ್ಯಾ ರಾಯಭಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆ ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಕಳಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇಕೆ? ಟ್ರಂಪ್ ಗೆಲುವಿಗೆ ರಷ್ಯಾ ತಂತ್ರಗಾರಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿತೆ? ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಆಸಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಅಂತರರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ವಿದ್ಯಮಾನ ಗಮನಿಸುವ ಕಿಶೋರ್ ನಾರಾಯಣ್

    ರಷ್ಯಾದ ಮೂವತ್ತೈದು ರಾಯಭಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಮೆರಿಕ ಉಚ್ಚಾಟಿಸಿದ್ದು ತುಂಬ ಚರ್ಚೆಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾದ ಸುದ್ದಿ. ಇಂಥ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ರಷ್ಯಾ ಕೂಡ ಮಾಸ್ಕೋದಲ್ಲಿನ ಅಮೆರಿಕಾ ರಾಯಭಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಉಚ್ಚಾಟಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಎಲ್ಲೆಡೆ ಇತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ರಷ್ಯಾ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ವ್ಲಾಡಿಮಿರ್ ಪುಟಿನ್ ಅಂಥ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನೂ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಘೋಷಿಸಿದರು.

    ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎರಡು ಬಲಿಷ್ಠ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳು ಹೀಗೆ ನಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದರ ಹಿಂದೆ ಇರುವ ಕಾರಣ ಏನು? ಅಮೆರಿಕ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗಷ್ಟೇ ಚುನಾವಣೆ ಮೂಲಕ ಹೊಸ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷನ ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದೆ. ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ಎಂದೂ ಕಂಡಿರದಂಥ ವೈಷಮ್ಯದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಚುನಾವಣೆ ರಂಗೇರಿತ್ತು. ಚುನಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಚಾರದ ವೇಳೆ ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷೀಯ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿಗಳು ಪರಸ್ಪರ ನ್ಯೂನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಪರೀತ ಎತ್ತಾಡಿದ್ದರು.

    ರಿಪಬ್ಲಿಕನ್ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿ ಡೊನಾಲ್ಡ್ ಟ್ರಂಪ್ ಅವರು ಅಮೆರಿಕದ ಬದ್ಧವೈರಿ ರಷ್ಯಾವನ್ನು ಬೆಂಬಲಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಡೆಮಾಕ್ರಾಟಿಕ್ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿ ಹಿಲರಿ ಕ್ಲಿಂಟನ್ ಆರೋಪಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಇನ್ನು ಡೆಮಾಕ್ರಾಟ್ ಪಕ್ಷದ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಸಮಿತಿಯ ಈ ಮೇಲ್ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ಕನ್ನ ಹಾಕಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಟ್ರಂಪ್ ಗೆಲುವಿಗಾಗಿಯೇ ರಷ್ಯಾ ಹೀಗೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿತ್ತೆಂದು ಇದೀಗ ಕೇಳಿಬರುತ್ತಿರುವ ಆರೋಪ.

    ಟ್ರಂಪ್ ಗೆ ರಷ್ಯಾ ಒಲವು

    ಡೊನಾಲ್ಡ್ ಟ್ರಂಪ್ ಮುಂಚಿನಿಂದಲೂ ಪುಟಿನ್ ಅಭಿಮಾನಿ. ಚುನಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಚಾರದ ವೇಳೆಯೇ, “ನಾನು ಗೆದ್ದರೆ ರಷ್ಯಾ ಜತೆಗೆ ಉತ್ತಮ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಹೊಂದುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಬಯಸ್ತೀನಿ” ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು. ಈಗ ಏನಾಗಿದೆ ಅಂದರೆ, ತನಿಖೆಯೊಂದರ ವರದಿ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಬರಾಕ್ ಒಬಾಮ, ರಷ್ಯಾ ರಾಯಭಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಉಚ್ಚಾಟಿಸಿ, ಆ ದೇಶದ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧವನ್ನೂ ಹೇರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

    ಮೂಗು ತೂರಿಸಿದೆ

    ಅಮೆರಿಕದ ಈ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ತಮಾಷೆಗೆ ಹೇಳುವುದಾರೆ ಕಾಜಿ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಅಂತಲೇ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಈ ವರೆಗೆ ಹಲವು ದೇಶಗಳ ಚುನಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮೆರಿಕ ಮೂಗು ತೂರಿಸಿದೆ. ತನಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಆಗುವಂಥ ಅಭ್ಯರ್ಥಿ ಚುನಾವಣೆಗೆ ನಿಲ್ಲುವಂತೆ, ಗೆಲ್ಲವಂತೆ ಸಹ ಮಾಡಿದೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ಆ ದೇಶವನ್ನು ತನಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದಂತೆ ನಡೆಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದೆ.

    ಎಂಬತ್ತೊಂದು ಬಾರಿ

    ವರದಿಯೊಂದರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ 1946ರಿಂದ 2000ದ ಮಧ್ಯೆ ಎಂಬತ್ತೊಂದು ಬಾರಿ ಇಂಥ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದೆಯಂತೆ ಅಮೆರಿಕ. ಹಾಗಂತ ಅಮೆರಿಕ ಮಾತ್ರ ಹೀಗೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಅದು ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಸತ್ಯ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಅನೇಕ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳು ರಣತಂತ್ರದ ಭಾಗವಾಗಿ, ತಂತಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಹೀಗೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಇಸ್ರೇಲ್ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ.
    ಶ್ರೀಲಂಕಾ ಆರೋಪಿಸಿತ್ತು.

    ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ ಹೇಳೋದಾದರೆ ಶ್ರೀಲಂಕಾದಲ್ಲಿ 2015ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪತಿ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತದ ಹಸ್ತಕ್ಷೇಪವಿತ್ತೆಂದೂ, ಭಾರತದ ಗೂಢಚಾರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ‘ರಾ’ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯನ್ನು ಶ್ರೀಲಂಕಾ ಉಚ್ಚಾಟಿಸಿತು ಎಂದು ವರದಿಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಬಲಿಷ್ಠ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ ಎನಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಅಮೆರಿಕಕ್ಕೆ ಇಂಥ ಅನುಭವ ಬಹುಶಃ ಇದೇ ಮೊದಲು.

    ಅಮೆರಿಕಕ್ಕೆ ಚುಚ್ಚಿತು ಸೂಜಿ

    ಅಮೆರಿಕವು ಹಿಂದಿನಷ್ಟು ಬಲಿಷ್ಠವಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಪ್ರಚೋದನೆ ಅಮೆರಿಕವನ್ನು ಕೆಂಡಾಮಂಡಲವಾಗಿಸಿದೆ. ಇತರರನ್ನು ಚುಚ್ಚಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸೂಜಿಯಿಂದ ಈಗ ಅದೇ ದೇಶಕ್ಕೇ ಚುಚ್ಚಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ನೋವು ಬೇಗ ಮಾಯವಾಗಬಹುದೇನೋ! ಆದರೆ ಇಂಥ ಅವಮಾನದಿಂದ ಹೊರಬರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅಮೆರಿಕಕ್ಕೆ ಬಹಳ ಸಮಯ ಹಿಡಿಯಬಹುದು.

  • Suu Kyi’s Toughest Challenge Ever

    Originally posted here.

    Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has seen it all. In the past, she has been a witness to military-led Myanmarese government being castigated internationally for human rights abuses. Lot of water has flown in the Irrawaddy since then. However, one thing seems to have remained a constant. Suu Kyi finds Myanmar being accused of human rights abuses yet again. This time, the democratic government of Myanmar is alleged to have employed ethnic cleansing as a tool to get rid of the minority Rohingya Muslims from the state of Rakhine. Oddly though, it is her own party National League for Democracy (NLD) at the helm of affairs in Naypyidaw and she cannot stay mum about it any more as she used to earlier. Unfortunately for her, she might find this current trouble to be her toughest challenge till date.

    To state that Suu Kyi has endured hardships throughout her life would be an understatement. Her father Aung San, considered as ‘Father of modern-day Myanmar’ was shot dead when she was barely two years old. The military that ruled the nation, didn’t want Aung San’s widow to stay in the country and dispatched her to India as the Ambassador. Suu Kyi, as a result, did most of her schooling and college in the unfamiliar surroundings of New Delhi. Years later, in 1988, with an Oxford degree, she returned to Rangoon to look after her ailing mother during the nascent years of the fight for democracy. Staying away from her family, she inadvertently picked up the mantle of anti-junta protests and ended up being arrested in her own house. With her fight against the military getting severe, the world started to take note of her resolve. In 1991, she became a household name around the world when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Her fight against the military culminated much later when the military voluntarily gave up power and conducted nation-wide elections in 2016. Suu Kyi’s party “National League for Democracy” emerged victorious. Her appointment as the State Counselor appeared to be a culmination of her lifelong struggles. Things couldn’t go wrong any more. The people had voted for her overwhelmingly. The army had enabled a peaceful transition. The world capitals wished her good luck and wanted to help Myanmar in its path to growth and stability. Except there was one major unresolved issue which needed immediate attention and resolution.

    Myanmar is home to numerous ethnic groups and has been plagued by internal conflicts since independence. The conflicts not only take place between the government forces and certain groups, but also between different ethnic and religious groups. Ever since 2011, the clashes in Rakhine state between Rohingya Muslims on one side and the Arakan Buddhists and the government forces on the other have created international headlines.

    The Beginning

    A controversial law was enacted by the government – referred to as Burma  Citizenship Law, 1982 – intended to define and categorize the many ethnic communities and the general population into three different citizenship layers. However, the law was so enacted to leave out Rohingya Muslims found in the Rakhine state. Surprisingly, the Arakan Buddhists found in the same state were included in the law. The Myanmar government was of the opinion that the Rohingyas came from Bangladesh and should return back, whereas Bangladesh would not take them back. The Rohingyas were suddenly stateless in their own land where they had lived for many generations. In May 2012, a young Arakan Buddhist lady was raped and murdered by three Rohingya Muslim men. Arakan villagers had retaliated by killing Muslims and this led to Rohingyas killing an unknown number of Arakan people and also targeting Arakan property. What had resulted had been an inhuman destruction to life and property on both sides. Rohingya Muslims, on the account of being stateless had been accused of usurping the land that belonged to the rightful settlers of the land – the Arakan. With the government troops also persecuting the Rohingyas, they had their backs against the wall. Many Rohingyas fled to neighboring Bangladesh, while a few others fled to Thailand, India, Japan, and United Kingdom. Most other Rohingyas have been living in settlement camps in various parts of Rakhine ever since.

    The conflict has now stretched beyond the boundaries of Myanmar. The displaced Rohingya have become a serious humanitarian problem in neighboring Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government wants to return the Rohingya back to Myanmar. The Rohingya has also become targets of human trafficking across the border in Thailand. Amidst all this, the Rohingya seem to be getting support of Muslims elsewhere. An investigation into the bomb attacks in Bodh Gaya in India, one of the holiest places in Buddhism, in 2013 had revealed it as a revenge for attacks against Rohingya Muslims.

    The Present

    This dormant issue of the ‘stateless’ Rohingyas has now resurfaced in November of 2016 when there have been reports that the military, in response to an attack on its troops by Rohingya youth, has attacked Rohingya villages with disproportionate force. Myanmar forces have even used helicopters to fire at the attackers in a dense forest. Satellite pictures of Rohingya villages burned to ground have caused massive uproar. Media organizations like BBC have started reporting about the human suffering from the other bank of the river Naf, which acts as the natural border between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Rohingya refugees crossing the river to escape from the atrocities, narrating their tale of horror and destruction has been a daily occurrence since the violence broke out. Journalists have not been provided access to enter Rakhine. The only information available is from Myanmar-Bangladesh border that has now been officially shut.

    So, what is different this time? Expectations from the democratically elected government have been high in finding a solution to the Rohingya problem. Unfortunately though, Suu Kyi hasn’t spoken out ever in favor of granting citizenship to the Rohingyas. Her silence in this matter has been deafening all along. Upon constantly prodded for a statement, she has only stated that both sides should give up violence and should search for a solution through peaceful means.

    With most of Myanmar’s population being anti-Rohingya, it is a political minefield which none of the mainstream political parties and the government want to handle. So, the Rohingyas not only find themselves unable to vote but also none of the mainstream political parties or the government want to take up their cause in their political agenda or election manifestos. Any attempt by Suu Kyi to appease the Rohingya by conceding to provide citizenship will not be taken kindly by the other ethnic groups. And in a predominantly Buddhist nation, many Buddhist monks who wield considerable influence on the population are equally against any reconciliation efforts.

    Spillover Effect

    All these developments in Myanmar are being watched in the region with surprise and shock. Bangladesh finds its Cox’s Bazaar and Bandarban districts bordering Myanmar being overwhelmed by refugees. Despite the United Nations asking Bangladesh to not stop refugees from entering, there have been reports of Rohingyas being handed over to Myanmar’s Border Guard Police (BGP).

    Muslim majority nations in South East Asia – Indonesia and Malaysia – have decided to throw their weight behind the Rohingya cause by conducting protest rallies. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has even urged the UN to take up the issue. All these open protests have a danger of turning radical as feared by Daniel Russel, the top US diplomat for East Asia. As things stand today, what was a little known domestic issue inside Myanmar has metamorphosed into a regional issue. And if unchecked, it might soon end up have international ramifications.

    All this public finger-pointing, especially by the United Nations seems to have rattled Suu Kyi who has delayed her scheduled trip to Jakarta. Life seems to have come full circle for Suu Kyi who now seems to be fast losing all her international friends on account of this issue.

    Myanmar’s constitution – amended just before the elections were conducted – had ensured that the military would retain a major presence in all the legislative bodies across the nation. It is interesting to see, how much of an influence Suu Kyi wields over the military in matters of internal security. The military might also want to see Suu Kyi and her party be shamed globally and thus get the general population to back another military takeover of the country’s reins. If that happens, Myanmar will plunge back into the abyss of dictatorship from which it took decades to come out.

    The Choice Ahead

    Suu Kyi has her task cut out. Her cherished ideals of non-violence and taking all ethnic groups along will be put to test if she wants to emerge successful in resolving this issue. For starters, she has to allow non-partisan international reporters, watch groups, medical staff to enter Rakhine state and provide all assistance to the persecuted groups. Even if it results in shaming and prosecution of people from the establishment for using excessive force, Suu Kyi will need to take that risk to show that she is unbiased in this whole issue. The accusation that Rohingyas are plotting insurgency against the Myanmar state should be properly investigated and appropriate measures should be taken to bring them to justice. In the long run though, no solution is complete unless the issue of citizenship of the Rohingyas is resolved. Suu Kyi will have to openly embrace the idea of providing citizenship to Rohingyas and hope that her brilliant oratorial skills will help her in prevailing over the common man on the streets of Yangon. Suu Kyi is up against the wall and she knows it very well. The world has admired her appetite for long fights against what she perceives as injustice. This one might be her next fight. What side will she stand on will determine how history will judge her. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize sits uneasy on her aging shoulders.

  • Will the Indian right and the Nepali left agree to co-exist and eat of each other’s hands?

    When the then Indian Prime Minister-designate Narendra Modi invited the then Prime Minister of Nepal Sushil Koirala (of the Nepali Congress) along with other heads of state of all the SAARC nations for his swearing in in May 2014, analysts saw it as an opportunity to solidify Indo-Nepal ties.

    A few months later in November 2016, Modi’s visit to Kathmandu – which saw India and Nepal signing 10 agreements in varied spheres – took the initiative one step further. His popularity with the average Nepali on the street, who was seen shaking hands with him and cheering for him – was an illustration of how rosy the future would be. Modi had openly supported the Nepali Constituent Assembly to come up with a constitution (it was in the process of being drafted at that stage) that would be fair, inclusive and supportive of all the sections of Nepali people. After years of inertia in Indo-Nepali relations coupled with mistrust, things were on the move once again.

    Fast-forward by a year and the government in Kathmandu had changed hands (after the new constitution had come into effect) and Krishna Prasad Sharma Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) was the new head of the government. With the new constitution came protests by Madhesis who accused Kathmandu of step-motherly treatment for “incorrectly drawing” out new provinces by slicing the Madhesi areas in the South and attaching them with the mountainous areas in the north under a common province instead of retaining the cultural and historical splits. Madhesis felt that this was a deliberate move by Kathmandu to keep them under-represented in the government. Madhesis did what they knew best. They blocked the border posts with India thus cutting off the supply of essential items from reaching Kathmandu. Historically the CPN-UML had doubted the Indo-Nepali Friendship Treaty and had advocated for a complete overhaul of how the two states would interact. The Madhesi agitation coupled with the historic mistrust resulted in the KP Sharma Oli government openly accusing New Delhi of deliberately blocking border posts to show their support to the Madhesis. This, put in other words, meant that Kathmandu was accusing New Delhi of interfering in Nepali domestic affairs.

    A lot of op-eds have been written about this particular Madhesi agitation and how India found itself being bashed by a neighbor that it had pretty much taken for granted. Nepal being a land-locked nation depends on India for all its essential items like groceries and oil. The blockade forced the ruling Left parties of Nepal to look towards Beijing as a long-term strategy to counter India whenever the going got rough. New Delhi stuck to its official stand that it had nothing to do with the blockades and that this was an internal failure of Nepal to not address the genuine concerns of the Madhesis. New Delhi ended up becoming a punching bag for all the vices plaguing Nepal. Be that as it may, the Nepali government finally reached out to the Madhesis and promised them to relook at their demands. The agitation was successfully brought under control at least for the time being.

    The powerful 2015 earthquake that struck Nepal caused a lot of damage to lives and property. India was not only the first nation to send emergency support but was also the largest international donor helping Nepal to recover. However this was not well received in Kathmandu partly because the need to rebuild was so big compared to the contributions of the international community. More so, the Indian media’s aggressive and at times insensitive coverage of the disaster and the aftermath was perceived to be humiliating and distracting and Kathmandu had to throw out the entire Indian media contingent.

    Narendra Modi has been riding on a wave of popularity ever since his historic victory in May 2014. His foreign policy has got the most thumbs up by the people at home who have seen his frequent overseas travels as efforts by New Delhi to push itself into the league of regional and possibly global powers. However, if there is any negative in this “hugely successful” foreign policy, it has to be the worsening Indo-Nepali relationship and Modi has his own government to blame for this. Although the Ministry of External Affairs kept issuing simple statements that problems in Nepal were due to their own failures, such statements failed to cut ice.

    Luckily though, Modi will get a second chance to correct the wrongdoings of the recent past. The political instability that has plagued Nepal has now resulted in a regime change in Kathmandu, yet again. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known popularly by him nom de guerre Prachanda – the fierce one – has become the Prime Minister for the second time. It is well known that during his first stint as Prime Minister in Aug 2008, he went out of his way to show that he didn’t want to deal with India based on decades old Indo-Nepal Friendship Treaty. Enough has been written about his overtures to the Maoists in India to develop a cross-border Maoist alliance. In fact, Prachanda broke tradition when he chose to visit Beijing for his first overseas tour as PM instead of the customary New Delhi trip. Such open overtures to Beijing at the cost of New Delhi, riled up the Indian establishment. In fact, Prachanda resigned as the Prime Minister when the President rejected his decision to dismiss the Army Chief whom he had perceived as being pro-India.

    Much water has flown in the Bagmati ever since. Prachanda has done a complete U-turn and is now seen as being eager to shake hands with India. This time around, he has planned his first overseas travel to New Delhi prior to Beijing and has sent out his deputy Bimalendra Nidhi to iron out the details of the visit scheduled for mid-September 2016 rather than getting it done through the embassies. He has explained on a few occasions that he wants to have friendly relations with India unlike the previous tenure.

    For India though, things couldn’t have gotten any easier. Foe-turned-friend willing to extend a hand of friendship is not very common in geopolitics. It is imperative that New Delhi takes advantage of this situation and cements the friendship by taking concrete steps. Major in the list would include helping in the post-earthquake relief and rehabilitation efforts. In addition, New Delhi will have to promise Kathmandu that neither will it indulge in any economic blockade nor will it allow Madhesis to impose any. While Nepal wants to use China as a bargaining chip against India in case of any adversity, New Delhi will have to come up with time-bound deals to help Nepal economically while underlining its own strategic necessities. In doing all this, New Delhi should be seen as having stopped behaving like a big brother of the region. Only then, can the relationship be taken to the next level. If this however fails for whatever reason, Prachanda will not be averse to recalibrate Nepal leanings towards Beijing. Domestically too, Modi may have limited appeal amidst Left voters (Maoist voters) in India. But a warm handshake with a Maoist from across the border might actually thaw the polarized political atmosphere in India. All in all, this is one opportunity that Modi should be willing to grab with both hands.

  • A Downward Spiral Called South Sudan

    Introduction

    South Sudan has been in the news for all the wrong reasons in the past month. Civil war broke out in the capital Juba and other areas in the first half of July 2016. The militia of the two primary tribes of South Sudan – Nuer and Dinka were reported to be targeting women and children of the other tribe. This resulted in a massive internal displacement of the ordinary South Sudanese. Most people affected took refuge in the UN Camps in Juba. Many nations promptly issued travel advisories asking their citizens to not travel to South Sudan until further notice. A few nations even sent out special places to bring back their nationals from Juba. A few other expatriates moved across the border to Sudan hoping to sit out the conflict and return when the situation would return to normalcy.

    South Sudanese “Birth Pangs”

    South Sudan became the youngest country in 2011 when it gained independence from Sudan. In doing so, it had the approval of the US and a few other African nations. Such a step, observers felt, would herald an era of peace by marking an end to the deadly violence in erstwhile Sudan. However, things didn’t go as per plan right from the start. The Nuer and the Dinka tribes have bitterly fought each other creating a civil war situation since independence. The fact that the President Salva Kiir hails from the Dinka tribe and the recently removed Vice President Reik Machar hails from Nuer tribe has only managed to add a political angle to this tribal conflict. Owing to a general lack of trust between these two, the civil war intensified in 2015. Machar had stayed out of the country accusing Kiir of deliberately sabotaging all attempts of ceasefire. Eventually after many failed attempts, a major peace deal was reached between the President and the Vice President in August 2015. But the peace deal as all the earlier attempts failed to bring much needed peace to the country.

    The latest bout of violence is yet another episode of inter-ethnic clashes that have threatened to push the nation into an irretrievable abyss. As events unfolded in Juba, the President appointed Gen. Taban Deng Gai as the First Vice President replacing Machar. Not surprisingly, Machar has declared the appointment of Gai as illegal and vowed to continue fighting against Kiir. In the meanwhile, news reports coming in from Juba disclose the savagery of South Sudanese government soldiers who raped dozens of ethnic Nuer women and girls outside a United Nations camp where they had sought protection. Amidst all the fighting, the African Union has decided to send in troops to South Sudan to bring in peace. The AU soldiers numbering close to 12000 are larger in strength than the UN peacekeepers and also have a larger mandate.

    While the ethnic distrust and tensions beg a permanent solution, what is causing widespread concern is the role of the President, his government troops – mostly belonging to the Dinka tribe, the Vice President and the UN Peacekeepers who chose to stay back as mute witnesses to the unfolding horror. As the stakeholders begin to make their next move, a revisit to the August 2015 Peace Deal will help in enforcing a stronger ceasefire and lasting peace.

    What did the 2015 Peace Deal Contain and why did it fail?

    The Peace Deal was initiated by the neighboring nations of Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda and was signed on by rebel leader Machar. The President Kiir was however not pleased and resisted agreeing to the peace deal until the United States and the United Nations threatened to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan if the President didn’t agree to the deal. Left with no choice, President Kiir signed on the dotted line, while making his displeasure known all along. He was particularly unhappy about the structure and command of the South Sudan forces once the transitional government took over.

    Key points of the peace deal:

    1. Immediate end to the fighting – Soldiers to be sent back to the barracks within a month and all foreign forces to leave within 45 days
    2. Juba to be demilitarized – “Guard forces” and Joint Integrated Police to take the place of the military forces
    3. Rebels to get the post of First Vice-President – Reik Machar to be appointed as the First Vice-President of South Sudan
    4. Transitional government of national unity – Setting up of transitional government within 90 days with a mandate to govern for 30 months with elections to be held at the end of this period.
    5. Truth Commission – Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing to investigate human rights violations

    Any agreement is bound to fail when the major stakeholders aren’t fully on board. It is unfortunate that none of the salient points of the peace deal were fulfilled to the satisfaction of either the international community or the domestic constituents. While there were overt statements from both the stakeholders that they were committed to working together to bring in long-term peace, that never materialized on ground.

    How have the outsiders reacted?

    Needless to say, the international community is aghast at the atrocities committed in South Sudan. Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) – an East African regional bloc has taken active interest in finding a lasting solution to the issue. Several regional and international actors like the African Union Commission, China, European Union, Norway, the US, UK and the UN have joined hands with IGAD – calling themselves as IGAD Plus – to give the process a greater acceptance. It has issued a detailed communiqué on how it wants to intervene in South Sudan. President Kiir, despite initial opposition, now seems to be coming around to accept the idea of a larger UN troops presence. However, the South Sudan government is yet to negotiate the “composition, mandate, armament, deployment, timing and funding” of the force.

    Can South Sudan see peace in the short and medium term?

    The answer to this question lies in the success of peacekeeping and peace building that will be accomplished as a result of the IGAD communiqué. As per the communiqué, the President and the former Vice President have to sign the agreement in Addis Ababa by August 17. While the President has agreed in principle to an increase in the presence of foreign troops, he has been successful in bargaining with IGAD Plus to determine how the troops will be deployed. IGAD Plus now says that the foreign troops will only be entrusted with the protection of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), humanitarian agencies. In addition, the President will be able to negotiate the number of the troops, which implies that the Regional Protection Force will be small and not well equipped. Any such changes to the original intention can only result in a lopsided sham effort. Also, it needs to be seen if Machar will return back to Juba to reclaim his position of Vice Presidency alone or will he bring his troops back to Juba for his protection and also to protect the people of his tribe.

    Although this looks gloomy, a lot of developments seem to be happening both in Addis Ababa and at the United Nations that seem to suggest that UN Security Council will indeed modify the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to include regional troops.

    With the US busy with its domestic politics, the regional players ascertaining the terms of the negotiation with President Kiir and the UN taking up this issue in earnest in the coming week, one can only hope that good sense prevails and all the stakeholders step back from their extreme positions to have a meaningful restoration of peace in the troubled state. If not, another opportunity lost this year to sow the crops which can help feed the common South Sudanese will just be a minor issue as compared to a civil war engulfing the state all over again. Time to keep one’s fingers crossed!