U.S. Foreign Policy is Driving South Sudan Into the Arms of Our Enemies
October 08, 2023
By Justin Thomas Russell*
Justin Thomas Russell
As our world becomes increasingly intertwined and interdependent, it is more important than ever to get the international diplomatic gears turning in the right direction. Nowhere is this truer than in Africa, where American foreign policy has failed to help the world’s newest constitutional republic, where the government is facing challenges directly involving it's future, from a slippery slope of economic and diplomatic disaster. South Sudan’s current situation has been exacerbated at every turn by U.S. policy decisions that have forced the young nation into the arms of enemies we should be holding accountable for their own terrible actions; China and Russia. It’s time that we take a hard look at how our policies can best support economic growth and stability in South Sudan — beginning with recognizing them not as pawns or commodities but as equals on the global stage worthy of respect like any other nation.
In the years leading up to South Sudanese independence, the U.S. was supportive of the establishment of a constitutional republic in the region. President George W. Bush was the biggest advocate of these efforts and viewed the creation of the South Sudanese state as a positive impact on the region and the African continent. It was the U.S. that helped put South Sudan on the map, if you will.
However, for too long, U.S. foreign policy has been doomed to failure in South Sudan due to a lack of clear, consistent action and an unwillingness to commit the necessary diplomatic, economic, or strategic resources. As a result of this inaction, South Sudan’s progress towards stability and democracy is being slowly eroded by our adversaries in the region, who are actively contributing to growing insecurity and violence. It was not so long ago that hopes were high for the promise of peace that had been achieved after decades of civil war; now it seems as if we have replaced one tragedy with another - an all-too familiar reality for many countries in Africa's east central region.
The West continues to chide South Sudan’s Government and thinks that South Sudan’s failure to adopt a democratic form of government is a reason for its lackluster cooperation with the world’s youngest country. In hindsight, this is not how countries such as Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, and Botswana transitioned to democracy. These countries first required visionary leadership and decisive political authority to set the tone for that vision. It is that vision that led these countries to more viable economic development before they became democracies. South Sudan, as such, cannot invent the wheel. It can only become democratic through measured stages of economic and political development.
This point was highlighted by an analogy presented by a senior member of the South Sudanese Government during a meeting between the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs and South Sudanese government leaders in Juba back in 2022. In this meeting, one of the Ministers present made the following statement:
“The United States has been a constitutional republic for over two hundred years. (South Sudan) has been a constitutional republic for ten years. If the United States is dealing with the challenges of democratic rule after two hundred years…I give you January 6th…how can they expect South Sudan to get it exactly right after ten years?”
It is a fair question.
With the questionable U.S. commitment to South Sudan and other emerging democracies in Africa, Russia, China, and other adversaries have found a golden opportunity to exploit and manipulate the United States with their selfish greed in South Sudan. These countries have stepped in to take advantage and advance their own interests, leaving South Sudan vulnerable to their influence. The situation has allowed Russia and China to increase their economic and political foothold in the region, furthering their own gains. In recent years, Russia has been actively working to expand its influence in Africa, aiming to regain a foothold on the continent reminiscent of the Cold War era. The Kremlin has pursued military, economic, and diplomatic ties with various African nations, offering arms sales, investment, and political support.
It is essential to note that allowing South Sudan and other countries in the region to align with Russia could provide Moscow with a strategic gateway into Central and East Africa, potentially jeopardizing American interests in the region. Despite the U.S.'s efforts to promote peace and democracy, these adversaries have managed to establish themselves as key players in regional affairs. We already know that Moscow has been eager to provide mercenary support for different parties on the African continent by utilizing the resources of The Wagner Group.
An example of this is the recent announcement of a growing alliance between Moscow and Juba. On September 29th, to garner support for its illegal war in Ukraine and gain a strategic foothold on the African continent, Russian President Vladmir Putin invited South Sudanese President Salva Kiir to the Kremlin for bi-lateral talks involving trade, energy, mineral exploitation, and most importantly…oil. The natural resources that South Sudan possesses but is not able to fully exploit to its benefit, is well known. Russia also knows Western sanctions in place are preventing local petroleum and energy companies from engaging with western oil companies to partner with to create a solid economic base for this emerging constitutional republic.
This agreement between Juba and Moscow clearly confirms that the U.S.'s approach to foreign policy in South Sudan (and the region) should be heavily scrutinized as it seems to have provided an opening for these countries to fulfill their ambitions, potentially at the cost of their future in the global community. During the meeting between Presidents Kiir and Putin, Kiir stated that ““The world dictates that no one can survive or succeed alone”. The President Kiir must think that the United States left them alone, because he ended his thoughts by saying South Sudan needs “strong friends”. He also said of Putin and Russia “you are one of them…I DON'T SEE ANY ALTERNATIVE”. He said it all. He was invited several times to visit Moscow in past.
The logical question then arises…how does the United States stop the hemorrhaging of allied support in places like South Sudan and the African continent? What steps can Washington do to stop having our friends make deals that are in direct conflict with U.S. security and diplomatic interests?
One key step is to develop a comprehensive and coherent strategy for Africa that addresses the economic, security, and diplomatic concerns of our partners on the continent. This means engaging with African countries, like South Sudan, in a more consistent and proactive manner, and investing in projects that are seen as valuable by these countries. It also means focusing on building long-term relationships based on trust and mutual interests, rather than short-term gains. We need to show African countries that we are committed to helping them address their challenges and opportunities, while also promoting democracy, human rights, and good governance. This means working with African leaders as partners, rather than dictating solutions from afar in a vacuum.
The situation here is quite simple and quite clear. U.S. foreign policy in Africa needs to change if we want to retain our strategic partners on the continent. We need to invest in Africa's economic and social development and engage with African countries in a more coherent and consistent manner. Instead of sanctions, warnings, and advisories… implement economic development and trade programs that make sense. Replace the ‘bags of rice’ diplomacy currently used in Africa, bring opportunities for business partners to increase and enhance their presence in country without the threat of punitive actions from our own government. We also need to be more assertive in promoting our own values and interests, while maintaining a balanced approach to diplomacy. Failure to do so risks losing ground to our adversaries, and missing out on the immense potential that Africa offers.
While the situation in places like Sudan, Central African Republic, Darfur, and Gabon continue to deteriorate, this is not the time to have the United States invoke an ad hoc foreign policy that is not realistic in Africa. While autocrats such as Patrice Talon in Benin and Paul Kagame in Rwanda continue to strangle democratic rule on the continent, the United States does not have the luxury of time or clout to push a foreign policy that shoves American ideals down the throats of those we are hoping to support.
The bottom line is that the recent deal between Russia and South Sudan is in direct violation of U.S. foreign policy interests in the region and has worrying implications for regional security and stability. The U.S must assess how our own strategies have created an environment where South Sudan is more likely to seek out strategic partners such as Russia and China. It is essential to create a proactive approach to preventing further deals like this from happening again, possibly through shifting sanctions policies to encourage trade with South Sudan, as a form of diplomatic measure to alleviate tensions between the two countries. Going forward, it will be key for the U.S foreign policy agenda towards South Sudan and other allies in Africa to promote security and stability, while simultaneously recognizing the legitimate needs of their people. Ultimately, by taking decisive action on these issues and reassessing current sanctions policies to facilitate better communication channels between the two countries, the U.S will be able to mitigate any further hostile deals in the region, thus protecting its own interests abroad as well as ensuring greater security for all parties involved in this complex geopolitical situation.
Bags of rice with American flags on them just is not cutting it anymore.
