The Consequences of Western Secessionist Policy

Gruesome Slaughter

A United Nations report, published last week,[1] sums up the mass crimes currently being committed in the South Sudanese Civil War. The report points out that since combat began on the evening of December 15, 2013; various militias have committed numerous massacres. The first armed conflicts were sparked by escalating political rivalries within the governing SPLM Party. Within days, these developed into a gruesome slaughter between South Sudan's two largest language groups, the Dinka and the Nuer. During the first few days of this re-enflamed civil war, in Juba, the capital, Dinka slaughtered hundreds, simply because they spoke Nuer. Just two weeks ago, Nuer killed about 200 people in the town of Bentiu, the capital of oil-rich Unity state, simply because they were thought to be Dinka. Current estimates are of more than 10,000 dead and more than a million refugees - around ten percent of the population. In many cases, the parties to this civil war correspond to the factions, who had viciously fought each other for decades prior to 2005. At that time, the internal southern Sudanese conflict had caused more deaths, than had been caused by the war between these southern Sudanese militias and Khartoum's government troops.

"Finally Independent"

The current conflict represents exactly what observers had been constantly warning against - the persistent collapse of South Sudanese statehood (founded July 9, 2011) and the disintegration into civil war. Since the late 1990s, the development leading toward its separation from Sudan and the founding of its own nation state was supported not only by the USA but by Germany as well. Particularly since the peace agreement between Juba and Khartoum was signed in January 2005, measures leading toward secession had been energetically promoted. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[2]) Germany recognized the Republic of South Sudan on the day of its proclamation of statehood. German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle, declared, "I congratulate the people of South Sudan and President Salva Kiir to their Independence Day."[3] The Berlin-supported secession had been covered benevolently by the media. "South Sudan will finally be independent on July 9," wrote the taz journal, which is close to the Green Party. "For the first time, a new nation" will be created in Africa, "that is oriented not on colonial borders, but solely on the people's right to self-determination."[4]

Disempowering Khartoum

The fact that the western supporters of secession - from Washington to Berlin - were in no way oriented primarily on the "right of self-determination" - that they are now denying the people of Crimea - but rather on their own geostrategic interests was a theme that had not been raised at the time. Khartoum - which Bonn had strongly courted in the post-war confrontation of systems, also with arms exports [5] - developed in the 1990s into an opponent of the main western powers, in the dawning confrontation between NATO countries and insubordinates in the Arab World. In the civil war between Khartoum and numerous militias in the south of the country, the West saw an opportunity to weaken the predominantly Arab (northern) Sudan, by breaking the south away from the rest of the country. Not only would secession dramatically diminish Khartoum's rule both in terms of territory and population, but Sudan (north) would also lose access to three-fourths of the country's oil deposits - the main source of income for the national budget. The transatlantic strategy for Khartoum's complete disempowerment was rounded off with plans to export the oil from seceded South Sudan, no longer via the existing pipelines passing northward through Sudan, but rather via a new transit route to the Kenyan coast - yet to be built with extensive efforts. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[6])

A Failed State

The warnings issued by experts have been systematically ignored and disregarded. Just before South Sudan's secession had been formalized on July 9, 2011, the Deputy Director of the Global Public Policy Institute, Thorsten Benner, warned in a press commentary that "the economic and social indicators for South Sudan" are among "the worst in the world." The country has "no functioning administration, police, judicial, educational or health systems," but it was "full of weapons and yet to be demobilized combatants" and the army is "bloated and undisciplined." With the exception of an "ambiguous history of suffering, the ethnic groups of South Sudan have little in common," according to Benner: There are numerous hotbeds of conflict and up to 1,600 fell victim to these conflicts in the first half of 2011 alone - "far more than in the Darfur crisis region." Other than a few exceptions, a "South Sudanese elite caring for public welfare" is - "nowhere in sight." "In short: South Sudan has all of the ingredients for a failed state," the expert concluded and pointed out that the country is becoming "a security risk, not only for its own population, but for the entire region."[7]

Feigning Innocence

This is exactly what is now happening. The South Sudanese population is confronted with a humanitarian catastrophe and neighboring countries are being drawn, to a growing extent, into the conflict. The media organs, which had previously applauded preparations for the secession and praised the proclamation of the Republic of South Sudan's statehood, are now feigning innocence. "Old wounds are tearing the new South Sudan apart," the taz, for example, dryly notes, shortly after fighting began.[8] The fact that leading Western powers had vigorously promoted the secession from Sudan for their own strategic advantage, the fact that the secessionist policy pursued by Washington and Berlin had helped create this disastrous development, is simply being ignored. "Political leaders of both parties to the South Sudan conflict" now "have the responsibility" for developing a credible vision of a future for their country," declared the German foreign minister.[9] The situation of the population has become as desolate as it had been during the civil war before 2005. As long as its geostrategic objectives are not in jeopardy, Berlin can wash its hands of responsibility for the bloody consequences of its secessionist policy.

Other reports and background information on Germany's policy toward South Sudan can be found here: Smash and Rebuild, An Instrument of Western Power, Establishing a State, The Train to Independence (II), The Benefit of Secession, English rather than Arabic, At the Brink of War and The Impact of Geostrategists.

[1] United Nations: Conflict in South Sudan: A Human Rights Report. 8 May 2014.
[2] See Establishing a State, The Benefit of Secession, Nächstes Jahr ein neuer Staat and Vom Nutzen der Sezession.
[3] Außenminister Westerwelle beglückwünscht Südsudan zur Unabhängigkeit. www.auswaertiges-amt.de 09.07.2011.
[4] Dominic Johnson: Vabanquespiel am Nil. www.taz.de 09.07.2011.
[5] See English rather than Arabic.
[6] See Die Bahn zur Unabhängigkeit, The Train to Independence (II) and The Impact of Geostrategists.
[7] Thorsten Brenner: Scheitert der Südsudan als Staat? www.tagesspiegel.de 08.07.2011.
[8] Dominic Johnson: Der Traum ist geplatzt. www.taz.de 20.12.2013.
[9] Außenminister Steinmeier: Waffenruhe in Südsudan ist Zeichen der Hoffnung. www.auswaertiges-amt.de 10.05.2014.