The UN Security Council threatens sanctions on South Sudan’s leaders if they don’t sign a deal before the end of August 2015. The mediators draw up a ‘compromise peace agreement’ and both leaders sign, reluctantly. The agreement is a share-out of top jobs. The people must wait for democracy, justice, disarmament and development.Continue Reading →
The mediators remain stuck in a model of peacemaking that includes only the leaders of the warring parties. Between December 2013 and August 2015, there are eight summit meetings, usually in Addis Ababa, and near-continuous peace talks. But the mediators never once go to meet the South Sudanese people. Civil society’s views aren’t taken seriously.Continue Reading →
History shows that the Sudanese and South Sudanese only reach peace agreements when the budget is increasing. Every political leader goes to the peace table expecting to depart with more than the amount he arrived with. The problem facing the mediators was that South Sudan’s budget is shrinking rapidly.Continue Reading →
Oil production is dropping…and the price of oil is falling too. The South Sudanese pound is depreciating. Inflation is rising. Foreign debts are increasing…The oil companies have refused any more loans and the government only borrow secretly at exorbitant rates.Continue Reading →
This post begins a new eight-part cartoon series with text Alex de Waal and artwork by Victor Ndula, depicting the political marketplace in South Sudan. The series is the second in a collaboration between de Waal and Ndula, the first 8 episodes, “South Sudan: Who got What?” can be found on our website. The project was co-sponsored by the Cartoon Movement, Justice and Security Research Programme and the World Peace Foundation. We begin with Episode OneContinue Reading →
Begin with recognizing that all political systems need money, and that political finance should be regulated. This in turn requires drawing a distinction between political spending and corruption. This is a simple distinction to assert but a remarkably difficult one to delineate in practice.
The difference between legitimate funding of political institutions and patronage systems, and theft, needs to be drawn differently for each political system. So the next step is to initiate a process that allows countries to draw this line themselves. In institutionalized political systems, there can be an open debate on political financing, leading to legislation and enforcement. In political markets, it is the political financiers—the domestic businesses, foreign investors and patrons who provide the political money—who must take the lead. Let them collectively determine what counts as corruption and what is legitimate political spending.Continue Reading →
Tagsadvocacy Africa African Union arms trade atrocities AU book review Bosnia Burma conflict data corruption Democratic Republic of Congo Drugs Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia famine gender genocide Getting Somalia Wrong? human rights memorial Indonesia intervention Iraq justice Libya Mali mediation memorialization new wars Olympics peace political marketplace Re-Framing the Debate Research Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Syria trafficking UN Unlearning violence Youth Zenawi