Does the U.S. have a responsibility to protect (R2P) the people of South Sudan? The country found themselves fighting a Civil War that ended in 2013.
Case Study of South Sudan
Lakesha Bryant
SOC 300-Socialogy of Developing Countries
John Cronin
March 1, 2017
With the help of the United States, South Sudan gained their independence in 2011. The country found themselves fighting a Civil War that ended in 2013. Current President Salva Kiir, head of SPLM/A and former Vice President Riek Machar head of SPLM/A-IO and head of a rebel group are still at odds. Machar has gone into hiding but has left some of his troops behind to cause the ruckus in the country. President Kiir is trying to maintain control, but the rebels are making it very difficult for humanitarian aid to be delivered. A large portion of the country is famine; they are fighting over the countries religion, have a collapsed market, oil fields are being mismanaged; families are displaced, an outbreak of diseases, and causing disruption with their agriculture. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it’s my job to provide advice to the President and senior leaders on how we should intervene in the crisis that’s going on within the country.
1. Is any national interest in the U.S. involved? Yes
2. If so, what are those interests? If not, why are no interest involved?
The first interest would be South Sudan’s oil. When South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, it gained control over most of the oil reserves. “However, South Sudan lacks the infrastructure to refine or move the oil, and can only export it through pipelines in Sudan.” This caused a big conflict between the two and control over oil supply is still current today. Long-term contracts have been made with oil companies, infrastructure has been laid down, and patterns of oil revenue management and budgeting were established during the period of semi-autonomy under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA is a collection of agreements that is meant for the betterment of South Sudan.
The second interest is political, and I wouldn’t say it’s interesting for the United States. “It was an interest for former President Obama and his administration to make the referendum a priority, and the recognition of South Sudan by the United States held as a major foreign-policy victory.” Before leaving office, former President Obama was unimpressed and deeply disappointed by the country’s leadership. Kiir didn’t seem interested in bringing peace to the country as he stalled for more time with signing the agreement. He eventually signed the agreement but was issued a warning by the U.S. that would hold any leaders accountable that may stray from the commitment. With everything that the country is going through, does this still count as a foreign policy victory?
3. Does the U.S. have a responsibility to protect (R2P) the people of South Sudan?
Yes, the U.S. does have a responsibility to protect the people of South Sudan. It was the U.S. that encourage the separation of Sudan, so I feel that it is only right for the U.S. to protect the country and continue with aid. The country hardly has any roads and not nearly enough schools or health services for its population. Almost 200,000 people are fleeing to refugee camps and crossing South Sudan’s borders. 2.25 million people have been displaced and left half its population at risk of going hungry. Cholera has broken out, and deadly cases of malaria are rampant. Thousands of people have been killed because of the war. Oil fields are not being managed incorrectly. With South Sudan being rich with oil, most of the people make their living with relying on cattle for their livelihood and use charcoal as their main fuel source. The country is in desperate need of financial aid, medical treatment, and educational help. The country also needs help and protection from their people raging wars.
4. If so, what form should that intervention take? If no action is recommended, why not?
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH NURSING HOMEWORK HELP TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
