BY PETER BIAR AJAK

Let’s all acknowledge that our country has a massive problem with corruption. Not only is corruption fueling violence, but it is a disease that is entrenching South Sudan in failure. As such, any efforts aimed are curbing it are in order and should be appreciated. As such, Sentry’s attempt should be welcome, although it should be taken with a barrel of salt. It should not appear as if I am denying the existence of corruption. In fact, corruption is a serious problem in our country. The collapse of Nile Commercial Bank, the dura saga, the Crisis Management Committee are evidence of the scale of the problem.

But with this said, it doesn’t mean that we should just take any shoddy work put out there at face value. Doing so would even undermine the genuine efforts aimed at fighting corruption. While there are serious issues with the methodology of the Sentry’s report, I have no interest to dwell on that part. My point is that the report failed to do what it set out to do. It was supposed to link corruption to the ongoing violence, with focus on periods 2013-2016.

Now, let me expand on shortcomings on the reports and why it is hard to believe that it was done over a period of two years:

It should be clear that the report has serious issues. It generated fanfare on assumptions and absolutely questionable work. This does not mean that corruption should be ignored. One ought to accept the challenge of investigating this vice and try to approach it methodically. If we are talking about the periods since the war began, the major scam occurred through the Crisis Management Committee (CMC), in which money was misappropriated or outrightly stolen. One would have expected a report trying to connect the recent war to corruption to start there. It did not.

The reliance of the report on sources like Chimp Reports, which it alleges to be a “respected Ugandan investigative news outlet” is just embarrassing. This source along with Facebook accounts for a significant amount of data in the report. So, not only are there a lot of assumptions the reports makes, but even where the report allegedly has evidence, the core of it comes from Facebook and satellite images (which are absolutely useless in this kind of investigation).

As for the ridiculous per diem the government dishes out to its employees, I totally agree that this practice should be stopped. But until it is stopped, it is de jure and de facto legal. God knows the amount of hard currency wasted on this item! Those who benefited from these per diems should not be accused of corruption since they were getting what was entitled to them according to the system. It is the system that should be blamed here, but not the individuals in question.

I understand that many are conflating the dislike for Kiir’s regime with this report. As such, many are willing to embrace it for political issues alone. The two issues should be separate. If we approach the fight against corruption that way, we would surely lose this fight. John Prendengast and George Clooney along with their colleagues at Enough and Sentry simply need to get their acts together.

Otherwise, I doubt if this report would be of any real value. I don’t see the need for those mentioned in it to waste their valuable time over it. It’s fanfare over a bunch of nothing!

The IGAD states recently dispatched their chiefs of staffs to meet with the SPLA High Command. In that meeting the SPLA was formally informed that IGAD politicians have decided to deploy forces to intervene in South Sudan. Hinting that the decision might be unilateral, the chiefs told the SPLA that they had come to initiate dialogue on how to go about implementing deployment of their forces.

The SPLA rejected outright intervention of IGAD militarily sighting simple matters of sovereignty. Others might argue that they helped us during our war of independence therefore they are entitled to intervened. It is well that they might have helped but back then we were not a sovereign state but rebels. In addition, they used us to achieve a foreign policy objective against Khartoum and we used them to separate from Khartoum.

Now that we are a sovereign nation, no regional country should feel self-righteous in our affairs lest they ignite the region. It is true that indeed South Sudan has been having problems since its inception. Some of these problems are exacerbated by some of these regional countries that have now turned around and want to "fix" us. 

Corruption is endemic, most of the stolen money ends up in Uganda and Kenya both who have done zero to help recover these stolen funds and stem this habit. The proceeds of corruption in South Sudan play a vital play in some sectors of their economies hence the reluctance. Khartoum has been arming a succession of militias including the current ones tearing the country apart to destabilise South Sudan since time immemorial. Ethiopia is faring no better than South Sudan with a series of ethnic conflicts, Somalia and the threat of ever looming war with Ertirea tying down its military forces in the north. However, this does not excuse the failures of our leaders who have collectively been looting the country since 2005 and killing civilians. The ultimate responsibility rests with them but the region cannot claim a higher moral ground for it has failed too.

The idea that military intervention will fix South Sudan is shortsighted. Not only will people quickly get deluded with foreign forces as they stay longer but disenfranchised South Sudanese will take up arms. Any forceful unilateral military intervention in South Sudan without the agreement and approval of the government of South Sudan is a hostile invasion. There is a passionate debate within the army that risks fracturing it. I'm with the group that says the SPLA should respond to any unilateral intervention by IGAD with full force and must engage any incoming enemy forces. A nation is above all.

It is unlikely that Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda, who are the most hawkish about this plan can sustain a prolonged war with the SPLA far away from their home bases. Uganda is unlikely to go against South Sudan with President Museveni having clearly expressed his opinion that any foreign military in South Sudan should be providing protection only to Riek Machar and its mandate should not go beyond that. The Kenyan army is stretched with forces in Somalia, North Eastern Kenya and other peacekeeping commitments. The Ethiopian forces are stretched too with the buckle of the forces stationed near the Eritrean border, Oromo, Ogaden and in Abyei. They cannot sustain multi wars without wrecking their economies and political foundations. The Rwandan army is slightly in a better position but it too cannot wage war for long in South Sudan. 

There are already over 12,000 foreign troops in South Sudan. There should be no more foreign troops on our soil. The best option for everyone with minimal risk of confrontation between the SPLA and IGAD invasion force is to change the mandate and rules of engagement of the current forces. They should be changed and expanded to enable them to protect civilians in their bases better and a portion of these forces already in South Sudan should be turned into Riek Machar's protection force.

There is little appetite for a regional war. However, the extent to which South Sudan is ready to stop this intervention should be only underestimated at the risk of a wider regional conflict. There are various factions within the SPLA most of whom are unhappy with the idea. It is anyone's guess how long they can be kept under control should this silly idea come fruition.