South Sudan in the Region

Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia all stand to benefit greatly from the recent independence of South Sudan. All three countries had a long history of engagement with the 2nd Sudanese Civil War, and with the 6-year political settlement that followed the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. As a result, all three governments are now seeking to strengthen their diplomatic and commercial ties with Juba, in moves that will doubtless improve the security situation both within the new new country itself, and in bordering areas. These deepening ties will probably also result in the South Sudan being quickly incorporated into the EAC, which will in turn make Juba less reliant upon its current economic lifeline of oil exports through Sudan.

It is probably no coincidence that the largest national delegations to attend the 9th July independence celebrations in Juba were those led by Presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya, and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia. All three are long standing allies of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) – which forms the basis of the new Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) – and as such, all were deeply involved both in the civil war, and in the peace process that finally ended it. Moreover, all three now regard the establishment of a strong state in Juba as crucial both to their own security interests, and for the general stability of the East African region as whole:

Uganda: Uganda was a key ally of the SPLM/A throughout the war, and provided major military and logistical support through the fighting. From the mid-1980s onwards, Kampala was also the hub for the SPLM/A diplomatic efforts abroad, and Uganda was also involved in the Machakos talks (in its capacity as a member of the IGAD sub-committee on Sudan). There is strong evidence that in recent months, Kampala has also been providing ongoing military assistance to the nascent GoSS. By engaging with Southern Sudan in these ways, President Museveni’s primary motivation throughout has been to secure his northern regions from insurgencies such as that of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). In the present context, his hope is that a more stable government in Juba will mitigate against the LRA ever being able to re-establish their former bases in Southern Sudan (from which they were expelled during Operation Iron Fist, in 2002). In addition, he may also be hoping that South Sudan will continue to support ongoing multi-national military operations against current LRA positions (in North-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic).

Kenya: Nairobi has also been a longstanding regional ally of the SPLA/M, having hosted the organization’s leadership and headquarters since 1991. From 2002 onwards, Kenya oversaw the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)-supported peace talks which resulted in the signing of the CPA (the talks were held in Machakos and chaired by retired Kenyan General Lazaro Sumbeiywo). Immediately following the agreement, in February 2005, Kibaki set up the Kenya Southern Sudan Liaison Office (KESSULO), ostensibly to monitor the implementation of agreement, but also as a conduit for Kenyan support into Southern Sudan. In the run up to South Sudan’s independence, KESSULO provided both commercial and legal advice to the SPLA/M leadership, and also channelled several million dollars worth of aid into the region, especially for purposes of training a nascent GoSS civil service. In so doing, the Kenyan government are partly motivated by a desire to eventually repatriate the 25,000 Southern Sudanese refugees who remain in their country (although this number is greatly down from the 100,000 who were based in Kenya at the height of the Sudan civil war, their ongoing presence remains a point of political contention in Nairobi). In addition, though, the Kenyan government also hopes that a more stable and prosperous South Sudan might have similar, ‘knock on’ effects in their own Rift Valley Province (which partly borders the new state, and which was the scene of some of the worst violence following the contested Kenyan presidential elections of December 2007). This is particularly an aspiration of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who hails from Rift Valley.

Ethiopia: Addis Ababa was a third crucial ally of the SPLM/A, especially during the early part of the war, when they provided bases, training, and equipment to the rebel group. Following the rise to power of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPDRF) in 1993, the SPLM/A were expelled to Kenya. However, relations soon improved, and Ethiopia later went on to also be a key partner in the IGAD talks. President Zenawi has also gone on to support the nascent GoSS both diplomatically and militarily, ever since. Once again, the main concern relates to security, and in particular, the potential effects of renewed major civil war in Southern Sudan. In recent years, Ethiopia’s main security concerns have primarily related to Eritrea (following the border war of 1998-2000) and Somalia (following their invasion of that country, in December 2007). However, the thinking in Addis now seems to be that a resumption of fighting in Southern Sudan could vastly complicate those other situations, by providing opportunities that both Asmara and the Somali Islamic Courts Union (ICU) might be able to exploit. In particular, Zenawi appears particularly concerned that a renewed Sudanese war would require large numbers of Ethiopian troops to be redeployed along the country’s western border.

However, it is also worth pointing out that although Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia have been strongly in favour of the creation of an independent South Sudan (given the factors described above), other nearby states have been less impressed by the development. In particular, elements in Mogadishu who oppose the recognition of Somaliland as a sovereign state have been downright alarmed by the African Union’s (AU) complicity in a move which overturns a long established legal principle on the continent that colonial borders should never be redrawn (because of the problems that this would create). Similarly, Kinshasa may now also have cause for concern, especially if the creation of South Sudan were to reignite discussion over the sovereign status of, for example, the Kivus or – more importantly – Katanga.

Yet it is worth pointing out that in addition to these geo-political considerations, several East Africa government are also now eyeing-up the economic potential of an independent South Sudan. In the period leading up to independence, economic ties had already deepened significantly, as for example, in the fact that between 2006-2008, Ugandan exports into South Sudan grew by 300%, to US$250 million pa (making it Uganda’s largest export market. With little manufacturing industry of its own, South Sudan is likely to remain dependent on imports for some time to come). In addition, hundreds of Kenyan entrepreneurs began to set up operations in Juba, and other Southern Sudanese urban centres.  And the next few years will likely see these ties expand much further still. In particular, trade with all East African countries will be hugely boosted by South Sudan’s eventual entry into the East African Community (EAC). In April, outgoing EAC Secretary General Juma Mwapachu described South Sudan’s entry into the bloc as a question of ‘not if, but when’.

For one thing, the accession of South Sudan into the EAC would make it much easier to integrate the country into regional transport plans, which are widely expected to boost economic growth throughout the bloc over the next two decades. Indeed, the Kenyan government already regards South Sudan as a critical element of their plan to build a new deep water port at the Lamu archipelago (one capable of taking ships bigger than those that can be currently accommodated at Mombasa). Given the location of the Lamu project, close to Kenya’s northern border with Somalia, it is already anticipated that goods moving into and out of South Sudan will account for a significant proportion of the port’s overall cargo flows. In addition, plans are also afoot to incorporate South Sudan into the UN Economic Commission for Africa’s (UNECA) and Africa Development Bank’s (ADB) Trans-African Highway Network (THAN), through the construction of a feeder highway into Juba (either from Kampala or, more likely, from Northern Kenya). When completed, the THAN aims to establish a network of continuously-metalled roads that transect the entire continent from North to South, and East to West, and which will act as international trade corridors. Finally, South Sudan’s entry into the bloc will also bring it into the EAC’s plans to develop a new regional rail infrastructure. The EAC Secretariat recently announced that they plan to invest US$25 billion in road and rail over the next 10 years (although it is not yet clear how this will be financed, or whether it will be enough to pay for the current designs).

However, potentially the most significant economic implication of South Sudan’s independence relates to oil extraction. At present, South Sudan sits on an estimated 80% of all of the former (united) Sudan’s oil reserves. Yet at present, this can only be exported northwards, either through a pipeline which runs to Port Sudan, or to refineries in the north, and as a result, the new nation remains entirely dependent on the north for its major revenue stream (and vice-versa). Moreover, Juba has to date failed to agree a mechanism with Khartoum as to how the revenues from this ‘division of labour’ will eventually be divided. In this context, then, both Uganda and Kenya, in particular, are pressing for advantage, Uganda through a plan to expand its proposed refinery at Hoima, in Western Uganda, to allow it to process some of South Sudan’s oil as well (construction of the refinery is due to begin next year), Kenya through a proposal to build a new 1400 km pipeline from Juba to its planned Lamu facility. Both plans are currently attracting widespread international investment interest.

Finally, the creation of Southern Sudan will almost certainly also affect current international debates over management of the Nile River, which have so far seen disputes between Egypt and Uganda and Ethiopia (the latter two of which plan to build major hydroelectric facilities on the White and Blue Niles, respectively). However, it is not yet clear how the government in Juba will position itself vis-à-vis these disputes (or the wider issue of Nile management in general).

In recent months, much of the commentary on South Sudan's independence has focused on the new state's relationship with its more powerful northern neighbour. Certainly, Juba's diplomatic agenda will continue to be dominated by its relationship with Khartoum for some time to come. Nevertheless, it is as well to remember that the genesis of South Sudan also has highly significant regional implications.

Kampala bomb blasts

Most people are struggling to comprehend last Sunday's bomb blasts which left at least 74 people dead, and several hundred more injured. The blasts took place at around 9.30 pm local time in two locations - Ethiopian Village, in Kabalagala and Kyadondo Rugby Club, in Nakawa - as patrons at both venues were watching the final stages of the World Cup final.

Responsibility for the attacks was eventually claimed by Somalia's Islamist militia, Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (usually known as just 'al-Shabaab') which both the international community, and the global media, have been quick to connect with the al-Qaeda network.

This is the first time that al-Shabaab - which is currently at war with Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) - has struck outside of Somalia itself, and the attacks therefore represent a significant widening of the Somali conflict, a 'regionalization' of that war. However, the question remains as to why al-Shabaab should have attacked targets in Uganda, rather than in, say, Ethiopia, or Kenya?

Certainly, part of the answer lies in the fact that Uganda is currently supplying over half of the troops (2700) for the African Union's Mission to Somali (AMISOM). Since early 2007, AMISOM has been effectively fighting al-Shabaab, and other Islamist militias, on the TFG's behalf, especially in and around Mogadishu. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the wake of the Kampala bombs, the Ugandan army (UPDF) has now offered an additional 2000 soldiers to the mission. However, other East Africa countries, especially Ethiopia, have also been engaged militarily in Somalia, and indeed, over a much longer period than Uganda. So why, then, were none of these other countries attacked on Sunday as well?

One answer is that al-Shabaab may well have tried to launch strikes in those other places as well, but were thwarted by local security services (some of whom are better placed to deal with Somali threats than the Ugandan security services). Certainly, the fact that the initial arrests after Sunday's blasts were all made in Kenya - or on the basis of Kenyan intelligence - suggests that the Nairobi-based intelligence services have a much tighter grip on al-Shabaab than do other regional governments.

In addition, it may have been easier for al-Shabaab to launch an attack in Uganda given that a number of their operatives had recently been brought into the country by…the UPDF.

From late last year onwards, the Ugandan army have been training Somali forces at the Bihanga Military Training School in Ibanda, South-western Uganda (as part of their AMISOM commitment). While this training programme is obviously designed for units loyal to the TFG, it is now clear that from the very beginning, it has been infiltrated by al-Shabaab. For example, it has been revealed that several al-Shabaab members who were recently killed by the UPDF in Mogadishu had previously been trained at Ibanda. Yet if the Bihanga programme has been infiltrated in this way, then it would have been particularly easy for an al-Shabaab cell to carry out Sunday’s attacks, by simply ‘staying on’ in Uganda after the course had finished.

In addition, it is also worth pointing out that Uganda may be a more highly symbolic target for al-Shabaab than either Ethiopia or Kenya. After all, the country is about to host a summit of AU leaders. More generally, not least because of its current status as the ‘development miracle’ in East Africa, Uganda perhaps better symbolizes the kind of (imagined) Western modernity against which groups like al-Shabaab perceive themselves to be resisting.

In this regard, the fact that the two main bomb attacks took place in the Kabalagala neighbourhood of Kampala is probably not coincidental, given that this area has for long symbolized ‘free living’. The neighbourhood first emerged as social hub during the Amin years, at which time most ordinary Kampalans feared to venture out in more central parts of the city after dark, given the fear of arbitrary arrest at that time. However, in recent years it has become more synonymous, in popular discourse throughout Uganda (and indeed, throughout East Africa) as a symbol of the social excesses of the western ex-patriot community.

As a result, over the last twenty years or so, Kabalagala has been repeatedly targeted for bomb attacks, by a range of reactionary groups (including by a number of other Islamist-oriented organizations). Thus, for example, in the late 1990s, a number of bars in Kabalagala were targeted in a series of grenade attacks carried out by the rebel Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).

In short, then, Kampala may well have represented both a key political target, and a perfect symbolic target, for those who carried out last Sunday’s attacks.