Some EAC members described South Sudan as “not ready” to be part of the East African Community. ILLUSTRATION | JOHN NYAGA
In October last year, South Sudanese watched with horror a video
that had gone viral on the Internet showing a debate at the East
African Legislative Assembly (EALA), where members criticised South
Sudan for failure to honour its membership obligations in the East
African Community.
Some members
described the young nation as “not ready” to be part of the community
and threatened to expel it from the regional bloc. South Sudan was
admitted into the East African Community (EAC) in September 2016. But it
has been criticised numerous times, for lack of security within its
borders; failure to protect East African businesses and workers; failure
to contain runaway inflation and economic decline.
The
EALA has pointed out that the leadership of South Sudan has offered
nothing other than to keep promising to do better. But the matter in the
latest debate was Juba’s failure to pay the nearly $30 million
membership fee it owes the EAC.
The
language of rebuke to South Sudan has been strong, with some EALA
members arguing that South Sudan has to make up its mind, to be a member
or not to be. South Sudan’s members of the EALA begged their
unrelentingly critical colleagues to be patient with Juba, to no avail.
Many
people have since lamented that South Sudan’s accession to the EAC was
done without the requisite public debate on the merits and demerits of
membership.
LOCAL ANALYSTS
In fact, the EALA at one point had to reject
the first list of proposed members South Sudan was sending to Arusha,
due to the crude and undemocratic way in which they were selected. Juba
had to withdraw those members, recognising that there had been very
little thought put into this, beyond simply joining. Some local analysts
suggest the government should have sought a national consensus,
followed by a phased programme of accession.
Some
South Sudanese social media activists even suggested that President
Salva Kiir orders an immediate withdrawal from the EAC, until the
country is ready.
The growing
argument is that it is more dignified to withdraw now, and reapply when
peace has been consolidated, economy rebuilt and institutional
capacities improved, than insist on an unsustainable and humiliating EAC
membership.
Perhaps a little history
is necessary here. South Sudan’s decision to explore the possibility of
joining the EAC dates back to the period preceding its independence
from Sudan in July 2011. It gained momentum immediately after
independence and was really inspired by the emotions of the country’s
new status as an independent state than by clear thinking about it
benefits or obligations. It was not born of research and analysis of
geopolitical, economic and security imperatives.
No
studies were done to confirm real benefits to the new state. Nor an
assessment of the capacity required for South Sudan to carry out its
obligations to the organisation. Instead, the officials in charge of
making the case for EAC membership primarily based their efforts on
finding and highlighting the merits and almost deliberately ignoring
whatever demerits were staring them in the face.
This
was underscored by the statement made by Aggrey Tisa Sabuni,
presidential adviser, while delivering the instrument of ratification on
the Accession to the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African
Community, when he said in Arusha, that membership in EAC for South
Sudan will change the nation. Not a single reference to potential
challenges that might face the country in honouring its membership
roles.
One commentator joked that:
“Our leaders may be telling us that it is good for the country to join
the EAC, but in reality, they only want their children to be able to
enter Kenya and Uganda without paying for entry visas.”
There
were limited consultations with the wider population. Even the
country’s legislature was not fully involved. I attended a few of these
discussions, including one heated debate convened in 2012 by the Ebony
Center for Strategic Studies the outcome of which was a clear
disagreement with the government’s accelerated accession.
It
was not enough to demonstrate the advantages of EAC membership. The
process also needed to identify the stumbling blocks that could prevent
South Sudan from taking full advantage of EAC membership. How South
Sudan’s legislature actually ended up ratifying the instrument of
accession is unclear. The process was done under immense pressure from
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marial Benjamin, who in turn was
pressured by the president of the republic.
HURRIED MANNER
The
dissenting voices, none of which were actually opposed to South Sudan’s
membership in the EAC per se, simply cautioned that such a momentous
policy, one committing the country to obligations that are bound to
affect the entire populace should not be enacted in such a hurried
manner. “What is the hurry?” asked one Peter Biar Ajak, who has long
gone to jail without trial for his criticism of the country’s direction.
As
things stand, South Sudan has difficulties attaining full membership in
the EAC, mainly due to financial delinquency, but more importantly due
to half-heartedness in Juba about fulfilling the requirements.
With
that, is it not time for South Sudan to renew local debate on its
future in EAC? The more than three years of half-baked membership have
so far functioned as a gauge to both the political will in Juba and the
popular perspective on the country’s membership in EAC.
The
choices for South Sudan are clear, to improve its image in the EAC, by
improving its behaviour with regards to membership obligations, rethink
its membership in the short term or remain the black sheep in the EAC
family.
Jok Madut Jok is a professor of anthropology at Syracuse University and senior analyst at The Sudd Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment