论文部分内容阅读
He Wenping
Just before the christmas bell rang at the end of 2013， south sudan， the world’s youngest country， became embroiled in military conflict. He Wenping， senior Researcher of the charhar institute and researcher at the institute of west-Asian and African studies of the chinese Academy of social sciences， told ChinAfrica she believes that the warring parties should abandon their historical grudges and power struggle and reach consensus through full negotiations， so as to avoid greater tragedy in the young country. her opinions follow：
THE conflict in South Sudan， a country full of hope when it gained independence less than two and a half years ago， has caused great humanitarian crisis. Thousands of people have died and large numbers of refugees continue to swarm into UN peacekeeping camps in the country. The conflict originated from the power struggle between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and former Vice President Riek Machar. In early 2013， reports detailing the differences between the two senior politicians emerged when they started to prepare for the presidential election in 2015. In April 2013， President Kiir began to scale back Machar’s power. Three months later， he dismissed the vice president and reshuffled his cabinet.
The increasingly sharp contradiction and confrontation eventually led to the military conflict at the end of 2013. Worryingly， the divergence and power struggles between the two major factions of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement soon escalated into tribal massacres， as their tribal identification superseded national identification. The slaughter between the country’s largest tribe， the Dinka， to which Kiir belongs， and Mashar’s Nuer tribe， the country’s second largest， worsens the country’s situation， pushing it to the edge of nationwide civil war.
Conflict impact The South Sudanese people and the country’s development process have been impacted by the conflict， not only because of the humanitarian crisis， but also because the country’s reconstruction has come to an abrupt halt. Fighting between the tribes has destroyed the basis of a national identity and the country is on the brink of becoming a “failed state.”
In addition， the conflict also threatens the security and stability of the Horn of Africa and Central and East Africa， which have long been torn apart by extremist and terrorist organizations and various anti-government forces. In recent years， the Somali Youth Party’s terrorism activities have spread beyond the territory of Somalia to Uganda and Kenya. To make things worse， Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo （DRC） also frequently suffer from attacks launched by anti-government forces such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and the March 23 Movement. The Central African Republic has been in the grip of civil war since mid-2013. In the current state of affairs， if the conflict in South Sudan continues to expand and turns into civil war， the disaster would probably spill over to its neighboring countries such as Ethiopia， Kenya， Uganda， the DRC， the Central African Republic and Sudan. The United States and other Western countries that supported South Sudan’s independence must now face the troubling reality. Previously， the U.S. Government proudly interpreted the scheduled referendum for South Sudan’s independence in February 2011， and the improvement of U.S.-Sudan relations as evidence of successful implementation of its new Sudan strategy. While announcing the new strategy in September 2010， the Obama Administration made clear that the strategy includes “implementation of the north-south CPA （Comprehensive Peace Agreement） that results in a peaceful post-2011 Sudan， or an orderly path toward two separate and viable states at peace with each other”and ensures “that Sudan does not provide a safe haven for international terrorists.”
Supporting South Sudan’s independence is the goal of the new strategy. More importantly， the U.S. strategic goal implies its dual longterm considerations of coveting the abundant oil resources in Sudan and preventing a Sudanese Islamic regime from spreading its influence and further destabilizing the region. But today， the conflict and tribal massacres in the two-year-old South Sudan is a resounding slap in the face to the U.S.-new Sudan strategy.
China’s constructive intervention China， the largest oil investor in Sudan and South Sudan， is also a victim of the conflict. After the conflict broke out， China National Petroleum Corp. had to recall more than 400 workers to Khartoum， Sudan’s capital， and closed some oil fields in remote areas of South Sudan. There were 2，300 Chinese in South Sudan before the conflict， and more than half of them have left the country as of mid-January. China also sent its medical teams to South Sudan in December 2012. Undoubtedly， the expansion of the conflict will severely threaten China’s investment in South Sudan in addition to endangering the lives of people there.
In order to help South Sudan establish peace and stability， the Chinese Government has not rigidly followed its traditional policy of “non-interference in others’ internal affairs.” In this event， the Chinese Government actively promotes reconciliation through constructive intervention.
The Chinese Government called on warring parties to keep calm and exercise restraint to solve the divergences through dialogue and negotiation. While supporting the mediation work of the African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development（IGAD） in East Africa， the Chinese Government also sent its special envoy to South Sudan and surrounding countries. During his recent visit to Ethiopia， the Chinese Foreign Minister met representatives of the warring parties， who were having peace talks， en- couraging reconciliation. China and other members of the UN Security Council pushed the council to adopt a resolution on increasing UN peacekeeping forces in South Sudan. The number of UN peacekeeping troops has been increased from 7，000 to 12，500， and peacekeeping police from 900 to 1，323. In addition， in order to ease the severe humanitarian crisis in South Sudan， the Red Cross Society of China offered emergency cash assistance of $100，000 to South Sudan.
Mediation essential After the conflict in South Sudan broke out， the international community launched mediation for reconciliation. Thanks to these efforts， the representatives from the warring parties started negotiation in Addis Ababa， capital of Ethiopia on January 5， trying to peacefully solve the conflict. Though the conflict continued during their negotiations， it is a good start to politically solving the conflict through direct talks. After all， South Sudanese people and leaders do not want to see the recurrence of civil war and national split.
Against this backdrop， the warring parties should abandon their struggles for power and old historical grudges and reach consensus through full negotiations on the basis of the four principles （ceasing hostilities， releasing political detainees， launching political dialogues and facilitating humanitarianism assistances） agreed upon at the IGAD summit. No other external military force shall be allowed to interfere under current circumstances except for the UN peacekeeping forces that provide humanitarian assistance and engage in protection work.
Though the negotiation process will be complicated， South Sudan， a country that achieved independence after 22 years of civil war， can no longer withstand another civil war. Only peace can bring the country hope for the future.
Just before the christmas bell rang at the end of 2013， south sudan， the world’s youngest country， became embroiled in military conflict. He Wenping， senior Researcher of the charhar institute and researcher at the institute of west-Asian and African studies of the chinese Academy of social sciences， told ChinAfrica she believes that the warring parties should abandon their historical grudges and power struggle and reach consensus through full negotiations， so as to avoid greater tragedy in the young country. her opinions follow：
THE conflict in South Sudan， a country full of hope when it gained independence less than two and a half years ago， has caused great humanitarian crisis. Thousands of people have died and large numbers of refugees continue to swarm into UN peacekeeping camps in the country. The conflict originated from the power struggle between President Salva Kiir Mayardit and former Vice President Riek Machar. In early 2013， reports detailing the differences between the two senior politicians emerged when they started to prepare for the presidential election in 2015. In April 2013， President Kiir began to scale back Machar’s power. Three months later， he dismissed the vice president and reshuffled his cabinet.
The increasingly sharp contradiction and confrontation eventually led to the military conflict at the end of 2013. Worryingly， the divergence and power struggles between the two major factions of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement soon escalated into tribal massacres， as their tribal identification superseded national identification. The slaughter between the country’s largest tribe， the Dinka， to which Kiir belongs， and Mashar’s Nuer tribe， the country’s second largest， worsens the country’s situation， pushing it to the edge of nationwide civil war.
Conflict impact The South Sudanese people and the country’s development process have been impacted by the conflict， not only because of the humanitarian crisis， but also because the country’s reconstruction has come to an abrupt halt. Fighting between the tribes has destroyed the basis of a national identity and the country is on the brink of becoming a “failed state.”
In addition， the conflict also threatens the security and stability of the Horn of Africa and Central and East Africa， which have long been torn apart by extremist and terrorist organizations and various anti-government forces. In recent years， the Somali Youth Party’s terrorism activities have spread beyond the territory of Somalia to Uganda and Kenya. To make things worse， Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo （DRC） also frequently suffer from attacks launched by anti-government forces such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and the March 23 Movement. The Central African Republic has been in the grip of civil war since mid-2013. In the current state of affairs， if the conflict in South Sudan continues to expand and turns into civil war， the disaster would probably spill over to its neighboring countries such as Ethiopia， Kenya， Uganda， the DRC， the Central African Republic and Sudan. The United States and other Western countries that supported South Sudan’s independence must now face the troubling reality. Previously， the U.S. Government proudly interpreted the scheduled referendum for South Sudan’s independence in February 2011， and the improvement of U.S.-Sudan relations as evidence of successful implementation of its new Sudan strategy. While announcing the new strategy in September 2010， the Obama Administration made clear that the strategy includes “implementation of the north-south CPA （Comprehensive Peace Agreement） that results in a peaceful post-2011 Sudan， or an orderly path toward two separate and viable states at peace with each other”and ensures “that Sudan does not provide a safe haven for international terrorists.”
Supporting South Sudan’s independence is the goal of the new strategy. More importantly， the U.S. strategic goal implies its dual longterm considerations of coveting the abundant oil resources in Sudan and preventing a Sudanese Islamic regime from spreading its influence and further destabilizing the region. But today， the conflict and tribal massacres in the two-year-old South Sudan is a resounding slap in the face to the U.S.-new Sudan strategy.
China’s constructive intervention China， the largest oil investor in Sudan and South Sudan， is also a victim of the conflict. After the conflict broke out， China National Petroleum Corp. had to recall more than 400 workers to Khartoum， Sudan’s capital， and closed some oil fields in remote areas of South Sudan. There were 2，300 Chinese in South Sudan before the conflict， and more than half of them have left the country as of mid-January. China also sent its medical teams to South Sudan in December 2012. Undoubtedly， the expansion of the conflict will severely threaten China’s investment in South Sudan in addition to endangering the lives of people there.
In order to help South Sudan establish peace and stability， the Chinese Government has not rigidly followed its traditional policy of “non-interference in others’ internal affairs.” In this event， the Chinese Government actively promotes reconciliation through constructive intervention.
The Chinese Government called on warring parties to keep calm and exercise restraint to solve the divergences through dialogue and negotiation. While supporting the mediation work of the African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development（IGAD） in East Africa， the Chinese Government also sent its special envoy to South Sudan and surrounding countries. During his recent visit to Ethiopia， the Chinese Foreign Minister met representatives of the warring parties， who were having peace talks， en- couraging reconciliation. China and other members of the UN Security Council pushed the council to adopt a resolution on increasing UN peacekeeping forces in South Sudan. The number of UN peacekeeping troops has been increased from 7，000 to 12，500， and peacekeeping police from 900 to 1，323. In addition， in order to ease the severe humanitarian crisis in South Sudan， the Red Cross Society of China offered emergency cash assistance of $100，000 to South Sudan.
Mediation essential After the conflict in South Sudan broke out， the international community launched mediation for reconciliation. Thanks to these efforts， the representatives from the warring parties started negotiation in Addis Ababa， capital of Ethiopia on January 5， trying to peacefully solve the conflict. Though the conflict continued during their negotiations， it is a good start to politically solving the conflict through direct talks. After all， South Sudanese people and leaders do not want to see the recurrence of civil war and national split.
Against this backdrop， the warring parties should abandon their struggles for power and old historical grudges and reach consensus through full negotiations on the basis of the four principles （ceasing hostilities， releasing political detainees， launching political dialogues and facilitating humanitarianism assistances） agreed upon at the IGAD summit. No other external military force shall be allowed to interfere under current circumstances except for the UN peacekeeping forces that provide humanitarian assistance and engage in protection work.
Though the negotiation process will be complicated， South Sudan， a country that achieved independence after 22 years of civil war， can no longer withstand another civil war. Only peace can bring the country hope for the future.