Why has the International Community Failed to Prevent State Fragility?

The past 10 years have seen the international community, as well as regional actors, looking for ways to solve crises and prevent their recurrence in post-war countries such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic. However, recent outbursts of violence in these countries came as a surprise to the international community highlighting its weakness in responding to international crises.

What has gone wrong? This was the question asked by Comfort Ero, the Africa Director of the International Crises Group who addressed the issue of state fragility and the failure of the international and regional community to solve the crises in the two African countries in a lecture at the Center for Conflict, Negotiation and Recovery at SPP in March.

Long term observers argue that in South Sudan the crisis originated in the six year period between the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement with Sudan on July 9 2011, during which time the ruling SPLM party (Sudan People`s Liberation Movement) failed to transform coherently from a liberation movement into a political party and to put down the foundations of the new country.

The case of the Central African Republic is, according to Ero, the “unfortunate story of a country that was forgotten by the international community”. The country is in a permanent state of civil war largely because of the successive failures of autocratic leaders and governance by warlord-ism.  The failure of the international community to act has allowed the conflict to develop into today`s blood bath with 700,000 internally displaced people and a large number of refugees in the neighboring countries.

The engagement of the international community was somewhat different in these two countries Ero explained. While South Sudan had significant international allies, in particular the United States, the Central African Republic had benefitted far less form international aid.  Despite the contrast in the nature of international engagement, an overview of the crises allows the conclusion that in both countries there was a “mismatch” between the international assistance and the ability to deal with the realities and political dynamics of the country.

In South Sudan, international allies, in particular the US and the UN were so close to the ruling SPLM and to the army that they could not objectively assess the situation. They could not deal with the increasingly centralized power and missed the warning signs. These included reports of human rights abuses, limitation of expressing political opinion, harassment, and the intimidation of NGOs, civil society and even UN workers.

In the case of the Central African Republic the same technical/operational approach could not work in a dysfunctional country with no institutions, governed by warlord-ism and the personal ambitions of its leader. In CAR’s case, a more robust, intrusive engagement with politics was needed. There was not sufficient engagement with the political and social realities of the state however.

Often the answer from the international community is a “quick fix” military response to stop the violence but it does not deal with the root causes of conflict. Ero argues that in order to prevent failure there must be a long-term strategy for sustainable engagement to rebuild a country. International actors are also guilty of pursuing the same strategies time and time again across different crises situations without asking fundamental questions about the local political and social realities.

The slogan “African solutions to African problems” exists in response to foreign intervention and it is very much the language of revolting against colonialism, serving to put Africa first, promoting the Africa that takes its matters into its own hands and determines its own destiny. But, in fact, various national interests often get in the way. In the end, the solution should be a balance between African solutions and efficient international engagement.

“No single actor will be able to solve the crises in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, they have to work together and manage the relationships,” concluded Ero. “Ultimately the destiny of these countries lies within these countries themselves, and the international community has to play a role of offering a forum to facilitate the resolving of their dilemmas without becoming a party to the conflict.”