Would negotiation Museveni's way prevent South Sudan sliding into an all-out civil war?

War through military action, whether internally instigated or, externally instigated through foreign intervention with specific self-interest to protect, is not only tempting but is often sought as the only means of resolving conflict.  The life cycle cost of war is often underestimated;even the Americans who have the highest level of education have fallen prey to the beast. They have as early as 2003, resorted to using their military might in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam just to name a few, in resolving conflict and currently rushing to get out. When African leaders resort to military threats and actions, one would only be left to wonder: haven’t they learned from the past! Just what is the logic and cost of war through military actions?

At least everyone knows that military action:

• have never solved a political problem
• leads to total destruction of the nation’s infrastructure
• leads to death and displacement of thousands of civilians
• Escalates conflict
• Leaves a long lasting mark and trauma for generation to come
• Prolongs conflict and increase human suffering
• Stresses limited resources

 Drawing parallel from the American, African leaders particularly Mr. Museveni is employing tactic similar to the former president of America, George W. Bush – the either you’re with us or you’re against us doctrine. In the last two weeks, Museveni has jumped in the wagon throwing his military might behind Salva Kirr by deploying troops and providing air-support. His military fighter jets particularly Mig29 and helicopter gunship have been spraying indiscriminately the rebels’ position. The international community would call this interference in the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation, but they have chosen to keep quiet. While the American has now learned the untold human and financial cost of military engagements and shying from similar actions in the future, Museveni is flexing his military muscle pursuing Bush’s doctrine of shock and awe, even though Uganda would never produce or manufacture a bicycle let alone a car or a fighter plan. One would think that Museveni would have learn his lessons from his involvement in DRC Congo, and the untold suffering befalling the populace of that nation. No,just as he dominates and rules Uganda with iron fist, he too would like to dominate east Africa; he wants regional domination.

In the last few days, the international communities including IGAD, African union, United Nations, USA government and many others have scrambled for a diplomatic solution to try to contain the conflict from escalating into a full scale all-out civil war and to subsequently end the conflict. The members of IGAD, who are also head of East African Community, spearheaded the initiative for dialogue and peaceful settlement of the conflict. This is a commendable move.
However, cracks and lack of experience emerged following a ceasefire meeting held in Nairobi Kenya and chaired by its president Mr. Huhuru Kenyatta who is also the president of Kenya. The meeting which was to work out immediate cessation of all hostilities not only excluded all members of the rebels, but also did not yield an action plan on how the ceasefire would be initiated, implemented,monitored and enforced.

While the intent to mediate and de-escalate the situation to end all hostilities was a great commendable move,the meeting itself was lopsided exposing their lack of experience.  The outcome of the meeting, too speaks volume.It failed to produce an action plan and did not answer key critical questions.  What it surely did was, open wide the lid on the leaders’ tendency to resolve conflict by force, lack of neutrality to mediate, bullish attitude, emotional immaturity, full support of one side without thinking through consequential repercussions.

• How could you possibly negotiate a ceasefire with one party only, calling it a ceasefire and expect compliance from the excluded party?
• How could it be a ceasefire if both parties have not agreed to it?
• How could it be a credible ceasefire if you do not have basic ingredients and mechanisms in place to start, monitor and enforce it?
• How could you offer to mediate while barking out military threats and actions at the same time?

While the rest of IGAD leaders have chosen to remain quiet for now, Mr. Museveni who took power by military coup and, currently the only African leader with no position for a vice president had this to say following his recent meeting in Juba with Salva Kirr. "We gave Riek Machar four days to respond (to the ceasefire offer) and if he doesn't we shall have to go for him,all of us. That is what we agreed in Nairobi," Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni told reporters in South Sudan's capital, Juba.” How could you throw your weight behind one of the warring parties and claim neutrality at the same time?
The current crisis in South Sudan is exposing our leaders to the extent that the African public is beginning to see why Africa as a continent is marred by instability, conflict, underdevelopment,starvation, authoritarianism and dependency on foreign aid. African leaders,unlike Nelson Mandela, don’t get it and won’t probably for many years to come. The don't get it when it comes to: political diplomacy, peaceful crisis management, peaceful relinquishing of power, observing the constitution and rule of law, creating jobs for the populace, supporting higher education the backbone of human civilization, building and maintaining nations’ infrastructure, investment etc. etc.