South Sudan thorn on EAC’s flesh

Putting interests aside which proves almost impossible in the political world, it is clear that the more the members the better the cooperation becomes.

But history suggests that state cooperation has never been a notion free from material interests. Moreover, cooperating with other states does not mean the member countries should not compete any longer as states usually choose their areas of cooperation as it is the case with the United Republic of Tanzania and Zanzibar where such arrangements were spelled out in the Articles of the Union and later included in the 1977constitution of the Republic under the title “Matters of the Union”.

Many other examples exist across the world including the African Union, SADC, and the like. The same goes with the EAC arrangements where members agree and calculate their participation based on their individual interests, the whole community or a faction from.

It was for the same reasons that the community was formed in the late 1960s and revived in the mid-1990s and attracted other countries such as Rwanda and Burundi into it.

The community largely owed its establishment to Nyerere’s philosophy of the United Africa starting with the formation of strong regional blocs.

Nyerere’s co-prophet in this Pan-Africanistic approach, Kwame Nkrumah believed that the United States of Africa would serve as a reservoir for raw materials, labor and market and thus boost the much-needed manufacturing sector in the continent.

Down the road to the renewed EAC, there came Rwanda and Burundi, and now South Sudan, among other things, expecting to defuse the ethnic tensions in their countries that have resulted in atastrophies including the 1994 Rwandan Genocide that lingers in people’s minds to date.

Years after joining the community, the new comers and the old members have started competing within the structure and internal politics within countries affecting their cooperation.

While Tanzania and Kenya can easily be recognized as democracies with clear five-year elections and presidential term limits, there has been political maneuvering Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni to have presidential terms extended for life to create conditions for maintaining status quo.

Worse still, the presidents are accused of perpetuating hate politics and sponsor the ongoing Burundi turmoil and resource plunder in South Sudan.

In fact, it would sound ridiculous for Museveni to be appointed the lead mediator in the Burundi conflict while his close ally Paul Kagame is said to be siding with the rebels.

Moreover, for some time now Museveni is said to have a stake and benefit from the conflicts over oil resource control in South Sudan where he openly sides with the yet another long-serving president Salva Kiir.

With the existing combination of six countries with three of them literally practicing dictatorship, the current and the future status of the community must in all respects be deemed as in shambles.

With the dictatorial tendency to direct more efforts and resources at preserving the regime, even the hope for bringing about meaningful development in the region becomes questionable as it is already being witnessed as an abject poverty amid the oil wealth in South Sudan and the prevailing hardships in Uganda. Internal polarization has been has been typical of all dictatorships, and the same is evident in both Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan where ethno-centric power scramble between those in power and those from without has led to continued regional and ethnic marginalization in those countries.

Northern Uganda has been in shambles ever since Museveni took over powers through guerrilla warfare in early 1986 with Lord’s Resistance Army rising up and disrupt peace in the country, consequently dragging the North into an extreme poverty, with the South with relative prosperity.

But oppression does not end up there as opposition is always kept under serious intimidation, typical of circumstances in which Paul Kagame ihas been accused of entertaining a Hutu cleansing.

He now deprives the members of the rival ethnic groups of both political and economic opportunities for fear of driving him off the powers. If the reality becomes known, it would stain the ongoing development success stories in Rwanda.

Given the situation and dynamics of the internal politics and its relations with its neighbors, the admission of South Sudan into the EAC is in no way making the community any stronger amid more dictators and unpopular administrative models in the folds of a community whose half member states, namely Burundi, Uganda and South Sudan are cursed of warfare trademark.

Thus, in a union between continuously troubled nations it is no wonder that the universal interest shared by the member states to bring development in the region may become an unrealised dream unless at least genuine commitment to serve the people is demonstrated in both words and in deeds.

But the unmonitored words and deeds may result in poverty despite plentitude of resources against the region’s growing population.

Perhaps it is high time to admit states to the community, basing on what they have to offer and critically consider the problems resulting from their joining the community rather than simply admitting them by virtue of sympathy to avoid a thorn on its flesh.

Such cost-benefit considerations have been the norm in the European Union (EU), as demonstrated by its hesitation to admit Turkey into the Union amid fears it will dominate job market due to its big population and a relative weaker economy.

Francis Semwaza is a Dar es Salaam-based Political Strategist and Development Communication Specialist. For comments: E-mail: frsemwaza@aol.com; Phone: +255 71 646 6 044.