The high-risk gamble of sending more British troops to South Sudan
UK forces face being sucked into an unpredictable political and military morass in the absence of a credible peace process
Britain’s decision to send additional troops to South Sudan, announced on Thursday, looks like a high-risk gamble in the absence of a credible peace process for ending a three-year-old civil war that has killed thousands and displaced about 1.7 million people.
The decision follows a weekend deal between the UN and the Juba government, under strong pressure from the US, for a 4,000-strong “regional protection force” to improve security around the capital, scene of lethal violence and gang-rapes in July that UN peacekeepers woefully failed to halt.
But officials close to South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, have questioned the deal amid suggestions he resents western interference and the presence since 2011 of a 12,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Thus the fear is the 400 British troops already deployed or soon to arrive will be sucked into an unpredictable political and military morass.
......
The claim by Michael Fallon, the British defence secretary, that sending reinforcements would help to curb “the instability that leads to mass migration and terrorism” is questionable, too, given that there is no Islamist element to the conflict and most displaced South Sudanese just want to go home.
More likely, Britain is responding to American pressure while trying to maintain the fiction of global reach.
Continued: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/08/british-troops-south-sudan-un-peacekeeping-force
This is the Guardian.co.uk ; left-wing, liberal, so I've heard there is no "Islamist element" in that conflict; but I don't know if that is so for certain.
