A dive into how different global altruistic agencies act and their true impact.
Following ethnically driven conflict in 2013 leading to thousands of deaths, refugees and internal displacements in South Sudan, there have been various global governance efforts to mitigate and pacify the situation.
On a micro-scale, various NGOs intervened, such as the MSF, UNICEF and the WHO, many of which set up protection of civilians (PoC) sites, offered emergency nutritional intervention in Leer and Mayendit and supported existing healthcare infrastructure especially focussing on vulnerable groups through paediatric, neonatal and disease outbreak care. The MSF also carried out a malaria vaccination programme, treating 333,400 patients in 2017. On a more national level of international intervention, the UN’s 2014 Peacekeeping Mission to the area, UNMISS involved increasing military personnel to 12,500 and police presence to 1000, along with peacekeepers, in order to consolidate peace and aid the implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. However, due to the “security traffic-jam” and the clash of priorities, especially with the unwilling South Sudanese Government, the military, NGOs, and pre-existing Nuer and Dinka conflicts, there have been numerous violent attacks on Peacekeepers, and UNMISS workers have been accused of child rape. Moreover, the misaligned aims of different parties magnified damage to housing, infrastructure, displacement, and the escalation of violence as rebels fought back. However, perhaps due to the severity and scale of the conflict, UNMISS was doomed from its beginning.
The mission failed to intervene when S.Sudanese soldiers hijacked humanitarian aid supplies and used food as a weapon of war against isolated civilians, leading to the starvation of 100,000 people. Moreover, some argue that the mission’s failure to recognise and mobilise local populations and workers led to a ‘one-size fits all’ as opposed to a uniquely-tailored approach. Whilst the UN tried to call upon the national government to prioritise the wellbeing of its people, they did not co-operate and even stopped representatives from travelling to Addis Adaba to participate in the Peace Process talks. Despite, the governments signing of a cease-fire in 2017, the conflict persists, fuelled by the weak media culture which limits the freedom of information. Therefore, due to poor communication, global governance was counter-productive in this specific state, and unsuccessful as the conflict is ongoing despite intervention.
Territorial integrity issues arise when a state's ability to exercise sovereign authority within a specific, established territory is challenged. Global governance has provided a regulatory framework to pacify or mitigate against territorial integrity issues with multiple players in, for example, Mali’s ethnically-founded territorial conflict. Global governance of territorial integrity issues can bring both long-term and short-term benefits to places and populations through the potential for stability, growth, and development. On a local scale, dynamic intervention schemes, usually lead by NGOs and charities, bring notable long-term benefits. For example, in Mali, World Education Mali addressed educational barriers to illiteracy and programmes to prevent further conflicts, healthcare education. These educational programmes can bring long-term benefits by helping to alleviate conditions of poverty, and also help to include and integrate minority groups such as women into social policies and practices, therefore having positive, long-term effects on societies and communities on a small scale. Moreover, education and training linked to agricultural processes, as carried out by Solidarities International in Northern Mali, not only helped to alleviate short -term food insecurity issues but also implement longstanding, sustainable agricultural practices which benefit future generations as well and help to once again recognise minority groups such as womemn. Whilst global governance of territorial integrity issues brings notable long-term benefits, it also brings about considerable short-term benefits. These short-term, immediate benefits include the alleviation of violent conflict in some areas such as in central Mali, where 60% of conflict is concentrated.
Peacekeeping missions lead by the UN and French government deployed 12,600-strong U.N. military and police during July of 2013 helped to stabilize conflict for a few weeks before conflict resumed again in September. Global governance efforts lead by the UNHCR and Help Refugees has also helped to lessen the effects of internal displacement for civilians through creating refugee camps with CPUs and health and sanitation centres. Although, refugee camps can be viewed as a short-term ‘effort’, it is contestable in that it may be viewed as a benefit or rather the opposite due to poor living conditions, and it may be viewed as short-term or, alternatively, long-term depending on how long the conflict persists and the camp remains lived in. Currently, as Mali prepares for its’ next presidential election, rife with Islamist terror crimes and persisting territorial integrity issues, it can be concluded that although global governance has and can bring about significant short-term benefits, these have subsided, and therefore long-term benefits have triumphed as the results continue to develop positively.
Comments