http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27108777

The world's newest country, South Sudan, has been riven by conflict in the past few months, following a falling out by senior politicians that has led to a split on ethnic tribal lines.

Looks bad. There's no clear 'right' or 'wrong' side (the President seems to have been trying to consolidate power, his sacked deputy has rebelled as a result), but also I'm not aware of any major powers with an interest - Russia does not even have an embassy there yet.

So is this something which we can advocate an intervention in?

danivon wrote:So is this something which we can advocate an intervention in?

Intervention in a civil, domestic conflict is really hard. Who's on the "right" side? Just knowing the answer to that question is really hard. And what kind of intervention are you talking about? Are you talking boots and the ground? Peacekeeping? Or something softer? If you're talking troops, this is a nightmare.

Nobody will intervene. All of the western interventions in Africa in recent years have been carried out by the former colonial power (usually France, although Britain got involved in Sierra Leone). I suppose technically Britain is the former colonial power in South Sudan but we never really ruled it for very long and certainly don't feel any kind of meaningful historical connection to the place. The only countries who might feasibly get involved are Kenya and Ethiopia, and both have problems of their own.

I would say peacekeepers. As you say, we have done it before in Africa alongside France and other UN members (not so much the Yanks). We could at least help to protect the UN camps (where a massacre took place). Frankly, I think it is a good use even if it has not benefit to us directly - if anything it helps if we at least try to assist countries without an ulterior motive.

Uganda is already involved, as they have troops in the country looking for Kony's LRA. Hopefully the recent negotiations will move things back toward peace.

Well, you wouldn't want to send in troops without a political settlement already brokered. In which case, I'd say the African Union might deploy a stabilising force.

Yet if the South Sudanese are bent on a long civil war, little can be done by the international community right on the ground.

charlesf wrote:Well, you wouldn't want to send in troops without a political settlement already brokered. In which case, I'd say the African Union might deploy a stabilising force.

Yet if the South Sudanese are bent on a long civil war, little can be done by the international community right on the ground.

Well, we can send peacekeepers into a civil war, but ideally there should be negotiation first and a settlement to be policed.

Sierra Leone was a complex situation but the UN did a good job there.