Mareike Schomerus

Improvising border security: 'A situation of security pluralism' along South Sudan's borders with the Democratic Republic of the Congo

This article compares two cases of securitization along South Sudan’s border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By comparing how a security concern – the presence of the Lord’s Resistance Army – was interpreted and responded to, the article shows that border security practices in two borderscapes are improvised, contradictory and contested, and serve to establish authority rather than actually securing the border. This is apparent on three levels: (a) through the multiplicity of security actors vying for authority; (b) in how they interpret security concerns; and (c) in terms of what practice follows. The article argues that by allowing authority at the border to be taken by actors that are not under direct control of the central government, the South Sudanese state is developing as one that controls parts of the country in absentia, either by granting discretionary powers to low-level government authorities at the border or through tactical neglect. Processes of securitization by both state and non-state actors in the borderland are largely disconnected from the South Sudanese central government, which does not claim authority over this border and thus seemingly does not consider the lack of security for its citizens, and the parallel authorities, as a threat to central stability.

''They forget what they came for'': Uganda's army in Sudan

Abstract Ugandas army, the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (UPDF), has been operating on Sudanese territory since the late 1990s. From 2002 to 2006, a bilateral agreement between the governments in Khartoum and Kampala gave the Ugandan soldiers permission to conduct military operations in Southern Sudan to eliminate the Ugandan rebel Lords Resistance Army (LRA). Instead of conducting a successful operation against Ugandas most persistent rebels – who had withdrawn into Sudanese territory and acted as a proxy force in Sudans civil war – the UPDF conducted a campaign of abuse against Sudanese civilians. Drawing on extensive fieldwork conducted over several years, this article documents local experiences of a foreign armys involvement in the brutal Sudanese civil war. It outlines why continued operations of the UPDF outside their borders recreate the same problem they purport to be fighting: abuses of civilians. Since 2008, US military support for the UPDF mission against the LRA has called into question the viability of continued militarisation through an army that has committed widely documented human rights abuses. The foreign military has not brought peace to the region. Instead, it has made a peaceful environment less likely for residents of South Sudan.

Introduction: Negotiating Borders, Defining South Sudan

In Maridi, a town near South Sudan’s border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in 2009 residents judged their situation harshly: “We see ourselves as unlucky because of the kind of border we have,” said a senior church leader.1 He talked about how those living in other towns near the border were benefitting through cross-border trade, through access to services, and through exchange: “Because in Yei, they have an open border with DRC and Uganda; they can improve their trade and education. Same in Kajo Keji and so on. With us here, there is no cross-border trade, no road.” In Maridi, it was not even clear where the country’s border ended and the next began. Nobody from the government in the capital city of Juba seemed to particularly care. Other South Sudanese borders—with the Republic of Sudan, Uganda, or Ethiopia—were much more important.

South Sudan's Civil War Will Not End with a Peace Deal

Writing in Peace Review, Lotje de Fries and Mareike Schomerus explore the impact of South Sudans civil war and examine the prospects for lasting peace. The authors ask: how should we understand the paradox of a signed deal and talks of reconciliation on the one hand, and an ever-deteriorating situation on the other? And how are citizens experiencing this contradiction? They argue that what will help make South Sudan peaceful is finding ways to deal with local conflicts and allowing the expression of multilayered grievances of many different groups and individuals. Peacemaking interventions need to shift from trying to save a largely dead power-sharing deal. Instead it is necessary to look at how people affected by conflicts imagine new ways of managing their relationships outside the framework of an elite-led or ethnic civil war. Only a peace process that considers the many different groups, lived experiences, and shared grievances can deliver the peace that South Sudan needs.

The Fear Factor is a Main Thing: How Radio Influences Anxiety and Political Attitudes

Abstract We investigate how being exposed to media influences levels of anxiety and political attitudes in conflict-affected areas. Exploiting exogenous variation in signal strength of a radio station in South Sudan’s Western Equatoria State, we compare original qualitative and quantitative data from areas with differing radio coverage. Civilians living in areas with more exposure to radio are more afraid of attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). This anxiety means civilians rely more on a civilian militia, the arrow boys, and less on the state army. Hence media, through fear, can contribute to changing social and political structures.