South Africa’s Capacity Building Role in South Sudan: An example of South-South cooperation

AMANDA LUCEY is a senior researcher in the Conflict Management and Peace Building Division of the Institute for Security Studies. Amanda spent time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she worked with MONUSCO as a political affairs officer, and has previously worked with the UNDP in South Sudan as a rule of law officer. Amanda tells Cafezinho about South Africa’s engagements with South Sudan as an example of South Africa’s experiences with South-South cooperation. Read Amanda's post in 80+ languages with the translator widget on the right side of the screen.

Cafezinho is a collaborative blog. Authors are responsible for the concepts, ideas, views and opinions disseminated in the blog posts.

                                         

                                                                                   * * *

South Africa is an important emerging southern actor and a strong proponent of south-south cooperation (SSC). Yet, like many actors involved in these spheres, little is known about South Africa’s activities to date. Cognisant of the need to strengthen and deepen its engagements, South Africa is in the process of setting up the South African Development Partnership Agency  (SADPA), which will coordinate the country’s outgoing development assistance. Research by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) on South Africa’s previous post-conflict development and peacebuilding capacity provides initial pieces of evidence on SSC, including on South Africa’s engagements in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and South Sudan. It also examines lessons learned for South Africa’s future engagements. This post will consider South Africa’s engagements with South Sudan as an example of South Africa’s experiences with south-south cooperation.

The lens through which South Africa views SSC can be gleaned through its 2011 transparent Paper on Foreign Policy, which emphasises south-south solidarity and south-south trade. Although South Africa does not specify its definition of SSC in any official documents, it has subscribed to five key fundamental principles specified at the New Delhi Conference of Southern Providers, namely non-conditionality, respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, mutual benefit and demand driven engagements. South Africa also places its commitment firmly on the African continent, particularly with regards to ensuring peace and security. This commitment is demonstrated by the activities that South Africa has sought to carry out in terms of development assistance, which have focussed on African countries that is has historical ties with, including South Sudan.

To date, South Africa has mostly engaged on a bilateral and trilateral basis on the continent. South Africa’s financing for such arrangements has traditionally relied on the African Renaissance Fund, whose value is worth around US$ 50,000 per annum and it is set to absorbed by SADPA. It should be noted that South Africa is also beginning to explore furthering its objectives through its unique positioning as the only African actor in multilateral arrangements such as BRICS and IBSA, which could maximise South Africa’s limited resources.

For example, South Sudan is one of the countries where South Africa has been particularly involved, given particularly its long-standing connection between South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) and South Sudan’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLA/M), which draws on a common vision for a ‘democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society’ and shares a history of exclusion and repression.  South Africa’s own transitional experience was thus believed to enable it to have a better understanding of context and indeed, South Africa was often described by those on the receiving end of South Africa’s assistance as the ‘big brother’. 

In the past, South Africa engaged in SSC with South Sudan by carrying out a number of capacity building activities, including the training of diplomats by the Department for International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), capacity building for the civil service conducted by the Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy (PALAMA) and, in conjunction with the University of South Africa (UNISA), the training of more than 900 top and middle-level leaders and managers shortly between 2005 and 2008.  The notion that South Africa was more aptly placed to deliver training given its understanding of context and similar experiences was seized upon by trilateral arrangement engagements with some northern donors, such as German funding for South Africa’s training of South Sudanese rule of law officials and Norway’s funding for South African training of South Sudanese police. 

However, research by the ISS revealed that such engagements often lacked monitoring and evaluation or any kind of follow-up, and were too short. The ISS subsequently recommended that South Africa plan for longer-term engagements that ensured a sustained presence in the country they were engaged with, and that mechanisms needed to be put in place in order to ensure accountability not only on the part of the recipient but also the provider.

South African interventions also often lacked coordination with other South African government actors and showed the need for a coherent vision and strategy. In other sectors, apart from its experiences with UNISA, the South African government has done little to facilitate SSC activities. There have been limited engagements by South African civil society and some university exchanges between the universities of Juba and Fort Hare but these have not been coordinated by the South African government. The same applies to the business sector.

Most recently in South Sudan, South Africa has offered assistance to South Sudanese prisons through the IBSA fund. The scheme offers training on agricultural techniques and the development of infrastructure. The IBSA fund has often been praised for having a significant impact and taking on more risky projects than traditional donors. Despite it’s limited worth (US3 million) it has won a number of awards and said to fill a niche gap by carrying out activities that traditional donors would not pursue.

The South African example shows that SSC can complement traditional forms of assistance and that it does have benefits. However, as demonstrated by ISS research, there is still a need to develop mechanisms for strengthening SSC. South Africa would do well to strengthen its vision and strategy, both individually and jointly with other southern providers and there is a need to begin to operationalise best practices by southern providers to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. If SSC is to provide a viable alternative to traditional cooperation, its advantages must be leveraged and its weaknesses addressed. Providing evidence-based research on the area is the first step.