As the only country with boots on the ground, Uganda finds itself at the centre of controversy over the conflict in South Sudan — especially after President Yoweri Museveni became the only leader in the region to warn that his army will take sides in the three-week-old fighting that has so far claimed the lives of over 1,000 people.

On December 19, 2013 — four days after the fighting broke out — Uganda acted, deploying a small group of Special Forces to “facilitate” evacuation of its nationals from the South Sudan capital.

READ: Uganda now steps in, sends troops to South Sudan

Then, last week, president Museveni made a cowboy-like foray into the conflict, publicly warning Riek Machar who is one of the protagonists, to cease hostilities or face defeat at the hands of a regional military intervention force.

Until July 23 last year, Dr Machar was South Sudan’s vice president but was sacked along with the entire Cabinet when President Salva Kiir dissolved his executive on that date.

Dr Machar was not reinstated in the next Cabinet, which triggered ethnic sentiments and disquiet, leading to an alleged failed coup attempt on December 15 that has since become a full-scale war, compelling regional states and the international community to call for ceasefire.

An Inter Governmental Authority on Development meeting on December 26 agreed on a military option but did not discuss its modalities.

However, President Museveni, an ally of Salva Kiir, seemingly jumped the gun and took it upon himself to warn that a military intervention was imminent even though the mode, deployment and composition of this force are details that are yet to be thrashed out.

There seems to be a disconnect between president Museveni’s warning and the position of other key Igad states like Kenya, which says it will not rush into a military intervention as an option in South Sudan, and appears to favour a negotiated political solution.

“I think president Museveni spoke on the strength of Uganda’s responsibility as the lead country on South Sudan, even before and leading up to the CPA [2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement]. Uganda has a stake in the development of South Sudan right from its long war with Sudan up to the time John Garang took over. Uganda was a guarantor of the CPA and its aftermath,” said Ugandan legislator Simon Mulongo in an interview with The EastAfrican.

Mr Mulongo, who is a former director of the Eastern Africa Standby Brigade, argued that on that account, of all the Igad states, Uganda is the frontline state whose immediate security interests are most at jeopardy from an unstable South Sudan.

Because of his past record of falling in and out with the leadership of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, then under John Garang, and alliances with the Khartoum government, Dr Machar represents a security threat to Kampala should he rekindle his alliance with Khartoum in the case of Salva Kiir’s government collapsing and Dr Machar taking state power.

But this raises some intriguing questions: If Igad discussed a military option, why would president Museveni take it upon himself to articulate the bloc’s position, yet personalise it, well aware of the inherent risks that such a move brings to Uganda and its citizens, some of whom are still trapped in South Sudan?

Plus, for Dr Machar to respect Igad’s call for cessation of hostilities, there had to be a more subtle and quiet diplomatic engagement with his side, rather than the confrontational stance that president Museveni has taken, to the point of stating that he does not sleep because he is monitoring the South Sudan conflict 24 hours a day.

Moreover, it is not clear what alliances, if any, are being built for this operation.

In Kampala, a number of legislators have questioned the wisdom of president Museveni’s unilateral move, while Dr Machar himself has questioned the president’s intentions and stake in the internal matters of South Sudan.

“We are ready to cease fire immediately to stop the bloodletting once the government of Salva Kiir reciprocates… we call upon the African Union and Igad to restrain the Ugandan government from fuelling the conflict by sending troops and war planes in support of Salva Kiir,” a statement released by Dr Machar’s side said, according to a Sudan Tribune report on December 31, 2013.

This was exactly at the end of the four-day deadline that Igad set for a ceasefire, after which the military option would be explored, but to date, president Museveni and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces leadership in Kampala have not said how they will defeat the rebellion.

Disagreement

It appears that there is disagreement within Igad over whether the group should proceed with a military option over a political one in resolving the conflict, which has quickly spread from Juba to other states and is now threatening to rip the world’s youngest state apart.

READ: IGAD calls for dialogue to end South Sudan crisis
At this point, it is also not clear if Uganda can go it alone as Kenya, the other key Igad member state, does not favour a military option.

Our source said that Kenya is informed by its foreign policy since Independence, which avoids military interventions unless its immediate security is under threat, as was the case when Nairobi deployed the Kenya Defence Forces to fight Al Shabaab in neighbouring Somalia in October, 2010.

Ethiopia, another Igad powerhouse, is also non-committal for now, but if the international community continues to egg on Igad, both Ethiopia and Kenya could eventually come to the party.

“The international community is on Uganda’s side, and that will stand in good stead for president Museveni. So it is possible that the international community will urge Kenya, as well as Ethiopia, not to pull out from a military option completely,” argued Mr Mulongo.