U.N. Bolsters Peacekeeping in South Sudan Despite Government’s Objections
The United Nations Security Council took vigorous action on Friday to greatly strengthen a peacekeeping force in South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, ravaged by civil war and suffering for nearly three years. The South Sudanese government immediately vowed not to cooperate.
A resolution, passed by an 11-to-0 vote with four abstentions, basically gives the United Nations
far more authority in South Sudan, backed by thousands of additional
troops and lethal force if needed, to protect civilians and pressure
armed antagonists in the conflict — including government soldiers. It
also threatens to impose an arms embargo on the African country.
The Security Council’s approval came as the mandate of the current peacekeeping operation, known as the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, or Unmiss, was about to expire. Unmiss has not been effective, as a peace agreement has been repeatedly ignored.
The
resolution, sponsored by the United States, represents an unusually
robust action by the Council, invoking its rarely used coercive power to
militarily intervene when international peace and security are
considered to be threatened.
David
Pressman, an American ambassador at the United Nations who attended the
vote, criticized the South Sudanese government for what he described as
actions that had crippled Unmiss’s ability to operate.
“Until
the leaders of South Sudan are willing to put what is good for their
people before themselves — putting peace ahead of personal ambition and
power — and until they show the will to find a political solution to
this grinding conflict, the people of South Sudan will continue to
suffer from the bloodshed and instability their leaders wreak,” Mr.
Pressman said after the resolution was approved.
South
Sudan’s government opposed the strengthened peacekeeping mission,
raising the possibility of clashes between the country’s armed forces
and foreign soldiers deployed there by the United Nations.
Reacting
to the resolution, a spokesman for President Salva Kiir of South Sudan,
Ateny Wek Ateny, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “That is very
unfortunate, and we are not going to ‘cooperate’ on that because we will
not allow our country to be taken over by the U.N.”
Under
the resolution, the United Nations’ mission will be extended for at
least three months, and a new 4,000-soldier “regional protection force”
will be deployed in Juba, the capital, and other strategic locations,
including the airport.
The
new force represents an increase of over 30 percent in armed personnel
for the United Nations mission of 12,000 troops, which has been unable
to stop episodic bouts of killing and abuses, including widespread rape, by both government forces and rebel factions.
United
Nations soldiers and aid workers have been repeatedly harassed and
attacked, and in some cases killed. Thousands of South Sudanese
civilians, fearing for their lives, have been living in United Nations
facilities in Juba and other locations.
The
resolution specifies that the new force, which diplomats said would
mostly be drawn from neighboring countries, will be authorized to
“promptly and effectively engage any actor that is credibly found to be
preparing attacks, or engages in attacks, against United Nations
protection of civilians sites, other United Nations premises, United
Nations personnel, international and national humanitarian actors, or
civilians.”
The
resolution does not impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, as Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon, some member states and outside advocates,
including international rights groups, had wanted.
But
in what was intended as a coercive step, the resolution allows an arms
embargo to be imposed if the government does not cooperate.
The
resolution’s failure to achieve a unanimous approval of the 15-member
Security Council partly reflected the difficulties it has often faced in
deciding on any action involving the use of military force.
Russia,
China, Egypt and Venezuela, the Council members that abstained, had
criticized some provisions in the resolution. Russia and China in
particular have been reticent to take actions that they view as
incursions on another country’s sovereignty — especially without the
host government’s consent.
Still,
the Russians and Chinese did not feel strongly enough to exercise their
veto power, which both have as permanent Security Council members.
South Sudan’s promise as a newly independent state in 2011 devolved into civil war two years later, and has left tens of thousands dead and more than 2.3 million people displaced.
Soldiers
loyal to President Kiir — who belongs to the Dinka ethnic group, South
Sudan’s largest — battled troops led by Riek Machar of the Nuer ethnic
group, which is believed to be the second largest.
Troops on both sides committed human rights abuses against civilians on a devastating scale, United Nations human rights officials and other groups found.
A peace deal officially ended the fighting last year. Mr. Machar, who had served as vice president before he was dismissed in 2013, agreed to become Mr. Kiir’s deputy again and returned to Juba in April.
But then fighting broke out again
between the two sides on July 7, killing hundreds. Mr. Machar’s
residence was destroyed, and he fled the capital. He has refused to
return to Juba unless more international troops are deployed.
0 Comments
I hope you enjoyed this story? So please, drop your comment below. Remember that at the end of the year, most active members receives cash rewards.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the comment writers alone and does not reflect or represent the views of MOTIVEPRESS