“Instead, as we all know, the Government of South Sudan’s troops are actively blocking United Nations personnel from carrying out their life saving work, which in some cases has led to the deaths of U.N. peacekeepers”, said USA deputy ambassador David Pressman.
Advertisement
The statement added that the resolution took South Sudan’s preliminary approval of deploying the forces as a gateway to draft detailed aspects of the force without direct consultation with the South Sudan government.
Reminding all parties of the civilian character of protection of civilians sites in South Sudan, and recalling its resolution 2206 (2015), which states in part that those who engage in attacks against United Nations missions, worldwide security presences, or other peacekeeping operations, or humanitarian personnel may be subject to sanctions, the Council went on to condemn all violence and human rights violations throughout the country, as well as obstruction of the work of UNMISS. It has also been denounced for failing to intervene as government soldiers reportedly gang-raped women outside a United Nations camp in July. The South Sudan government spokesman says it will accept the protection force only if it can negotiate the size, mandate, weapons and contributing countries, and saying neighboring Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya cannot take part.
Peter Wilson, U.N. ambassador to Britain, said he was disappointed that the resolution did not include an immediate arms embargo on South Sudan, but he said Britain accepted the text in the spirit of compromise.
Eleven countries in the 15-member council backed the new force.
A draft resolution sponsored by the United States on 8 August received 11 votes in favour, while Russia, China, Venezuela and Egypt declined to vote. “Unless they are coming to invade South Sudan, we are a sovereign country”.
But in what was intended as a coercive step, the resolution allows an arms embargo to be imposed if the government does not cooperate.
Still, the Russians and Chinese did not feel strongly enough to exercise their veto power, which they both have as permanent Security Council members.
Soldiers loyal to President Salva 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.
Political differences between the two men ignited civil war in December 2013 – and they only agreed to settle their differences under intense worldwide pressure, signing a peace deal last August.
A spokesman for Machar welcomed the proposed deployment of the United Nations protection force in Juba. In early July, fighting broke out again after Kiir’s troops drove out Machar and his forces from Juba.
The deployment of more worldwide troops in Juba has been a key demand of Machar, who left Juba following the violence last month.
The statement called upon the parties to the August 2015 peace agreement to embrace mutual trust, put the interest of their country and its people above everything else and to scrupulously implement the accord.
Advertisement
These African troops will have a more robust mandate than the 12,000 United Nations soldiers already in the country.
