By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 27 --
When the UN
Security
Council ended
another Sudan
session after
6 pm on
Friday, at
least three
issues
remained
without
agreement.
These
included how
to refer to
the damage to
the oil
facilities at
Heglig,
whether to
have the
resolution be
under UN
Charter
Chapter 7 as
the African
Union had
requested, and
whether to
delete or
modify the
reference to
Article 41 in
Operative
Paragraph 9,
as requested
in a letter
Sudan
delivered to
Council
members Friday
morning.
Asked
why there
was resistance
to using
Chapter 7 as
the AU
communique
requested, one
Council member
told Inner
City Press,
"this
resolution is
essentially
about Chapter
6 mediation,
and Chapter 8
regional
organizations.
Why put it
under Chapter
7? So you can
later invade?"
The last
phrase seemed
hyperbole.
Some note that
Sudan's letter
did
not object to
Chapter 7,
only to
Article 41.
Inner
City Press
obtained
Sudan's letter
and put it
online, here.
South
Sudan also
submitted a
letter, and
got it
distributed by
the US
President of
the
Council,
unlike Sudan,
some noted.
Inner City
Press has just
obtained
the
South Sudan
letter and
puts it online
here.
South
Sudan's
letter, from
Representative
Agnes Oswaha,
among other
things makes
clear that the
UN has STILL
not signed a
Status of
Forces
Agreement
or SOFA for
its Abyei
mission, even
after the lack
of a SOFA
played a
role in the
inability to
med-evac out
four Ethiopian
peacekeepers
hit
and killed by
landmines.
DPKO's Herve Ladsous has repeatedly said the needed SOFA was immanent but, as with so much, it still has not happened.
DPKO's Herve Ladsous has repeatedly said the needed SOFA was immanent but, as with so much, it still has not happened.
From
South
Sudan's
letter:
There
are
only a few
areas where
South Sudan
believes the
Resolution
could
be
strengthened
and made more
precise.
We
welcome
Preambular
Paragraph 11.
It could be
strengthened
by
adding
reference to a
"political and
negotiated
solution
including all
relevant
Sudanese
parties..." As
has been
recognized by
many
countries,
while South
Sudan can play
a role in
facilitating a
negotiated
peace in the
Two Areas, it
is still very
important that
Sudan sit with
Sudanese
parties to
discuss their
legitimate
grievances,
which predate
even the
Comprehensive
Peace
Agreement.
2)
We
believe
Operative
Paragraph 1
(iv) could
more precisely
read
"cease ANY
[not "the']
harboring of,
or support to,
rebel
groups against
the Other
State."
3)
It
would be more
precise as
well as
helpful in
advancing
implementation
of prior
agreements if
Operative
Paragraphs
l(vi) and
2(ii) of the
resolution
refer to the
ful! name of
the initialed
nationality
agreement --
the "Framework
Agreement on
the Status
of Nationals
of the Other
State and
Related
Matters." This
also
would provide
the opening to
refer to --
and call for
the
implementation
of-- the
recently
initialed
border
agreement in
Operative
Paraÿaph
2(iii). We
respectfully
propose that
Operative
Paragraph
2(iii) now
read
"resolution of
the stares of
the
disputed and
claimed border
areas and the
demarcation of
the border,
"including the
demarcation of
the already
defined border
areas,
consistent
with the
Agreement
between the
Republic of
Sudan and
Republic of
South Sudan on
the
Demarcation of
the Boundary
initialed
in March
2012..."
4)
South
Sudan further
welcomes
Operative
Paragraph 2
which calls
for
the resumption
of
"negotiations,
under the
auspices of
the AUHIP
and with
the support of
the Chairman
of IGAD."
(emphasis
added). This
is consistent
with the call
South Sudan
has issued
previously to
immediately
resume
negotiations,
reflect more
on the
current
facilitation
mechanism, and
increase the
high level
international
support given
to the same.
South Sudan
welcomes the
support and
presence of
IGAD in tile
negotiations
and would be
pleased to see
other
provisions
increasing the
transparency
of the
negotiations
and access to
the
negotiations
for other
States and
institutions.
That said, in
light of this
additional
support to be
provided by
IGAD -- as was
also called
for by the AU
in Paragraph
13
of the PSC's
Communique --
and the role
that the PSC
has given to
the
Chair of the
AU Commission
with respect
to these
matters
(including a
monthly
reporting
role, as
mentioned in
paragraphs
18-20 of the
Communique),
South Sudan
believes that
the second
part of
Operative
Paragraph 5
could read as
follows:
"requests the
Secretary-General,
in
consultation
with the
AUHIP, the
Chair of IGAD
and the
Chairman of
the AU
Commission, to
report within
four months
of the date of
this
resolution to
the Security
Council on the
status
of the
negotiations,
including
detailed
proposals on
al!
outstanding
issues;". In
this way the
Security
Council will
be assured a
report that
draws upon
many
observations
and
perspectives.
5)
Regarding
Operative
Paragraph 6,
while South
Sudan is most
appreciative
of the efforts
of the AUHIP
and has called
for an
immediate
return to the
negotiations,
the terms of
reference for
the
AUHIP
technically
provide that
it is a
facilitator
and not a
mediator
mad as such,
for accuracy,
the wording
should be "facilitation
efforts" and
not "mediation
efforts".
6)
With
respect to
Operative
Paragraph 8,
South Sudan
would like to
see
the following
addition:
"expresses its
intention to
evaluate the
mandate of
UNISFA in the
context of
compliance by
Sudan and
South
Sudan with the
decisions set
forth in tiffs
resolution,
and with the
fulfillment of
their
commitments as
set out in the
June 20, June
29,
and July 30,
2011
Agreements, as
well as the
adequacy of
the number
of its forces
to carry out
its mandated
functions."
South Sudan
believes that
this would
expressly give
the UN, in
consultation
with
the relevant
parties, an
opportunity to
clearly assess
if the number
of troops that
were mandated
to monitor the
entire
international
border (a
small number
when compared
with those
present in
Abyei)
will be enough
in light of
the current
circumstances,
even with the
good faith
inplementation
of this
resolution and
the prior
security
agreements
reached
between the
parties. This
is not to
suggest that a
new force be
created, but
only to
suggest that
the Council
must
examine in
depth the
question as to
whether the
existing
UNISFA force
has the
resources to
carry out its
mandated
duties.
7)
In
this context,
we also
respectfully
suggest that
the Security
Council
consider
adding a
paragraph with
respect to the
requirement
of the two
Governments to
finally
approve the
Status of
Forces
Agreement
(SOFA) for the
UNISFA forces,
South Sudan
has long been
ready to sign
such an
agreement but
there has been
an unnecessary
delay.
Concluding the
SOFA will
facilitate the
important work
of
UNISFA.
But
again, the UN
has STILL not
signed a
Status of
Forces
Agreement or
SOFA for its
Abyei mission,
even after the
lack of a SOFA
played a role
in the
inability to
med-evac out
four Ethiopian
peacekeepers
hit and killed
by landmines.
DPKO's Herve
"The Drone"
Ladsous has
repeatedly
said the
needed
SOFA was
immanent but,
as with so
much, it still
has not
happened.
Watch this
site.