Wednesday, August 24, 2016

On South Sudan's Terrain, Ban Taps Cammaert, “Cover Up Cadre” in Malakal, Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusives

UNITED NATIONS, August 23 -- The UN judged the Terrain Apartments in Juba, South Sudan to be safe and well-protected in October 2015, documents obtained and exclusively published by Inner City Press show. In July 2016 the UN did nothing while those living there were rapes and, in the case of journalist John Gatluak, killed.

Now what?

On July 11, 13 and 14, Inner City Press asked the UN about its lack of response to rapes and killing in the Terrain Apartments in Juba, South Sudan, having been contacted by sources there shocked at the lack of response by the UNMISS mission and others. Video here, including the UN on August 15 claiming after a month to STILL be investigating its negligence.

On August 16, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that he “has decided to launch an independent special investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding these incidents and to evaluate the Mission’s overall response.”

On August 23, Ban named Patrick Cammaert to head it. Inner City Press asked, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press:  About South Sudan, when you mentioned that Mr. Cammaert had previously done the Malakal one, I wanted to know, has that resulted in any accountability? I went back.  He did the study of Gaza in 2015.  He was sent to Sri Lanka in 2009.   I want to know, overall, is the goal of this exercise, particularly given the Terrain events but also rapes outside the gate, to actually hold someone accountable or to write a Malakal-style study?

Spokesman:  You know, I think the Malakal report was fairly… was fairly clear.  I think it’s important that we be able to assess, not only the facts on the ground, but the role of the mission, how the mission responded, how the various contingents responded.  And from that, obviously, if there are further steps to be taken, they will be taken.

ICP Question:  Right, but I guess I’m asking as an example, in the Malakal case, have any steps yet been taken?

Spokesman:  Well, I think, you know, obviously, we have seen how various contingents responded, and we hope that also what we’ve learned from Malakal will be able to better prepare us for similar situations that may happen in the future.

ICP Question:  Relatedly…

Spokesman:  Okay.  I’ll come back to you.

What's “come back” is Cammaert. With all due respect, Ban for his “independent” investigations picks the same people again and again, or people who need or want a UN post - it creates an incentive to deliver a report that doesn't lead to accountability, in order to get the (next) job: a cover-up cadre.

   On the morning of August 17 Inner City Press reported that the UN Department of Safety and Security's Chris Du Toit is said by staff to be the one who adjudged the Terrain Apartments to be “safe,” and had gone “on leave,” like Ban Ki-moon.

  On the morning of August 22 Inner City Press exclusively published: The UN Department of Safety and Security's MORSS - Residential Security Survey Report of October 29, 2015 says that “the residence is recommended to UN personnel,” that “UN PK [Peacekeepers]” are “present in the area... guarding the UN House,” and that the gates are in good condition. At noon on August 22, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, Beyond the Vine here, UN Transcript here: 

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you about the Terrain Apartments in South Sudan.  Back on 14 July, you'd said that the UN was already then starting to look at its role and I have since then obtained what was the UNDSS certification that it was safe.  And it says things like the residents is recommended to UN personnel but it also says that there were CCTV cameras covering the area 24/7, that the gate was fine, and it recommended some mitigating measures.  I guess my question is, if a month ago... more than a month ago, you'd said from here that the UN was investigating its role, what happened in that month?  Is it true that, as was said in this DSS certification, that there are close… you know, closed-captioned TV running the whole time?  And if so, why didn't the…

Spokesman:  Again, I think you have access to documents that I don't have access to.

ICP Correspondent:  Well, you can get this.

Spokesman:  Well, I'm not… obviously, I'm not on the distribution list of the same documents that you are on.  The… there was a preliminary work that was done, I think, as Farhan announced last week.  A special investigation will be conducted.  I expect to be… to be able to announce more details on that investigation either later today or at tomorrow's briefing.  Obviously, they will take a look at all the circumstances, what decisions were taken by… by the UN, and, obviously, the fact that the perpetrators of these attacks will need to be brought to justice. 

At the August 17 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you about is whether the head of, my understanding is he is or was the head of the UNDSS [Department of Safety and Security] in South Sudan, Chris Du Toit, I'm told that he had in writing deemed the Terrain Apartments to be "safe" for UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund], FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] and other staff to live in and that he's now just recently gone on leave.  Was such a determination made?  And how does the UN, in places like Juba, determine and certify off-site places for its personnel to live? [Vine here.]

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, first of all, I'm not going to get into the specific facts of the case, which are being determined, like I said, first, by the body that's from the UN Mission that's already been working on this and now by a special investigation that will be formed in the coming days.  What I can say more generally is simply that we do rely on our Department of Safety and Security to determine, in any country, where places are that are safe for UN staff to stay.

ICP Question:  Right.  So, it's fair to say that this was… this place had been determined to be safe?  That's why people were living there…

Deputy Spokesman:  No, that's not fair to say.  I'm not… like I said, I'm not going into any specific facts.  Those remain to be determined by the groups who are looking into it.

ICP Question:  And I also want to ask one thing.  I've heard that… that staff of UNFPA in particular, but other UN system staff were discouraged of speaking with the media in the month since this event took place.  And I wanted to know, is that… what is the UN's… does it feel that it has a right to tell its staff not to speak about things that… that… in which they themselves were the victims, or are they free at all times to speak about what happens to them?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, people are free to speak to the media.  Obviously, as staff are aware, when there's an investigation under way, we don't want to prejudice the course of an investigation. [Vine here.]But that… and that is what's happening.  But, as a general rule, yes, of course, they're free.

ICP Question:  But, it seems like this investigation is really triggered by the AP report.  That's why I say it's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem.  You were doing your own report.  Then the AP ran a story where people spoke to it anonymously, and now you're doing a special investigation.  Is that…?

Deputy Spokesman:  I don't think that that's fair.  I think part of what was happening is that the facts uncovered by the UN Mission prompted the people here at Headquarters to believe that something more is needed...

Inner City Press: I've gone back and looked at it.  On 11 July, I asked Stéphane [Dujarric], as it happened, about the Terrain.  And he said he hadn't heard anything about it.  And then, two days later, Ellen Løj was on the TV screen, and I asked her about Terrain.  And she said she acknowledged that she was aware of it and that they'd sent… they called the army to go.  And then, on 14 July, Stéphane said more about it.  That's what you're referring to.  Was there any other statement that you guys proactively put out?  When?

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes.  Exactly.  We got those… those were the details we shared over the days as we got them.

  Also, who is going to DO Ban's belated (second) investigation? Will the investigation involve DPKO's “conduct & discipline unit” under Mercedes Gervilla, or OIOS' Michael Dudley - the spouse of Mercedes Gervilla? It's “all in the family,” as is so often the case in Ban's UN, where Ban's mentor Han Seung-soo is given a UN post while on the board of Standard Chartered Bank, with two contracts with the UN. We'll have more on this.

On August 16, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Farhan Haq what was done in the last month, other than cover up. Video compilation here; Vine hereUN Transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you again about the Terrain Apartments.  I went back and looked not only at what Ms. [Ellen] Løj said, but the day after that, Stéphane [Dujarric], on 14 July, when asked about what she said, said that the UN was already at that time investigating its own role.  So, I wanted to know, in the intervening month, what has the UN found out?  Like, yesterday, it was said sort of like the UN, based on the AP report, is going to be looking into it.  In the month since 14 July and now, [16 August], what did the UN find out about its role?

Deputy Spokesman:  Like I said, we are investigating this.  That investigation has not concluded.  We may have more to say on this in the next day or so in terms of what will be done in terms of any further investigation, but at this stage, the point is it's ongoing.

ICP Question:  But, when did the investigation start, I guess, having now looked at what was said on 14 July?  Did it start then or did it not start until now?

Deputy Spokesman:  It started very rapidly upon the first awareness of this incident, which, as you're aware, we reported to you at the time.

Not so much - when Inner City Press asked, Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric said he knew nothing; it took a question to SRSG Loy to get the first admission, see below.

On July 11, Inner City Press received video about the attack while in the UN Press Briefing Room; many including on Capitol Hill in DC were asked about it. But only on August 15 did the US, through its Ambassador Power, say anything.

Is this is a(nother) joint UN and US Administration cover-up?

Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on July 11 said he didn't know anything about it. UN Envoy Ellen Loj on July 13 told Inner City Press UNMISS had called the SPLA to go to Terrain. But, Inner City Press pointed out, there were already there.

On July 14, when Inner City Press asked ask, Dujarric claimed the UN was looking into its own role. Video here. Then, nothing.

  Now after a detailed report by AP, Inner City Press on August 15 asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq about what Loj has said. Beyond the Vine here. Haq said everything is being investigated, including the UN's role. But what happend with the investigation Dujarric claimed a month ago?

On the evening of August 15, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power put out a statement, which rightly if belatedly noted that "We are deeply concerned that United Nations peacekeepers were apparently either incapable of or unwilling to respond to calls for help. We have requested and are awaiting the outcome of an investigation by the United Nations and demand swift corrective action in the event that these allegations are substantiated."

  But the US was told of this more than a month ago. And what follow up has there been on the UN's "investigations" of inaction in Malakal in South Sudan, and on the rapes in the Central African Republic? On UN abuses in Haiti and in its own headquarters? We'll have more on this.

 - this while refusing to answer for example which corporate boards of directors Ban's mentor and Special Adviser on Water and Disaster Risk Reduction Han Seung-soo is on. This is a new low for the UN - watch this site.

On August 12 as the UN Security Council prepared to meet on South Sudan, the vote was pushed back from 10 am to 3 pm and the draft weakened to omit triggers for an arms embargo and to require cooperation with the Salva Kiir government.

When the vote occurred, there were four abstentions: China, Russia, Egypt and Venezuela. It was adopted 11-0-4. Here is the final version, as obtained from the UN and put on Scribd by Inner City Press, here. US deputy ambassador David Pressman said that if there is obstruction, the Council will vote about whether to impose an arms embargo.  Tweeted photo here. The Chamber was hardly full, tweeted photo here.

Then after the other members' speeches, including Egypt citing the Security Council's inaction on its Burundi resolution (Inner City Press has put the Explanation of Vote online here) and France entirely ignoring that, South Sudan was given the floor and trashed the resolution. Photo of South Sudan government trio here.

One expected someone - the US? - to do a reply. But back down at the stakeout, the US and France walked together down the hall; others noted the contradictions between some members speeches and their votes. It was done.

Inner City Press this morning exclusively published a memo that the International Crisis Group sent to lobby the Council, against sanctions  -- in this case against Salva Kiir's Chief of General Staff Paul Malong, about whom we have repeatedly reported.

The author, Casie Copeland, has appeared more publicly in the page of the UK Independent, here. In her ICG memo some may see an echo of the NYT's current series on “think tanks” in Washington, or may question how opposing sanctions on Malong, given his history then and since, is consistent with researching and lobbying for peace. Ms. Copeland's explanation, which we requested, we publish in full below.

 Separately Inner City Press hears that neither Kiir-favoring Uganda nor Sudan may officially send new troops to South Sudan, leaving it for Kenya and, yes, Ethiopia. From the ICG memo:

"From: Casie Copeland [at]
Date: 2015-09-06
Subject: South Sudan Sanctions

I hope this finds you well and enjoying the last days of summer. I am writing with respect to the proposed sanctions on two South Sudanese generals.
As you know, the ceasefire workshop after some delays is now scheduled from September 10-15. Both the government and opposition have nominated a set of strong military and police leaders to the workshop and individuals we know to be serious about taking the next steps to establish modalities for the ceasefire - such as identification of forces, number of forces in Juba, withdraw of allies, re-supply procedures, and so on. There is reason to be cautiously optimistic for the outcomes of the workshop.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that much of the fate of this very tenuous agreement rests on the parties abilities to come to agreement at the workshop and leave committed to implementing the agreement.

Sanctions at this point would dramatically undermine IGAD's ability to secure workable arrangements for the ceasefire and thus, potentially the overall agreement. However the threat of sanctions for those who undermine the workshop or violate the agreement afterthe workshop could be useful.

This is particularly true from the perspective of the government. The Chief of General Staff, despite his reservations about much of the peace agreement, came to the venue the day of the signing in Juba to support his President's decision. His support for Kiir was critical in overcoming many of his Bahr el Ghazal (and other) constituency's threats to withdraw support from Kiir if he signed the agreement. To sanction him would appear to be a "slap in the face" to a man whose support for the President's decision to sign was critical in maintaining cohesion in Juba and whose continued support will be absolutely critical to implementing the peace agreement.To make a small point about a ceasefire violation, the Security Council could doom the entire agreement.

I look forward to being in touch with you on this and other matters moving forward. Please do be in touch if I can provide any further information or insight that may be of use.

Kind regards,

Casie Copeland, J.D.
South Sudan Analyst
International Crisis Group"

As noted Inner City Press requested an explanation and anything else and publishes it in full:

"Dear Matthew,

Last year within a few weeks of the signing of the peace agreement (ARCSS) we understood there was a proposal to sanction the Chief of General Staff of the national army. This followed weeks of intensive pressure on the government to encourage them to sign the ARCSS. The pressure was successful and the government signed the agreement despite the reluctance of many senior officials in government. It was our belief, at that time, that to sanction General Malong would have led to the government disavowing the peace agreement and could have led to an irrevocable deterioration in relations between the Governments of South Sudan and the United States. It is our belief that neither of those outcomes would have served the interests of peace in South Sudan. I am not aware of any proposal since then to sanction General Malong so would be unable to comment on any such proposal.

As for the email in question, we undertake advocacy to all council members on a regular basis. This is done through a number of means and modes of communication, including email. So while this email was widely circulated, it was part of wider advocacy on this topic which included a public statement - "No Sanctions without Strategy" - and reached many other council members directly, including the US government. Warm regards,"

Casie Copeland, J.D.
South Sudan Analyst
International Crisis Group

  Back on August 10 after UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Stephen O'Brien visited South Sudan, Inner City Press asked him about UN delays in registering Internally Displaced People (IDPs) arriving at the UN's Protection of Civilians sites and about reported UN inaction as mostly Nuer women were raped just outside the PoC site in Juba.

  O'Brien acknowledged some delay in registration, diplomatically chiding the government for suggestion that people return to where they had fled from in order to register. He described a quickly built camp in Wau, though the reports of registration delay have mostly been from Juba.

   Pressed on the issue of UN inaction on rapes, O'Brien said he had not gathered any new information about the allegations during his visit, adding that Salva Kiir told him rapes are “unacceptable.”

  Interestingly, O'Brien said that now food is only allowed be to flown in from Uganda, not Sudan or Kenya. We'll have more on this.

  Separately, Inner City Press asked O'Brien about the “Functional Review” he had commissioned, and the Heads of Office critique of it, which Inner City Press published here.

O'Brien in his response offered praise and emphasized how short a time he's been at OCHA. We'll continue to report on whether O'Brien, and certain other Ban Ki-moon Under Secretaries General, can or will remain under the Next SG. Some, "even" P-5, should go. Watch this site.

In the UN's continued withholding of news and answers about South Sudan, the reports of the UN's own knowledge of abuses are now being withheld from its own impacted national staff.

 As the UN refuses to answer questions, and Bans the Press from South Sudan meetingsvideo here, we publish this internal UN report:

"On 04 August in Yambio, UNMISS received a copy of a directive from the National Security Service (NSS) instructing the senior SPLA Liaison Officer to inform UNMISS that all staff arriving in Gbudwe State from Juba or elsewhere must register at the NSS office in Yambio before proceeding to the UNMISS compound. The Internal Security Bureau (ISB) Director stated that the registration of UNMISS staff is for their own security."

Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Farhan Haq about the incident with no real answer. Later on August 5, the UN belatedly emailed its Malakal report, or the executive summary, which Inner City Pressimmediately put online here. On August 8, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokeman Farhan Haq, UN transcript here: 

Inner City Press: The Malakal report that was released on Friday. It seems like one of the recommendations is that, going forward, any… any failure to respond by TCCs [troop-contributing countries] or police-contributing countries [PCCs] be… it said reported to UN Headquarters and to the TCC or PCC involved.  In the spirit of kind of name-and-shame, which is taken to the sexual abuse issue, is there a problem with naming the contingents who either didn't respond or said they could only respond if their capital told them they could respond?  Is the idea to make that public or to simply keep it in-house?

Deputy Spokesman:  At this stage, we're following up with the relevant countries and trying to make sure that any appropriate follow-up is happening.  We've also set in motion adjustments to the force structure to identify some of the issues in the investigation, but in terms of actions by the contributing countries, we're working with them to make sure that they do follow up.

ICP Question:  Right.  And so is that the sum total, all you have on DPKO's (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) response to this lengthy and pretty troubling report?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, there is more.  As it is, two commanders were repatriated following the Malakal incident.  And, as you have seen from the report, we gave a detailed summary of the events in Malakal of the response by the mission and their recommendations in there.  And so that describes the state of play.

  We note

“local authorities accused UNMISS of not protecting civilians, Paragraph 14;

UN complains of “unrealistic expectations for the protection [UN] could feasibly afford” Paragraph 19. So UN, What Is It Good For?

Feb18-19 was “not the fist instance when military units in Malakal demonstrated unwillingness to implement ROE,” Rules of Engagement, Paragraph 21;

The UN “acted without urgency to repair the breach in the PoC fence which had been reported on 17 February” - that is called negligence.

Then the UN report cites “failing to cease [sic] an opportunity to  better manage the developing security situation” - that is called misspelling. Paragraph 22 

The UN BoI's Malakal report says the names of UNresponsive units should be given to UNHQ and to their missions - but NOT to the press or public. This is Ban Ki-moon's ad Herve Ladsous' UN.

And here is the UN's “Confidential” instructions to UN staff, how to deal with authorities in South Sudan - when the Press tries exactly the same inside UN Headquarters with UN Security, it gets ousted (audio here) and evicted.


Ref: 104/SB/06/08/2016

UN Security will like to remind staff members on actions that should be
taken on approach to/at military check points.

v  Reduce speed, slow down and stop completely at the checkpoint.

v  Dim headlights/put interior light on, if at night.

v  Roll window down not more than 1”, be friendly/courteous.

v  Show ID if asked - do not surrender, stay in vehicle unless ordered out.

v  Observe any search of vehicle - theft or planting of items.

v  Protest the removal of personal items - but do not resist.

v  Do not attempt to bribe your way out of a situation.

v  Remain calm and give honest answers if questioned. If they mis-state
facts, correct them.

v  Insist on your rights as a United Nations staff member. Never forget that
you have rights.

Note: At no point should a staff member speed pass or ignore an official
check point, as such action could be misinterpreted to be hostile and could
result in the vehicle being shot at.


Just two points for now: when Inner City Press points out that the UN mis-spoke to the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression and Human Rights Defenders, claiming there was an “altercation” in the UN Press Briefing Room which is disproved by video, the UN does not correct itself. And UN Security's McNulty tore Inner City Press' UN ID off its neck, threw bag with laptop in it  on the sidewalk. We'll have more on this.

"On 03 August at 15:00 hours in Juba, one UNMISS Military Personnel (MLO) was prevented by airport security personnel from boarding Kenya Airways flight at Juba International Airport for allegedly taking pictures at the passengers’ waiting room. Before being released HG security personnel seized his laptop, national passport and a smartphone and asked him to report to their office on 04 August. The case was reported to UN Security."

Inner City Press on August 4 asked UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq about it. Video here. From the UN transcript: 

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you two things about South Sudan. One is this report that… that, in the camps, in light of the recent violence, the people that have gone into them weren't, in fact, registered as… as… basically, in order to have food delivered to them, to register… to get bigger WFP and that this is in fact leaving some of them without food, and so, they have to go out of the camp, and it puts them at risk.  The second question I have it from an UNMISS [United Nations Mission in South Sudan] memo I've obtained and published, which said that on 3 August an UNMISS military personnel was stopped at the airport by the Government.  Computer laptop and phone all taken.  UNDSS [United Nations Department of Safety and Security] is aware of it.  And I wanted to know, what is the protocol for a Member State to take electronics concluding… presumably including secret information from UNMISS military personnel?  And what is the UN doing in this case both to protest it and to make sure the information is not misused?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, I will check what UNMISS is doing by way of reaction, but, certainly, our… all of their personnel are supposed to have freedom of movement.  And they and their belongings, including, of course, their communications, are to be protected.

ICP Question:  This one… I just want to ask you, because what it says is that this was taken because they were taking photographs inside the airport.  So I wanted to know, does your interpretation of freedom of movement and freedom of action include taking photographs inside an air… the airport, which is the Government's rationale?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, we would have to see whether the actions taken by staff are appropriate.  But, certainly, the Government knows what its obligations are under the Status of Forces Agreement, but also, of course, UN personnel are… wherever they go are supposed to have freedom of movement if they go in accordance with their work responsibilities.

ICP Question:  And registration?  Did you have an answer on that, on whether IDPs [internally displaced persons] that have gone into the camps last week have registered…?

Deputy Spokesman:  As far… if I hear otherwise, I can let you know, but as far as I'm aware, all… at all Protection of Civilians sites, the registration continues.

ICP Question: There's an AP story that says totally the contrary, by Justin Lynch.

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, registration is a standard practice of the sites.  I don't know whether there's a problem at any particular site, but it's standard for all of the inhabitants to be registered.

On August 3 we published these UN internal reports from South Sudan, marked "“UN STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL: ST/SGB/2007/6, Information Sensitivity, Classification and Handling" --

"Armed Conflict – Attack: On 03 August at about 05:00 hours in Leer, reportedly, SPLA soldiers from Koch launched attacks at the villages located north of the UNTCC TOB destroying and looting villages. At 08:10 hours, about 105 IDPs from Kuleer Payam arrived at the Leer TOB seeking protection from GHANBATT.

"On 02 August at about 23:47 hours in Juba, a UN ambulance escorted by UN military departed UN House Level I Clinic to UNMISS-Tomping Level II Clinic, with a female IDP patient in labour. Along the way, the team was harassed by HG security forces at numerous check points. At one check point, the HG security personnel threatened to take the patient out because of her ethnicity."

On August 3, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephande Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on South Sudan, I wanted to know, I've seen a memo from DSS [Department of Safety and Security] in South Sudan, saying they're aware of these attacks on Leer by the SPLA [Sudan People’s Liberation Army].  It seems from the memo that the UN acknowledges that it's the Salva Kiir forces attacking this Riek Machar area.  So, I wanted to know, when is the UN… what's the process for the UN reporting on this type of fighting that it sees?  The memo also talks about a woman IDP [internally displaced person] being harassed on the way to giving birth based on her ethnicity.  So, I’m just wondering, what is the protocol for UNMISS [United Nations Mission in South Sudan] or other UN forces in South Sudan to actually say what's taking place?

Spokesman:  Well, I think, you know, it's always… it would be helpful for your friends at DSS to share whatever they share with you with me before the briefing so I can give you a better update.  But, what is clear is that we have regularly reported from here on fighting, on incidents, when they occur.  And the Secretary-General reports regularly to the Security Council, whether in its… in the periodic reports on the mission or periodic briefings, verbal briefings by DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations].

ICP Question:  But, just as an example, for example, it's reported that many UN staff have now been unable to get back into the country under this travel restriction.  So, when… it seems like this is a violation of the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement].  Is the UN complaining publicly about…?

Spokesman:  I think we have raised this publicly.  We're obviously raising it privately.  It is critical that the Government of South Sudan allow the UN staff to go in and do its work and implement the resolutions of the Security Council and the mandate given to us by the Security Council.

  Riek Machar was attacked and chased out of Juba; now he and his forces say they will return absent the deployment of an enhanced international force which those in control of Juba say would immediately be attacked.

Sources tell Inner City Press Paul Malong is setting up his artillery by the main bridge into Juba on the main road artery linking Juba with Nimule, some 9,500 meters opposite UN “Protection of Civilians” and in direct line of sight. This is described by the sources as an act of brinkmanship and an attempt to secure the road corridor.

The UN has had imposed restrictions which violate its Status of Forces Agreement but has quietly accepted them. Inner City Press has published and asked the UN about its (lack of) response, including to rapes, and has been Banned from covering South Sudan meetings inside the UN.

Today Inner City Press publishes in full the resignation letter of Lam Akol, here.

And Inner City Press can report that the UN Security Council anticipated visit to South Sudan and perhaps Sudan from August 15 to 19 is being discouraged by the US, which says it is not ready. We'll have more on this.