Showing posts with label tomping camp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tomping camp. Show all posts

Monday, September 14, 2015

On South Sudan, UN Tells Inner City Press It Helped Rape Victims Without Delay, Won't Confirm Ceasefire Violations


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series
UNITED NATIONS, September 14 -- Since the South Sudan peace agreement was signed by President Salva Kiir, saying that he had reservations, fighting and re-supply has continued through the closed-down Juba airport and barges then headed to Malakal.  On September 14, Inner City Press asked more questions - to Ugandan foreign minister Sam Kutesa, here, and to the UN Spokesman, transcript here:
Inner City Press: On South Sudan, one, I was sort of waiting to have an update on, there's now reported fighting that's spread to Central Equatoria, [inaudible] Bakasura, Bentiu.  Does UNMISS [United Nations Mission in South Sudan] have any reporting…?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  Obviously, the continued fighting in South Sudan remains of great concern to us, as well as the lack of adherence to the text that was signed by both parties.

Inner City Press:  All right.  There was an incident in which two international aid workers were apparently raped in Juba and went to the Tomping compound.  I wanted to ask what the UN did, because what I heard is that it was actually quite difficult for them to be admitted to this Level 2 hospital.  What's the UN doing about this?

Spokesman:  My understanding is that the two aid workers, who suffered huge trauma obviously were raped and our heart goes out to them, were admitted to UN hospital and were treated there.  I'm not aware of any difficulties.  I'm just aware that they were not UN staff members, that they were admitted to the UN hospital.
 Earlier, Inner City Press was informed by sources of airstrikes near Malakal -- and that these strikes are by Ugandan air assets. There are reports of strikes on Tunja, Panyinkang and Nyijuat Payam. While Salva Kiir's - or Paul Malong's -- forces have four helicopters based near the Kenya border, there are questions about trained pilots. Uganda air assets are in Paloich, a forty minute helicopter ride from the Malakal area. 
  On September 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about airstrikes and fighting around Malakal, including emerging reports of possible use of chemical weapons and cluster bombs, previously alleged in South Sudan. Dujarric said he didn't have anything from UNMISS - but later on September 8 his Office sent Inner City Press this:
"Regarding your question on fighting in Malakal, we have the following information to share:

"The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) reported sounds of heavy mortar and gunfire from the south of Malakal town yesterday. UNMISS also reported shelling towards the south later in the evening, followed by small arms fire coming from the west bank of the River Nile towards Malakal. On Friday, an UNMISS patrol deployed to Malakal found the town deserted and devoid of civilians." 
What the UN Spokesperson's Office sent Inner City Press made no mention of who did the firing. But the sit-rep named Warjok and Lelo, and the SPLA and SPLA-IO: why didn't the UN Headquarters' answer? And what of UNDF aircraft? We'll have more on this.
   Earlier,  Inner City Press was informed by sources in South Sudan of more armaments coming in, from Uganda to Juba: 34 trucks with a UPDF (Ugandan Army) presence. From sources high in the UN, Inner City Press is informed of meetings convened by Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson seeking some UN role in the IGAD Working Group(s) to be convened in Addis Ababa.
  (This is delayed.)
 On September 4 after closed-door Security Council consultations, the Council's President for September Vitaly Churkin read out these Elements to the Press:
"We have discussed the situation in South Sudan, consultations which were initiated by one delegation, and I have some press elements.
"On the 4th of September during the UN Security Council consultations, Special Representative from the Secretary General, Ellen Loj, briefed the Council on the situation on the ground following the August 26th signing of the agreement on the resolution of the conflict of the republic of South Sudan. The Council welcomed the conclusion of the agreement and the stated commitment of the government of South Sudan and opposition to its implementation, including the issuance of orders to all forces under their command to cease military operation by August 29.
"In this regard the Council expressed deep concern at recent reports of fighting and called upon the parties to adhere to the ceasefire immediately and unconditionally. The Council reiterated its readiness to consider appropriate measures to ensure full implementation of the agreement without exception, and address any violations or failures of any party to implement those provisions, including through the implementation of an arms embargo and additional targeted sanctions.
"The Council called for further development of security arrangements by the parties and the security workshop planned to be conducted by IGAD in Addis Ababa in the nearest future. The Council expressed its deep appreciation and called for continued close engagement of IGAD and IGAD plus partners to facilitate the sustained solution to the armed conflict in South Sudan.. The Council confirmed its intention to update the mandate of the United Nations mission in South Sudan to support implementation of key tasks in the agreement."
 Inner City Press asked of Uganda's troops - they're dealt with in the Agreement, was the answer -- and of any UN role in the IGAD working groups. Even UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric said he didn't know about this.
  Inner City Press has put online here the SPLA-IO's press release about helicopter bombardments Inner City Press has reported on and asked the UN about. From the SPLA-IO press release: "Today the 4th of September at 1:00PM, four government gunships carried out aerial bombardment for the second day on our bases in Warjok and Detang at west bank of  Malakal. Now they are extending their military offensive on our positions southward, 30 minutes from Lelo."
  What is the UN's response to this? UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous has stayed quiet about ceasefire violations and human rights abuses it has been informed of; a former Ladsous spokesperson (video here) now working for UN Human Rights is limiting information and access to scribes who do not challenge his boss(es). To this has the UN sunk.
  As the UN Security Council prepared to meet about South Sudan on September 4, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft about the role of Uganda. Rycroft replied that it is very important that regional players take their responsibility and become part of the solution, use their influence on parties in the interest of peace. Periscope video here. 
  Rycroft also said there are violations on both sides and that the UK would support an arms embargo. (He also said to wait to hear what SRSG Ellen Loj says, in the Council's closed-door session.) The UK is working on its position on the flying of the State of Palestine's flag at the UN, but is not ready to announce that position yet.
  On both August 31, after an exclusive report below, and on September 1 and 2, Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to confirm the continued fighting but he declined, including answering who runs Juba airport, as least as to the UN.
  On September 3, Dujarric belatedly offered this partial confirmation: 
"In response to questions that were asked at the briefing on the situation in South Sudan, I can say that the UN Mission [in South Sudan] (UNMISS) is reporting that two attack helicopters were firing rockets in the direction of the west bank of the River Nile in Malakal in Upper Nile State yesterday.  Heavy explosions, including mortar shells, as well as heavy artillery and small arms fire were also heard coming from Malakal towards areas located on the west bank.  UNMISS also reports instances of firing in Malakal earlier today.

"UNMISS condemns these violations of the Compromise Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict that, as you recall, came into force on 29 August and calls on the parties to take all necessary steps to meet their obligations.  The Mission continues to protect civilians in Malakal, including at its Protection of Civilians site and through regular patrols in the town and airport."
 Inner City Press on September 3 followed up, video heretranscript here:
Inner City Press: In South Sudan, I'm glad that UNMISS was able to confirm at least some of the shooting in Malakal, but there's a pretty troubling allegation that maybe you have something on or ask them about, it has to do with 17 bodies dumped in a stadium in Juba, Gudeli Football Ground.  These are considered to be executions, and many people see it as coming from the Government side.  And I'd like to know, it seems like it's a big… it's a large volume.  Does UNMISS… is UNMISS aware of this?  Do they…?

Spokesman:  I will check. 
  Eight hours later, nothing. There was this, from a Senior US State Department Official: "Secretary Kerry spoke with President Kiir today and expressed concern regarding recent ceasefire violations. President Kiir confirmed to the Secretary that he is committed to the implementation of the peace agreement and the ceasefire. The Secretary underscored that the United States would work to support the implementation of the peace agreement and continue to provide humanitarian aid."
  Early on September 2 Inner City Press was informed by sources in South Sudan of bombing of I/O positions in Tonga, Owashi and Werjwok (West of Malakal) and of movement of ammunition into the country through the Nimule crossing. 
  But when Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about this at the September 2 noon briefing, he said he had no information.
  Inner City Press also asked the incoming President of the UN Security Council for September, Vitaly Churkin of Russia, about the fighting and bombing near Malakal. Churkin replied, "On South Sudan, we’ll monitor the situation. If the situation becomes much worse I’m sure it will be raised in the Council. But so far, we need to confirm whatever information will come out."
  But who is supposed to be confirming the information? Doesn't UNMISS of UN Peacekeeping, under Herve Ladsous, have a role? Is the role being played?
  Now Inner City Press is informed by sources of that Kiir's troops crossed to Lelo from Malakal, engaging I/O forces. Their gunships are to be stationed in Paloch for three days to continue with bombardment, which has already begun in Deteng and Ogwo.
The sources, citing internal UNMISS sit-reps like the one published below which Dujarric refused to confirm or deny, are questioning more insistently why UN Peacekeeping is "covering up what it knows about CPA II violations." They note that UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous has engaged in previous cover up, in South Sudan, DR Congo and elsewhere, including the Central African Republic even for the French Sangaris force.
 Whistleblowing sources exclusively provided Inner City Press with this "Restricted" UN document:
“RESTRICTED Ref: 045/SB/28/08/2015

Dear All, Information received from Host Government security organs indicate that effective today SPLA Air force will conduct night exercises at the Juba airport, starting from 2000 hrs. This exercise is to continue for the next few days (unspecified). UN/INGO Personnel are therefore advised to avoid the airport general area during the stated period. End”
  These sources emphasize to Inner City Press the role at the Juba airport of ENHAS, Entebbe Handling Services and its links to the outgoing President of the US General Assembly Sam Kutesa, relative of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and still, as Inner City Press confirmed, Uganda's Foreign Minister while UNPGA.
  Among with the reported skirmishes at Malakal, and according to the SPLM/A I/O in Bukieny, Ditang, Obuwa and Lelo and shelling from the government barges as they proceed along the Nile, sources tell Inner City Press of fighting at the ports of Adok and Tayar. "Some ceasefire," said one. But how long will the silence at the UN continue?
  On August 28, after some push back, the Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement welcoming Kiir's signing but not referring to any credible and effective mechanism to seek accountability. On the way in, only the Permanent Representative of Venezuela spoke - to confirm that his country's issues with Colombia are bilateral and may involved at the end UNASUR, not the UN. Afterward, no one else spoke.
  After publishing Kiir's 12 pages of reservations, Inner City Press on August 27 in front of the Security Council asked the Permanent Representatives of Angola and of the United Kingdom about Kiir's reservations.
  Angola's Ismael Abraao Gaspar Martins told Inner City Press, when asked one on one outside the Security Council, "I have seen them. These are very serious reservations, I think. This calls for the Council to monitor what is there, how it's going to be implemented and what actions we need to continue to do, to make sure they move forward, so the violence stops. If it has been adopted, it has to be applied."
 Earlier, on his way into the Syria meeting, Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about Kiir's reservations, specifically the "deletion" of provisions to disarm the SPLM-N, and groups in Darfur (on which the UK holds the Council's pen). Periscope video here.
  The 12-page reservation document says to delete the provision about disarming Darfur based armed groups including JEM, SLA-Minnawi, SLA-Abdulwahid, as well as the SPLM-North.
  It resists calling the Army the NDFSS and referring to the "Armed Opposition" instead of the SPLM/A-IO. It says the National Army will remain inside its headquarters, and would delete Juba from the list of cantonment areas. It says there is a need to reconstitute the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism.
  It says to limit the JMEC and delete the word "oversee" throughout.
 The article on reparation and compensation is to be removed.
 Who would be vice president(s) would be up to Kiir: no reward for rebellion, or "gambling" on who ministers will be. The rebels should not be governors in Unity, Jonglei and Upper Nile State. Power sharing should be 70-20, not 46-40.  Funds should be with the Minister of Finance. As always, follow the money -- Inner City Press would add, to Kenya Commercial Bank and beyond. We'll have more on this.
  Before Kiir signed, Uganda's Yoweri Museveni advised him to get the UN out of the country, saying having the UN is is a sign of weakness and that the UN preserves terrorism.
 Past 5 pm New York time on August 26, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered praise for Kiir signing, saying nothing of the reservation or of the UN being openly trashed by Museveni.
  It is to Museveni that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been deferring on Burundi, still not having named a UN envoy as the UN Security Council called "imminent" two weeks ago. (Ban was in France on August 26, praising the country's ambassadorial corps without a single mention of French troops' alleged rape of children in the Central African Republic, covered up by Ban's (French) head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous.)
  In fairness to Museveni, his reference may have been in part to Ladsous' MONUSCO failing to act on armed groups in Eastern Congo -- including the FDLR, which also impinges on Burundi. We'll have more on this. Here was Ban's August 26 statement:
"The Secretary-General welcomes the signature today by President Salva Kiir of the Agreement on the resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. This is a critical and necessary step towards ending the 20 month-long conflict that has devastated South Sudan and subjected its people to unspeakable suffering." full statement here.
  In front of the Security Council on August 26, there was loose talk about Kiir signing; an African diplomat told Inner City Press, "He signed! He was obliged!" with no mention of the reservations. The UN had no noon briefing  -- it said it woul only have one if something important happened, this was apparently not important - here are answers from August 24 and August 25, Inner City Press' South Sudan questions have been not been answered.
  On August 25, Ellen Loj, the head of the UN Mission in the country UNMISS told the UN Security Council that Kiir is expected to sign the agreement on August 26. Inner City Press asked, how might that impact the pending draft resolution on sanctions and an arms embargo?
  After consultations on August 25, Security Council President for August Joy Ogwu of Nigeria emerged with Elements to the Press including:
“The Council members expressed concern on the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation. They condemned the continuing fighting by the parties and underlined the need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
  “They expressed optimism that President Salva Kiir would follow through on his commitment to sign the IGAD Plus Peace Agreement without reservation.
  “They stressed the importance of full implementation of the Agreement. Council members underscored the need to remain engaged on the situation in South Sudan. In this regard they expressed their readiness to act immediately if President Kiir does not sign the agreement tomorrow as he has undertaken."
  Inner City Press asked Ambassador Ogwu about sending the draft resolution's annexes to the African Union and IGAD, as an African delegation told Inner City Press about. Ogwu answered that speed is important, but also that it be concerted, a consensus, like an orchestra, it doesn't matter who writes the notes, but...  Here's fast transcript of Q&A from InnerCityPro, which also has analysis:
Inner City Press: Some members talked about sending the annexes to the AU or IGAD. Was there discussion of that? When you say immediately, does it include that? 
Amb Ogwu: We all understand the need for urgency, because the situation is urgent. But also there is the need for concerted action, for consensus. It is a stage and all the players must act as an orchestra, play the symphony, it doesn’t matter who writes the notes but it’s important to act in unison, act with one voice.
  In her national capacity, Nigeria's Ambassador Ogwu emphasized the need for an arms embargo, and to check where the weapons in the country are.
 Loj spoke of discouraging some from entering the UN's "protection of civilian" camps, without addressing the blocking of civilians fleeing fighting from the UN's Yambio camp, which Inner City Press has repeatedly asked about. Nor did she address if UNMISS' radio station, Radio Miraya, kept right on broadcasting amid a strike by media in the country to protect the assassination of journalist Peter Julius Moi.
  On August 18, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesperson Maestracci, "do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that 'if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time'?" 
  By August 21, after South Sudanese journalist Peter Julius Moi was assassinated in Juba, Inner City Press asked the next UN Associate Spokesperson Eri Kaneko this question, video here:
Inner City Press: In South Sudan,  virtually all media there, the Union of Journalists in South Sudan and the Association for Media Development in South Sudan, have agreed to a media blackout in mourning and as a protest of the murder of the journalist Peter Julius Moi.  They’re saying that UNMISS’ Radio Miraya is going to keep broadcasting.  Is that the case?  Is Miraya part of sort of the media of South, what’s the position of the UN on this?

Associate Spokesperson:  I’m not aware, but I will look into that.
  Eight hours later and counting, there has been no answer. Video here.

  On both August 18 and 19 when Inner City Press asked, UN spokesperson Maestracci declined to confirm or deny any of the fighting in the country -- a pattern for UNMISS under UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous. On August 19, Maestracci told Inner City Press, "As soon as I have [information], I will give it to you." None came: also a pattern.
  But Inner City Press sources tell it of ongoing clashes in Upper Nile, in Pageri, East Equatoria, still ongoing. The Juba – Nimule road, the only "proper tarmac road" in the country, remains closed; limited communications within the fragmented phone networks confirm that civilians are being targeted.
   West Equatorial Governor Joseph Bakasoro is still detained.
  Also, here is UNMISS sit-rep for insiders, not meant for the public, apparently:
“Following attacks in Pageri on 18 Aug 2015 host country security forces have advised that there is still military operation in the vicinity of Pageri town (30 kms North of Nimule).

UN Security advises that:

·        UN/INGO travels on the Juba - Nimule road are currently restricted.

·        UN Security will re-assess the situation in the next 24 hours and will advise accordingly.

·        In the interim all missions should be cleared with UN Security until further notice.

·        Additionally, UN/INGO missions into Pageri are to be suspended until a clearer picture is established as there are reports of heavy host country security forces deployed in Pageri.” 
  ... This is how things are at UN Headquarters and elsewhere in the system, especially in UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging this.

  On August 19 after UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson briefed the Council behind closed doors - he stopped and told Inner City Press is was not a short consultation, only a scheduling misunderstanding - he stopped on the way out and spoke again.
 
  Inner City Press asked Eliasson the question the UN Spokesperson has for two days declined to answer: "Have the two sides started fighting again?"
  Eliasson to his credit answered: "There are reports, they are very worrying. And this is also why, it is important if there is this progress towards signing of an agreement, that it is accompanied by the need for a ceasefire. A diplomatic solution cannot be found if there is not a de escalation."
  Moments later New Zealand's Ambassador Gerard van Boheman stopped and spoke about the US submitted draft resolution that the US' Susan Rice had alluded to the day before, that that it "does deal with an arms embargo also posits additional sanctions, if the agreement is not signed. I think there’s general recognition that the situation in South Sudan is not good, there’s a recognition that the IGAD and that the IGAD plus countries have been doing all they can. We want to be able to support their efforts.”
 
  Ambassador van Boheman said that “it’s quite a technical resolution. So I think it will take quite a bit of work to get everyone on the same page.”  Could that timing be related to the 15 days from August 17 deadline for Salva Kiir to sign?
  Inner City Press also asked van Bohemen about Yemen, but that's another story.
 On South Sudan, from the UN's August 18 transcript:
on South Sudan, can the Mission there, or do you have anything on reported, an attack by the Government on the opposition in a place called Imatong?  And do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that "if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time"?  It's a comment that CPJ has criticized, and I wonder if the mission has seen it and what they think of it.

Associate Spokesperson:  So on Imatong — is that what it's called?

Correspondent:  Yeah.

Associate Spokesperson:  I actually do not have a statement.  On South Sudan and the comments on the media that were made by Salva Kiir, yes, the Mission told us they were very concerned about, over the curbing of the press freedom in South Sudan, including recent closure of media houses and threats to journalists.  And they've also reiterated the importance of independent, free and pluralistic press.

Question:  Is the Deputy… I just wanted to ask one thing.  I saw that the Deputy Secretary-General's schedule says appointments are internal.  Did he come back from Addis?  Is there some way…

Associate Spokesperson:  He is on his way back.
  On August 19, Inner City Press asked Maestracci again - still no information on Imatong, nor Upper Nile, Pageri or other attacks since. From the August 19 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about South Sudan.  I’d asked you yesterday about whether UNMISS could confirm reports of fighting and now there’s increased reports of fighting and counter charges by the Government and the opposition of fighting in Upper Nile State, also near the Ugandan border.  So I’m wondering if UNMISS, given its presence in the country, it seems important to know is this taking place and if so which side is instigating it?

Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci:  We’re checking and we’re waiting for an answer.  As soon as I have one, I will give it to you.
  Nothing was given, but see above.
 Inner City Press asked DSG Eliasson of reports of fighting in South Sudan, he acknowledged the reports, Periscope video here. We'll have more on this.

 
  

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

On South Sudan Even When UN Peacekeeping Answers, It's By Invitation Only, Nothing on Cluster Bombs


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- With fighting resumed in Malakal in South Sudan, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations' Margaret Carey, unlike DPKO boss Herve Ladsous, took questions on February 18.

  But while Ladsous while inside the UN where all journalists can try refused to answer any questions, Carey's appearance was across First Avenue at a by invitation only event of International Peace Institute. Carey was not asked what follow up if any DPKO has done since it said it found cluster bombs on the road to Bor. If these were dropped from aircraft, it must be either Kiir's SLPA or Uganda, no? But it was not asked.

 This is a negative trend in the UN: the privatization of questions and answers. IPI's chief Terje Roed-Larsen doubles as a UN envoy of Resolution 1540; he went to Bahrain but when Inner City Press asked in what capacity, since he took a UN staffer, the question nor subsequent formal requests were never answered. On February 18 Carey noted that IPI was full of UN Mission in South Sudan people: past, present and future.

 Similarly, even in the UN building, when Ban Ki-moon did questions and answers with the friendly scribes on the board of UNCA, the Q&A transcript has still not been released, despite a request for the Free UN Coalition for Access. In this UN many officials want to hand pick not only who can question them, but who sees the answers. Isn't it a public organization? We the peoples, indeed.
   On South Sudan there remain a lot of questions for the UN to answer: why did they work with Salva Kiir's police around the Tomping Camp in Juba, while claiming to be impartial and even asking to be part of the cessation of hostilities verification?
  What is the UN's position on Ugandan troops openly remaining in South Sudan, on Kiir's side, with no end in sight?
   UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout on February 11 and his job was to answer such questions. But he took no questions at all. 
  Inner City Press asked, "What is the UN's position on the Uganda troops?" Ladsous walked away, not with his former spokesperson Kieran Dwyer who defended this practice (video here), but with Nick Birnback, who previously served as spokesperson for Ladsous' predecessors Jean-Marie Guehenno and Alain Le Roy, both of whom routinely answered tougher questions than the ones Ladsous has claimed are insulting.
   At the February 11 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky about the UN taking sides with Kiir's forces around the Tompkin camp. Inner City Press quoted Taban Deng Gai that it was SPLA; Nesirky said no, it was the police. But don't they, too, work under Kiir? Is the UN giving up on being impartial?
  More details are needed about the events around the Tomping Camp, and about the cluster bombs Nesirky said the UN found on the road to Bor. But the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous is allowed to answer no questions. As he has shown in the past, perhaps if Agence France Presse was there. It is pathetic. It has been noted that in today's UN, Russian and Chinese diplomats and officials don't play it this way. But Ladsous for now is allowed to.
    Reporting, however, will continue. On February 10, asked about Uganda, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky  told Inner City Press, "I don't have anything about the Ugandan forces that remain in the country."
 
   After the US on February 8 as reported here urged "the redeployment or phases withdrawal of foreign forces" from South Sudan, Uganda has rejected the call. 
  Ugandan Lt Col Paddy Ankunda pointedly said, "We went to help South Sudanese people when everybody else ran away. Now here they are giving us orders."
   Using Bor for his argument, Ankunda tweeted, "Does somebody out there still remember that Bor town has changed hands 4 times?  Before they ask for UPDF withdraw?"
   Imagine that argument transposed to Syria. Now what?
   As to the United Nations Ankunda also tweeted back on February 4, along with one on circumcision, "Why does the UN continue to create a bad and false impression of Uganda's role in peace efforts in the region? Very frustrating." 
   The regional reference was to the Great Lakes, and seemingly to the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions Group of Experts. But this willingness to "shoot back" at the UN perhaps explains the UN's continued silence (though not the disparity with Rwanda - another story.)
  As happened again on February 10, when Inner City Press has asked the UN for its position on if the Ugandan troops should stay or should they go, the UN has declined comment. Some link this to UNMISS chief Hilde Johnson's support for Salva Kiir, who invited the Uganda troops in to retake Bor and Bentui from Riek Machar's forces.
  On February 8 US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki as notedissued a statement that began, "We are deeply concerned by reports of violations by both the Government of South Sudan and anti-government forces of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement that was signed in Addis Ababa on January 23.  We urge the redeployment or phased withdrawal of foreign forces invited by either side." (The full statement went online here.)
  This last would seem to directly apply to the Ugandan forces. Given how closely -- and quickly, as in the case of disinviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux -- Ban Ki-moon's UN follows the US' positions, can it be long before Hilde Johnson and UNMISS belatedly call on the Ugandans to leave? Then again, now Uganda has shot back.  So we'll see -- including if and how it is addressed by the US State Department, given Uganda's response.
  Now that Kiir says he may still prosecute even the seven released opposition leaders for treason, Inner City Press on February 7 asked the UN's spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's view:
Inner City Press: Salva Kiir had released 7 of those 11 high-profile SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement], former SPLM, detainees. But now he seems to have announced that the seven he did release, and there’s four still in detention, the seven that were released will still be tried for treason. And I wanted to know, given the UN’s role in trying to put an end to the rift there, does the UN think… I think the UN sort of congratulated the release, does them going on trial for treason seem like a productive step in bringing about reconciliation in the country?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: We’ll have to monitor exactly what’s happening with the trial process and make sure that any legal processes are taken carefully and follow due process.
  Does that mean prosecution for treason is viewed as fine? The South Sudan trip of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous ended, the UN announced on February 3, saying he met with Salva Kiir but no mention of anyone in the opposition.
  Inner City Press asked how, then, the UN could be  viewed as impartial much less a monitor of the at-best shaky cessation of hostilities agreement. Inner City Press also asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky aboutphotographs of Kiir's SPLA soldiers equipped with UNICEF backpacks.
   Nesirky said such use would be inappropriate. Video here, from Minute 20:36. Inner City Press continues to await a requested comment or explanation from UNICEF. An eagle eyed reader of Inner City Pressspotted a "UK backpack," so that's being inquired into as well.
  Ladsous meeting only with Kiir seems tone-deaf, particularly amid reports that Kiir's SPLA -- perhaps with UNICEF equipment -- destroyed Machar's birthplace of Leer. 
   In South Sudan a spokesperson for Riek Machar, Lul Ruai Koang, has said that the army of Salva Kiir has taken and destroyed Leer in Unity State, in violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in Addis Ababa.
  Leer is Machar's birthplace. Koang said "the latest destruction of Leer town... has no strategic, operational or tactical importance," and that Kiir derived vengeful "satisfaction" from it being burned down.
   Doctors Without Borders MSF has said, "There are no longer any patients or staff left at Leer hospital."  It seems, however, that the UN has said nothing. The head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous during his visit is set to meet only "with senior [Kiir] Government officials." This is hardly impartial. The line is: leering at the re-taking of Leer?
  Previously, James Gatdet Dak, has accused the Ugandan troops of violating the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in Addis Ababa and attacking the Machar forces around Bor in Jonglei state.
  On January 31 Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq to state any UN view on the Ugandan troops continued presence in South Sudan and any UN role in monitoring the cessation of hostilities agreement.
  Haq said that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, in South Sudan on February 2, will meet with "senior Government officials."
   Well, if that's all he meets with, what role COULD his UN Peacekeeping have in impartial monitoring? It's like in the DRC: his UN Peacekeeping takes sides, based at least there on history. From the UN transcriptvideo here and embedded below:
Inner City Press: South Sudan, first, I wanted to know whether there’s any UN view of Riek Machar saying he stands to be charged with treason and that will set back all the, what was agreed in Addis. And I want to know, does the UN think that at this point charging or threatening to charge Mr. Machar with treason is productive? And also whether the UN agrees with Norway, which is one of this troika group, saying that the Ugandan… they believe at this point that the Ugandan troops that assisted the SPLA in retaking cities should leave. And finally, is there a UN role in monitoring of what was agreed in Addis? I know that you said Mr. Ladsous will be there and will be discussing… I didn’t hear the phrasing… is there a UN role in monitoring what was agreed to?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Yes, in terms of what I just read, yes. He’ll meet with senior Government officials to discuss the implementation of the recently signed ceasefire agreement and that will be one of his tasks. We’ll provide updates when we get them of his trip. Regarding the monitoring mechanism, I believe earlier this week we stressed the importance of having a monitoring mechanism, and I said at that point that the UN Mission in South Sudan — UNMISS —would try to assist as needed for the work of the monitors. But this is a separate monitoring mechanism that’s being set up.
Inner City Press: So will he meet with the other side, say, Mr. Machar, or the other side that reached the agreement in Addis?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll try to provide you with some details of his meetings once we get them. As I said just now, I just had the announcement of his trip. But we’ll try to do that. Certainly, he’s trying to meet with all parties and we hope that the parties continue to abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement and work with each other and we would urge them to refrain from any unhelpful actions.
  
   We'll see what updates the UN and UN Peacekeeping actually give. 

  UN envoy in Juba Hilde Johnson of Norway, closely aligned with Kiir, has during the crisis been substantially lower profile than her deputy Tony Lanzer. On January 31 Inner City Press asked if the UN (and Hilde Johnson) share the view of Norway, that Uganda's troops which helped dislodge Machar's from Bor and Bentiu should now leave South Sudan. Haq did not answer this either.
  So what is the UN doing in South Sudan? For example, what has the UN Development Program accomplished? A close observer opines, as to constitutional review, that UNDP "funded the process including the commission yet the process was never inclusive. Its members were mainly individuals from the ruling party. They supported the same constitution that gave powers to the President and they reported its completion as a success."  Sounds like the UN...


  Right before the South Sudan cessation of hostilities (and cessation of "hostile media") deal was signed, Inner City Press asked Haq about the deal, and allegations against the UNMISS mission. Video here and embedded below.
  The signed deal, we note, has as one of three IGAD Special Envoys the Sudanese General Mohamed Ahmed Dabi, whose role in Syria in 2011 for the Arab League gave rise to much criticism. Look at him now.
 Inner City Press asked UN Security Council president Jordan's Senior Deputy Permanent Representative if the UN would have any role under the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism. He wasn't aware of you. His summary said the members of the Security Council "condemned the accusations" against UNMISS. One wondered: what if they're true?
   In his noon briefing response, Haq said the UN was "monitoring" the talks. He refused to comment on the allegations, calling them statements by South Sudanese officials. But what about the underlying facts? Did the UN return government vehicles? Did a UN staff member send text messages for rebels? 

Haq would not answer.  He referred back to his comments of two days before -- which said the government minister of information was banned from entering an UNMISS camp not only for arms, but also cameras. Could the cessation of hostile media policy be in place?
   That the UN banned from one of its bases a South Sudan minister citing his armed guards is one thing. But the UN has also cited that the minister's party had cameras. What's wrong with that? Especially when the UN publishes its own photographs of those inside the camps?
  Inner City Press on January 21 asked deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm that the Minister was blocked. Haq confirmed it, citing both arms and cameras. Video here.
  Inner City Press asked, what's wrong with cameras? It and the Free UN Coalition for Access have protests against various forms of attempted censorship by and at the UN. Haq backed off on cameras. But he'd said what he said, and not improvising: it was a written script. So what gives?

   With Uganda bragging of its role in re-taking Bor in South Sudan, the marginalization and double standards of the UN are ever more in focus.
  For week the Press asked the UN about Ugandan troops' presence in South Sudan, and if the UN as elsewhere at least called for restraint in the re-taking of population centers. 
   The UN dodged the questions, as recently as January 16 saying the Ugandans' presence -- offensive as now confirmed -- was just a bilateral matter between governments, and saying its focus is on protecting civilians in its bases.
  What is the message of Uganda bragging of having helped Salva Kiir retake Bor from rebels loyal to former vice president Riek Machar? What is the UN's role, if any, in the "cessation of hostilities" talks in Addis Ababa? The UN on those wouldn't even call for more inclusion of women, as it has for example on the Syria talks in Switzerland. We'll have more on this.
 In South Sudan, the lack of transparency by UN Peacekeeping does not serve it. On December 30, Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous admonished South Sudan to not put in "caveat" on accepting troops from any country.
Though Ladsous didn't name the country -- for reasons that soon became obvious -- and later in the week UN spokesperson Farhan Haq declined to specify any country being considered for South Sudan, later on December 30 at the UN Mission of an African (and troop contributing) country Inner City Press was told Ladsous was trying to push into South Sudan peacekeeping from Morocco. Click here for more on that.
  After telling Inner City Press "I don't answer you Mister," Ladsous dodged about the impact of shifting peacekeepers out of Darfur, where two had just been killed, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Then he mentioned, for South Sudan, "half a regiment" from the MINUSTAH mission in Haiti. UN Video here, from Minute 3:09.
  Now, which country's half-regiment could that be? Questions have been asked, particularly in light of UN Peacekeeping's dubious record in Haiti: the introduction of cholera, multiple cases of sexual abuse or exploitation, nearly always followed by mere repatriation and no update on any discipline meted out, for example in the case of repatriated Sri Lanka peacekeepers.
Inner City Press: Yes, Farhan. I wanted to ask you two questions about peacekeeping in South Sudan. One is that, it’s reported that India is unhappy with not being consulted in some of the ways their peacekeepers were used and intends to send its own military team to meet with its peacekeepers there. I wanted to know, separately, [Permanent Representative Asoke Kumar] Mukerji has, over the holidays, said that the Force Intervention Brigade may put peacekeepers in danger. What’s your response to that? And also, if you could confirm, I’ve heard that the UN wants to send Moroccan peacekeepers to South Sudan and they’re pushing back. And one of their reasons for pushing back is that Morocco is not a member of the African Union due to the Western Sahara. And I wanted if it’s DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) position that countries don’t have a right to have a sort of principled, political stand on why they wouldn’t take peacekeepers? Or should they take anyone that DPKO sends?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, we wouldn’t comment on the specifics of how we’re trying to bring more peacekeepers in. We, as you know, are in touch with a number of Member States trying to build up the forces, as was approved by the Security Council. And when we have details of which countries are coming in, we’ll provide those details at that point. But, I don’t have any specific names to give up until more arrivals come in.
Inner City Press: I ask that only because Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous at the stakeout made a big point of saying, it’s not… when the house is on fire, anyone must be taken. So, I just wanted to know, can you say… is that the UN’s position? That even if there’s a political, principled stated reason not to take them… that wouldn’t… that should be overridden?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: For us, the priority is to get as many peacekeepers in as we can. They’ve been authorized by the Security Council. We’re trying to get the right numbers in order to stop the bloodshed as soon as we possibly can. So, that’s our priority. But, if we have any specific announcements to make about different countries joining in, we’ll make it at that point. But, that’s not ready at this stage.
Inner City Press: And on India?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: I wouldn’t have any comment on that. Is that it? Okay? 
Watch this site.

 
  

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

In South Sudan as UN Further Takes Sides, In NY Ladsous Takes No Questions, on Uganda, Cluster Bombs


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 11 -- On South Sudan there are a lot of questions for the UN to answer: why did they work with Salva Kiir's police around the Tomping Camp in Juba, while claiming to be impartial and even asking to be part of the cessation of hostilities verification?
  What is the UN's position on Ugandan troops openly remaining in South Sudan, on Kiir's side, with no end in sight?
   UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout on February 11 and his job was to answer such questions. But he took no questions at all. 
  Inner City Press asked, "What is the UN's position on the Uganda troops?" Ladsous walked away, not with his former spokesperson Kieran Dwyer who defended this practice (video here), but with Nick Birnback, who previously served as spokesperson for Ladsous' predecessors Jean-Marie Guehenno and Alain Le Roy, both of whom routinely answered tougher questions than the ones Ladsous has claimed are insulting.
   At the February 11 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky about the UN taking sides with Kiir's forces around the Tompkin camp. Inner City Press quoted Taban Deng Gai that it was SPLA; Nesirky said no, it was the police. But don't they, too, work under Kiir? Is the UN giving up on being impartial?
  More details are needed about the events around the Tomping Camp, and about the cluster bombs Nesirky said the UN found on the road to Bor. But the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous is allowed to answer no questions. As he has shown in the past, perhaps if Agence France Presse was there. It is pathetic. It has been noted that in today's UN, Russian and Chinese diplomats and officials don't play it this way. But Ladsous for now is allowed to.
    Reporting, however, will continue. On February 10, asked about Uganda, UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky  told Inner City Press, "I don't have anything about the Ugandan forces that remain in the country."
 
   After the US on February 8 as reported here urged "the redeployment or phases withdrawal of foreign forces" from South Sudan, Uganda has rejected the call. 
  Ugandan Lt Col Paddy Ankunda pointedly said, "We went to help South Sudanese people when everybody else ran away. Now here they are giving us orders."
   Using Bor for his argument, Ankunda tweeted, "Does somebody out there still remember that Bor town has changed hands 4 times?  Before they ask for UPDF withdraw?"
   Imagine that argument transposed to Syria. Now what?
   As to the United Nations Ankunda also tweeted back on February 4, along with one on circumcision, "Why does the UN continue to create a bad and false impression of Uganda's role in peace efforts in the region? Very frustrating." 
   The regional reference was to the Great Lakes, and seemingly to the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions Group of Experts. But this willingness to "shoot back" at the UN perhaps explains the UN's continued silence (though not the disparity with Rwanda - another story.)
  As happened again on February 10, when Inner City Press has asked the UN for its position on if the Ugandan troops should stay or should they go, the UN has declined comment. Some link this to UNMISS chief Hilde Johnson's support for Salva Kiir, who invited the Uganda troops in to retake Bor and Bentui from Riek Machar's forces.
  On February 8 US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki as notedissued a statement that began, "We are deeply concerned by reports of violations by both the Government of South Sudan and anti-government forces of the Cessation of Hostilities agreement that was signed in Addis Ababa on January 23.  We urge the redeployment or phased withdrawal of foreign forces invited by either side." (The full statement went online here.)
  This last would seem to directly apply to the Ugandan forces. Given how closely -- and quickly, as in the case of disinviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux -- Ban Ki-moon's UN follows the US' positions, can it be long before Hilde Johnson and UNMISS belatedly call on the Ugandans to leave? Then again, now Uganda has shot back.  So we'll see -- including if and how it is addressed by the US State Department, given Uganda's response.
  Now that Kiir says he may still prosecute even the seven released opposition leaders for treason, Inner City Press on February 7 asked the UN's spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's view:
Inner City Press: Salva Kiir had released 7 of those 11 high-profile SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement], former SPLM, detainees. But now he seems to have announced that the seven he did release, and there’s four still in detention, the seven that were released will still be tried for treason. And I wanted to know, given the UN’s role in trying to put an end to the rift there, does the UN think… I think the UN sort of congratulated the release, does them going on trial for treason seem like a productive step in bringing about reconciliation in the country?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: We’ll have to monitor exactly what’s happening with the trial process and make sure that any legal processes are taken carefully and follow due process.
  Does that mean prosecution for treason is viewed as fine? The South Sudan trip of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous ended, the UN announced on February 3, saying he met with Salva Kiir but no mention of anyone in the opposition.
  Inner City Press asked how, then, the UN could be  viewed as impartial much less a monitor of the at-best shaky cessation of hostilities agreement. Inner City Press also asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky aboutphotographs of Kiir's SPLA soldiers equipped with UNICEF backpacks.
   Nesirky said such use would be inappropriate. Video here, from Minute 20:36. Inner City Press continues to await a requested comment or explanation from UNICEF. An eagle eyed reader of Inner City Pressspotted a "UK backpack," so that's being inquired into as well.
  Ladsous meeting only with Kiir seems tone-deaf, particularly amid reports that Kiir's SPLA -- perhaps with UNICEF equipment -- destroyed Machar's birthplace of Leer. 
   In South Sudan a spokesperson for Riek Machar, Lul Ruai Koang, has said that the army of Salva Kiir has taken and destroyed Leer in Unity State, in violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in Addis Ababa.
  Leer is Machar's birthplace. Koang said "the latest destruction of Leer town... has no strategic, operational or tactical importance," and that Kiir derived vengeful "satisfaction" from it being burned down.
   Doctors Without Borders MSF has said, "There are no longer any patients or staff left at Leer hospital."  It seems, however, that the UN has said nothing. The head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous during his visit is set to meet only "with senior [Kiir] Government officials." This is hardly impartial. The line is: leering at the re-taking of Leer?
  Previously, James Gatdet Dak, has accused the Ugandan troops of violating the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in Addis Ababa and attacking the Machar forces around Bor in Jonglei state.
  On January 31 Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq to state any UN view on the Ugandan troops continued presence in South Sudan and any UN role in monitoring the cessation of hostilities agreement.
  Haq said that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, in South Sudan on February 2, will meet with "senior Government officials."
   Well, if that's all he meets with, what role COULD his UN Peacekeeping have in impartial monitoring? It's like in the DRC: his UN Peacekeeping takes sides, based at least there on history. From the UN transcriptvideo here and embedded below:
Inner City Press: South Sudan, first, I wanted to know whether there’s any UN view of Riek Machar saying he stands to be charged with treason and that will set back all the, what was agreed in Addis. And I want to know, does the UN think that at this point charging or threatening to charge Mr. Machar with treason is productive? And also whether the UN agrees with Norway, which is one of this troika group, saying that the Ugandan… they believe at this point that the Ugandan troops that assisted the SPLA in retaking cities should leave. And finally, is there a UN role in monitoring of what was agreed in Addis? I know that you said Mr. Ladsous will be there and will be discussing… I didn’t hear the phrasing… is there a UN role in monitoring what was agreed to?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Yes, in terms of what I just read, yes. He’ll meet with senior Government officials to discuss the implementation of the recently signed ceasefire agreement and that will be one of his tasks. We’ll provide updates when we get them of his trip. Regarding the monitoring mechanism, I believe earlier this week we stressed the importance of having a monitoring mechanism, and I said at that point that the UN Mission in South Sudan — UNMISS —would try to assist as needed for the work of the monitors. But this is a separate monitoring mechanism that’s being set up.
Inner City Press: So will he meet with the other side, say, Mr. Machar, or the other side that reached the agreement in Addis?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll try to provide you with some details of his meetings once we get them. As I said just now, I just had the announcement of his trip. But we’ll try to do that. Certainly, he’s trying to meet with all parties and we hope that the parties continue to abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement and work with each other and we would urge them to refrain from any unhelpful actions.
 
   We'll see what updates the UN and UN Peacekeeping actually give. 

  UN envoy in Juba Hilde Johnson of Norway, closely aligned with Kiir, has during the crisis been substantially lower profile than her deputy Tony Lanzer. On January 31 Inner City Press asked if the UN (and Hilde Johnson) share the view of Norway, that Uganda's troops which helped dislodge Machar's from Bor and Bentiu should now leave South Sudan. Haq did not answer this either.
  So what is the UN doing in South Sudan? For example, what has the UN Development Program accomplished? A close observer opines, as to constitutional review, that UNDP "funded the process including the commission yet the process was never inclusive. Its members were mainly individuals from the ruling party. They supported the same constitution that gave powers to the President and they reported its completion as a success."  Sounds like the UN...


  Right before the South Sudan cessation of hostilities (and cessation of "hostile media") deal was signed, Inner City Press asked Haq about the deal, and allegations against the UNMISS mission. Video here and embedded below.
  The signed deal, we note, has as one of three IGAD Special Envoys the Sudanese General Mohamed Ahmed Dabi, whose role in Syria in 2011 for the Arab League gave rise to much criticism. Look at him now.
 Inner City Press asked UN Security Council president Jordan's Senior Deputy Permanent Representative if the UN would have any role under the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism. He wasn't aware of you. His summary said the members of the Security Council "condemned the accusations" against UNMISS. One wondered: what if they're true?
   In his noon briefing response, Haq said the UN was "monitoring" the talks. He refused to comment on the allegations, calling them statements by South Sudanese officials. But what about the underlying facts? Did the UN return government vehicles? Did a UN staff member send text messages for rebels? 

Haq would not answer.  He referred back to his comments of two days before -- which said the government minister of information was banned from entering an UNMISS camp not only for arms, but also cameras. Could the cessation of hostile media policy be in place?
   That the UN banned from one of its bases a South Sudan minister citing his armed guards is one thing. But the UN has also cited that the minister's party had cameras. What's wrong with that? Especially when the UN publishes its own photographs of those inside the camps?
  Inner City Press on January 21 asked deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm that the Minister was blocked. Haq confirmed it, citing both arms and cameras. Video here.
  Inner City Press asked, what's wrong with cameras? It and the Free UN Coalition for Access have protests against various forms of attempted censorship by and at the UN. Haq backed off on cameras. But he'd said what he said, and not improvising: it was a written script. So what gives?

   With Uganda bragging of its role in re-taking Bor in South Sudan, the marginalization and double standards of the UN are ever more in focus.
  For week the Press asked the UN about Ugandan troops' presence in South Sudan, and if the UN as elsewhere at least called for restraint in the re-taking of population centers. 
   The UN dodged the questions, as recently as January 16 saying the Ugandans' presence -- offensive as now confirmed -- was just a bilateral matter between governments, and saying its focus is on protecting civilians in its bases.
  What is the message of Uganda bragging of having helped Salva Kiir retake Bor from rebels loyal to former vice president Riek Machar? What is the UN's role, if any, in the "cessation of hostilities" talks in Addis Ababa? The UN on those wouldn't even call for more inclusion of women, as it has for example on the Syria talks in Switzerland. We'll have more on this.
 In South Sudan, the lack of transparency by UN Peacekeeping does not serve it. On December 30, Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous admonished South Sudan to not put in "caveat" on accepting troops from any country.
Though Ladsous didn't name the country -- for reasons that soon became obvious -- and later in the week UN spokesperson Farhan Haq declined to specify any country being considered for South Sudan, later on December 30 at the UN Mission of an African (and troop contributing) country Inner City Press was told Ladsous was trying to push into South Sudan peacekeeping from Morocco. Click here for more on that.
  After telling Inner City Press "I don't answer you Mister," Ladsous dodged about the impact of shifting peacekeepers out of Darfur, where two had just been killed, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Then he mentioned, for South Sudan, "half a regiment" from the MINUSTAH mission in Haiti. UN Video here, from Minute 3:09.
  Now, which country's half-regiment could that be? Questions have been asked, particularly in light of UN Peacekeeping's dubious record in Haiti: the introduction of cholera, multiple cases of sexual abuse or exploitation, nearly always followed by mere repatriation and no update on any discipline meted out, for example in the case of repatriated Sri Lanka peacekeepers.
Inner City Press: Yes, Farhan. I wanted to ask you two questions about peacekeeping in South Sudan. One is that, it’s reported that India is unhappy with not being consulted in some of the ways their peacekeepers were used and intends to send its own military team to meet with its peacekeepers there. I wanted to know, separately, [Permanent Representative Asoke Kumar] Mukerji has, over the holidays, said that the Force Intervention Brigade may put peacekeepers in danger. What’s your response to that? And also, if you could confirm, I’ve heard that the UN wants to send Moroccan peacekeepers to South Sudan and they’re pushing back. And one of their reasons for pushing back is that Morocco is not a member of the African Union due to the Western Sahara. And I wanted if it’s DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) position that countries don’t have a right to have a sort of principled, political stand on why they wouldn’t take peacekeepers? Or should they take anyone that DPKO sends?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, we wouldn’t comment on the specifics of how we’re trying to bring more peacekeepers in. We, as you know, are in touch with a number of Member States trying to build up the forces, as was approved by the Security Council. And when we have details of which countries are coming in, we’ll provide those details at that point. But, I don’t have any specific names to give up until more arrivals come in.
Inner City Press: I ask that only because Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous at the stakeout made a big point of saying, it’s not… when the house is on fire, anyone must be taken. So, I just wanted to know, can you say… is that the UN’s position? That even if there’s a political, principled stated reason not to take them… that wouldn’t… that should be overridden?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: For us, the priority is to get as many peacekeepers in as we can. They’ve been authorized by the Security Council. We’re trying to get the right numbers in order to stop the bloodshed as soon as we possibly can. So, that’s our priority. But, if we have any specific announcements to make about different countries joining in, we’ll make it at that point. But, that’s not ready at this stage.
Inner City Press: And on India?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: I wouldn’t have any comment on that. Is that it? Okay? 
Watch this site.