On
S. Sudan, US
Still Wants
Uganda "Phased
Withdrawal,"
Looks into CAR
Sanctions
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 19, updated
-- With
fighting
resumed in
South Sudan,
in
Malakal and
elsewhere, and
reports of
cluster bombs
on the road to
Bor and now
perhaps in
Bentiu, some
wonder what
became of the
US
State
Department's
February 8
call for the
"the
redeployment
or
phased
withdrawal of
foreign
forces" from
South Sudan.
When
the State
Department's
deputy
spokesperson
Marie Harf
held a press
briefing by
phone from the
Iran P5+1
talks in
Vienna on
February 19,
Inner City
Press asked
her for the
US' position
on the Ugandan
army
remaining, and
about the
reports of
cluster bombs.
Transcript
below.
Harf
replied that
the call for
"the
redeployment
or phased
withdrawal
of foreign
forces" from
South Sudan"
was tied to
the
cessation of
hostilities
agreement that
had been
signed in
Addis
Ababa.
That agreement
is widely
described as
in tatters, or
no longer
relevant. Harf
said "we have
recognized the
role the
Ugandan forces
have played."
Still
Harf said the
US position
remains they
should "begin"
phased
withdrawal: "it’s
time for
those forces
to begin a
phased
withdrawal."
She said she'd
seen the
cluster bombs
reports and
would look
into what the
US is doing.
Ambassador
Booth, she
said, remains
in Addis
Ababa.
On
February 14 a
number of
non-governmental
organizations
including the
International
Crisis Group
and the
International
Rescue
Committee
wrote
to Secretary
of State
Kerry, as well
as to the
Office of
Management and
Budget,
requesting "an
explicit FY’15
budget
request for a
UN, or UN
supported,
peacekeeping
mission in CAR
–
either under
the
Contributions
for
International
Peacekeeping
Activities
(CIPA) account
or under the
Peacekeeping
Operations
(PKO)
account with
language
calling for
assessed
expenses of
the CAR
mission to be
paid out of
PKO."
Harf
emphasized
that the US
has airlifted
Burundian and
Rwanda troops
to the CAR,
and is
"developing
target
sanctions" as
one
option.
She said she
wasn't yet
aware of the
letter --
again, she was
in Vienna
-- but would
check if it
has been
received, and
what the
response is.
Watch this
site.
Update:
here is the US
State
Department's
transcript:
MS.
HARF: Yep. Our
next question
is from Inner
City Press,
from Matthew
Russell Lee.
Go ahead.
Inner
City Press:
Great. Thanks
a lot. This is
on South Sudan
and also
Central
African
Republic. On
South Sudan, I
know that the
State
Department
back in – I
mean, it was
February 8th –
had called for
the
redeployment
or progressive
withdrawal of
the Ugandan
forces
there. So they
pretty much
rejected that,
and I wanted
to know if
there’s been
any follow-up
by the U.S.
And
also, just
relatedly,
there was a
letter from
like 26 NGOs –
International
Crisis Group,
IRC, and
others – to
Secretary
Kerry
asking for
reengagement
in South
Sudan, but
specifically
asking for
the U.S. to
favor a UN
peacekeeping
mission in
Central
African
Republic and
to include it
in its budget
request for
2015. So I
don’t – is
there any
reaction to
that letter?
What’s the
U.S.
thinking on
engagement in
the Central
African
Republic?
Thanks.
MS.
HARF: Yep. So
let me start
with South
Sudan. So when
we talked
about
withdrawal of
foreign forces
from South
Sudan, that
was really,
as I’m sure
you know,
consistent
with language
in the
cessation of
hostilities
agreement that
both parties
signed last
month. We’re
urging the
redeployment
or phased
withdrawal of
foreign forces
invited by
either side.
Our
concern,
obviously, has
been primarily
focused on
ensuring the
implementation
of the
agreement. We
have
recognized the
role that
Ugandan forces
have played in
helping defend
critical
infrastructure
in Juba, on
one of the
main roads.
But we do
believe it’s
time for
those forces
to begin a
phased
withdrawal –
again,
consistent
with
the cessation
of hostilities
agreement –
and more
broadly
speaking,
think it’s
critical that
all countries
in the region
play a
positive role
in pressing
the parties to
resolve their
disputes
peacefully,
and that any
regionalization
of the
conflict could
have
very serious
consequences.
In
terms of where
that process
stands, I’m
happy to check
with our
team and with
Ambassador
Booth on the
ground to see
what the
latest
is. Again,
we’ve said
that there
have been on
both sides in
South
Sudan
violations of
the cessation
of
hostilities,
and we know
there
is still,
quite frankly,
a lot of work
to be done
there. So if
there’s more
to share, I’m
happy to check
with our team
and do
so.
In
terms of the
Central
African
Republic, I am
not actually
familiar
with that
letter that
was sent to
Secretary
Kerry. I’m
happy to
check in with
our folks and
see if we have
indeed
received it,
and
what – I’m
sure we’ll
respond, but
what that
response might
look like. We
have, of
course, been
deeply
concerned by
the
continued
interreligious
violence in
the CAR, and
call now for
the
urgent
deployment of
additional
MISCA troops
and police to
support
the French,
the EU, and
the MISCA
efforts. We
think at this
point
this is a
critical step
that must be
taken
immediately to
stem the
violence,
which is, of
course, so
important.
We’ve
been
supporting in
a number of
ways,
including
airlifting
Burundian
and Rwandan
troops to
Bangui, and
we’ll continue
to transport,
equip, and
train
additional
troops that
are
identified. We
are also
developing
targeted
sanctions
against those
who further
destabilize
the situation,
or encourage
or abet the
violence.
That’s
something
we’re looking
at right now.
Nothing to
announce, but
that’s
certainly one
policy option
we’re
developing.
Inner
City Press:
Great. Thanks
a lot. Just on
– the letter,
I think,
was to the
Secretary and
also to OMB,
and it was
dated February
14th.
Just
one last thing
on South
Sudan, if you
don’t mind, it
was this
report – the
UN, in fact,
said that they
found cluster
bombs on the
road between
Juba and Bor,
and there’s
sort of – what
I’m
wondering is,
this is – the
U.S. is
raising it as
a concern, and
the different
types of
ordnance
elsewhere, but
is this on the
U.S.’s
radar screen?
Is there –
who’s going to
determine who
used them?
Some people
are saying
that they
could only
have been
dropped from
the air, so it
kind of
narrows the
people that
could have
done it. I’m
wondering, are
you aware of
that, and is
the U.S.
concerned or
going to
follow up?
MS.
HARF: Yeah,
I’ve seen
those reports.
Let me check
with our folks
and see what
the latest is
on that.
Obviously, we
would be
concerned
about that,
suffice to
say, but I
just want to
make sure I
have all
the details
before I
respond
further.
Inner
City Press:
Great. Thanks.
MS.
HARF: Thanks,
Matthew.
, 
