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.
The website
of the UNMISS
mission in
South Sudan
lists fully 55
countries as
contributing
peacekeepers
(Morocco notably
is NOT among
them) and
some additional
countries
contributing
UN Police,
including
Zimbabwe.
On January
2 Inner
City Press asked
UN acting
deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq:
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.
, 
