Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- With yet another deadline for peace in South Sudan approaching, Inner City Press on August 11 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric of reports some UN Peacekeepers might leave, and of splitting in the rebel or Opposition side, including by Peter Gadet, video here. (Here is Gadet's press release, which Inner City Press is putting online here. It was supposed to be released in Kenya, but ultimately was in Khartoum.)

 From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: On South Sudan, there are two things.  One is, there's a report that Fiji is considering pulling its peacekeepers out due to the unraveling in the country, and there's also these two generals or one of whom was sanctioned, Peter Gadet and Mr. [Gathoth] Gatkuoth, who have broken away from the Riek Machar forces now and say that, even if peace is reached, they will continue to fight.  So what is… what is… does the UN have any response to that?  Does this make things more difficult to solve and…how would the Fijians be replaced?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The Fijians, I don't know.  I can check.  I think on the unraveling of the opposition, it's clear that every day that goes by without a political agreement makes the situation that much more complicated to solve.  The Secretary-General, as he said, very much hopes that a deal will be reached later this month through the IGAD [Intergovernmental Authority on Development] process, but this continued fighting, the continued lawlessness makes it that much more difficult to reach a deal, but we very much hope that, once a deal is reached, that all the parties involved will live up to their obligations.

   The UN speaks a lot about how it has opened its camps in South Sudan to protect civilians. But recently when Inner City Press asked about the UN refusing to allow civilians fleeing fighting from entering its Yambio camp, the UN first said it didn't know, then tried to explain the refusal away, see below. Now, after more Inner City Press question, there is a longer UN answer. Video here.

  On August 6, after Inner City Press asked again about the seeming double standard in Yambio -- national staff staying in the camp for safety while civilians except it seems for hotel guests kept out -- Dujarric was handed this:

UN Spokesman Dujarric: "UNMISS tells us that after assessing the security situation and engaging with state authorities, no civilians were admitted to the protection into its base in Yambio. UNMISS’s Open Gate policy is implemented as a last resort when the mission believes that civilians are under imminent threat. The mission has increased patrols in Yambio town and its surroundings in an attempt to restore a sense of safety and security and provide a reassuring presence. My understanding is that no one from the hotels were let in. And I do know, you mention national staff, national staff have IDs. If they need to stay in the camp and sleep in their offices, that’s fine.
 
Inner City Press: But wouldn’t you say that’s kind of inconsistent?

UN Spokesman Dujarric: No, it’s not. I think, UNMISS has done a tremendous job, and that’s probably not even a good enough word, in opening its camps to more than 100,000 people. As we all know, these peacekeeping camps were not designed to house this number of people. The idea to open up the gates was really a last resort, if people are under imminent  threat. It’s a hard call, that a mission obviously has to do. They made the call in this particular incident. Obviously if national staff feel, I’m not aware that national staff were told they had to stay in the camp. If national staff feel they would rather stay in their offices, no one would kick them out. No one would kick me out of my office if I don’t want to go home...
 
Inner City Press: Some people see this incident as either a shift in policy by the UN, or an over deference to the government.

UN Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t think there’s been a change in policy. As we’ve reported in the last month or so here, there’s often an increase, an uptick, in the number of civilians that are allowed into camps. So I don’t think there’s a change in the policy. The Open Gate policy is a last resort. Decision was made in this particular case, but it’s been absolutely no change in policy. On the press issue, I think as I said our colleagues at UNMISS are very much concerned over the recent closure of media outlets in South Sudan, and they reiterate that a free, diverse, and independent media is one of the cornerstones of an independent society.

 Back on August 5, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric:

Inner City Press: on Yambio in South Sudan, in a follow-up question to yesterday, Farhan gave an answer that seemed to acknowledge that civilians were not allowed in the camp but saying things had calmed down now.  What I want to ask is I’ve since heard two things, one that hotels in Yambio were closed during this fighting which people are basically saying was a retaliatory attack by Government forces on civilians and that the UN did take in hotel residents into the camp.  And I’m also told that national staff didn’t go home and stayed within the camp.  So I wanted to know, maybe you will need to ask them, but how is this consistent, if it’s safe enough for civilians not to be let in the camp, why did the UN keep its national staff inside the camp and allow in generally more affluent people from visiting Yambio into the camp but not those who live there?

Spokesman:  I don’t know, Matthew.  We can check with the mission.

  Eight hours later, there was no answer. But when asked again at noon on August 6, Dujarric read-out the above..

 Back on August 3, Inner City Press first asked UN spokesman Dujarric, video here:

Inner City Press: there are these reports of UNMISS in South Sudan, the Yambio base, turning away civilians seeking protection inside the base from fighting between the Government and rebels, and it seems to be true, because UNMISS is quoted as saying that, pursuant to their mandate, they informed the Government that it’s their… it’s their duty to protect people.

Spokesman Dujarric:  I… I… I’m happy… I’m happy to check.  What I do know is that the UN mission in South Sudan is currently protecting more than 100,000 civilians, but I will check on this particular case.

Inner City Press:  Yeah.  And if you can... explain why they turn them away.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Have a wonderful time.  We’ll see you at 1.

On August 4, Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq returned with this:

"We were asked yesterday about the situation in Yambio, South Sudan. The UN Mission there (UNMISS) says that the security situation has improved and that the majority of the civilians have returned home. As you know, opening UNMISS compounds to civilians is and will remain a last resort measure.

"Right now, the Mission is protecting civilians by various means to create security conditions for a safer environment.  These include engaging with local authorities and conducting patrols.  UNMISS has increased patrols in an attempt to restore a sense of safety and security in Yambio by patrolling day and night and providing a reassuring presence."

  Apparently this circumlocution is how the UN acknowledges that it did not allow civilians fleeing fighting from entering its camp.

   This comes as the UN has proved unable or unwilling to provide any accountability for, much less protect, an aid worker in its Bentiu camp was was allegedly raped by an employee of UNICEF contractor Life for Construction, click here for that.

Back on July 1, UN Secretary General issued a statement condemning an attack on the UN's Protection of Civilians site in Malakal, specifically asking for an investigation from Riek Machar and Johnson Olony.

  But on July 8, after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous briefed the Security Council behind closed doors about South Sudan, and Inner City Press asked him about Malakal when he came out of the Council, Ladsous refused to answer. Periscope video here for now. (He also refused to answer if the Central African Republic sexual abuse investigation panel has spoken with him yet.)

 So when the Security Council's president for July Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him if Malakal and how the UN can better protect civilians was discussed. He answered that this was not discussed in the consultation; neither was Riek Machar's public comments that fighting will continue as long as Salva Kiir, whose term expires on July 8, remains in power. Periscope video here, for now.

Inner City Press Q: On South Sudan, as to UNMIS, was there a discussion of the incident in Malakal where an IDP was killed? And, Riek Machar has said he’ll keep fighting as long as Salva Kiir stays in power, and that Salva Kiir's term expires today, July 8. Did this come up?
 
A: Neither of those specific situations have been discussed today.
 
  How could neither of this -- the Machar comments and especially the killing at Malakal and how the UN could do better -- have been raised by or to Ladsous? We'll be seeking more on this - and on the CAR sexual abuse panel. Watch this site.

 Of the UNSC sancctions, one of those now sanctioned, without a listed passport, is Peter Gadet, regarding whom Inner City Press has previously asked the US State Department, here. The individual WITH the passport is Marial Chanuong Yol Mangok, Passport no.: R00005943, South Sudan. Here's the full list, from US Ambassador Samantha Power's July 1 statement:

"Today, the Security Council took strong action in support of a peaceful end to the conflict in South Sudan by sanctioning six South Sudanese individuals for fueling the ongoing conflict and contributing to the devastating humanitarian crisis in their country.
 
Major-General Marial Chanuong Yol Mangok; Lieutenant-General Gabriel Jok Riak;  Major-General Santino Deng Wol; Major-General Simon Gatwech Dual; Major-General James Koang Chuol; and Major-General Peter Gadet will now be subject to a global travel ban and asset freeze for their contributions to a conflict that has  left more than 6.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and forced more than 2 million from their homes."

  Back on May 20, six days after the UN's envoy to South Sudan Ellen Loj spoke to the Security Council and to the Press at the Council stakeout on May 14, on the evening of May 20 the US State Department issued a statement about violence in South Sudan:

  The Council's statement mentions for example the UNMISS camp at Bentiu, but none of the issues raised to and by Loj at her May 14 stakeout and May 15 press conference. Video here.

 Loosely transcribed by Inner City Press (video here), Loj replied on May 14

"Let me say what UNMIS has undertaken in collaboration with IOM [the International Organization for Migration]. Primarily the project is primarily financed by the Dutch government. It’s actually a new site for the camp, on higher ground and with better drainage, because the Bentiu camp was totally flooded during the last rainy season. That work is being undertaken as of this week. We are hoping to get it finished…
 
As far as the fence, the problem with the fence is not that UNMIS is not putting up the fence. It’s that even if the fence were there, the problem with the fence is that the IDPs themselves cross the fence  in order to sneak out...
 
Yes, we have had troubles with the SPLA,  right outside the gates, and we have tried to solve it...We are doing our utmost to ensure that nobody enters the camp with weapons. We are doing regular searches in all camps … for alcohol and illegal substances…"

  She then said that UNMISS installed lights, but people break them. There was more to ask, including from great reporters on the bround. Inner City Press asked for another question but was told no, to ask on May 15. Watch this site.

After the May 14 stakeout, Loj told a story about UN staff in Liberia telling her all about Inner City Press, which after time she associated with her time on the UN Security Council. She has seen the UN from that position and now two countries.