UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
June 18, 2008 (UNITED NATIONS) — A U.N. envoy on Wednesday rejected U.S. accusations that U.N. peacekeepers failed to protect a disputed oil-rich town in southern Sudan during deadly clashes last month, saying it was not their job.
“Whenever … despite our peace keeping efforts, large-scale hostilities break out between the two parties, UNMIS has neither the capacity nor the mandate to militarily intervene or to provide law enforcement functions,” U.N. special envoy for Sudan Ashraf Qazi said in a statement.
Law enforcement is the government’s responsibility, he added.
But Washington has a different view of the mandate of the 10,000-strong U.N. force in Sudan, known as UNMIS, whose job it is to ensure that the two sides are complying with a 2005 peace agreement that ended two decades of civil war.
U.S. special envoy for Sudan Richard Williamson told an informal meeting of the Security Council and activists focusing on Sudan on Tuesday that U.N. peacekeepers had holed up in their barracks while Abyei was attacked last month.
“Sudanese homes were burned to the ground and looting took place, despite the fact that UNMIS has a mission … to intervene to protect innocent people,” Williamson said.
British Ambassador to the United Nations John Sawers took a similar view when he briefed the 15-nation Security Council on a 10-day council tour of African hot spots, which included a stop in the southern Sudanese capital Juba.
“We came away believing that UNMIS needed to do more to support the Comprehensive Peace Agreement,” Sawers said, referring to the 2005 peace deal.
“Most immediately in Abyei it was shown that UNMIS could do more and that it should interpret its mandate more robustly than it has done so far if it is to contribute to stability and to protect civilians.”
UNMIS AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT
Diplomats said the UNMIS unit at Abyei was from Zambia.
Qazi said he was certain that “Williamson’s views do not reflect the position of the U.S. government.”
However, U.S. Deputy U.N. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff made clear that Washington stood behind Williamson, who recently visited Abyei to see the aftermath of the attack for himself.
Some U.N. diplomats have suggested that UNMIS’s mandate might need to be revised. But Wolff disagreed, saying the U.S. view was that there was nothing wrong with the mandate. It simply needs to be interpreted “more aggressively,” he said.
According to the UNMIS Web site (www.unmis.org), U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan are authorized to protect civilians under threat of physical violence “without prejudice to the responsibility of the Sudanese government.”
Nick Birnback, spokesman for the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations, said of the incident: “Together with UNMIS, we will draw lessons and ensure the mission continues to implement all aspects of its mandate.”
The peace agreement left open the future status of Abyei, but leaders of northern and southern Sudan have prepared a “road map” to defuse conflict over the region and have decided that they may turn to international arbitration for a final settlement.
(Reuters)
The Wiseman
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
U.S has made a right accusation.
What is the role of UN peacekeepers in Sudan if they say that implementing the law is not theirs but for the government?
The government was konwn of breaching these laws and that was why they were mandated to make sure that both parties adhere to the agreement.
They should better leave instead of wasting resources with out any change since they are already politicised by Omar al-Beshir.
European
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
What a stupid statement of the US official. It comes from a country, which did not provide any troops for the UN mission in Sudan and does nothing to support it. In fact, the US is doing everything to intimidate the UN. The UN forces are badly equipped and hardly sufficient for self protection. How I know it ? I´ve been with them.
David Martin
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
Let us call a spade a spade.It is not the first incident that the UNMIS had to be acused of.A lot of incidence took place in the South and Nuba Mountains but the reluctant and money seeking UNMIS staff(Military and Police) did nothing.
It is realy right to revise the UNMIS mandate.Because me as a Southerner and experiencing some of the insecurities taking place affecting us the civilians,felt the UNMIS is here just as a name and sign post to the world that there is a UN mission in Sudan protecting the CPA.
You see them(UNMIS personel) driving in fansy vehicles leaving in fansy houses and working in fansy offices.But for me the real mandate given to them had ben forgotten.
I am just asking the UN representative who disagree with the US special envoy?Is UNMIS mandate given to them to intervene after already a dysaster had taken place or before?I am not talking in the sence of negotiations but when there is already fighting or problem taking place.
I for one, doesn’t see the effectiveness of the UNMIS due to the evidence I have of several occasions in which the UNMIS only intervene after the situation is a little bit calm.This make civilians feel as if the UNMIS seek protection not to protect.I am keen to confront any UNMIS personel if what I wrote is wrong
God protect the CPA and the marginalized areas
Mr Point
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
The UNMIS resolution states that
“Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, UNMIS is authorized to take the necessary action, in the areas of deployment of its forces, and as it deems within its capabilities, to protect United Nations personnel and to ensure their security and freedom of movement, as well as, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Sudanese Government, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence.”
see here –
Dhieu Dok
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
It is simple, if they can’t protect civilians, then they should get out of that country.
The force is being allocated heavy budget from the UN Peacekeeping mission department, however, they are in Sudan doing nothing when gross human right violations are taking place.
Are they only in the country to sexually exploit young girls and woman? I guess this is the job they have been good at because many reports have figured out that UNIMIS soldiers are the worse sexual exploiters in the capital and wherever they are located.
If they want to migrate to Sudan, the mission must be complete. Get their wives to the country so that our girls are not abused in the name of peacekeeping when in the real sense they are doing nothing.
Dhieu Dok
Chol K.Thon
UN rejects US charge about south Sudan
I guess as both SAF and SPLA were preparing for confrontations in Abyei each had stationed behind them their respective civilian population in a bid to shield them.But when the battle neared its boiling point the SPLAs fled leaving behind them their Dinkas.At this time the civilians were acting as human shields for the defeated army. In the meantime the SAFs were doing every thing in their power to make sure their Miseriyas do not fall victim to the fight.
If we are to blame someone for the civilian casualties in Abyei it has to be our SPLAs whom we have charged with the responsibility of protecting our country against aggression of any kind.They have failed us here when we needed them most.Let us not therefore use foreign troops(UNMIS)as scapegoat.I will never stop to wonder whether Miseriyas were protected by UNMIS.