It’s unlikely warring parties in South Sudan will beat a February 22 deadline by when the formation of a transitional government of national unity is expected after the country’s main opposition group said it would not participate in the exercise unless the UN deployed its forces.

Speaking in Juba, the capital, mid-January, Angelina Teny, head of the influential defense committee within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-In Opposition (SPLM-IO), said a compromise to have the UN deploy its forces in the world’s youngest state was a pre-condition for the party to participate in forming a government.

“The SPLM-IO has said we will form the government on February 22 and we did put forward the proposal to enable the formation of that government,” Teny told reporters in Juba, adding that “on the critical issues of security, we came up with a compromise. We need to sit down and look at the deployment of troops in some areas until such a time that we can deliver the unified forces for the delivery of the security services.”

“This is a very big compromise for us. For us, we see it like risk-taking because already, we see that the government has shown reluctance in the implementation of security arrangements and unification of forces,” said Teny who is also the wife of Dr Reik Machar, the de facto leader of the SPLM-IO and a former Vice-President of the country.

The party led by Machar, a former first Vice President, is demanding to have 4,000 troops deployed to “sensitive areas” of the country ostensibly as a surety against the routine implosion of civil war.

Already 7,000 non-combat UN troops under the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) are in South Sudan, but are only stationed in Juba.

However, the current peace deal signed on September 12, 2018, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, known as the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) does not contain a clause incorporating a protection force, a phenomenon that may make the proposal of the opposition untenable.

An earlier agreement signed in August 2015, but which floundered, had provisions for regional countries to deploy 4,000 troops which were to be known as the Regional Protection Forces or RPF.

Turns out, South Sudan is the world’s newest country, gaining independence in 2011 after a decades-long civil war. Yet the euphoria of that moment was short-lived, ending in December 2013 when an internal political dispute between South Sudanese President Kiir and his then vice president Machar exploded into a lengthy ethnic conflict.

The spark for the 2013 conflict lay in Machar’s alleged plans to challenge Salva Kiir as leader of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Kiir subsequently sacked Machar and his supporters from the cabinet.

According to Ashley Quarcoo, an international development practitioner and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a foreign-policy think tank based in the US, the scourge of negative ethnicity weighs’ heavily on the on-going internecine bloodletting.

“Longstanding ethnic divisions within South Sudan’s security forces led to the easy fragmentation of the military on each side of this political dispute. Those from the Dinka ethnic group supported Kiir, and those from the Nuer ethnic group joined Machar. The conflict spread quickly, and ethnically motivated violence between the Dinka and the Nuer engulfed large parts of the country” she says.

Coincidentally, the Dinka people form with 35.8% of the country’s 8 million population form the largest ethnic bloc in South Sudan while the Nuer are the second largest group representing 15.6% in a country with approximately 60 disparate tribal groups.

In August 2015, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a trade bloc made up of eight countries in the volatile region, brokered the first peace effort, the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan. But the deal immediately ran into obstacles from both sides, particularly after Kiir issued a unilateral decree, increasing the number of states from ten, as laid out in the peace agreement, to 28 and then 32.

Understandingly the opposition faction led by Machar objected to Kiir’s decision to increase the number of states, saying it violated the peace agreement. On January 31, 2016, IGAD issued a communiqué calling on the parties to the peace agreement to suspend implementation of the 28 states system and formed an inclusive commission to review it.

South Sudanese civil society groups also raised objections in a joint letter, noting the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan had referred to 10 states and did not authorize the president to create new states or dissolve existing ones.

While the international community also criticized the President’s decision, though the response was both mild and delayed. In January 2016, the Troika drawing in, the US, the UK, and Norway released a joint statement expressing concern about delays in forming the Transitional Government of National Unity and observing that the 28 states decision had “created an obstacle to consensus.

A report by the country’s Independent Boundaries Commission (IBC), a 14-member body created under the R-ARCSS, showed few Sudanese favored the stance taken by the government, for the increase of number of states is widely seen as subtle strategy of Balkanizing the state in favor of the Dinka.

Another sticking point involves the merger of the militarizes into one national army.

Intermittent peace deals have routinely collapsed due to hardline stances taken by the warring parties, an estimated 400,000 people have been killed and over four million displaced from their homes, according to the UN in the past seven years.

Ahead of the February 22 deadline, Teny also has rebuked the mediators under the umbrella of IGAD for suggesting discussions on the number of states be continued well into the transitional government, for at least 90 days more.

“To us, they are automatically proposing an extension of the pre-transitional period. We felt that we want to make that clear so that we are not misunderstood,” she said, referring to the proposal announced mid this January after attending the IGAD-led consultative forum in Juba.

“The legislative assembly cannot be formed without having the issue of the number of states.” SPLM-IO has instead proposed for a committee made of representatives from African countries in the Independent Boundaries Commission (IBC), known as the C5 and members of the three main donors countries known as the Troika -Norway, UK and US- to deliberate on the issues within two weeks.

One of the key issues is how main installations like the airport, roads, delivery of humanitarian assistance and safeguarding of attacks on civilians and officials will be assured during the transitional period. SPLM-IO presumes soldiers from all sides will be in non-combat positions as they train for a merger into a professional army.

Whether the warring parties will reach a compromise before February 22 remains a major conundrum.

L'articolo Sticking Points May Delay Formation of Unity Government in South Sudan proviene da InsideOver.

South Sudan risks witnessing the reignition of a civil war after the main opposition party opposed a Nov. 12 deadline by which day a coalition government should be formed, calling instead for a six-month delay for this crucial step towards a fragile peace deal.

“Suppose we form a government on the 12th, you know what’s going to happen? The ceasefire we’ve been enjoying for over a year will erupt,” said Riek Machar, the exiled rebel leader of, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) while in Juba, capital of, South Sudan this October 20.

Speaking later at a public event, President Salva Kiir did not directly address the comments from Machar’s camp. He said all parties regarding the agreement had committed to forming the unity government on Nov. 12 and the international community expected that to happen.

“I want to welcome (the opposition) and forget all the bitterness,” Kiir said.

With the US ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, saying the Security Council was “disappointed” by Machar’s warnings. The US has said it would reevaluate its relationship with South Sudan if the deadline isn’t met.

The Security Council insists the Nov. 12 should be met. With the South Sudan government spokesman Michael Makuei saying:

No change of schedule nor change of program

Dr. Machar who lives in Khartoum, capital of the neighbouring state of Sudan under house arrest had returned to the country for the second time for a two-day visit beginning  October 19, since inking a revitalized peace deal with President   Salva Kiir, in September 2018, under pressure from international and regional powers.

Gaining independence on 9 July 2011 as an outcome of a 2005 agreement, ending Africa’s longest-running civil war, the relative peace was disrupted again in 2013 when the president fell out with Vice President Machar leading to a conflict that has displaced some four million people to date.

The conflict split from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led to the formation of the SPLM-IO, also known as the anti-governmental forces (AGF), in 2013.

There were hopes for an end to the hostilities when the pair signed a peace agreement in 2015. A government of national unity was formed and Machar was appointed vice president once again. But the optimism waned when violence broke out in the capital Juba in early July 2016 and forces from both sides battled each other with tanks, helicopters and other heavy weapons.

After the 2015 truce collapsed and fresh fighting broke out at the presidential palace in Juba in July 2016, Dr. Machar fled to the DR Congo on foot. The United Nations later organized for him to be airlifted for treatment in Khartoum, but later the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) partner states decided that he should not stay in any of the countries bordering South Sudan. He was then exiled to South Africa.

The peace deal has to date stopped a five-year civil war that has killed almost 400,000 people. He was briefly released in June 2018 to participate in the peace negotiations held in Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia and Khartoum.

Several attempts at peace have since failed but in September 2018, under pressure from international and regional powers, the warring parties signed an agreement to form a unity government.

The deal allowed Machar to return from exile abroad, but he has since gone to Juba just once, in October last year, to celebrate the signing of the accord.

The power-sharing arrangements under the peace deal were supposed to take effect in May which meant that the rebels were to join a transitional government, integrate fighters into the army and settle disputes over regional boundaries. But the process was delayed by six months until November as both sides disagreed over the terms.

A key provision of the peace deal is the integration of former rebels in the army, which has still not occurred

The SPLM-IO demands security arrangements which involve cantonment, screening, training and reunification of the armed groups, the number of states the country should have, and the entrenchment of the September 2018 agreement, must be met before the formation of the transitional government.

“If security arrangements are not implemented, the country will definitely slide back into civil war. We want our country to have a national army that will defend the constitution and protect the people of South Sudan,” says Manawa Peter Gatkuoth, the deputy spokesman of SPLM-IO.

Both sides have disagreed on details of the deal, including how many states South Sudan should have. Under the accord, they have agreed to hold elections after a three-year transition period.

Also, South Sudan’s opposition leaders say that the government’s failure to make funds available for the implementation of a peace accord could plunge the country back into war.

The SPLM-IO accused President Kiir of failing to provide $100 million needed to support the establishment of a transitional government. Emboldening the criticism are reports that Kiir’s administration instead allocated $700 million to build a highway.

“What is the point of saying that we don’t have funds and yet you have heard that the government is going to build a $700 million road? What is the priority, those roads or the peace?” Henry Odwar, deputy chairman of the rebel group, is reported to have asked by Bloomberg.

In the worst-case scenario, the alternative “would be war,” Odwar said in an interview in the capital, Juba. But the government retorted saying development was the remit of the government with Information Minister Michael Makuei Lueth, saying this September as reported by Bloomberg, that government had started the implementation of the peace accord by delivering food to military barracks, the “opposition forces” are not moving in, he said.

South Sudan’s government has said the international community should help fund that process. So far, it has allocated $10 million of the pledged $100 million, according to the international body monitoring the ceasefire.

The militants, who in May asked for a six-month delay because of ill-preparedness, said the situation hasn’t changed much. There is still no confidence in the security arrangement, according to Odwar.

The Security Council “is of the view that nothing is impossible, nothing is insurmountable,” said South Africa’s ambassador to the UN, Jerry Matthews Matjila. The remaining issues can be discussed by an inclusive government, he said.

One South Sudan expert says the international community is making a mistake. “The UN Security Council took the wrong approach,” Alan Boswell, senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, told The Associated Press.

“Rather than be fixated on Nov. 12, everyone should be focused on pressuring the parties to resolve the issues necessary to form a viable government at less risk of collapse,” he said. “There are much worse scenarios than another delay.”

Another expert suggested a different approach. South Sudan’s government “has consistently acted in bad faith,” said Klem Ryan, former coordinator of the Security Council’s panel of experts monitoring sanctions against South Sudan. “They need to be treated as illegitimate through increased international isolation by the diplomatic community until such time as they show a genuine desire to meet the needs of the people of South Sudan.”

For now, Machar, risks isolation by the international community over his ultimatum on joining the transitional government. “Lack of trust is also another element which compromises their willingness to commit to arrangements they themselves agreed upon. This also erodes citizens’ trust in the leaders in whatever they say to be doing. Political trust is supposed to instil confidence in leaders and citizens,” he said.

President Kiir has brazenly underlined the bad blood existing between himself and Machar saying he will go ahead and form a government on November 12 with or without his political nemesis.

This will certainly be a recipe for further trouble ahead for the world’s youngest state.

L'articolo South Sudan Talks to Form Unity Government Collapse proviene da InsideOver.

Alaa Salah shot to online fame earlier this year when clips of her dressed in flowing white robes went viral on social media and made her an immediate icon of the revolution against strongman President Omar al-Bashir.

This week, the 22-year-old took her message to the world. Al-Bashir is now in jail, but the transitional government that replaced him is not delivering for the women who drove the revolution against his decades-long rule, she said.

Addressing the United Nations Security Council in New York, Salah said that women made up 70 per cent of the protestors in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, earlier this year, but they have since been denied real power under the new system.

“Women-led resistance committees and sit-ins, planned protest routes, and disobeyed curfews,” Salah said in New York on Tuesday.

“Despite their courage and their leadership, women have been side-lined in the formal political process in the months following the revolution.”

Al-Bashir came to power in an Islamist-backed military coup in 1989, adopting strict interpretations of religious law that reduced the ability of women to participate meaningfully in public life, according to Human Rights Watch, a campaign group.

Women had to cover their hair and follow austere Islamic dress codes, could not freely post their thoughts on social media and were restricted from travelling and, if unmarried, from dining out with male friends, Salah told diplomats.

Al-Bashir was toppled in a coup in April after months of protests and is being held in a Khartoum prison cell on corruption charges. Opposition groups struck a power-sharing deal with the military in September for a three-year transition to democracy.

Women rallied against al-Bashir in huge numbers despite being “teargassed, threatened, assaulted, and thrown in jail,” said Salah. Rape was widespread amid the revolutionary chaos, and, back in their homes, women protestors “faced retaliation from their own families,” she said.

Salah, then an engineering student, was “chanting, singing and walking with my fellow citizens through the streets”, she said. She was dubbed the “woman in white” after standing on a car, swaddled in white cloth, pointing a finger upwards in a gesture of hope and defiance that was captured by a sea of mobile phone cameras.

Campaigners note gains under the post-revolution government. For the first time, women head Sudan’s judiciary and its foreign office. Two women sit on the country’s 11-member sovereign council. In recent weeks, a women’s soccer league kicked off in Khartoum.

According to Salah, these gains are fragile and cannot be taken for granted. In 2018, women made up 31 per cent of Sudan’s parliamentarians, but they were “often without real influence and left out of decision-making circles”.

“Now, unsurprisingly, women’s representation in the current governance structure falls far below our demand of 50 per cent parity and we are sceptical that the 40 per cent quota of the still-to-be formed legislative council will be met,” she added.

Salah and other Sudanese women campaigners say there is much work to be done. Safaa Ayoub, secretary-general of the Community Development Association for Sudan, said many hinterlands of Sudan remain perilous for women.

Ayoub, based in the Western province of Daruf, said security forces in the turbulent Jebel Marrah region have repeatedly used mass rape to terrorize women and girls amid a conflict between Khartoum and non-Arab tribal groups.

Women also struggle in the Blue Nile and Nuba Mountains regions along the border with breakaway South Sudan, where a simmering conflict, security restrictions, and bureaucratic red tape stalls progress, UN diplomats heard.

“We want to make sure that women in conflict zones are protected, that women can move freely, and reach their farms without fear of rape or violence, that they can watch their children go to school safely,” Ayoub said in a statement.

“We want more space and participation and the chance to be dignified as human beings.”

Salah, Ayoub and other campaigners met decision-makers in the United States this week, hoping to pressure Khartoum for speedier progress. Still, Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok has many pressing financial and security threats that likely rank higher on his agenda.

The activists’ claim that women made up some two-thirds of the protestors appears to be exaggerated, and they can appear unclear on how they want to get women in half of Sudan’s government jobs. Still, Salah said, that is the target.

“If we are not represented at the peace table, and if we don’t have a meaningful voice in parliament, our rights will not be guaranteed, and discriminatory and restrictive laws will remain unchanged, continuing the cycle of instability and violence,” said Salah.

L'articolo Sudan Protest Icon Says Revolution Cannot Forget Women proviene da InsideOver.

Six long and arduous years have passed since violence exploded across South Sudan. The perpetrators – which include both government and rebels – of crimes like mass killings, rape, torture, and other human rights violations have still not been held accountable.

In December 2013, when the government and opposition forces clashed in Juba, civilians bore the brunt of the ensuing carnage and since then, both security and human rights situation have remained precarious in the African country.

Tens of thousands have been slaughtered – often due to their ethnicity or perceived affiliations. Almost 2 million people – 85% of whom are women and children – were forced out of their homes and displaced within South Sudan. Thousands of others have been evacuated to UN compounds; these growing camps – known as UNMISS Protection of Civilian (PoC) sites – currently hold over 180,000 people. Furthermore, the ferocity of the conflict single-handedly generated the largest movement of refugees in Africa and the third biggest in the world, with over 2.2 million people seeking refuge abroad.

The bloody clash saw both government and rebel forces violating international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The war crimes and crimes against humanity include the deliberate killing of civilians; acts of sexual violence including gang rape and rape of children, elderly and pregnant women, forced recruitment of children; looting and destruction of civilian property; and enforced disappearances. Additionally, South Sudan’s National Security Service (NSS) and Military Intelligence Directorate (MID) have arbitrarily detained hundreds of people – mostly men – who have been subjected to torture, other forms of ill-treatment, and extra-judicial executions in detention facilities across the country.

A damning report, Do you think we will prosecute ourselves: No prospects for accountability in South Sudan, released by Amnesty International just a few days ago, details how the South Sudanese government not only lacks political will to hold perpetrators of serious crimes accountable, but also has permitted such impunities to prosper.

Joan Nyanyuki, Amnesty International Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes said, “Our research found that the government of South Sudan has consistently failed to address violations and abuses.

“Moreover, the presidential interference with justice processes is rampant. This ranges from failing to make public reports of government-led investigation committees, to confirming or denying judgments of court martials, to ousting judges of ordinary courts, and to actively obstructing the establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS). The report emphasizes the role of the HCSS as the most viable avenue for justice for victims – at least in the short term.”

Since the outbreak of the conflict in 2013, Amnesty International has campaigned for independent investigations and prosecutions of suspects of crimes committed in relation to the conflict. One of the main issues has been that the government has blocked the establishment of the HCSS that was enshrined in the peace agreements. Amnesty International has now put pressure on the African Union (AU) to issue a new roadmap for the establishment of the HCSS, giving South Sudan a deadline of 6 months to facilitate the prosecution of those accused of war crimes and human rights abuses.

“We were hopeful when the conflicting parties agreed to the Hybrid Court for South Sudan when they signed the peace agreement in August 2015. Yet, four years later, they have left a trail of broken promises. It is time for the AU to step up and issue a timeline for the establishment for the HCSS and give the Government of South Sudan a deadline to sign the legislation,” insisted Nyanyuki.

If it is not established soon, there is a great risk of losing valuable evidence, which will be lost as more time passes. In a region like South Sudan, which is so ravaged by conflict, there is the danger that documents could be destroyed, witnesses displaced or killed, crime scenes transformed or contaminated, and people’s memories fading.

“South Sudanese authorities should implement judicial reforms to enable effective investigations and prosecutions before independent, impartial and competent courts in South Sudan, in a manner that respects international standards of fairness and without recourse to the death penalty. They must also sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and adopt the Statute establishing the Hybrid Court of South Sudan (HCSS),” Nyanyuki added.

“Secondly, considering the evident lack of will from the government’s side, there is a need for extensive pressure from the AU, the UN, and international donors. The AU should convene a meeting on South Sudan in which they adopt a clear timeline for the establishment of the HCSS. If after all this, the Government of South Sudan does not sign the MoU and adopt the statute, the AU must take measures to address victims’ right to justice through the unilateral establishment of an ad hoc tribunal for South Sudan.

“Lastly, failure or delay of the establishment of either the HCSS or an ad hoc tribunal merit, the intervention of the UN Security Council is needed to take appropriate measures by establishing an ad hoc tribunal or referring the South Sudanese situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC).”

L'articolo South Sudan: Will Justice Be Served Any Time Soon? proviene da InsideOver.

By this November South Sudan’s warring parties are expected to form a unity government but opposition leaders have said that the government’s failure to make funds available for the implementation of a peace accord could plunge the country back into war.

Initially, a unity government was supposed to have been formed this May, but a deadlock on several key issues forced a six-month extension. Since then, little has changed.

Meeting for the first time in the country’s capital Juba, this September 11 in almost one year President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar pledged to resolve all outstanding issues standing in the way of cobbling up a unity government within two months.

Machar, left Juba in 2016 after a renewed fighting forced him into exile and resulted in the collapse of the 2015 compromise peace agreement.

The two rivals last met at the Vatican, Italy by the invitation of Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, in April this year.

President Kiir and several rebel groups signed an agreement a year ago in an attempt to resolve a conflict that erupted in December 2013 and killed an estimated 400,000 people. The government agreed to seek outside support as well as make its financial contribution toward stabilising the country and rebuilding an economy ruined by five years of fighting.

The Special Representative and head of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), David Shearer briefed the council in New York after the momentous meeting between the two leaders this September saying Mr. Machar’s visit to the capital at the invitation of his political adversary “was an important development” noting the apparent “conciliatory “demeanour between the two forces who had spent “several hours in formal and informal discussions.”

“Talks between us are going on well. And we will reach a deal soon, so let’s rest assured that things are going on well,” Kiir told reporters in Juba.

While Machar noted that even though he was to revert to his earlier position of First Vice President, South Sudan descended into war in mid-December 2013 when Kiir accused his former deputy-turned rebel leader for plotting a coup.

In September 2018, the rival factions involved in the conflict ostensibly signed a peace deal to end the conflict but nothing tangible emerged out of the apparent truce.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), also known as the anti-governmental forces (AGF), which is the country’s largest rebel group routinely accuses President Kiir of failing to provide $100 million needed to support the establishment of a transitional government within two months.

Intensifying the bad feeling are reports showing Kiir’s administration had allocated $700 million to build a highway.

“What is the point of saying that we don’t have funds and yet you have heard that the government is going to build a $700 million road? What is the priority, those roads or the peace?” said Mr. Henry Odwar, deputy chairman of the rebel group led by Machar.

With the minister in charge of information, Mr. Makuei Lueth saying it was the government’s responsibility to develop the country and nothing will derail it from delivering services to its citizens.

In the worst-case scenario, Mr. Odwar says the alternative “would be war.”

Under the terms of the accord, the rebels are to join a transitional government, integrate fighters into the army and settle disputes over regional boundaries. The militants, who in May asked for a six-month delay because of ill-preparedness, said the situation hasn’t changed much. There is still no confidence in the security arrangement, according to Mr. Odwar.

Government spokesman Mr. Michael Makuei said the talks between the two warring leaders were “highly successful” and insisted plans to meet the November deadline were still on track. While Mr.Odwar instead described the meetings as “luke-warm”, saying key issues needed to be resolved before a unity government could be formed.

“It’s not clear they made any breakthroughs. Both leaders are positioning themselves to blame the other party if they fail to form a government together in Juba,” Alan Boswell, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, is reported to have told, The New Humanitarian (TNH), news network. “The peace deal will almost certainly face a major crisis in November. The risk remains substantial that the process breaks down.”

Lasting peace would boost the production of oil, which hovered around 350,000 barrels a day when South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011, but then dropped by about half after civil war erupted in 2013. The conflict has also displaced so many farmers that more than half of the nation’s 12.5 million people are now relying on food assistance. The nation could quickly double its production of cereals to meet domestic demand if calm returns, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s country representative, Mr Meshack Malo.

During Kiir and Machar’s meeting it was agreed that a screening and a unification of a new military force consisting of 83,000 troops – at least half of those needed ought to be in place by November. Both parties also agreed on a VIP protection force of 3,000 soldiers, with an equal number of opposition and government troops.

After the failed 2015 peace deal, the government expanded the previously agreed upon 10 states to 32 – a move South Sudan experts say was intended to gerrymander boundaries along ethnic lines.

The opposition wants to return to 10 states, but the government is keen to continue expanding the number.

As part of the 2018 agreement, a commission was formed to settle the matter, but it has been unable to come to a consensus.

After Mr. Machar’s visit, both parties announced that a new committee would be formed to investigate the issue.

“If there is no consensus on the number of states by November, we in the (opposition) will not be part of the formation of the government,” said Mr. Odwar.

Part of the problem in moving the peace deal forward is a lack of funds.

While Mr. Kiir pledged $100 million towards the process in May, a little over $10 million has materialised.

The international community, specifically Western countries, has abstained from financially supporting the process. It’s unclear why, specifically, but there have been numerous reports of alleged financial corruption.

As November approaches, the international community is calling on South Sudan’s government to urgently increase the “pace and the quality of implementation”, the EU said in a statement last week.

South Sudan’s government and opposition say their leaders are open to further meetings before November, but no dates have been confirmed.

The peace deal mandates that the transitional constitution and laws that govern the national security agencies, the army and the national police service be amended by parliament ahead of the formation of a unity government.

But the country’s lawmakers are on a two-month recess that began two weeks ago. Last month, civil society activists warned that failure to amend the laws before November would affect the formation of a unity government.

Mr. Odwar said the two leaders discussed the number of states but only agreed to form another committee.

“The two principals have agreed that yes, we will have a committee and this committee will look into the IBC (Independent Boundaries Commission) report and if we reach a consensus that will be great. If we don’t reach a consensus, then the principals will have to come together again and come up with a final statement on the number of states and boundaries,” Odwar told reporters.

Despite reaching no agreement on the unresolved issues, Information Minister Michael Makuei says Kiir and Machar are both confident a unity government will come together on time.

L'articolo Cash Strapped South Sudan Risks Failure of Forming Unity Government proviene da InsideOver.

Uganda has withdrawn its blanket refugee policy for asylum seekers in the country. Fears that improper vetting of refugees’ identities generated easy access for rebels and criminals to enter the country has led Uganda to revise its open-door refugee policy.

The Minister for Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Refugees, Hillary Onek said on Tuesday: “We have withdrawn the blanket refugee status to people who are coming to our country because of infiltration of wrong elements through [the open-door policy]”

“We realised that a number of criminals found their ways in. Open-door policy doesn’t mean that you open the door for anything, it is only for refugees. If you are not a genuine refugee and you are a criminal, our doors are not open,” Mr Onek explained.

Mr Onek has formerly alleged that neighbouring countries have sent trained security personnel into Uganda, through the open-door refugee policy, to murder or abduct high-profile refugees.

Unlike many African nations, which act as extractive institutions – stealing from its people with minimal investment back into the state – Uganda has chosen a humanitarian approach to the use of its public services. Refugees in Uganda have, in the past, been given land for farming and building homes. This also included free healthcare and education. This is in stark contrast to refugee policies in Kenya and other East African countries where refugees are confined in camps.

Uganda hosts the most refugees in Africa with a population of 1.3 million refugees, citing Pan Africanist sensibilities as its ethos. However, to succeed as an inclusive institution (one that enables large hordes of the population to participate in political and economic systems for the long-term growth of the country) Uganda’s government must also regulate resource-allocation.

The civil war in South Sudan forced 700,000 South Sudanese refugees to seek shelter in Uganda. Violence in other neighbouring countries, such as Burundi, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, has increased the influx of refugees arriving in Uganda.

“We don’t have enough food to feed all the refugees, and some are getting half rations of cornmeal and beans,” Apollo Kazungu, a Ugandan commissioner in charge of refugees, voiced in 2017.

“We are very hospitable as a country, and our people are friendly to refugees. But allocating them plots (of land) may not be possible if they continue to arrive daily due to violence. We are now building dormitories for them,” he said.

In present-day Uganda, the situation has deteriorated. A new report published last month by the International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) said that: “While there are overall good relations, tensions between South Sudanese refugees and Ugandan communities around natural resources, livelihoods and land should not be ignored.

“Refugees especially highlighted competition over natural resources,” the report continued, “in particular firewood for cooking and grass for thatching roofs, claiming that the host community restricted their access and at times attacked them.

“Host communities, in turn, complain that refugees did not seek their consent and that environmental degradation is spiralling out of control. While most refugee communities live peacefully together, a cocktail of frustration, unemployment, post-traumatic stress and alcohol abuse have the potential to degenerate, fuelled by ethnic stereotyping and ongoing conflict in South Sudan.”

Speaking at a press conference in July, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Jacob Oulanyah, criticised Uganda’s open-door refugee policy.

“The Uganda open-door refugee policy is very ineffective and it has left many of our Ugandans very poor. People are not living their lives like they used to because of the issue of refugees,” he said.

“Since 1967, there has not been any modified law created to deal with refugees and that is a big challenge. Policies have to be revised and better legal frameworks set up.

“These refugees should be settled in camps not settlements with the locals, because they are not citizens of the country, and the camps can be permanent not the occupants.”

While other Ugandan MPs have disagreed with Oulanyah about the open-door refugee policy, there is a consensus that the security and management styles of this policy are ineffective.

The ban on Uganda’s blanket refugee policy is also, according to Mr. Onek, a deterrent to economic migrants from Pakistan who pose as refugees to gain access to the country’s resources.

The MP has been widely criticised for his comments on Pakistani immigrants. He has also been questioned on whether his new anti-blanket policy will contradict Uganda’s open-policy for refugees.

Uganda’s Anti-Humanitarian Politics

Despite its humanitarian stance on refugees, Uganda’s president, former rebel leader, Yoweri Museveni, has been accused of torturing those who democratically oppose his 33-year government.

Ugandan music artist turned MP, Robert Kyagulanyi, claimed he was unlawfully detained and tortured by Ugandan police under the command of President Museveni.

The pop star was also charged with treason after Museveni accused him and other opposition leaders of stoning the president’s convoy during a campaign rally.

L'articolo Uganda’s Open-Door Refugee Policy Causes Security and Economic Risks proviene da InsideOver.

​Majok Peter Awan was eight years old when a rebel military chief put a Kalashnikov assault rifle in his young hands and taught him to shoot at Sudanese government soldiers, during a civil war that ultimately won independence for the southerners.

“If your height is of an AK-47, then you can carry it and shoot,” said Awan, describing a rule-of-thumb for the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which recruited thousands of child soldiers in its bitter, decades-long war for liberation against Khartoum.

Three decades on, a similar attitude prevails across much of the world. The Houthi rebels in Yemen, Boko Haram Islamists in Nigeria and Somalia’s extremist al–Shabaab group all enlist hundreds or thousands of youngsters and train them to kill.

A new United Nations report says that more than 12,000 children were killed or injured by conflict in 2018, the worst year on record. Campaigners blame warmongering leaders and a weak UN system for failing to effectively name-and-shame violators.

Awan, now a calmly-spoken, bespectacled 40-year-old, described being pulled from his family aged six to cook and clean on a military base in his native Jonglei State, with occasional missions for looting and spying on the enemy.

He did not see his mother, or the father who gave him up to the rebels, until a wedding back in Pakeer village 22 years later. As a young recruit, he never saw inside a classroom and missed out on the family and play time that many children take for granted.

“Until now, my socialization is not perfect,” said Awan, who speaks in carefully chosen words.

South Sudan secured a peace deal with the north in 2005 and gained full independence in 2011, ending a war fueled by ethnicity, oil and ideology. The world’s youngest country has since been blighted by power struggles and inter-ethnic bloodshed.

Awan, now a child protection officer with the post-conflict aid group War Child, travels the country, talking generals out of using children in a civil war between ethnic militias for the Dinka, Nuer and other groups that has claimed some 383,000 lives these past eight years.

“The military generals are civilized and are trying to understand the right of a child,” Awan told InsideOver.

“But deep in some areas, people are subjected because the presence of the government is not there and no humanitarian actors can reach such places. There’s no food in the houses, but there is food in the barracks. The children just come to make a living.”

Awan says that progress is slow. Some 17,000 youngsters remain enlisted in South Sudan’s various armed groups, and 365 boys and 88 girls joined their ranks last year, according to a new United Nations report.

The global picture is bleaker. More than 12,000 children were killed or maimed in 2018 – the highest number since the UN started counting in 2005 – with Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, Syria and Yemen topping the casualty list, the 43-page document said.

Those casualties were among more than 24,000 “grave violations” against children verified by UN researchers, including the enlistment and use of youths as fighters, sexual violence, abductions, and attacks on schools and hospitals, the report said.

Some 7,000 children were recruited into armed forces last year, including as front-line fighters, cooks, cleaners and other roles on military bases. This included 2,300 child recruits in Somalia and 1,947 others in Nigeria.

Still, Virginia Gamba, the UN’s envoy for Children and Armed Conflict, who authored the report in the name of UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, said some 13,600 children were also released by armed groups during 2018.

These included 2,253 children leaving armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 833 in Nigeria and 785 in the Central African Republic, often via UN-backed demobilization schemes.

“The number of children released has consistently increased in the past years, as a result of direct engagement of the UN with parties to conflict bringing hope to thousands of children,” said Gamba.

Adrianne Lapar, a program director for Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, a monitoring group, warned that UN numbers were likely an under-count, as child recruitment may be on the rise.

“When the rubber hits the road, warring parties are still using children as soldiers, porters, cooks, and other roles, endangering their lives and taking away their childhood, and we need to continue to strengthen our efforts to stop child recruitment,” said Lapar.

Beyond the issue of child soldiers, she noted the other worrying increase in numbers of youngsters dying — often from being caught in the crossfire between rival forces or perishing in urban bombing campaigns.

“The increasingly urban nature of warfare, as well as the use of explosive and indiscriminate weapons in populated areas, have contributed to the staggering increase in grave violations of children’s rights in war,” said Lapar.

“In countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen, parties to conflict are using illegal tactics, such as attacks on hospitals, schools, food sources, and other civilian infrastructure, as a weapon of war.”

This may be “indicative of a broader trend” towards reckless conflict that would only hurt children and other innocents, said Lapar. The UN Security Council should slap targeted sanctions on anyone who breaks the rules of war.

But, she lamented a “politicization” of the issue that has seen well-connected leaders flex diplomatic muscle to stay off the “blacklist” in the annexes of the annual UN document, which names and shames abusers.

Israel, for example, was not listed, despite having killed and maimed some 2,800 Palestinian youngsters in 2018. The Saudi Arabia-led coalition fighting in Yemen was kept of the document’s most severe watch-list despite killing and maiming 729 Yemeni children last year.

“The UN secretary-general simply refuses to hold to account all warring parties that have inflicted tremendous suffering on children,” said Jo Becker, an expert on child rights for the campaign group Human Rights Watch.

“By listing selected violators but not others, secretary-general Guterres is ignoring the UN’s own evidence and undermining efforts to protect children in conflict.”

Back in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, Awan continues to play his part — helping children regain their peace of mind, often after years of military service, and ensuring other youths do not end up in military fatigues or coffins.

Still, he struggles to untangle a key contradiction: why it was okay for southerners to enlist children in their battle for independence, but why South Sudan’s modern-day armed groups are forbidden from doing the same.

“Then, they were very right, everyone had a responsibility to get freedom, whether a child or adult,” Awan told Inside Over.

“During my time, the world was not a global village. The humanitarian actors were not there to calm my sorrow or to cover my story. The social media have changed the world drastically. My experience should not be the experience of any child any more.”

L'articolo Ex-Child Soldier Demands End to Abuses After Worst Year on Record proviene da InsideOver.

“My friends and I were walking by the National Palace one evening when we encountered a couple of humanitarian men. The men called us over and showed us their penises. They offered us 100 Haitian gourdes (US$2.80) and some chocolate if we would suck them. I said no, but some of the girls did it and got the money.” This was the bleak statement of a 15-years-old Haitian girl in a report by Save the Children.

Her words echo a myriad of child abuse stories committed by aid workers in crisis-stricken countries around the world. The report, which was carried out almost a decade ago, detailed the sexual exploitation of boys and girls by those who were sent to safeguarding their well-being – an irony that reeks of the ultimate betrayal.

One of the reasons that these sexual assaults go unreported is due to the fear of losing much-needed resources in desperately impoverished regions. Many children have been forced to trade sex for food and other necessities that they need to sustain their survival. A teenage girl in Côte d’Ivoire spoke about a girl entrapped by a man whom she relied on to get food. In Southern Sudan, a teenage boy divulged that even though people may be aware that it happens, they are worried that if they were to report the matter, the agencies will stop providing the care that they so heavily relied on.

Although the report failed to disclose the names of those companies that were culpable, it did confirm that it was prevalent in 23 humanitarian, peacekeeping and security organisations. This included civil humanitarian agencies such as those delivering food and nutritional assistance, care, education and health services, reconstruction, shelter, training, and livelihood support, as well as military actors providing peace and security services.

Andrew MacLeod, co-founder and director of Hear Their Cries – an organisation established to stop the abuse of this nature happening, said: “Save the Children have done little to prevent abuse by their own staff and contractors. So while their report was good to highlight the issue, one has to wonder if they too have gone silent on the issue because they have too much to hide themselves.”

Since the publishing of the report almost ten years ago, it was revealed last year that this systematic abuse of vulnerable children had continued. Former Oxfam head, Dame Barbara Stocking, confessed that she “knew for years” that sexual violations had been occurring within Oxfam, which included the hiring of prostitutes – some of whom were underage. Instead of being reprimanded in the appropriate way, the perpetrators flitted freely from one aid job to another.

Oxfam is not the only wrongdoer when it comes to failing these children; in the humanitarian world it a well-known problem. The UK’s former National Criminal Intelligence Service compared paedophiles employed in the aid world to the sex tourism industry. “This problem is out of control and much larger in scale than the abuse of the Catholic Church,” MacLeod explained. “For those who doubt that, consider this: there are more aid workers than Catholic Priests, in more countries than the Catholic church with better access to children and controlling food, water, and shelter. Some of the saddest stories are those of children who were abused and then fell pregnant. The children born of the abuse in many cases have the rights to the nationality of their father – but they do not know who the father is. So this absence is the second abuse.”

A study by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) discovered that fewer people have been donating to charities in recent times. Figures have continued to fall over the past three years with only 48 per cent still believing that charities are trustworthy. “There needs to be a better PDP plan of action – prevention, detection, and prosecution. All NGO’s should report any child abuse immediately to prosecuting authorities. Child abuse will only stop when we have prosecutions,” MacLeod, who has been the recipient of numerous humanitarian awards, advised. “International NGO’s need to remember that many countries make it an offence to have sex with a child under the age of 16 anywhere in the world. So a staff member should be reported to their home police as well as the police where the event took place.”

“Furthermore, the vast majority of victims never report these crimes. So NGOs must fund a report into the causes and cures for the massive under-reporting of abuse, and not wait for victims to come forward. They should develop policies to actively seek out victims and provide adequate compensation to the victims directly – not just through a central fund. “A DNA database of aid workers should also be created to hold aid workers to account and the implementation of independent whistle-blower structures will also be helpful.”

L'articolo Aid Workers Trading Food for Sex with Children proviene da InsideOver.

The civil war in South Sudan between government forces and opposition forces broke out in December 2013 and is still ongoing. Almost 400,000 people have been estimated to likely have been killed, according to one report, with around half of the lives lost estimated to be due to violence. Nearly 4 million people have been further internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries. All parties to the conflict have been accused of committing serious abuses, including unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, attacks on civilians and civilian property, and the recruitment and use of child soldiers.

On 12 September 2018, Salva Kiir Mayardit, the President of South Sudan, Riek Machar, the leader of the People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (Splm-Io), and other rebel factions signed the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-Arcss) in Addis Ababa. The agreement has reduced fighting in many parts of the country, and has also facilitated the return of senior opposition figures to Juba to allow for political dialogue. In late October 2018, Machar returned to South Sudan for a nationwide peace celebration that was meant to mark the end of the civil war. However, conflict and violence continue, including a significant number of incidents of rape and sexual violence against women and girls. Many also remain vulnerable to rising food insecurity.

Further, a humanitarian emergency still affects the majority of the civilian population. Some armed groups also remain outside of the R-Aarcss, including an alliance led by the National Salvation Front Thomas Cirillo. A recent clash involving the National Salvation Front and a faction of the Splm-Io saw at least 9 people killed in South Sudan’s Western Equatoria.

On 13 July 2018, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2428 – which stipulated that until 31 May 2019, all Member States were to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to South Sudan, from or through their territories — of arms and related material, and withhold training, technical and financial assistance related to military activities or materials. However, it laid out several exemptions to the country’s arms embargo — including for material and activities related to humanitarian activities, such as those intended exclusively for support of or use by UN personnel.

Possible violations of arms embargoes

In its latest report, the Panel of Experts on South Sudan, drawing on its earlier interim report, reiterated a number of likely violations of the arms embargo. The Panel of Experts noted the ongoing arrival of cargo aircraft at Juba International airport during the night, of which there was no meaningful monitoring and which likely included foreign-registered aircraft and aviation companies originating from outside South Sudan. The Panel further noted that no inspection reports were provided by customs agencies of neighbouring States during the mandate period. The Panel emphasized that effective implementation of the arms embargo would benefit from inspections of cargo aircraft destined for Juba International Airport or airports in South Sudan where there is a military presence, and of trucks crossing the Nimule border post on the border with Uganda – which is equipped with sophisticated scanning technology.

There is already a history of possible arms embargo violations. A 2018 report by the London-based Conflict Armament Research (Car) argued that some of the military materiel re-transferred from Uganda to South Sudan was in potential violation of an EU arms embargo. Car’s weapon documentation indicated that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (Spla) in South Sudan and non-state forces allied with the Spla in neighbouring Sudan had acquired small arms and ammunitions exported from at least three EU Member States (Bulgaria, Romania, and the Slovak Republic) to Uganda since the onset of the current South Sudan conflict.

Deadline extension for national unity government

Most recently, both South Sudan’s government and Machar’s opposition requested a six-month extension to the May 12 deadline of this year for opposition leader Riek Machar to return to the country and once again become Kiir’s deputy in a unity government. The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) Council of Ministers endorsed a six-month extension for the establishment of a Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity. IGAD further stressed that the extension was ‘non-renewable.’

L'articolo South Sudan: Arms Embargo Violation and Extension of Unity Government proviene da InsideOver.