http://www.dw.de/peter-schumann-the-crisis-is-escalating/a-17513708?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
Conflict
Peter Schumann: "The crisis is escalating"
The international community must concentrate on preventing a humanitarian
disaster in South Sudan, but the political crisis must also be addressed,
says Peter Schumann, a former UN coordinator in southern Sudan.
DW: After days of fighting in South Sudan, both government and rebels are
claiming that they are in control of the town of Malakal. Peace talks set
to resume in Addis Ababa on Thursday (20.03.2014) failed to materialize.
But the United Nations is turning its attention to South Sudan this week,
with its head of peacekeeping urging the two sides to respect the cessation
of hostilities agreement they signed two months ago. Peter Schumann, as a
former UN coordinator in southern Sudan, how do you see the UN responding
to this apparent unwillingness of both sides to sit down and talk?
Peter Schumann: Three months into the conflict not much has changed. We
have the cessation of hostilities agreement you referred to, which is
violated more often than it is adhered to - not surprisingly, because we
don't have the mechanisms with which to monitor compliance with the
agreement. That is still under negotiation. The Intergovernmental Authority
on Development (IGAD) has not yet been able to set up the monitoring
system. There are debates about the protection of the monitors. The usual
technicalities need to be put in place. So far, it has been a major failure
on the part of the international community to come to a quick intervention,
to take quick action to address the crisis. In my view the crisis is
escalating. We're not seeing any respite. As you have pointed out, the
fighting continues. Malakal is changing hands. It will change hands again.
Other towns are under threat. We're seeing a pattern re-emerge, and we know
from the civil war that the government controls the towns; the rebels are
operating in the villages, in the rural areas.
Some people have been mentioning the possibility of sanctions against South
Sudan. Envoys have been saying that both the United States and the European
Union were considering targeted measures against individuals. Is that
likely?
Even if these measures are put in place, it won't have much of an effect,
as we have seen with sanctions in the North, in Khartoum. I don't think
that the perpetrators of violence in South Sudan will depend on the ability
of traveling abroad or using bank accounts, or things like that. So I think
targeted sanctions against individuals will not have an immediate effect,
and maybe not even a long-term effect. I don't think that this is the right
way to address the crisis. What is needed much more is a coherent approach
between the United Nations, between the regional organizations, IGAD and
the African Union.
How likely is it that such a coordinated approach will come about?
We see a split within IGAD. The heavy role the Ugandan forces have played
to stabilize Salva Kiir's government have in my view created a split within
IGAD. We see different positions taken by Ethiopia. It is not clear, but if
reports are confirmed, Eritrea may have provided support to the rebels. So
IGAD is divided. There is no unified approach within the African Union.
In my view, there is also a split within the United Nations on how to
continue. You may recall the mission mandate is up for renewal in early
July. The discussions so far about adjusting the mandate to the new
requirements are very, very vague. The discussions of the Security Council
on March 18, just a few days ago, were basically about refocusing, but then
when you look at the details, it is essentially more of the same:
protection of civilians now within UN compounds, facilitating humanitarian
operations, monitoring and reporting on human rights. There the mission has
massive problems: they are under pressure from the government when they
issue reports on human rights violations. Other points are: preventing
further intercommunal violence - I don't think the mission has the capacity
and the political ability to do this - and then supporting the IGAD
mediation process, with the caveat: when requested and with an available
capacity. To me this does not look like the Security Council has a clear
view and a clear vision on how to address the massive political crisis the
people of South Sudan are confronted with.
But could there not be a shift away from nation-building and towards
emergency relief? Is that the direction in which the United Nations is
heading?
I think at the moment they have no choice but to really concentrate efforts
to prevent a massive humanitarian disaster. Even before the crisis, the
estimates ranged between about 2 million to 3 million people at risk. Now
we have the crisis, we have the massive displacement, and we are faced with
the onset of the rainy season. I would say two-thirds of the population is
at an immediate risk. The humanitarian problems have already started. But
if the United Nations limits its intervention to humanitarian assistance
and fails at the political process, then I think we don't really need
peacekeeping.
Peter Schumann is a former UN coordinator in southern Sudan.
Interview: Mark Caldwell
Received on Sat Mar 22 2014 - 11:37:50 EDT