APR/19/2017, Press Release;
The adoption of Resolution 2304 by the UN Security Council on August 12, 2016 barely a month after Riek Machar’s unsuccessful third coup attempt on July 8, 2017 was a serious mistake by the world’s body as it missed a great opportunity to help South Sudan in its quest for peace and stability.
In the view of the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), this move is flagrantly un-constructive and conspicuously fails to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of South Sudan and the will of its people.
The Resolution is sadly a hollow and misguided regime change agenda that certain powers would like to effect in our beloved country.
Feeling a bit emboldened by the passage of Resolution 2304 by the Security Council, proponents of the Neo-Trusteeship international administration in South Sudan and their supporters managed to convene a series of hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate on September 20, 2016.
The aim of these hearings was to foster better understanding as to the feasibility of the establishment of international administration in South Sudan under the auspices of the United Nations and African Union.
Among the notable “experts” that presented to the Senate committee were Dr. Paul R. Williams and Kate Almquist Knopf.
Dr. Williams acknowledged that there is no legal framework for Neo-Trusteeship but erroneously recommended that it might be a viable means of creating peace and stability in South Sudan.
In a way that directly links the regime change agenda in South Sudan with the so-called Regional Protection Force, Williams added, “neo-trusteeships typically require a robust and sustained peacekeeping presence.”
On her part, Kate Knopf recommended the establishment of “international transitional administration” in South Sudan under the United Nations and the African Union for 10-15 years.
Ms. Knopf went on to state that any opposition to UN/AU transitional administration could be mitigated through:
1) Negotiating President Kiir’s and Riek Machar’s renunciation of a role in South Sudan politics.
2) Leveraging important constituencies’ frustration with President Kiir, Machar and their “cronies to gain these constituencies support for transitional administration.”
3) “By deploying a peace intervention mission with credible coercive force.”
Suffice to say that judging from the position cited above, the Regional Protection Force is clearly a tool for invading South Sudan so as to effect a regime change agenda in South Sudan.
Simply put, everything from the level of armament and mandate given to the Regional Protection Force smacks of the regime change agenda, which we are strongly against.
Moreover, the area of operation for the force, which is Juba, is chosen purposely as a first step towards the establishment of Neo-Trusteeship in South Sudan.
In our view, the Resolution would actually foment animosity among the people of South Sudan. Among other shortcomings, the Resolution would disrupt internal peace processes and embolden the armed opposition against the government, hence, more discord and disunity in our country.
If allowed to happen, this situation would certainly spell more suffering for our people.
The Resolution essentially gives this force unfettered powers and an unlimited freedom “to use all means necessary” to meet their operational objectives, a condition that undermines both the security of ordinary citizens and the power of the state and government.
Instead of a constructive engagement premised on genuine dialogue, the proponents of Resolution 2304 have now made it abundantly clear that they intend to place South Sudan under the so-called UN/AU Neo-trusteeship, an idea that a few disgruntled South Sudanese politicians with their foreign allies, all of whom are hell-bent to effect a well premeditated regime change agenda through illegitimate means.
According to these elements, since they are defeated politically as they have successfully displaced themselves out of the government by their wrong political calculations and misjudgments, they prefer that it is better for the country’s independence and sovereignty, which claimed a million lives of our martyrs, be turned over to foreign bodies like the UN/AU.
In short, it is either their way or the highway.
To reiterate, Resolution 2304 is an affront to the South Sudanese people, as it aims to usurp their hard-won independence and sovereignty.
In terms of its content and objective, this misguided document claims to want to fix South Sudan’s crisis by allowing foreign forces to take over the security of our national capital, Juba, including the airport.
On some unrealistic and baseless grounds that the security environment in Juba has worsened since the last tragic and violent events that unfolded on July 8, 10-11, 2016, the world body is trying to sanction an illegal activity – taking over and placing a sovereign and independent nation under a UN trusteeship.
As a member of the UN family, there is no any legal basis whatsoever for the Republic of South Sudan to turn over its hard-won independence and sovereignty to anybody in the world.
This includes the UN, which is not allowed by its own charter to usurp power of any member state such as South Sudan.
While it may be true that the security environment ins still fragile in South Sudan in a way consistent with that of any post-conflict recovery situation, nothing warrants the deployment of any additional force besides the UNMISS 13,000 forces already on the ground.
On this note, the world should be informed that following Riek Machar’s third failed coup attempt this post July and consistent with Mr. Machar’s third failed coup attempt this post July and Mr. Machar’s demonstrated recidivism into political violence of catastrophic magnitudes, the security situation is not bad as anybody would like to portray, particularly in Juba where the UN envisions the need to bring additional 4,000 troops as called for in Resolution 2304.
In light of the aforementioned grounds, the Council strongly rejects in its entirety Resolution 2304, because it is a ploy to exacerbate discord amongst and suffering of our people.
It gives foreign forces a blank check “to use all means necessary” so as to achieve the establishment of the so-called Neo-trusteeship, which others are openly advocating for.
South Sudan does not need foreign troops, who are bent on toppling the government but it rather needs the international community to support the Transitional Government of National Unity to consolidate peace in order to restore decent livelihoods to our people.
Hon.Joshua Dau Diu,
Co-Chair, Jieng Council of Elders