U.N. Bolsters Peacekeeping Force in South Sudan

The United Nations Security Council took vigorous action on Friday to greatly strengthen a peacekeeping force in South Sudan^[1], the world’s youngest country^[2], ravaged by civil war and suffering for nearly three years. The South Sudanese government immediately vowed not to cooperate.

A resolution, passed by an 11-to-0 vote with four abstentions, basically gives the United Nations^[3] far more authority in South Sudan, backed by thousands of additional troops and lethal force if needed, to protect civilians and pressure armed antagonists in the conflict — including government soldiers. It also threatens to impose an arms embargo on the country.

The Security Council’s approval came as the mandate of the current peacekeeping operation, known as the United Nations Mission in South Sudan^[4], or Unmiss, was about to expire. Unmiss has not been effective, as a peace agreement has been repeatedly ignored.

The resolution, sponsored by the United States, represents an unusually robust action by the Council, invoking its rarely used coercive power to militarily intervene when international peace and security are considered to be threatened.

David Pressman, an American ambassador at the United Nations who attended the vote, criticized the South Sudanese government for what he described as actions that had crippled Unmiss’s ability to operate.

“Until the leaders of South Sudan are willing to put what is good for their people before themselves — putting peace ahead of personal ambition and power — and until they show the will to find a political solution to this grinding conflict, the people of South Sudan will continue to suffer from the bloodshed and instability their leaders wreak,” Mr. Pressman said after the resolution was approved.

South Sudan’s government opposed the strengthened peacekeeping mission, raising the possibility of clashes between the country’s armed forces and foreign soldiers deployed there by the United Nations.

Reacting to the resolution, a spokesman for President Salva Kiir of South Sudan, Ateny Wek Ateny, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “That is very unfortunate, and we are not going to cooperate on that because we will not allow our country to be taken over by the U.N.”

Under the resolution, the United Nations’ mission will be extended for at least three months, and a new 4,000-soldier “regional protection force” will be deployed in Juba, the capital, and other strategic locations, including the airport.

The new force represents an increase of over 30 percent in armed personnel for the United Nations mission of 12,000 troops, which has been unable to stop episodic bouts of killing and abuses, including widespread rape^[5], by both government forces and rebel factions.

United Nations soldiers and aid workers have been repeatedly harassed and attacked, and in some cases killed. Thousands of South Sudanese civilians, fearing for their lives, have been living in United Nations sites in Juba and other locations.

The resolution specifies that the new force, which diplomats said would mostly be drawn from neighboring countries, will be authorized to “promptly and effectively engage any actor that is credibly found to be preparing attacks, or engages in attacks, against United Nations protection of civilians sites, other United Nations premises, United Nations personnel, international and national humanitarian actors, or civilians.”

The resolution does not impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, some member states and outside advocates, including international rights groups, had wanted.

But in what was intended as a coercive step, the resolution allows an arms embargo to be imposed if the government does not cooperate.

The resolution’s failure to achieve a unanimous approval of the 15-member Security Council partly reflected the difficulties it has often faced in deciding on any action involving the use of military force.

Russia, China, Egypt and Venezuela, the Council members that abstained, had criticized some provisions in the resolution. Russia and China in particular have been reluctant to take actions that they view as incursions on another country’s sovereignty.

Still, the Russians and Chinese did not feel strongly enough to exercise their veto power, which both have as permanent Security Council members.

South Sudan’s promise as a newly independent state in 2011 devolved into civil war^[6] two years later, and has left tens of thousands dead and more than 2.3 million people displaced^[7].

Soldiers loyal to President Kiir — who belongs to the Dinka ethnic group, South Sudan’s largest — battled troops led by Riek Machar of the Nuer ethnic group, which is believed to be the second largest.

Troops on both sides committed human rights abuses against civilians^[8] on a devastating scale, United Nations human rights officials and other groups have found.

A peace deal^[9] officially ended the fighting last year. Mr. Machar, who had served as vice president before he was dismissed in 2013, agreed to become Mr. Kiir’s deputy^[10] again and returned to Juba in April.

But fighting broke out again^[11] between the two sides on July 7, killing hundreds. Mr. Machar’s residence was destroyed and he fled the capital. He has refused to return to Juba until more international troops are deployed.

1. ^{^} More articles about South Sudan. (topics.nytimes.com)
2. ^{^} the world’s youngest country (www.nytimes.com)
3. ^{^} More articles about the United Nations. (topics.nytimes.com)
4. ^{^} United Nations Mission in South Sudan (unmiss.unmissions.org)
5. ^{^} including widespread rape (www.nytimes.com)
6. ^{^} civil war (www.nytimes.com)
7. ^{^} more than 2.3 million people displaced (www.unocha.org)
8. ^{^} human rights abuses against civilians (www.nytimes.com)
9. ^{^} peace deal (www.nytimes.com)
10. ^{^} to become Mr. Kiir’s deputy (www.nytimes.com)
11. ^{^} fighting broke out again (www.nytimes.com)