UN chief fires general in South Sudan after harsh report

[webfact]

UN chief fires general in South Sudan after harsh report

By EDITH M. LEDERER

 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon fired the commander of the peacekeeping force in South Sudan on Tuesday after an independent investigation sharply criticized the military response to deadly attacks in July on a U.N. compound housing 27,000 displaced people.

 

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the dismissal of Kenyan Lt. Gen. Johnson Mogoa Kimani Ondieki shortly after the executive summary of the investigators' report was released, saying the U.N. chief was "deeply distressed" by the findings.

 

The report also criticized the U.N. mission and its peacekeepers for failing to respond to an attack on the Terrain Camp, a private compound just over a kilometer (0.6 miles) away where U.N. staff, aid workers and local staff were robbed, beaten, raped and killed by armed government soldiers.

 

South Sudan, the world's youngest country, has been riven by ethnic violence since shortly after gaining its independence from Sudan in 2011. Civil war broke out in 2013 when government forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, battled rebels led by his former vice president Riek Machar, who is a Nuer. A peace agreement was signed in August 2015, but fighting, that has left tens of thousands dead and more than 2 million displaced, continues.

 

The report summary said that during July's crisis in the capital, Juba, "government and opposition forces fired indiscriminately, striking U.N. facilities and (civilian protection) sites." A confidential U.N. report obtained by The Associated Press in September said Kiir and senior members in his government directed the fighting and had significant command and control over their forces.

 

Among the targets were the U.N. peacekeeping base known as UN House and the adjacent camp where some 27,000 displaced civilians, who are Nuer, had sought safety and the Terrain Camp.

 

The report said "a lack of leadership on the part of key senior mission personnel culminated in a chaotic and ineffective response to the violence" at UN House and the compound for displaced civilians.

 

"The force did not operate under a unified command, resulting in multiple and sometimes conflicting orders to the four troop contingents from China, Ethiopia, Nepal and India, and ultimately underusing the more than 1,800 infantry troops at UN House," it said.

 

In three days of fighting in July, at least 73 people were killed including more than 20 internally displaced people who had sought U.N. protection. Two Chinese peacekeepers were among those killed and several were wounded; 182 buildings on the UN House compound were struck by bullets, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and thousands of internally displaced people fled into UN House, the report said.

 

The report said confusing senior leadership of the peacekeeping force and the lack of leadership on the ground, where the Chinese battalion commander had been appointed as the incident commander, "contributed to incidents of poor performance among the military and police contingents at UN House."

 

This included "at least two instances in which the Chinese battalion abandoned some of its defensive positions" and an "inadequate" performance by Nepalese police to stop looting inside UN House by some displaced people and control the crowd, it said.

 

When government soldiers forcibly entered the Terrain Camp and began looting and entering accommodations, the report said, the U.N. mission "failed to respond" to immediate calls for help from some of the 70 civilians there.

 

All four peacekeeping contingents turned down a request to send a quick reaction force to the camp, "indicating their troops were fully committed" at UN House, it said.

 

The investigators were unable to verify allegations that peacekeepers failed to respond to acts of sexual violence committed in front of them a week later. But the investigators said they received other information suggesting "poor performance by peacekeepers in protecting civilians from sexual violence" near civilian protection sites.

 

"After the crisis, the force and police components continued to display a risk-averse posture unsuited to protecting civilians from sexual violence and other opportunistic attacks," the report said.

 

The investigators, led by retired Dutch Maj. Gen. Patrick Cammaert, recommended that "peacekeepers, commanders and relevant troop contributing countries should be held accountable for failures to protect" civilians.

 

Dujarric, the U.N. spokesman, told reporters that Ban asked "for the immediate replacement of the force commander." He said disciplinary action is also expected against others in the mission.

 

Dujarric announced on Oct. 21 that Ellen Margrethe Loj, the U.N. special representative and head of the U.N. mission in South Sudan, who was supposed to retire at the end of August but chose to remain after the July crisis until the situation could stabilize, is leaving at the end of November.

 

The investigators made many other recommendations, including to improve training and contingency planning, and said the U.N. "should promptly develop an action plan with short timelines" to restore its credibility in South Sudan.

 

Federico Borello, executive director of the Center for Civilians in Conflict which released a report on the Juba violence last month, called the findings "a welcome step forward."

 

"The summary has strong and important calls for accountability for the failure to protect civilians in South Sudan, and the decision to name specific contingents implicated in under-performance is significant," he said.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-02

[Kerryd]

UN "Peacekeeping" is PATHETIC.

 

They acquired this mindset that ALL peacekeeping missions should play out like Cyprus, where "peacekeepers" have been stationed for well over THIRTY YEARS !! Seriously, W.T.F. !

The Golan Heights was a similar case. Peacekeepers have been stationed there for over 30 years  as well.

Because Greece and Turkey haven't gone to war over Cyprus, the UN considers their mission a success when in reality it is a failure because the peacekeepers are still there !! If you have to station peacekeepers in place for that long, with NO end to the mission even remotely being considered, then it is a failure.

A "peace" between those 2 countries should have been worked out decades ago, especially as they are both (now) NATO members as well and Turkey wants to join the EU. 

 

The biggest threat on the Golan lately has been the "poor, righteous, underdog Syrian rebels" who have attacked UN outposts on the heights numerous times, even kidnapping peacekeepers and holding them hostage ! 

Syria wasn't likely to try and invade Israel by itself and if it had of allowed Hezbollah to set up rocket/missile batteries on the Heights, they'd have been pummelled in very short order and (most) of the world would have been quick in approving all manner of sanctions against Syria for allowing it. Again, there should have been a "peace" agreement worked out over that area decades ago.

 

Unfortunately, because the UN thinks those missions as a "success", they think that all their missions should have the same result. Ongoing conflict in (wherever) ? Send in some under-equipped, under-trained, under-supported troops (mostly from 3rd world countries if the mission is "dangerous") and assume that their pretty blue helmets/ball caps will be enough to stop the violence.

UN Mission in Rwanda ? Complete disaster.

UN Mission in Somalia ? Complete disaster.

UN Mission in the Congo ? Completely ineffective.

UN Mission in S. Sudan ? Completely ineffective.

UN Mission in Mali ? Completely ineffective (would probably be a disaster as well if not for the large amount of French troops there separate from the UN mission).

UN Mission in Cyprus ? 30+ years and no resolution to the issue.

UN Mission in the Golan Heights ? 30+ years and no resolution to the issue.

UN Mission in Bosnia ? Over 20 years and still there.

UN Mission in Kosovo ? Going on 17 years now and still there. 

 

The Missions in Africa have a terrible track record. Between the rampant corruption and sex abuse scandals, the "peacekeepers" have often either failed to prevent violence or just stood back and let it happen. A large part of the problem is the peacekeepers themselves of course. I remember when the UN wanted peacekeepers to go into Sierra Leone  and almost all "Western" nations declined because the mission was considered "too dangerous". They were all for sending troops to "safe" places like Cyprus though.

So what happens ? The UN ends up with contingents of conscripted troops from 3rd world countries that are severely lacking in many of the qualities that make a "professional" soldier. The contributing nations (like Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Ghana, Nepal, Suriname,  Columbia, etc) like to contribute because the UN pays a stipend for each soldier supplied which can go towards a country's UN "dues" or just into their general revenues. We were told (when I was in Croatia in the early 90s) that the pittance the UN gave out was more than a lot of those soldiers earned while at home. Whether or not those troops actually saw any of that money is another question.

 

If you want peace, you have to be prepared for war. The UN always hopes for the best and rarely (if ever actually) prepares for the worst. They desperately try to do the right thing but rarely have the tools, or the balls, to do what really needs to be done. I'm still amazed when the UN passes a resolution authorizing it's peacekeepers to defend themselves if attacked ! They actually send troops into hostile areas expecting that if they are attacked they shouldn't try to defend themselves !

During one incident in the Golan, when those poor Syrian rebels had attacked and surrounded an outpost manned by Filipino peacekeepers, the (UN) Commander (a general from India at the time) ordered them to surrender and hand over their weapons to the rebels ! (The Filipinos contacted their home command who ordered them to stand their ground and not surrender. They were eventually able to escape. At one point even the Syrian Army was helping them by shelling the rebel positions.)

We'd been in Croatia for nearly 3 months and there'd been all manner of confrontations between us and the Croats, Serbs and assorted secret militias when the UN (finally) passed a resolution authorizing us to "return fire if fired upon" ! Say what ??? You mean to tell us that for the last 3 months we weren't supposed to be defending ourselves ? Good thing they "forgot" to tell us that in the beginning. Would have been a little embarrassing for the UN if we'd told them where they could stick their decree.

(I think it was the mission in Mali that the UN just recently authorized to "defend" themselves if attacked.)

 

Again, it is that mindset that the UN has that their peacekeepers shouldn't need to defend themselves but the problem is, the UN keeps sending them into places where there is NO peace to be kept !! If you have 2 (or more) warring sides and a humanitarian crisis, you don't need peacekeepers, you need peacemakers ! It seems the UN doesn't have the brains to figure that out, or the balls to make it happen even if someone does clue them in.

 

We were lucky when we deployed to Croatia in the spring of '92. The UN wanted contingents to show up with just their "rucks and rifles" and the UN would provide the rest.

However, the first Canadian unit to deploy were the Van Doos that were stationed in Lahr (Germany). They rolled out with ALL their gear as (theoretically) they still had to be prepared to defend against Warsaw Pact, even though the Cold War was pretty much over by then. As a result, the Canadians had all their armoured vehicles, heavy weapons, comms, support and maintenance. We were able to set up, support ourselves and commence operations without any support from the UN at all. When I rotated to Croatia in the fall of '92, we stepped into a well established operation that was able to to actually enforce the "peace", which served us well in the spring of '93 when the Serbs/Croats/Muslims/Militias started hostilities again. Ours was the only sector (of the 4) that didn't have a resurgence of violence because all sides knew we'd kick their *** if they tried. Many of the contingents (like the Kenyans and Nepalese) had nothing but their rifles while the Serbs and Croats had fully equipped armoured brigades complete with tanks. I think the only thing that kept things from getting out of hand was the threat that NATO would deploy if any of the sides attacked any of the UN contingents. Most of the UN missions are not so lucky to have that kind of "hammer" to back them up with.

 

Again, we were lucky. Many of the UN missions don't have contingents of well trained, well-equipped, well-motivated, professional troops (though we did have an unfortunate incident in Somalia, it was an isolated and extremely rare event). As a result, they simply are unable (or unwilling) to do the job expected of them. Western nations are reluctant to provide troops because of the poor support often (usually) provided by the UN, and the unwillingness by many to have their troops commanded by people who may have ulterior motives in mind, or are simply incompetent. Troops coming home in caskets because of someone else's ineffective support or incompetent leadership doesn't go over well in most nations, but the "Western" nations are the ones least likely to stand for it (hence the reluctance by them to contribute to many missions). 

 

The incident in the Sudan is just one of dozens happening in the various UN missions in Africa. The UN can't really do anything about anything as (normally) it is up to the contributing nation to deal with any disciplinary issues regarding their troops. The UN can order someone replaced, or declare someone "persona non grata" and boot them from whatever mission they were on, but beyond that they have little, if any, power to discipline anyone for anything !

 

The concept is noble, but the execution of the concept is seriously flawed.

 

 

 

[hawker9000]

The UN is just a sink for member dues, a soapbox for global wingnuts, and a haven for diplomatic wannabes & legions of staffers not employable for anything else.   'Completely ineffective and a farce when it comes to its main mission, keeping the world peace.  The concept was noble at the time of inception, but is a washout in terms of execution. 

[Baerboxer]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:40 PM, Kerryd said:

UN "Peacekeeping" is PATHETIC.

 

They acquired this mindset that ALL peacekeeping missions should play out like Cyprus, where "peacekeepers" have been stationed for well over THIRTY YEARS !! Seriously, W.T.F. !

The Golan Heights was a similar case. Peacekeepers have been stationed there for over 30 years  as well.

Because Greece and Turkey haven't gone to war over Cyprus, the UN considers their mission a success when in reality it is a failure because the peacekeepers are still there !! If you have to station peacekeepers in place for that long, with NO end to the mission even remotely being considered, then it is a failure.

A "peace" between those 2 countries should have been worked out decades ago, especially as they are both (now) NATO members as well and Turkey wants to join the EU. 

 

The biggest threat on the Golan lately has been the "poor, righteous, underdog Syrian rebels" who have attacked UN outposts on the heights numerous times, even kidnapping peacekeepers and holding them hostage ! 

Syria wasn't likely to try and invade Israel by itself and if it had of allowed Hezbollah to set up rocket/missile batteries on the Heights, they'd have been pummelled in very short order and (most) of the world would have been quick in approving all manner of sanctions against Syria for allowing it. Again, there should have been a "peace" agreement worked out over that area decades ago.

 

Unfortunately, because the UN thinks those missions as a "success", they think that all their missions should have the same result. Ongoing conflict in (wherever) ? Send in some under-equipped, under-trained, under-supported troops (mostly from 3rd world countries if the mission is "dangerous") and assume that their pretty blue helmets/ball caps will be enough to stop the violence.

UN Mission in Rwanda ? Complete disaster.

UN Mission in Somalia ? Complete disaster.

UN Mission in the Congo ? Completely ineffective.

UN Mission in S. Sudan ? Completely ineffective.

UN Mission in Mali ? Completely ineffective (would probably be a disaster as well if not for the large amount of French troops there separate from the UN mission).

UN Mission in Cyprus ? 30+ years and no resolution to the issue.

UN Mission in the Golan Heights ? 30+ years and no resolution to the issue.

UN Mission in Bosnia ? Over 20 years and still there.

UN Mission in Kosovo ? Going on 17 years now and still there. 

 

The Missions in Africa have a terrible track record. Between the rampant corruption and sex abuse scandals, the "peacekeepers" have often either failed to prevent violence or just stood back and let it happen. A large part of the problem is the peacekeepers themselves of course. I remember when the UN wanted peacekeepers to go into Sierra Leone  and almost all "Western" nations declined because the mission was considered "too dangerous". They were all for sending troops to "safe" places like Cyprus though.

So what happens ? The UN ends up with contingents of conscripted troops from 3rd world countries that are severely lacking in many of the qualities that make a "professional" soldier. The contributing nations (like Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Ghana, Nepal, Suriname,  Columbia, etc) like to contribute because the UN pays a stipend for each soldier supplied which can go towards a country's UN "dues" or just into their general revenues. We were told (when I was in Croatia in the early 90s) that the pittance the UN gave out was more than a lot of those soldiers earned while at home. Whether or not those troops actually saw any of that money is another question.

 

If you want peace, you have to be prepared for war. The UN always hopes for the best and rarely (if ever actually) prepares for the worst. They desperately try to do the right thing but rarely have the tools, or the balls, to do what really needs to be done. I'm still amazed when the UN passes a resolution authorizing it's peacekeepers to defend themselves if attacked ! They actually send troops into hostile areas expecting that if they are attacked they shouldn't try to defend themselves !

During one incident in the Golan, when those poor Syrian rebels had attacked and surrounded an outpost manned by Filipino peacekeepers, the (UN) Commander (a general from India at the time) ordered them to surrender and hand over their weapons to the rebels ! (The Filipinos contacted their home command who ordered them to stand their ground and not surrender. They were eventually able to escape. At one point even the Syrian Army was helping them by shelling the rebel positions.)

We'd been in Croatia for nearly 3 months and there'd been all manner of confrontations between us and the Croats, Serbs and assorted secret militias when the UN (finally) passed a resolution authorizing us to "return fire if fired upon" ! Say what ??? You mean to tell us that for the last 3 months we weren't supposed to be defending ourselves ? Good thing they "forgot" to tell us that in the beginning. Would have been a little embarrassing for the UN if we'd told them where they could stick their decree.

(I think it was the mission in Mali that the UN just recently authorized to "defend" themselves if attacked.)

 

Again, it is that mindset that the UN has that their peacekeepers shouldn't need to defend themselves but the problem is, the UN keeps sending them into places where there is NO peace to be kept !! If you have 2 (or more) warring sides and a humanitarian crisis, you don't need peacekeepers, you need peacemakers ! It seems the UN doesn't have the brains to figure that out, or the balls to make it happen even if someone does clue them in.

 

We were lucky when we deployed to Croatia in the spring of '92. The UN wanted contingents to show up with just their "rucks and rifles" and the UN would provide the rest.

However, the first Canadian unit to deploy were the Van Doos that were stationed in Lahr (Germany). They rolled out with ALL their gear as (theoretically) they still had to be prepared to defend against Warsaw Pact, even though the Cold War was pretty much over by then. As a result, the Canadians had all their armoured vehicles, heavy weapons, comms, support and maintenance. We were able to set up, support ourselves and commence operations without any support from the UN at all. When I rotated to Croatia in the fall of '92, we stepped into a well established operation that was able to to actually enforce the "peace", which served us well in the spring of '93 when the Serbs/Croats/Muslims/Militias started hostilities again. Ours was the only sector (of the 4) that didn't have a resurgence of violence because all sides knew we'd kick their *** if they tried. Many of the contingents (like the Kenyans and Nepalese) had nothing but their rifles while the Serbs and Croats had fully equipped armoured brigades complete with tanks. I think the only thing that kept things from getting out of hand was the threat that NATO would deploy if any of the sides attacked any of the UN contingents. Most of the UN missions are not so lucky to have that kind of "hammer" to back them up with.

 

Again, we were lucky. Many of the UN missions don't have contingents of well trained, well-equipped, well-motivated, professional troops (though we did have an unfortunate incident in Somalia, it was an isolated and extremely rare event). As a result, they simply are unable (or unwilling) to do the job expected of them. Western nations are reluctant to provide troops because of the poor support often (usually) provided by the UN, and the unwillingness by many to have their troops commanded by people who may have ulterior motives in mind, or are simply incompetent. Troops coming home in caskets because of someone else's ineffective support or incompetent leadership doesn't go over well in most nations, but the "Western" nations are the ones least likely to stand for it (hence the reluctance by them to contribute to many missions). 

 

The incident in the Sudan is just one of dozens happening in the various UN missions in Africa. The UN can't really do anything about anything as (normally) it is up to the contributing nation to deal with any disciplinary issues regarding their troops. The UN can order someone replaced, or declare someone "persona non grata" and boot them from whatever mission they were on, but beyond that they have little, if any, power to discipline anyone for anything !

 

The concept is noble, but the execution of the concept is seriously flawed.

 

 

 

 

Don't disagree with any of your comments. But the model in flawed because as you say many of the service personnel deployed aren't professional by Western military standards - badly trained, worse led and without all the necessary equipment. 

 

That lends itself to the idea of a "world army" but who would command it. The UN security council is a joke and the UN isn't the world government or even a congress of world governments. Just a talking shop and career opportunity for some.

 

There is an office / department of the UN in Switzerland charged with security of UN Missions and stations (the former head of Belgian special forces is involved for one). Wonder to what extent they get involved in all of this.

 

But at the moment the UN Blue Helmets are ineffective and occasionally make things worse.

 

 

[Kerryd]

45 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Don't disagree with any of your comments. But the model in flawed because as you say many of the service personnel deployed aren't professional by Western military standards - badly trained, worse led and without all the necessary equipment. 

 

That lends itself to the idea of a "world army" but who would command it. The UN security council is a joke and the UN isn't the world government or even a congress of world governments. Just a talking shop and career opportunity for some.

 

There is an office / department of the UN in Switzerland charged with security of UN Missions and stations (the former head of Belgian special forces is involved for one). Wonder to what extent they get involved in all of this.

 

But at the moment the UN Blue Helmets are ineffective and occasionally make things worse.

 

 

 

I've often thought about that as well. To really do the job properly the UN would need a standing force of (mainly) professional troops from Western countries, with (perhaps) some attachments from other nations. Again though, while the concept is sound, the implementation would be a nightmare.

 

Not to mention all the screaming that would erupt as various conspiracy theorists would immediately claim it was the start of the "One World Order". There would also be a lot more hassles involved with the UN sending in a "fighting force" as opposed to a "peacekeeping force". By the time they finally agreed on what needed to be done, who should control it, rules of engagement, Status of Forces agreements and all the other "details" the crisis would probably be in it's 5th year !