Washington Reminds Sudan and South Sudan of Their Obligations Regarding the UN
Published in 20 minutes
(France) on 29 July 2012
by Agence France-Presse (link to original)
(France) on 29 July 2012
by Agence France-Presse (link to original)
Translated from
by Stuart Taylor.
Edited by Heather Martin.
The U.S. has warned Sudan and South Sudan that they should redouble their efforts to reach a peace agreement before the expiration in a few days of a United Nations ultimatum.
“The United States calls on the parties to fulfill immediately their obligations under Resolution 2046,” American Ambassador Susan Rice stated in a press release.
According to the resolution adopted May 2, the U.N. Security Council gave three months to both countries — that is, until August 2 — to resolve their differences, which have not been resolved since South Sudan’s independence a year ago, threatening them with sanctions if they do not comply.
These disagreements, which have led to the two neighbors to the verge of open conflict, stem notably from the sharing of oil revenues, the struggle to define a common border and issues linked to citizenship.
Some diplomats, however, have voiced the opinion that the 15 member countries of the Security Council should not immediately put its threat into effect if the closing date expires.
Both countries are carrying out negotiations in Addis Ababa but they are making no headway.
“… It appears increasingly unlikely that a comprehensive agreement on outstanding issues will be reached …” before August 2, Ms. Rice commented.
The resolution, she reiterated, aims to “… take appropriate additional measures under Article 41 of the [U.N.] Charter as necessary …” in the event that one of the two countries lets the deadline go by. Article 41 authorizes economic sanctions if one country refuses to facilitate a decision made by the U.N.
Ms. Rice “… strongly condemns Sudan’s July 20 bombing …” of its neighbor’s territory, deeming this incident a “serious violation of Resolution 46.”
South Sudan had accused its neighbor of bombing its territory, in the state of Northern Bahr el Ghazal. Khartoum countered this allegation by accusing Juba of hosting rebels from Darfur injured in the fighting with Sudanese forces.
Washington has adopted a firm attitude towards Khartoum from the beginning, whereas other members of the Security Council feel that pressure must be put on both countries.
In her statement, Ms. Rice congratulated South Sudan on its efforts made to respect its commitments but added: “At the same time, the United States reiterates the Security Council’s call to cease support to rebel groups.”
The former South African president Thabo Mbeki is acting as a mediator for the African Union in this case, and he will report his progress to the Security Council on August 9. According to certain diplomats, it is on this date that the Security Council will hold its first debate on potential sanctions.
Meanwhile, he should increase the pressure put on Khartoum to implement a resolution renewing the mandate of the joint mission of the U.N. and the African Union in Darfur, a region of Sudan involved in the conflict.
The U.N. hopes to put the Lord’s Resistance Army in charge of the inquiry into a potential presence in Darfur, something that Khartoum has refused.
“The United States calls on the parties to fulfill immediately their obligations under Resolution 2046,” American Ambassador Susan Rice stated in a press release.
According to the resolution adopted May 2, the U.N. Security Council gave three months to both countries — that is, until August 2 — to resolve their differences, which have not been resolved since South Sudan’s independence a year ago, threatening them with sanctions if they do not comply.
These disagreements, which have led to the two neighbors to the verge of open conflict, stem notably from the sharing of oil revenues, the struggle to define a common border and issues linked to citizenship.
Some diplomats, however, have voiced the opinion that the 15 member countries of the Security Council should not immediately put its threat into effect if the closing date expires.
Both countries are carrying out negotiations in Addis Ababa but they are making no headway.
“… It appears increasingly unlikely that a comprehensive agreement on outstanding issues will be reached …” before August 2, Ms. Rice commented.
The resolution, she reiterated, aims to “… take appropriate additional measures under Article 41 of the [U.N.] Charter as necessary …” in the event that one of the two countries lets the deadline go by. Article 41 authorizes economic sanctions if one country refuses to facilitate a decision made by the U.N.
Ms. Rice “… strongly condemns Sudan’s July 20 bombing …” of its neighbor’s territory, deeming this incident a “serious violation of Resolution 46.”
South Sudan had accused its neighbor of bombing its territory, in the state of Northern Bahr el Ghazal. Khartoum countered this allegation by accusing Juba of hosting rebels from Darfur injured in the fighting with Sudanese forces.
Washington has adopted a firm attitude towards Khartoum from the beginning, whereas other members of the Security Council feel that pressure must be put on both countries.
In her statement, Ms. Rice congratulated South Sudan on its efforts made to respect its commitments but added: “At the same time, the United States reiterates the Security Council’s call to cease support to rebel groups.”
The former South African president Thabo Mbeki is acting as a mediator for the African Union in this case, and he will report his progress to the Security Council on August 9. According to certain diplomats, it is on this date that the Security Council will hold its first debate on potential sanctions.
Meanwhile, he should increase the pressure put on Khartoum to implement a resolution renewing the mandate of the joint mission of the U.N. and the African Union in Darfur, a region of Sudan involved in the conflict.
The U.N. hopes to put the Lord’s Resistance Army in charge of the inquiry into a potential presence in Darfur, something that Khartoum has refused.