My letter to the Minister for Ethics and Integrity Hon. Rev. Simon Lokodo on his current affairs

simon-lodoko-1470679953

Oslo, 17th August 2016

Dear Honourable Simon Lokodo, the right reverend father and now Minister for Ethics and Integrity. I write because of your intent of making the country with cleanliness and righteous in religious, sexually and all of personal matters. I am sure the ones eating snot in Parliament will soon get fine or have to wash themselves in holy-water after preliminary hearings at the humble halls you are now one part of.

Your actions and your decrees have been in the public spotlight ever since Dr. Stella Nyanzi undressed herself as an action of getting her stuff and position back after a political firing of her; because of faith in the Forum for Democratic Change and their Presidential Candidate Dr. Kizza Besigye. The advisory to your current boss, whom you are underling to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni; I think you already knew that, but some who read might not know that.

Simon, Simon, Simon; hear ye, hear ye! Eh! The ways of getting machinery to stop nudeness and sexual explicit content or might revealing behaviour on Television and Online sounds more like KGB, MI6 or CIA; even the FinFisher Software of the Special Investigation Unit in Kireka should be sufficient if somebody watch or subscribe to naughtiness somewhere on the dark-side of the internet. The spider-webs and the extent of content as it is legal anywhere else, not anywhere, but there aren’t State Organizations under Ethics Boards that follows all citizens to make sure of their behaviour. That the ‘Ministerium für Staatssicherheit’ or hte Ministry for State Security (MfS) of the Soviet Republic of East German followed all their citizens and had spies anywhere to make sure of no dissidents or actions against the communist state. Is that what you are seeking Reverend Lodoko?

Simon, Simon, Simon; hear ye, hear ye! You are going after the LGBTQ community in Uganda sending the police after them after a planned Pride Event at a Club in Kampala during the early of August 2016. Not that I am giant fan of their ways, the LGBTQ, I still am democratic in the sense they can do what they please as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody or they go do their thing everywhere. Just like I prefer not going downtown and seeing teenagers screwing each at the mall or like the knowledge of students screwing their sugar-daddies at the offices; supposed to write on the offices and do business instead laying pipe. That should be more worrying that students do that to get the funds for the student-fees, than the LGBTQ having a Pride event at a Club. But that is just me, check the Campus Bee page Mr. Minister and you might not need the expensive machine to see the madness. You should also talk with Honourable Janet Museveni to fix the funding of these Student-fees and such so the scholarship makes these female student doesn’t need to hook to read books. That should worry the Ministry of Ethics more than explicit content online or the Gay’s doing their thing.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Honourable Minister Reverend Simon Lokodo, you are not making this easy as you attack and undermine anybody who is not you. You might think that is wise, but in the end nobody can do anything in the Republic without begging for mercy by one of the Civil Servants in their area. Than everything can become questionable and will by the time the government look into it; have an ability to create malicious and destructive for the moral manner of society. So NTV Uganda, UBC and kind of radio station will be seen to broadcasting or distributing ethical and moral content that can be set under question. Therefore any kind of writing with certain content will also be disarmed and banned as the sensitization of society happens, but also moral tyranny where the certain elite and such paternalistically describes to their citizens as children with no moral backbone. Is that you Hon. Lokodo?

Spying Ug

Are you the paternalistically on society and wants to shield from everything, than soon the citizens cannot do anything. The censorship of media houses and citizens will be staggering as the state has to have more than a monitoring machine as the spies and the whistle-blowers will be hurried to give intelligence to the Commissions who follow these acts of fellow citizens. Do you want a snitching society like the East Germany of 1960s? Is that your final goal Hon. Lodoko as the guilty in your mind are anybody with a working libido and anybody who shows or explicitly explain sexuality in text. Isn’t that true Mr. Simon?

Should you be nicknamed Honourable Reverend Simon “Uwe” Lokodo? Or am I wrong.

Best regards from the Writer of this humble blog.

Government of Uganda, UNHCR and WFP forced to revise Food Rations for Refugees Amid Funding Crisis (17.08.2016)

Adjumani Refugee Camp

Around 200,000 refugees who arrived in Uganda prior to July 2015 will have their food rations or cash assistance reduced by 50 percent from this week. 

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, August 17, 2016 –  The Government of Uganda – Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) have appealed to donors to urgently speed contributions to the humanitarian response to refugees in Uganda to end a funding shortage that has forced a revision of survival rations.

Around 200,000 refugees who arrived in Uganda prior to July 2015 will have their food rations or cash assistance reduced by 50 percent from this week. Low levels of funding, together with a large number of new arrivals fleeing to Uganda from South Sudan since 7 July, has left the refugee response with no choice but to re-prioritize their focus on those refugees in greatest need. Refugees who arrived in Uganda after July 2015, as well as those who have been identified as particularly vulnerable, such as the elderly, orphans, the chronically ill and those in need of treatment for malnutrition, will continue to receive a full ration.

Refugees receiving full rations are provided with 2,122 calories of food per person per day, in line with the minimum recommended daily allowance, during their first year, decreasing as they become increasingly self-reliant during their time in Uganda. Other refugees receive cash assistance in place of food rations, which also provides them with the opportunity to exercise greater personal choice.

“We are grateful to donors for their unwavering support so far but we appeal to the international community to do more,” said OPM Commissioner for Refugees David Apollo Kazungu.  “People are fleeing because they are afraid for their lives. Our communities are welcoming them and giving them what we can: land and hope for a better future. But our message to the international community is this: we need your help to meet their basic needs until they are able to stand on their own two feet.”

WFP requires approximately US$7 million every month to provide life-saving food assistance to refugees in Uganda. Despite the generous support of donors, the humanitarian response requires an additional US$20million to restore full food rations to refugees for the rest of the year.

“We have done everything we can to avoid this, but we have been left with no option but to reduce food assistance for many of the refugees in Uganda, in order to stretch available resources and prioritize the most vulnerable new arrivals,” said Mike Sackett, WFP’s acting Country Director for Uganda. “We hope that this is temporary, and we are working as hard as we can to raise the resources needed to restore the full level of food assistance for as many refugees as possible.”

The humanitarian response to South Sudanese refugees in Uganda was already severely underfunded before the outbreak of violence in Juba on 8 July, which has since prompted more than 70,000 people to cross the border in to Uganda. New arrivals have spoken of armed groups operating across various parts of South Sudan, attacking villages, burning down houses, murdering civilians, sexually assaulting women and girls and forcibly recruiting young men and boys in to their ranks.

“Never has the international community been more generous in its donations towards refugees,” said acting UNHCR Representative to Uganda Bornwell Kantande. “At the same time, never has the gap between what is being provided and what is needed been larger. We thank the donors for their continued generosity and support, while urging them to further fund humanitarian organizations in order that we may continue providing refugees in Uganda with the life-saving assistance they critically need.”

OPM and UNHCR lead and co-coordinate the response to the roughly 600,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Uganda, and collaborate together with the World Food Programme to provide new arrivals with life-saving food assistance. By the end of 2015, Uganda was the third-largest refugee hosting country in Africa and the eighth-largest refugee hosting country in the world.

Opinion: Why I have a giant problem with the Military Courts are pending the ‘Treason’ charge of Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka!

Hon. Michael

Today the case we’re adjourned at the Makindye Military Court as the Lieutenant General Andrew Gutti we’re receiving and holding the court martial over the newly elected Member of Parliament representing in Nakawa district of Kampala. He beat the former MP Hon. Fred Ruhindi of National Resistance Movement, the former Attorney General in Parliament who must feel the pain of not gaining public support after being loyal to his master in President Museveni.

With this in mind, this is a case that has been going for a while since his firsts arrest, raiding of his homes and detaining. After that the detained Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka have been tormented at the Kireka SIU, been changed prisons and not allowed to get visitations. While the Ugandan Police in May 2016 where looking at the working place, the home and any indication of the Treason plans “we’re supposed to have”. As much as the Forum for Democratic Change Dr. Kizza Besigye we’re also charged with treason and taken to Moroto and back to Luzira to serve his charge and waiting the pending case. He has been later taken on bond and has to go to court every second week. This kind of pleasant piece of freedom is not something the Republic gives to Hon. Kabaziguruka.

Hon. Kabaziguruka are charged and we’re supposed to plan to ‘assassinate’ the executive, the long-serving president, his excellency Yoweri Kaguta Museveni on his farm or so. As insulting and wild assumptions of the Uganda Police and their defense… this is sadly not a new way of silencing the opposition as they have done this before. That they did with detaining Besigye before and also his brother for the same charges. So the stories of this seem fabricated to suit the powers to be and keep them on top while the Opposition goes for justice in kangaroo-courts.

The Hon. Kabaziguruka is to set a standard and set the level of fear the NRM regime can put in line. They are putting a non-military man and not a soldier, lieutenant, sergeant or any kind of military position man, but a civilian through Military Court. If this we’re General Sejusa than it had made sense, as he hadn’t until one point not gotten his retirement from the UPDF. The issue with Hon. Kabaziguruka, he is not a military man who are a part of the UPDF at this point. Therefore he should been taken to ‘Ordinary’ Court and not Military Court. He should be tried by the people and their representative of understanding the law; not by military men who are loyal to Lt. Gen. Museveni, but a court who are supposed to be loyal the Constitution and the laws that are applied in the land.

This case shouldn’t be going in a military court; it has nothing there to do. It is a fiction of imagination that the society is so militarized and the levels of fear from the Executive that he has to take citizens who is not connected to his army to military courts to answer for phony charges. The case will be back to surface again on the 23rd August 2016. As the FDC Honourable have yet again to answer for made-up charges. The reality of the extent of impunity under Museveni is now ridiculous and malicious. What the outcome and if the silencing of the up-coming MP is an indication this 7th Term President and 10th Parliament MPs will have a hard way of legitimizing the political climate they are showing with  these arrests and this Police Force violently and with charges providing unsound methods to secure the power of NRM. But is it worth it though; When everything is corrupt and nothing is pure not even real or just? Is that what the legacy of Museveni will be that he corrupted all institutions and defended his accusation of grabbing power by taking innocent political careers as feeding his ego on the farm? Peace.

Besigye visits Kagadi on a pilgrimage (Youtube-Clip)

Mawan Muortat speaks on UN’s depolyment of 4000 troops to South Sudan (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84daSN3jMU

Opinion: Museveni and his axing of civil servants; it is not a quick fix to get the government institutions going!

M7 Tororo UNRA

We all know why all of a sudden all employees of Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) we’re fired, after scandal upon scandal where the prices per meter of road went into the imaginary and also the due diligence on the contracts of the roadworks wasn’t really done by the government institution. Still, resolving the matter with clearing the shop totally is more of a public stunt, than actually making it decent. The first culture of thieving, counterfeiting and all the matters lay in most of the government institutions already. That is being made from the top where the monies are spent on farm equipment for the president instead of pay-rise for the civil servants.

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has lost it. It is evident with the sacking of the medical personnel of the Nakawuku Health Centre III. This is proof of the wilderness of the Executive these days. As the hide and seek of professional manner from the top, down to the lowest civil servant. If the system we’re correct and the salaries made sense than the works would be done proper and the so-called laziness would not needing sanctions. The other reason for the laziness is the loose structure of the health-care and the systematic under-funded health care in Uganda. That is why there is not functioning Cobalt 60 Teletheraphy Machine for the needed Cancer treatment at Uganda Cancer Institute at Mulago Hospital Complex in Kampala. This is just the major proof of a degraded and worrying condition of health-care in general.

The elephant in the room is obvious, it is clearly not the laziness or the Health Care per say. It’s the structures, the funding and in the end the walking budget. The President, the Executive, the one man with a vision, the force of NRM. That man the elephant in the room is President Museveni. He has run the country for 30 years, by this time his vision and his play for making the country sustainable and steady progress should have made these problems obsolete. Instead he has gotten more land and bigger private planes, but not built proper institutions or procedures to check the government institutions. The laws and regulations of the government is loose. Because if it was transparent he could not get away buying giant and expensive helicopters while the hospitals are understaffed and the vaccine programs are only there because of donor-aid directly to the causes.

Magufuli Museveni Tan Oil Pipeline 2016

The reason for the fall of grace and the sackings is that he wants the respect of President John Pombe Magufuli. He has gone directly fired his minister for drinking while in parliament and also corrupt civil servants at the port of Dar Es Salaam not long after he was sworn-in. That perception is that President Museveni tries to get. What he forget his legacy is long sealed in the behaviour and knowledge of what the NRM really is. The Image of Museveni and NRM Regime is intertwining with corruption and embezzlement.

So the claims of fighting this and going against it are more a play of words than real actions. The times he does it is to save face and make sure the donors we’re happy in the end. That is why he has continued with what he doing and how he operate. The monies always end in ways where he manipulate and make sure the riches are around himself and his loyal cronies. So the service delivery is long gone as the NAADs and SACCO’s money all of a sudden disappear together with the steady pace of the all the other government funds that just vanish in thin air.

If you wait on and continue to wait for payment; if your boss waits for his salaries and the budgeted funds for procurement of needed technical equipment does arrive. And even if it comes, it is never on time and never allocated extra funds for the lost times and lost months as the back-pay are troubling enough. The system of this is in tatters as the government are more important for the close knitted staff around the ministers and the State House. While, the rest have to wait and live in oblivion for their service rendered.

With this in mind, the sackings are unfair as the Executive and his cronies have had 30 years to fix the system and build the government institutions. The Government institutions aren’t only the inherited ones from the colonial times and being a protectorate under the British. It has now been made in the image of Museveni. Therefore the vision and image of this laziness and the lack of supervision; is all in all his fault. It is his demeanour and his wish for weak institutions so he could beg for donor funds that is the reason for the lack of control of the health care facilities. It is the build off of poverty, so he can beg and ask for help from the international community. If the country we’re strong and had transparent institutions that worked on already government funds, than the NRM regime wouldn’t need the donor-funds and NGOs supporting the Ugandan Government. Something, President Museveni clearly knows well as he been skimming and eating of the plate for decades and hope for life at this point.

The sackings is the deepest approach of trying to action and act upon the words he sometimes utter to the public. No matter how right or wrong. He knows deep in his heart and in his soul that he is the one behind the massive need for restructuring and rebuilding the Ministry of Health and the Health Care in general. As the counterfeit pills from India and Pakistan isn’t what they say they are and not as effective as the grade A pills. That is something he knows as he takes what he can get and accept it because this make him wealthy and powerful. The legality and novelty of firing own men and woman for laziness proves the little common sense for the destruction of the institutions that knows very well about. But it is better for a few health care personnel to jump on their swords than the Executive. That is the key to this arrangement. President Museveni knew so very well and lives like it doesn’t exist because he is never the issue. The issues are always and will be somebody else than him. He is the one with the vision, the guiding star for all gracious men to follow. Therefore we are supposed to cherish and celebrate his actions. Instead of saying that this actions are really just a spark and proof of his neglect or inactions for decades, that isn’t welcomed; still it is the ice-cold proof. Peace.

Egypt EOV to the UNSC explain why they did abstain from voting on the Resultion 2304 (2016)

UNSC Egypt Abstaining from Vote on South Sudan Resolution P1UNSC Egypt Abstaining from Vote on South Sudan Resolution P2UNSC Egypt Abstaining from Vote on South Sudan Resolution P3UNSC Egypt Abstaining from Vote on South Sudan Resolution P4UNSC Egypt Abstaining from Vote on South Sudan Resolution P5

Budget Financing Lies in Balance – Besigye (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbk3H2-A1gU

“Former Forum for Democratic President retired Col Dr. Kizza Besigye casts doubt on government hopes to raise 26 trillion shillings to finance the 2016/2017 national budget. Besigye says the majority Ugandans can’t afford to spend on commodities that result in revenues for government, arguing that some have already cut their expenditure” (NBS TV Uganda, 2016)

FDC Not Divided, Insists Gen. Muntu (Youtube-Clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OwlnkLhiek

“Forum for Democratic Change Party President General Mugisha Muntu has rubbished reports that divisions in strategy to oust president Museveni are splitting Uganda’s leading opposition party. General Muntu explains that he is not opposed to Dr. Besigye’s street activism approach, insisting that the FDC can still claim power with strong and vibrant grassroot structures. Remmy Bahati talked to FDC’s party boss” (NBS TV Uganda, 2016)

Adopting Resolution 2304 (2016), Security Council Extends Mission in South Sudan, Authorizes Expanded Peacekeeping Force to Bolster Civilian Protection Efforts

SPLA during a previous function in Juba

12 AUGUST 2016
SECURITY COUNCIL
7754TH MEETING (PM)

The Security Council today renewed the mandate of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 30 June 2017, authorizing the expansion of peacekeeping forces and stressing the priority of civilian protection in its mandate.

Adopting resolution 2304 (2016) by 11 votes in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (China, Egypt, Senegal, Venezuela), the 15-member Council demanded that all parties immediately put an end to fighting and that the leaders implement the permanent ceasefire declared in the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan.

Condemning in the strongest terms the recent fighting in Juba, the Council further demanded that the Transitional Government of National Unity comply with its international obligations and immediately cease obstructing UNMISS and other humanitarian actors in performing their mandates. It requested that the Secretary-General identify options to enhance the safety and security of Mission personnel.

The Council decided that UNMISS should include a regional protection force, established for an initial period until 15 December 2016, to be based in Juba, tasked with the responsibility of providing a secure environment. In order to advance cooperation with the Transitional Government and to create an enabling environment for the Agreement’s implementation, the Council authorized the force to use all necessary means to accomplish its mandate.

By the text, the Council decided to increase the force levels of UNMISS up to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for the Regional Protection Force, and requested that the Secretary-General take necessary steps to expedite force and asset generation. The Council recognized that full and unrestricted freedom of movement was essential for the force to carry out its tasks and demanded that the Government provide support as needed.

The Council also requested that the Secretary-General provide detailed information within 30 days on force generation, restructuring the UNMISS force, logistical support and civilian personnel and whether the Transitional Government had maintained its consent to the force’s deployment.

The Council decided that in case of political or operational impediments to operationalizing the force or obstructions to UNMISS in performing its mandate, within five days, the body should consider appropriate measures. They included measures described in Annex A of the draft resolution, particularly an arms embargo.

Following the resolution’s adoption, Council members voiced concerns, among them the persistently fragile situation in South Sudan and the ongoing humanitarian, political and security crises. The representative of the United States said that more than one month had passed since violent clashes had begun in early July and UNMISS must carry out its mandate. “More time means more suffering,” he said, noting that further delays would not help those waiting for humanitarian aid while facing extraordinary challenges on a daily basis. The regional protection force would use all necessary means to protect civilians until South Sudan’s leaders took necessary steps, he stressed.

“The Council has done its job,” said Senegal’s representative, echoing that sentiment. The protection of civilians had been central to a number of Council resolutions on South Sudan, he stressed, adding that the incorporation of a regional protection force was a sign of the collective commitment and sustained attention to the situation.

Several delegates pointed out that the basic principles of peacekeeping, including obtaining consent of the State, must be observed. Egypt’s delegate drew attention to the Council’s increasing tendency to overstep the established principles governing United Nations peacekeeping operations. The resolution had disregarded the views of the Transitional Government of National Unity, he said, emphasizing that Government consent was a practical, logistical and legal necessity. Swift action in South Sudan required the utmost care to avoid approaches that could return the country and region to a cycle of violence.

In a similar vein, the representative of Venezuela emphasized the need for more diplomacy and dialogue and less threats and sanctions. The deployment of the force would worsen the situation on the ground, he said, calling upon Council members to respect the principle of sovereignty.

The representative of South Sudan concurred. “The adoption of this resolution goes against the basic principle of United Nations peacekeeping operations, which is the consent of the main parties to the conflict,” he said, noting that the text had contradicted the principles of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States, principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Recalling that his delegation had provided an official response on the mandate adopted today, he said that the text did not take into account or even consider the views of his Government.

Also speaking today were representatives of the United Kingdom, Russian Federation, China, Spain, Japan, Ukraine, New Zealand, Angola, Uruguay, France, and Malaysia.

The meeting began at 3:06 p.m. and ended at 4:15 p.m.

Resolution

The full text of resolution 2304 (2016) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling its previous resolutions 1996 (2011), 2046 (2012), 2057 (2012), 2109 (2013), 2132 (2013), 2155 (2014), 2187 (2014), 2206 (2015), 2223 (2015), 2241 (2015), 2252 (2015), and 2302 (2016) and statements by its President S/PRST/2014/16, S/PRST/2014/26, S/PRST/2015/9, S/PRST/2016/1, and S/PRST/2016/3,

“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and national unity of the Republic of South Sudan, and recalling the importance of the principles of non-interference, good-neighbourliness, and regional cooperation,

“Reiterating its grave alarm and concern regarding the political, security, economic, and humanitarian crisis in South Sudan, resulting from the internal Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) political dispute, and subsequent violence caused by the country’s political and military leaders since December 2013, and emphasizing there can be no military solution to the situation in South Sudan and noting the “Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan” as the framework for durable peace, reconciliation and national cohesion in South Sudan,

“Condemning in the strongest terms the fighting in Juba, South Sudan 8-11 July 2016, including attacks against civilians, United Nations personnel, premises and property, and requesting the Secretary-General expedite investigation into these attacks, expressing deep concern at the tense and fragile security situation in the rest of the country, including armed clashes and violence involving the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and SPLA-In Opposition (SPLA-IO), and armed groups, reminding all parties of the civilian character of protection of civilians sites in South Sudan, and recalling resolution 2206 (2015), which states in part that those who engage in attacks against United Nations missions, international security presences, or other peacekeeping operations, or humanitarian personnel may be subject to sanctions,

“Further condemning the clashes that took place at the United Nations Protection of Civilians site in Malakal, South Sudan on 17-18 February, and requesting the United Nations Secretariat to ensure that the lessons learned from that incident are applied in the future operation of the mission,

“Commending the work of the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), and noting with concern that the extensive resources needed to protect civilians at the United Nations Protection of Civilians sites has limited UNMISS’s presence outside the United Nations Protection of Civilians sites,

“Condemning the continued obstruction of UNMISS by the Transitional Government of National Unity of South Sudan, including severe restrictions on freedom of movement and constraints on mission operations which may be in violation of its obligations under the Status of Forces Agreement,

“Strongly condemning all human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, including those involving extrajudicial killings, ethnically targeted violence, rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, recruitment and use of children, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population, targeting of members of civil society, and attacks on schools, places of worship, hospitals, and United Nations and associated personnel, by all parties, including armed groups and national security forces, as well as the incitement to commit such abuses and violations, further condemning harassment and targeting of civil society, humanitarian personnel and journalists, and emphasizing that those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights must be held accountable, and that South Sudan’s Transitional Government of National Unity bears the primary responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity,

“Taking note of the decisions adopted by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Plus Heads of State and Government in their 16 July 2016 Communique for deployment of a “regional protection force,” the African Union Assembly 18 July 2016 communique endorsing the IGAD Plus Heads of State and Government 16 July 2016 communique, and the 5 August 2016 Communique of the Second IGAD Plus Extra-Ordinary Summit on the Situation in South Sudan which notes the Transitional Government of National Unity’s consent to deployment of such a force in principle and welcoming the readiness expressed by member states in the region to increase their contribution of troops to UNMISS for this purpose,

“Encouraging countries in the region, the African Union Peace and Security Council, and IGAD to continue firmly engaging with South Sudanese leaders to address the current political crisis,

“Determining that the situation in South Sudan continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1. Demands that all parties immediately end the fighting throughout South Sudan, and further demands that South Sudan’s leaders implement the permanent ceasefire declared in the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (Agreement) and ceasefires for which they respectively called on 11 July 2016, and ensure that subsequent decrees and orders directing their commanders control their forces and protect civilians and their property are fully implemented;

“2. Demands that the Transitional Government of National Unity of South Sudan comply with the obligations set out in the Status of Forces Agreement between the Government of South Sudan and the United Nations, and immediately cease obstructing UNMISS in the performance of its mandate, and further demands the Transitional Government of National Unity immediately cease obstructing international and national humanitarian actors from assisting civilians, and facilitate freedom of movement for the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism and calls on the Transitional Government of National Unity to take action, to deter, and to hold those responsible to account for, any hostile or other actions that impede UNMISS or international and national humanitarian actors;

“3. Urges the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (JMEC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Monitoring Mechanism (CTSAMM), UNMISS, and the parties to the Agreement to convene a Permanent Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements workshop in Juba to determine by 31 August 2016 the maximum number, type and armaments of security forces to remain in Juba and to assist in executing and verifying the redeployment of those forces and armaments to agreed locations by 15 September 2016 and further urges the IGAD, the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission, UNMISS and the parties to the Agreement to review the status of the Joint Military Ceasefire Commission, the CTSAMM, the Joint Operations Center, the Joint Integrated Police, the Strategic Defense and Security Review, the National Architecture, cantonment, and the unification of forces and to develop revised proposals to ensure their efficacy by 30 September 2016;

“4. Decides to extend the UNMISS mandate, as set out in resolution 2252 (2015), until 15 December 2016, and authorizes UNMISS to use all necessary means to carry out its tasks;

“5. Emphasizes that protection of civilians must be given priority in decisions about the use of available capacity and resources within the mission, stresses that UNMISS’s mandate as set out in paragraph 8 of resolution 2252 (2015) includes authority to use all necessary means to protect United Nations personnel, installations and equipment to deter violence especially through proactive deployment and active patrolling, to protect civilians from threats, regardless of source, to create conditions conducive to delivery of humanitarian assistance by international and national actors, and support implementation the Agreement, and stresses that such actions include, but are not limited to, within UNMISS’s capacity and areas of deployment, defending protection of civilians sites, establishing areas around the sites that are not used for hostile purposes by any forces, addressing threats to the sites, searching individuals attempting to enter the sites, and seizing weapons from those inside or attempting to enter the sites, removing from and denying entry of armed actors to the protection of civilians sites;

“6. Requests the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps and, in consultation with troop and police contributing countries, to identify options, including seeking the support of Member States, to enhance the safety and security of UNMISS’s personnel to enable UNMISS to execute effectively its mandate in a complex security environment, including through improving UNMISS’s early warning, surveillance, and information gathering capacities, enhancing quick response and crisis management capacity, including providing appropriate training and equipment, implementing more effective casualty and medical evacuation procedures, and taking active and effective steps to improve the planning and functioning of UNMISS’s safety and security facilities and arrangements;

“7. Recalls its resolution 2086 (2013) and reaffirms the basic principles of peacekeeping, as set forth in Presidential Statement S/PRST/2015/22, including consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force, except in self-defence and defence of the mandate, and recognizes that the mandate of each peacekeeping mission is specific to the need and situation of the country concerned;

“8. Decides further that UNMISS shall include, consistent with paragraph 7 above, a Regional Protection Force established for an initial period until 15 December 2016, which will report to the overall UNMISS Force Commander, to be based in Juba, with the responsibility of providing a secure environment in and around Juba, including in support of the outcomes of the Permanent Ceasefire and Transitional Security Arrangements Workshop, and in extremis in other parts of South Sudan as necessary, and stresses that the Regional Protection Force will carry out its mandate, as set forth in paragraph 10, impartially and in strict compliance with international law, including, as applicable, international humanitarian law;

“9. Stresses the critical importance that the Regional Protection Force has a clear, conditions-based exit strategy and express its intent to consider the presence of the Regional Protection Force in light of the changing situation on the ground;

“10. To advance in cooperation with the Transitional Government of National Unity the safety and security of the people of South Sudan and to create an enabling environment for implementation of the Agreement, authorizes the Regional Protection Force to use all necessary means, including undertaking robust action where necessary and actively patrolling, to accomplish the Regional Protection Force’s mandate, to:

(a) Facilitate the conditions for safe and free movement into, out of, and around Juba, including through protecting the means of ingress and egress from the city and major lines of communication and transport within Juba;

(b) Protect the airport to ensure the airport remains operational, and protect key facilities in Juba essential to the well-being of the people of Juba, as identified by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General;

(c) 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;

“11. Requests the Regional Protection Force to carry out these tasks as determined by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, recognizes that full and unrestricted freedom of movement is essential for the Regional Protection Force to carry out these tasks and demands the government provide support as needed for the Regional Protection Force to fulfill its mission and calls upon IGAD countries to continue to insist that the South Sudanese fulfil their commitments in this regard;

“12. Notes consultations between the Transitional Government of National Unity and the states of the region referenced in the 5 August 2016 Communique of the Second IGAD Plus Extra-Ordinary Summit on the Situation in South Sudan, expresses its intention to review the results of these consultations and to consider potential action, including any appropriate updates to the mandate of the Regional Protection Force, arising from the results of those consultations;

“13. Urges member states in the region to expedite contributions of rapidly deployable troops to ensure the full deployment of the Regional Protection Force as soon as possible;

“14. Decides to increase the force levels of UNMISS up to a ceiling of 17,000 troops, including 4,000 for the Regional Protection Force, and requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps to expedite force and asset generation;

“15. Requests the Secretary-General to strengthen UNMISS’s strategic communications capacity to undertake messaging on the ongoing impartial nature of UNMISS activities, including those of its Regional Protection Force;

Reports

“16. Requests that the Secretary-General provide detailed information within 30 days on force generation, restructuring of the UNMISS force, logistical support and enablers, and civilian personnel to implement the mandate, as well as whether the Transitional Government of National Unity has maintained its consent in principle to deployment of the Regional Protection Force and not imposed any political or operational impediments to operationalizing the Regional Protection Force or obstructed UNMISS in the performance of its mandate, and requests the Secretary-General to review needs on the ground, and provide an updated assessment of the Regional Protection Force’s operations, deployment, and future requirements, as well as any political or operational impediments to operationalizing the Regional Protection Force and obstructions to UNMISS in performance of its mandate, within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, and every 30 days thereafter;

“17. Decides that if in any of the reports pursuant to paragraph 16 above the Secretary General reports political or operational impediments to operationalizing the Regional Protection Force or obstructions to UNMISS in performance of its mandate, due to the actions of the Transitional Government of National Unity, within five days of receipt of such report it shall consider appropriate measures including those measures described in the draft resolution in Annex ;

“18. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on implementation of the UNMISS mandate including UNMISS’ Regional Protection Force, and to present the recommendations on the steps to adapt UNMISS to the situation on the ground and to increase efficiency of the implementation of its mandate in a comprehensive written report covering issues including strengthening safety and security of United Nations personnel and facilities to be submitted within 90 days of the date of adoption of this resolution, and further expresses its intention to consider the Secretary-General’s recommendations within the context of the next UNMISS mandate extension;

“19. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Annex — Draft Resolution

“Determining that the situation in South Sudan continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

Arms Embargo

“1. Decides that, for a period of one year from the date of adoption of this resolution, all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the territory of South Sudan, including to the Government of South Sudan or the SPLA-IO, from or through member state’s territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel whether or not originating in their territories;

“2. Decides that the measure imposed in paragraph 1 of this resolution shall not apply to the supply, sale or transfer of:

a) Arms and related materiel, as well as training and assistance, intended solely for support of or use by UN personnel, including UNMISS and the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA);

b) Non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use, and related technical assistance or training, as notified in advance to the Committee;

c) Protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to South Sudan by United Nations personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only;

d) Arms and related materiel temporarily exported to South Sudan by the forces of a State which is taking action, in accordance with international law, solely and directly to facilitate the protection or evacuation of its nationals and those for whom it has consular responsibility in South Sudan, as notified to the Committee;

e) Arms and related materiel, as well as technical training and assistance, to or in support of the African Union Regional Task Force intended solely for regional counter-LRA operations, as notified in advance to the Committee;

f) Arms and related materiel, as well as technical training and assistance, solely in support of the implementation of the terms of the peace agreement, as approved in advance by the Committee;

g) Other sales or supply of arms and related materiel, or provision of assistance or personnel, as approved in advance by the Committee;

“3. Stresses the importance that notifications or requests for exemptions pursuant to paragraph 2 above contain all relevant information, including the purpose of the use, the end user, the technical specifications and quantity of the equipment to be shipped and, when applicable, the supplier, the proposed date of delivery, mode of transportation and itinerary of shipments;

Inspections

“4. Underscores that arms shipments in violation of this resolution risk fueling conflict and contributing to further instability, and strongly urges all Member States to take urgent action to identify and prevent such shipments within their territory;

“5. Calls upon all Member States, in particular States neighbouring South Sudan, to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to South Sudan, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, or transfer of which is prohibited by paragraph 1 of this resolution for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of these provisions;

“6. Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, upon discovery of items the supply, sale, or transfer of which is prohibited by paragraph 1 of this resolution, seize and dispose (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable, storage or transferring to a State other than the originating or destination States for disposal) of such items and decides further that all Member States shall cooperate in such efforts;

“7. Requires any Member State when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 5 of this resolution, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspections, the results of such inspections, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for supply, sale, or transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee within 30 days a subsequent written report containing relevant details of the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;

Panel of Experts and Sanctions Committee

“8. Decides that the tasks of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 2206 (2015) shall also include examining and taking appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations or non-compliance with the measures imposed by paragraph 1 of this resolution;

“9. Decides further that the tasks of the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 2206 shall also include gathering, examining and analyzing information regarding the implementation of the measure in paragraph 1 of this resolution, and reporting to the Committee;

“10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

Statements

DAVID PRESSMAN (United States) highlighted the urgency for action. Despite some Member States’ concerns raised in previous deliberations, more than one month had passed since violent outbreaks in early July and the Mission must carry out its mandate. Further delays would not help those waiting for humanitarian aid while facing extraordinary challenges on a daily basis. The Council could not wait any longer to provide necessary tools to UNMISS, he said, adding that the regional protection force would use all necessary means to protect civilians until South Sudan’s leaders took necessary steps. “More time means more suffering,” he said.

PETER WILSON (United Kingdom) said adopting the resolution was a vital decision that created a protection force under the Mission. The Government had the primary responsibility to protect its own people. That, however, did not mean obstructing the Mission in fulfilling its mandate and humanitarian actors from assisting civilians. Commending the efforts of regional organizations to fulfil commitments, he called upon the international community to step up efforts to stop the violence.

PETR V. ILIICHEV (Russian Federation) said his delegation had abstained from the vote as agreement had not been reached on such key issues as the consent of the South Sudanese authorities. Stressing that consent was a cornerstone of the principles of peacekeeping and was also critical for practical reasons, he said paragraph 10 of the resolution should be implemented in close cooperation with Juba and called on both the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the United Nations to work constructively with the Government.

LIU JIEYI (China), emphasizing that African people should resolve African issues in an African way, expressed support for the lead role that IGAD was playing in South Sudan. As the situation was still very severe and complicated, the international community must make efforts to bring the parties back to the trajectory of implementing the peace agreement. The regional protection force established by the resolution must conduct full consultations with the transitional Government and obtain its agreement. His country had abstained from the vote because the principles of peacekeeping had not been reflected in the text. Noting that the African Union’s Peace and Security Council would hold a conference on 18 August to discuss the deployment of the regional protection force, he expressed hope that all parties at the meeting would reach a consensus on key issues.

FODÉ SECK (Senegal), welcoming the resolution’s adoption, said the Council was responding to the pressing pleas of the IGAD Plus Summit. “The Council has done its job,” he said, stressing that the protection of civilians had been central to a number of Council resolutions on South Sudan. The incorporation of a regional protection force was a sign of the collective commitment and sustained attention to the situation in South Sudan, he said, adding that today’s resolution would make it possible for UNMISS to protect civilians and to work closely with regional actors.

Mr. TORO (Venezuela) said he had not voted in favour of the text as it had been drafted without consulting with the Transitional Government. In that regard, the deployment of the regional protection force would worsen the situation on the ground. Calling upon the Council members to respect the principle of sovereignty, he stressed the need for more diplomacy and dialogue and less threats and sanctions.

JUAN MANUEL GONZÁLEZ DE LINARES PALOU (Spain) said the text was not perfect and that the situation on the ground required an arms embargo. Any delay in implementing the resolution would worsen the security situation in South Sudan. Drawing attention to the help requested by regional actors, he said “inaction is not an option”. It was the Governments’ responsibility to protect their populations and South Sudan must not miss the opportunity to do so.

KORO BESSHO (Japan) said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed that action was urgently needed. Japan, as a troop-contributing country, believed that the regional protection force would contribute to South Sudan’s stability. Noting that the basic principles of peacekeeping, including consent, must be observed, he stressed that the close cooperation between the transitional Government, the countries of the region and the United Nations should continue. Hostile acts, threats and harassment against peacekeepers — including the obstruction of their freedom of movement — were unacceptable, he said, adding that the implementation of the August 2015 agreement was vital to achieve lasting peace and sustainable development in South Sudan. For that reason, he urged the parties to fully abide by the ceasefire and to work seriously on the implementation of the agreement. Underscoring the Council’s commitment to the people of South Sudan, he stressed that “we must help South Sudan achieve its promise by standing by the country when it needs us most”.

VOLODYMYR YELCHENKO (Ukraine) said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution as the Council could no longer watch idly as the situation worsened in South Sudan. The content of the resolution, as called for by the region and accepted in principle by the Government, should help to stabilize the situation on the ground. However, sustainable peace could not be achieved unless the South Sudanese leaders fulfilled their commitment under the agreement, including holding accountable those who committed crimes such as rape. Rejecting all attacks on UNMISS personnel, he called on the Government to lift all restrictions on the Mission’s operations in order to allow it to effectively carry out its mandate.

GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) expressed regret that the Council was unable to reach a unanimous decision. Highlighting the deteriorating security situation, he said that the Council must act urgently and decisively. Regarding the deployment of a regional protection force, he acknowledged the need to consult with the State. However, he emphasized that the Council must take necessary action when it came to ensuring international peace and security alongside the protection of the people of South Sudan.

JULIO HELDER MOURA LUCAS (Angola) said he had voted in favour of the resolution in order to bring peace to South Sudan with the international community’s support. Stressing the need to achieve durable peace and ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance, he commended the work carried out by the United Nations and regional organizations. The deployment of the Regional Force would indeed contribute to the peace process. While the basic principles of peacekeeping called for consent of concerned parties, he emphasized that the lack of support provided by the Government of South Sudan might have a negative impact on the successful implementation of the Mission’s mandate.

ELBIO ROSSELLI (Uruguay) said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution, well aware of the grave situation unfolding in South Sudan. In adopting the text, the Council had taken into account the views of IGAD and the African Union, as well as the need to adapt the Mission’s mandate to the situation on the ground. UNMISS should work with the Government to ensure the resolution’s quick and full implementation, he said, recalling that the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians lay with the State. The Government of South Sudan must cease its obstructionist activities and allow UNMISS to fulfil its mandate.

Mr. AWAD (Egypt) said his delegation had abstained due to its reservations over what it saw as the Council’s increasing tendency to overstep the established principles governing United Nations peacekeeping operations. Recalling the adoption several weeks ago of resolution 2303 (2016), which had authorized the deployment of a police unit in Burundi without that Government’s consent, he stressed that Government consent was a practical and logistical necessity as well as a legal one. In the context of South Sudan, the Council had adopted a resolution that disregarded the views of the Transitional Government of National Unity as well as the IGAD statement emphasizing coordination with the Government. The text had considered the South Sudanese Government’s agreement “in principle” but without holding direct consultations, and, in what amounted to extortion, it threatened further measures in case of the Government’s non-compliance. Expressing support for UMISS and its work, as well as for the efforts of IGAD to bring peace to South Sudan, he said Egypt had attempted to reach a compromise on the text. Regrettably, such last-ditch efforts at achieving unity had not borne fruit. Swift action in South Sudan was important and it required the utmost care to avoid approaches that could undermine the political process or return the country and the region into a cycle of violence.

ALEXIS LAMEK (France) pointed out the scale of human rights violations in South Sudan, noting that the resolution had taken into account the concerns of the Council Members and was an example of collaboration with the regional organizations. The deployment of regional forces could create right conditions to bring peace back to South Sudan. Expressing France’s commitment to provide necessary support, he said that the situation on the ground required better responses to ensure successful outcomes.

RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said the adoption demonstrated the Council’s willingness to solve multifaceted challenges. The peace process had not been sustained, he said, calling on South Sudan’s leaders to urgently prioritize the security of its people, regardless of their ethnicity. UNMISS was working in close cooperation with the National Unity Government and it must be better equipped to perform its mandate. Underscoring the need to resume a dialogue between the concerned parties, he commended mediation efforts by the regional organizations.

AKUEI BONA MALWAL (South Sudan), recalling that his delegation had provided an official response on the mandate adopted today, expressed his rejection of the text as it did not take into account or even consider the views of his Government. South Sudan had, in good faith, accepted in principle the deployment of the protection force as stated at the second IGAD Plus summit on 5 August. His Government did not object to the entire draft of today’s resolution, but only to the new elements of the protection force and the pre-empting of the meeting between the Government and the Regional Chief of Defence Staff. The 5 August IGAD communiqué had clearly outlined that the modalities of that force, including its composition, mandate, armament, deployment, timing and funding, would be agreed upon by the Transitional Government of National Unity and the troop-contributing countries. It was also unfortunate that the resolution contained an annex on an arms embargo, given that the resolution was a peacekeeping text. “The adoption of this resolution goes against the basic principle of United Nations peacekeeping operations, which is the consent of the main parties to the conflict,” he said, adding that it also went against the principles of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States enshrined in the United Nations Charter.