South Sudan’s government is reacting angrily to the United Nations Security Council’s move to renew sanctions on that country for another year, including an arms embargo. A South Sudan official warned continuing sanctions would weaken the government and embolden holdout groups that refused to sign the revitalized peace deal.

After repeated failed attempts, the Security Council imposed sanctions on South Sudan last year following five years of fighting that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and massive displacement of civilians.

The council said the decision will pressure the government to implement the accord. 

South Sudan Information Minister Michael Makuei said Friday that the 10 Council members who voted in favor of the sanctions oppose peace in the country.

“These are people who do not want peace for South Sudan. The rebels are there, we have agreed but still there are rebels who are fighting the government and if you apply the arms embargo on the government of South Sudan, it means that you are actually paving the way for the rebels who have not signed the agreement,” Makuei told VOA’s South Sudan in Focus.

“It is being used as a weapon against the government of South Sudan so that it is weakened. Then definitely that is not acceptable because after all, not all the opposition groups have signed the agreement. Any arms embargo at this time is an anti-peace movement so that people go back into crisis again,” Makuei also said.

Makuei said the government of President Salva Kiir is implementing the agreement and has rights as a sovereign country to acquire its own arms.

“When you talk of arms embargo, you don’t just apply the arms embargo because you are fighting someone whether outside or inside but for your own protection and self-defense, you have the right to acquire arms as the government,” said Makuei.

Juba resident Bidal Peter said continuing the sanctions will save innocent lives.

“South Sudanese are killing themselves with the guns that are bought, especially the finances [funding given to South Sudan] which are supposed to help the people of South Sudan are going for weapons and people are dying,” Peter told South Sudan in Focus.

Five countries abstained from the vote, including three from Africa.

Aly Verjee, a researcher at the Washington-based U.S. Institute of Peace, said there clearly is a signal coming from the region. 

“No IGAD [Intergovernmental Authority on Development] country is publicly in favor of the arms embargo and the African members of the Security Council tend to follow the regional organization’s lead. They all cite the ongoing progress in the peace process but I think they ignored the symbolic value and the practical value of the sanctions regime,” Verjee told South Sudan in Focus.
…

The satellite news channel Al-Jazeera said Friday that Sudan shut down its bureau, just as the country’s military government warned that the Khartoum sit-in that helped bring about former ruler Omar al-Bashir’s ouster had “become a threat to the revolution.”

The threat against the sit-in comes as civilian forces and the military remain divided on how much power soldiers should have in a transitional government. The protesters demand “limited military representation” on the council but the ruling generals refuse to relinquish power.

It remains unclear whether the military will use recent clashes at the sit-in as an excuse to clear the demonstrations. However, protesters have threatened to launch a civil disobedience campaign over the ongoing deadlock.

In a statement, Al-Jazeera said authorities shut down its Khartoum bureau and banned its journalists from reporting.

“The network sees this as an attack on media freedom, professional journalism, and the basic tenets of the right for people to know and understand the reality of what is happening in Sudan,” Al-Jazeera said in a statement early Friday.

There was no official acknowledgement of the closure from Sudan’s government.

The Qatar-funded satellite network has long drawn the ire of Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the four nations now locked in a nearly two-year boycott of Doha over a political dispute. They accuse its Arabic-language services of stirring dissent and backing Islamists, whom the nations largely see as a threat to their own governments.

Al-Jazeera long has maintained its network abides by “established global standards of professionalism.” Its English-language service rivals the BBC for its scope.

“Al Jazeera is committed to the truth and providing a venue for the multiple sides of any issue, story, or event and will not be intimidated by the Sudanese authorities,” the network said.

Islamists backed al-Bashir in the 1989 coup that brought him to power. The military announced in April the end of al-Bashir’s 30-year rule in Sudan after weeks of sit-ins and protests ground the country to a halt.

Many of the Gulf nations that long aided al-Bashir offered only tepid support before his ouster. That’s even as a Saudi-led coalition fighting Yemen’s Houthi rebels relies on Sudanese ground forces.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have since provided $3 billion in aid to shore up the military council. The UAE also has hosted Sudanese opposition and rebel groups for talks with the military on joining a transitional government.

Meanwhile, the large sit-in continues in Khartoum. The Sudanese Doctors’ Committee said Thursday that security forces killed a 20-year-old man near the sit-in. A day earlier, a gunfight between security forces also erupted near the sit-in, killing a female street vendor by mistake. The military said a drunken soldier had opened fire Wednesday, killing the woman and wounding two others, including a solider.

Speaking late Thursday night, Maj. Gen. Othman Hamed of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces accused the sit-in of attracting prostitutes and hashish sellers. He also said demonstrators had thrown stones at soldiers.

The sit-in has become a hub for all kind of criminal acts, and has become unsafe place and has become a threat to the revolution and the revolutionaries, and is threat to the national security of the state,'' Hamed said.Therefore, we at the Rapid Support Forces in coordination with other security forces who are responsible to restore the safety of the citizens to carry out legal procedures to stop these violations and this behavior.”

He did not elaborate on what that would mean for peaceful demonstrators.

The Sudanese foreign ministry issued an alert to all foreign embassies as well as international organizations operating in Sudan asking their staff to avoid the sit-in premises in Khartoum and all protest sites across the country “for the sake of their own safety and security.”

The Rapid Support Forces has its roots in Sudan’s Janjaweed militias, which have been accused of genocide in the Darfur region. In 2003 and 2004, those militias torched villages, killing and raping civilians. Their rampaged killed some 300,000 people and saw 2.7 million forcibly displaced.

However, both the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces both refused earlier orders from al-Bashir to clear out the sit-in.

At the end of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, governments like Bahrain and Egypt used force to clear similar sit-ins.
…

Editor’s note: Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed gave his first interview in Amharic to a Western news organization when he spoke to the Voice of America’s Horn of Africa service reporter Eskinder Firew, in Addis Ababa. These highlights from their conversation have been edited for brevity and clarity.

For the past year, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has led Ethiopia through dramatic changes. Entrenched ethnic tensions and complex regional conflicts have posed ongoing challenges to the young leader’s reform agenda, but he remains resolute in his desire to make the most of his time in office. Abiy spoke to VOA’s Eskinder Firew about Ethiopia’s relationship with neighbor Eritrea, judicial reforms and the imprint he hopes to leave.

Eskinder Firew: On the occasion of your first anniversary as prime minister, you said, “I am only planning to elevate Ethiopia to high standards, awaken the public and lift up a country that is hanging its head. I don’t have any other ill intentions other than that.” What did you mean by that?

Abiy Ahmed: I don’t believe that it’s proper to stay in power for long periods of time. And as long as I have power, I believe that I should use that to change people’s lives. But within my efforts working to bring change, there may be errors — but all of my intention and action is aimed at elevating Ethiopia.

My agenda is not to use certain groups. To attack certain groups. Or to push specific groups or oppress people. What I am working on is work that elevates Ethiopians. That’s what I want, and that is what I do.

I can confidently say that I will not be involved in killing people or benefiting by illegal means by taking away from other people’s pockets as long as I am in a position of leadership.

Firew: In your message to the government and people of Eritrea on the occasion of Eritrea’s Independence Day, you expressed Ethiopia’s readiness to remain committed to jointly addressing all outstanding issues the countries face. What are these “outstanding issues”?

Abiy: If we take the problem between Somalia and Kenya, we want Eritrea and South Sudan, along with Ethiopia, to help one another and provide support to solve these issues. We know that any problem between Somalia and Kenya can spill over toward us. Because of this, we would like to work together to solve it. 

There is a wide-ranging issue as it relates to South Sudan. We don’t think that Ethiopia alone can solve the problem, and the same when it comes to the problem between us and Eritrea.

And there are also problems between Eritrea and other countries, too. So this is a region that has a lot of problems. But additionally, this is also a region that wants to move in the direction of integration.

Firew: The border closing between the two countries (Eritrea and Ethiopia) has continued until today, after it was initially reopened. What is the situation currently?

Abiy: ​When the peace process started between the two sides, we saw the borders were widely opened on both sides. We can say that people were moving to and from — not like foreign countries, but movement similar to what happens within a country. There weren’t strict controls. And many people came from there to here, and from here to there. But that was not the only thing. Ethiopian opposition members who were based in Eritrea returned to Ethiopia, and Eritrean opposition members based in Ethiopia returned to Eritrea.

There needs to be a system where there is control and a custom-check system. And we need that capacity so that it would be possible to know what people are bringing in and out. There is a concern that if we leave the borders opened uncontrolled, that it would be difficult to prevent problems. We want to ensure that, if people are going from Ethiopia to Eritrea or from Eritrea to Ethiopia, it has to be for peace, development and tourism.

Firew: Regarding change in Ethiopia and legal reforms, some people say that, if the measures taken are enough, we would see the results. But because the measures taken aren’t enough, we see continuation of some things. What’s your response?

Abiy: ​Everyone should get equal treatment in the face of the law. It should never be used as a tool for revenge. When we respect the rule of law, it should be in accordance to that. So, when a government takes action, there are some who say that this decision was made by someone from my ethnic group or my community. But unless this thinking is gone or is depleted, it threatens the possibility of protecting the rule of law.

Within just this past year, there are so many people that could be jailed or face detention. Thousands are in prison charged with national security, corruption and displacement, etc. There is no need to put so many people in such a situation, because we want to reduce crime and not add prisoners. But we still have people undergoing these legal processes through the federal and regional levels. But this is not because we are not taking action, it is because we are in the process of focusing on clamping down on crimes that are serious. On the other hand, if we don’t think that the law doesn’t apply to all equally, we can’t have a sustainable future.
…

The U.N. Security Council renewed sanctions on South Sudan Thursday for another year, including an arms embargo. But none of the council’s three African members supported the measure.

Last year, after earlier failed attempts, the Security Council imposed sanctions, including an arms embargo, against South Sudan, where political violence has caused a massive humanitarian disaster, including deaths, displacement and widespread food insecurity.

Five of the 15 council members abstained on the vote — Russia, China, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea and South Africa. The measure passed as it required only nine positive votes and no veto.

South African envoy Jerry Matjila said sanctions are not useful to the political process.

“When there is a volatile political process on the table it should be safeguarded and exempt from external pressure, which can aggravate the situation,” he said.

While Equatorial Guinea’s ambassador, Anatolio Ndong Mba, said his government supports sanctions to a certain extent, renewing them now would not motivate the parties to achieve peace.

“We believe there is a good time to impose them and a time when it is not appropriate,” he said. “We need to give the political stakeholders an opportunity to continue in this dynamic of achieving peace through peaceful means and through dialogue.”

In September, the two main parties agreed to implement a revitalized peace agreement and end hostilities. While the situation has stabilized slightly, there are still more than 4 million people displaced inside and outside the country, and almost 6.5 million South Sudanese who are severely food insecure.

China said it abstained on the vote because it did not support imposing an arms embargo last year and it still does not support it.

But other council members pointed out that the proliferation of weapons in South Sudan has only added to the population’s misery and threatened the fragile peace.

“With the peace deal only recently extended, for this council to allow an unhindered flow of arms into the country right now would surely be irresponsible, and risk fueling further violence, and it would send a terrible signal to the people of South Sudan,” said Stephen Hickey, Britain’s political coordinator.

The U.S. envoy said there are many factors in addition to sanctions that have contributed to the shift toward peace, including a larger leadership role taken by regional actors. Ambassador Jonathan Cohen urged the region to maintain pressure on the parties to implement the revitalized peace agreement and to uphold the arms embargo.

 
…