UN Security Council stakeout: Speech by Gerard van Bohemen

Comments made at the UN Security Council stakeout by New Zealand’s Permanent Representative Gerard van Bohemen, President of the Security Council for July.

Kia ora everybody and good evening – at the end of a long day in the Council.
You will have seen what happened this morning in the chamber with regard to Srebrenica. I don’t need to add anything extra to what I said there other than to say it was a disappointing event to be presiding over, a veto like that.

The rest of the day we’ve had three sessions of informal consultations – two related to South Sudan and Sudan, and one to Lebanon.

On South Sudan/Sudan and UNIFSA we were briefed by the Head of UNISFA Mr Gebremariam and by the Special Representative Menkerios about the situation in Abyei which seems to be relatively calm as compared to other trouble spots in Sudan. But while it is calm and while the people of the region, of the area, seem quite intent upon, keen to have an agreement, a reconciliation, they are not able to make progress in the political level because the agreements that were reached have not been implemented.

With respect to the political state situation in South Sudan you know that situation, it is very bad. There is no engagement at all politically there is a war being fought by two sides who think that they can win it. This afternoon we were briefed on the human rights situation and the situation of children, by Under Secretary General Ladsous who also briefed us on UNIFIL, and by Yoka Brandt of UNICEF.

They were drawing on the report of the Secretary General about the situation in South Sudan. You’ve seen the report and how horrific some of the reports are, of the treatment of children in particular. The Council had very thorough discussion about the implications of those briefings, both the political briefing and the human rights situation, and we have determined to give very serious thought to what steps we can take next.

Question: On South Sudan, as to UNMISS itself, was there any discussion of the incident in Malakal where an IDP was killed and any discussion on how to improve protection and also Riek Machar said that he’ll continue fighting as long Salva Kiir remains in and also said that Salva Kiir’s term expires tonight – did this come up? Was there any thought of the legitimacy of who to recognise there?

Neither of those specific situations were discussed today.

Question: South Sudan – is the Council going to have any kind of statement or press statement because it is the 4th anniversary of the independence of South Sudan and was there any discussion about possible new sanctions on other people?

There was no discussion specifically in relation to the 4th anniversary of independence. There was a discussion on the range of possible measures that could be taken to deal with the range of challenges they face both on the political front and the humanitarian situation.

Question: South Sudan – given the statements made by the High Commissioner this morning linking the failures of the UN Security Council with regard to Srebrenica to a number of conflicts including South Sudan, is there a greater appetite for a more robust response given the 6 listings we’ve seen, can we expect to see it go right to the top in the near future?

Others drew the parallel as well today between the situation in Srebrenica and the situation in South Sudan - there is a determination to look very seriously at what further steps can be taken.

Question: Mr Ladsous asked the Council to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan is that something New Zealand would support?

I have no specific instructions on that point but it was one of a number of measures he asked the Council to consider, yes.

Question: A number of reports on the frustrating meeting on Srebrenica this morning, did Ambassador Churkin have anything to say as to explanation of vote, or why he cast this veto?

Well we went through a long process about the negotiation of the text and at the end of the day we couldn’t reach agreement. I think he said what he needed to say in the chamber – that was the statement of the position that they believed it was unhelpful to stability in the region to have a statement that was specifically about genocide in Srebrenica.

[ENDS]

© Scoop Media