Ignoring South Sudan
Some news stories seem to develop a life of their own and follow us around for weeks and months until we’re sick of them. Others flare up for a day or two, and others hardly at all. One of those that didn’t really break the surface is about the recently published summary of an UN report on a crisis that took place this July in South Sudan’s capital Juba between the warring government troops and their opposition. The report outlines how UN peacekeepers had failed to perform even on the most basic level. Not only could they not protect vast numbers of civilians, but also humanitarian aid workers and UN staff members themselves from violence, systematic rape, torture and killings, mostly perpetrated by government troops. In this report, findings are that this was partly due to peacekeepers being caught in the crossfire but also to a large extent the result of lack of training, as well as an unwillingness of peacekeepers to put themselves in harm’s way, instead abandoning their posts and ignoring pleas for help from assault victims. So far, only the summary of UN’s report on the performance of UNMISS (United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan) has been released, the report itself remaining inaccessible to public and press.
When I first heard about this story in a segment of ZDF’s 7 o’clock evening news, I was appalled and expected the story to be repeated in Tagesschau and Tagesthemen — as is often the case with news stories. However, all mention of South Sudan disappeared, at least on TV. Instead, newspapers stepped in, with virtually all mainstream publications issuing articles on the subject on their online platforms, and virtually all of them following the same basic blueprint. Usually one of two incidents in which peacekeepers did not respond to calls for help are being cited in the articles. One being the attack on the hotel “Terrain”, situated in the vicinity of the UN base, during which government troops killed a journalist and raped five female international aid workers. The other reported incident being about a woman who was raped within sight and earshot of peacekeepers, who did nothing to intervene. The articles also mention UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon deploring peacekeeper’s failure to act and his decision to remove Kenyan General Johnson Mogoa Kimani Ondieki, responsible for all of South Sudan’s peacekeeper troops, from his position. The story in this form can be find on most all German mainstream media websites, such as tagesschau.de (article one and two), DIE ZEIT, DW, mdr, HNA, FAZ, rp-online, spiegel online.
Sounds like a pretty neat rap up. Problem identified, addressed, solved. All of these articles, however, only draw their information from the official UN release. Since the UN is both accused and accuser, the report issued by them, while trying to address problems that led to peacekeeper’s failure in July, also tries to protect the UN’s reputation. This can be seen in the UN keeping undercover the full report, only publishing its summary, which is only 10 pages long. But of the articles published on UNMISS’s performance in South Sudan, only taz reporter Dominic Johnson has bothered to get deeper into the subject, using CIVIC’s (Center for Civilians in Conflict) 90 pages long report UNDER FIRE as an independent source, giving his article much more detail, depth and insight into the matter. The account of the violent attack on hotel “Terrain” on 11th of July gives you a much better idea as to how peacekeeper failed to perform their duty and, as the only article among many, it is mentioned that in the aftermath of the conflict, the Nuer people, to whom defeated opposition leader Riek Machar belongs, were specifically targeted in government troop’s violence. The way the conflict was reported on by most mainstream media made the outbreak of violence seem strangely random, when, in fact, it was to a large part a conflict between ethnic groups and was foreseeable early on. The taz article is also the only article giving context as to how information on the South Sudan crisis is being held back by the UN only issuing a summary, stating that, indeed, this is a very uncomfortable subject for the UN. Even while trying to resolve the failures that led to their significant underperformance, it tries to keep the aftermath of their failure out of the public eye. Luckily for them, the media seems to comply by showing the story a lack of interest.
If more journalists had actually taken the time to look for outside sources and questioned the easy narrative of “isolated incident leading to people in leadership positions losing their jobs and more peacekeepers being sent to South Sudan, thus effectively solving the problem”, we could have a much more varied media coverage on this crisis. The civil war in South Sudan is unlikely to resolve itself anytime soon and this may not by the last time the media will have to report on this. In fact, the situation may become much worse. CIVIC’s report draws the picture of a much more systematic failure of the UN’s performance, not just of UNMISS. Human rights groups have long pleaded for a weapon embargo on South Sudan. The UN council did not do so. Now its own soldiers are unable to counter government troops and opposition troops shooting each other up with heavy artillery and letting civilians pay the highest price for their conflict. According to CIVIC’s report the council still does not employ restrictions and trade or other measures of putting on pressure on South Sudan’s government when they obstruct peacekeeper’s work, limiting their efficiency, as it happened leading up to July’s conflict and ever since. Nowhere did any media source report on the fact that 30 million USD worth of food, seeds and equipment were looted by government troops from a warehouse belonging to an international aid institution, the warehouse being under specific protection of the UN. This at a time when a hunger crisis in South Sudan is foreseeable. Hardly anywhere, the profound loss of trust UN peacekeepers have suffered because of their failure to keep people safe is mentioned — a loss of trust not only among the civilians they were supposed to protect from harm, but also from international aid workers and their institutions. This should be present in mainstream media and should at least receive some level of independently researched, nuanced coverage.
It is very likely that more newsworthy incidents will be happening in South Sudan, some a direct result of the events that took place in July and aftermath thereof. But looking at the media coverage of the crisis and UN’s performance, it seems most likely that further outbursts of violence, especially sexual violence, in South Sudan as a direct result of the UN’s lack of action (on both highest and lowest levels of command) will pass us by unnoticed. And why not. Looking at the west’s shortcomings to live up to its duty seems so laborious and uncomfortable at a time when you have an abundance of outside threats, common enemies that we can agree on and can safely point our fingers at.
