Agreement Of Cessation Of Hostilities

The Peruvian delegate said that a lasting ceasefire was essential to any credible dialogue on the Government of Southern Sudan and that, therefore, the Council should consider punishing those responsible for the violation of the agreement. He also stressed that obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian assistance were unacceptable. (c) Each Party undertakes to refrain from any repression or discrimination against persons or entities on account of its activities during hostilities and to guarantee its democratic freedoms. Karel J.G. VAN OOSTEROM (Netherlands) said the revival of the South Sudanese peace agreement, led by IGAD, was the most urgent challenge. He added that his country would support any measures, including an arms embargo that would reduce the possibility of resorting to violence, and called on all parties in Southern Sudan to allow UNMISS to do its work. The Council`s expectations were clear: an end to hostilities, the consequences for those who hindered the progress of the Forum and unhindered humanitarian access. The cessation of hostilities was violated almost immediately after they were signed. There must be consequences for those who impede the progress of the negotiations and he asked IGAD to define the consequences defined in the event of a breach. The people of South Sudan knew the consequences of the conflict. Two-thirds of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance in this man-made disaster. In November, nine aid workers were killed and aid hampered. The government was responsible for bureaucratic hurdlees, such as a $4,000 work permit fee.

He reiterated the call for an arms embargo on all parties, as it would send a strong message to those who would undermine the Revitalization Forum. PETR V.