海角大神

It is a scenario that has repeated itself over decades and across continents, but once again the United Nations is wondering how best how to protect civilians under imminent threat 鈥撀爐his time, as conflict drags on in South Sudan.聽

Nearly two decades after the UN was blamed for standing by during the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, the organization found itself in a familiar position when fighting erupted in South Sudan鈥檚 capital of Juba on Dec. 15, 2013.聽聽

鈥淭here was a massacre in Juba,鈥� said Zachariah Tut, a South Sudanese living inside a UN protected camp. 鈥淲e ran to the UN because we were targeted.鈥�

The UN mission, in an unprecedented decision, decided to open its logistics hubs across the country and use its blue-helmeted peacekeepers as human shields, saving countless lives in a civil war that has killed at least 50,000 people.

But when the camps were created, 鈥渕ost people thought 鈥極K, here is a temporary measure鈥�. Let鈥檚 give them help right now and find a more durable solution when things settle down,' 鈥� said a UN official who work on the protection of civilians.

Instead, nearly聽three years later,聽six Protection of Civilians sites, as they are called, are still home to nearly 200,000 people. They are like cities unto themselves, complete with schools, churches, and cafes. And the UN is worried they have become too permanent, too difficult to defend, and a resource drain, according to an internal review of these camps obtained by 海角大神.

The report is evidence of longstanding tensions over the very issue the UN struggled with in Rwanda and Bosnia: how to protect civilians. But amid resurgent violence in Juba, the question of what the UN should do with these camps, and if the organization should create the camps again the next time mass violence threatens to engulf a country, is being reconsidered.聽In the past month, many parts of South Sudan have experienced fighting that has killed hundreds of civilians, and the population of the UN protection of civilians sites has increased.聽

鈥淧rotecting large numbers of civilians on UN premises is not sustainable indefinitely,鈥� the report says.

On Friday, members of the UN Security Council arrived in South Sudan to discuss the deployment of an additional peacekeeping force of 4,000 troops aimed to protect civilians in the capital of Juba. In July, clashes killed hundreds of people here, and also saw the UN displacement camp targeted with small and heavy arms fire.聽

The Security Council has a large role in protecting civilians, notes Ja茂r van der Lijn, a senior fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 鈥淭he UN knows that it must protect civilians, but in the same token it is not provided by the Security Council with the required resources to fully do so,鈥� Mr. van der Lijn says, placing particular blame on Western countries who demand the UN be more aggressive, but don鈥檛 contribute adequately to make that possible.

In July, the British government pulled out two of its police officers in South Sudan 鈥渋n light of the deteriorating security situation,鈥� according to an internal United Nations Department of Peacekeeping memo. The memo questioned Britain's position as a permanent member of the Security Council when 鈥渢hey themselves are quick to abandon their post in challenging situations,鈥�

On at least four occasions, the UN camps in South Sudan have been attacked by gunmen. Peacekeepers have been criticized聽for abandoning their posts. But violence outside the camps is another issue: During the recent clashes in Juba, women described聽being gang raped outside the camps with UN peacekeepers within sight.

鈥淎 lot of the focus has been on protecting the UN base, which is necessary, but less is being done about protection outside the base,鈥� said Matt Wells, a senior adviser on Africa and Peacekeeping at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, a research group in the United States. 鈥淥ne of the biggest reasons why civilians run to these sites is because the areas they are living in are not secure, and there is not any force projection happening in those areas.鈥澛�

Many inside the UN say these Protection of Civilian sites, which were once considered innovative, have bred a host of complications, and the organization has subtly worked to scale them down. In the Juba camp that holds 37,000 people, the UN has taken steps that have blocked food rations for the newly displaced, according聽to aid officials from different organizations. In another site that was recently overrun by gunmen, it was聽reported聽that the UN declined to protect civilians due to political reasons.

鈥淲e would like for the conditions in the country to be right for civilians to leave the sites, but given where things are right now the protection of civilians sites are the 鈥榣east worst鈥� option,鈥� said Nick Birnback, a spokesman for the UN.

While the UN would prefer not to have these protection camps, the internal 鈥渓essons learned鈥� report doesn鈥檛 provide many answers on how the organization should act differently when civilians are put in danger. Peacekeepers should still open their gates and provide protection in extreme circumstances, the report says.

Rather, the UN appears to be stuck with a concept that it does not like, but is likely to continue because there is no better option.

鈥淭he sites are less than ideal, full of tribulations and a source of constant friction,鈥� the International Organization for Migration聽said聽in a recent report on the UN camps. But political instability means that the Protection of Civilians sites will 鈥渞emain necessary for years to come.鈥�