Day: March 4, 2022

The Human Rights Council today began an urgent debate on the situation of human rights in Ukraine stemming from the Russian aggression.

Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said one week ago, the Russian Federation’s military attack on Ukraine had opened a new and dangerous chapter in world history. The attack that began on 24 February was generating a massive impact on the human rights of millions of people across Ukraine. Elevated threat levels for nuclear weapons underlined the gravity of the risks to all of humanity. Over two million people had been forced to flee their homes. Tens of millions of people remained in Ukraine, in potentially mortal danger. There should be an immediate resolution of the conflict through peaceful means.

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, Chair of the Special Procedures’ Coordinating Committee, said the military invasion carried out by the Russian Federation had caused the people in Ukraine immense suffering and irreparable harm. The Russian Federation should observe and respect international law; end hostilities immediately and unconditionally; stop immediately all human rights violations stemming from the attack; facilitate the immediate and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance; and restore the ability of the people in Ukraine to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms without military or external interference.

Gennady Gatilov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office at Geneva, speaking as a country concerned, said the situation in Ukraine had been before the Council since 2014. At that time, a regime had come to power in Kyiv after an anti-constitutional coup that began to virtually exterminate the Russian-speaking population of the country. The Human Rights Council had had the opportunity to act on these reports and protect democracy and the people of Ukraine, and preserve a multi-ethnic and multicultural Ukrainian society, but it had failed to do so.

Emine Dzhaparova, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, speaking as a country concerned, said the Council had gathered today to discuss the existential threat to human rights as a principle, not only caused by the breach of the fundamental principles of international law, but also by the breach of international law by one of the biggest countries of the world, by one of the members of the Security Council, by a weak leader who wished to look strong, who pushed his country into the hell of crime and injustice against Ukraine.

In the ensuing debate, many speakers condemned the Russian military aggression in the strongest possible terms: hundreds of civilians killed, injured, displaced, this was the dire reality of the situation. There should be an independent commission of inquiry to look into all human rights violations committed in Ukraine. The safety of those fleeing the attacks should be guaranteed, as should be humanitarian access. The Council must hold Russia accountable, and the international community must send a strong message to Russia that it must live up to its international commitments and provide support and assistance to Ukraine. Some speakers raised the cause of the conflict, saying that it was in part due to the hegemonistic policies of the short-lived governments of the West, including the United States and the European Union. It was not up to the Human Rights Council to discuss the situation, given the hypocrisy displayed by that body, and given the human rights violations committed by the Ukrainian Government over previous years.

Speaking in the debate were the representatives of Poland, Barbados, Finland, France on behalf of the European Union, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Barbados on behalf of a Group of Caribbean States in Geneva, Morocco on behalf of the Group of Arab States, Côte d’Ivoire on behalf of the Group of African States, Germany, Marshall Islands, France, Japan, Venezuela, Luxemburg, United Arab Emirates, India, Paraguay, Mexico, Honduras, Republic of Korea, United States, China, Netherlands, Indonesia, United Kingdom, Montenegro, Nepal, Argentina, Malaysia, Bolivia, Brazil, Malawi, Pakistan, Benin, Eritrea, Colombia, Belgium, Estonia, Iceland, Slovenia, Norway, Croatia, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Czech Republic, Costa Rica, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Romania, Sovereign Order of Malta, Monaco, Brunei Darussalam, Vanuatu, Dominican Republic, Canada, Australia, Turkey, International Development Law Organization, Maldives, Singapore, Andorra, Trinidad and Tobago, Greece, Belarus, Albania, Syria, Latvia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Thailand, Malta, Switzerland, Uruguay, Denmark, Nicaragua, Republic of Moldova, New Zealand, Chile, Liechtenstein, Ecuador, Guatemala, Israel, United Nations Development Programme, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Afghanistan, Holy See, Lebanon, Timor-Leste, North Macedonia, South Africa, San Marino, Peru, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cabo Verde, and the United Nations Children’s Fund.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s forty-ninth regular session can be found here.

The Council will resume its urgent debate on Ukraine at 10 a.m. on Friday, 4 March, to conclude the debate and to take action on a draft resolution.

Opening Statements

MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said one week ago, the Russian Federation’s military attack on Ukraine had opened a new and dangerous chapter in world history. The Secretary-General had termed this as the most serious global peace and security crisis in recent years. The attack that began on 24 February was generating a massive impact on the human rights of millions of people across Ukraine. Elevated threat levels for nuclear weapons underlined the gravity of the risks to all of humanity. Military operations were escalating further as they spoke, with military strikes on and near large cities. By Tuesday night, her Office had recorded and confirmed 752 civilian casualties, including 227 killed – 15 of them children. At least 525 had been injured, including 28 children. The High Commissioner emphasised that the real figures would be far higher, since numerous other casualties were pending confirmation, and information from some areas engaged in intense hostilities had been delayed. Over two million people had been forced to flee their homes. Tens of millions of people remained in the country, in potentially mortal danger.

The High Commissioner echoed the powerful call by the General Assembly yesterday for an immediate resolution of the conflict through peaceful means. States must abide by international law and the core principles that protected human life and human dignity. It was imperative that full access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians across the entire country be enabled. Ms. Bachelet further noted that, at the international level, the International Court of Justice had been formally seized of proceedings connected to the conflict, and would begin hearings Monday on a request for provisional measures. In addition, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court had announced his decision to immediately proceed with active investigations on the situation in Ukraine. The Office of the High Commissioner’s human rights monitors would continue to operate across the country to the full extent of their capacity. This crisis demonstrated the vital importance of the Office’s objective monitoring and reporting in Ukraine – and in many other countries. As the Secretary-General had said, the United Nations Charter had always stood firm on the side of peace, security, development, justice, international law and human rights – and time after time, when the international community had rallied together in solidarity, those values had prevailed. It was vital that they prevailed today, in Ukraine – and elsewhere.

VICTOR MADRIGAL-BORLOZ, Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, said as the world continued to watch with despair the disastrous impact of the military attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine, it was now up to the Council to put human rights squarely in the response to the crisis and contribute to an immediate ceasefire, a de-escalation of tensions, and a firm return to diplomacy and dialogue. This military attack, which flagrantly violated international law and struck at the very heart of the spirit and object of the Charter, was fundamentally an attack on the order that enabled the work to further human rights and their objective to promote the respect of human dignity. The military invasion carried out by the Russian Federation had caused the people in Ukraine immense suffering and irreparable harm. The consequences of this unprovoked military attack for the protection and promotion of human rights in Ukraine would be profound and long-lasting and the catastrophic and traumatic effects of forced displacement and the destruction of vital infrastructure would last for generations. The Council should place and maintain human rights at the centre of this response through a series of concrete measures, by committing all efforts necessary to ensure due accountability from an evidence-based approach.

The Council was also called on to deal with an array of human rights challenges around the world. The current focus on the urgent situation should not detract from attention to freedoms of assembly, association, and expression in the Russian Federation. The Council had already been warned on restrictions to fundamental freedoms within the Russian Federation, which were particularly alarming. Peaceful anti-war demonstrators continued to be arbitrarily arrested. The Coordination Committee called for all those arrested and detained to be treated consistently with the Russian Federation’s international human rights obligations and be released without further delay. In addition, the threat posed to the environment by the armed conflict, with areas reportedly contaminated by radiation, was also a source of deep concern. The Russian Federation should, among other things, observe and respect international law; end hostilities immediately and unconditionally; stop immediately all human rights violations stemming from the attack; facilitate the immediate and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance; and restore the ability of the people in Ukraine to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms without military or external interference.

Statements by Countries Concerned

GENNADY GATILOV, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office at Geneva, speaking as a country concerned, said that the situation in Ukraine had been before the Council since 2014. At that time, a regime had come to power in Kyiv after an anti-constitutional coup that began to virtually exterminate the Russian-speaking population of its country. As a result, dozens of people were burned alive at the Trade Union House in Odessa, snipers’ shot peaceful protesters on the Maidan, and dissenters throughout Ukraine were brutally massacred. To achieve peace on its own territory Kyiv only had to fulfil the commitments it had undertaken under the Minsk Package of Measures. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had prepared 45 reports documenting thousands of innocent civilians, including hundreds of children, killed as a result of bombing attacks by the Ukrainian armed forces. The reports also raised issues of arbitrary arrests, murder of journalists and opposition figures, hate speech, discrimination, and infringement of the rights of national minorities, including Hungarians, Russians and Roma. The Human Rights Council had had the opportunity to act on these reports and protect democracy and the people of Ukraine, and preserve a multi-ethnic and multicultural Ukrainian society. However, it had failed to do so. Why had the Council failed to address the human rights abuses of the criminal regime in Kyiv?

How was the United States and the European Union’s supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine contributing to protecting human rights and saving lives? In 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s military had used inhumane weapons and carried out indiscriminate cluster bomb strikes against Yugoslavian citizens, killing some 2,000 civilians, including children. The “missionary work” of the United States and European Union had taken hundreds of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Regarding Ukraine, it was not in the United States and European Union’s interests to keep Ukraine calm and prosperous, and those States were not interested in the lives of ordinary Ukrainians. Ukraine’s puppet regime was being used by these States as a pressure tool and a bargaining chip in their confrontation with Russia. Because of this, there was no added value in the Human Right Council debate for Russia.

EMINE DZHAPAROVA, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said that the Council had gathered today to discuss the existential threat to human rights as a principle, not only caused by the breach of the fundamental principles of international law, but also the breach by one of the biggest countries of the world, one of the members of the Security Council, by a weak leader who wished to look strong, who pushed his country into the hell of crime and injustice against Ukraine. Russia’s full-scale invasion had now entered its second week, with death, loss of dignity, and dishonour. The regime had put thousands of clean-living Russians behind bars when they dared to demonstrate against the war. These terrible events were happening in front of the eyes of the Council members. Millions were forced to become refugees and internally displaced persons within Ukraine. Russian bombs were destroying the cities and villages, targeting civilian infrastructures, schools, hospitals, orphanages, and others. Ukraine had done nothing to provoke this, seeking only to choose its own future.

A group of war criminals, with access to the nuclear war button, had concluded that Ukraine was too weak to fight, and the international community would not react. But Ukraine was resisting, and the international coalition was strengthening every day. Recent events clearly pointed to the fact that Russian troops had carried out the most blatant abuses and violations of human rights, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The help of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights was important, and the Human Rights Council had a role to play in uniting efforts for ensuring accountability of Russia for its crimes against Ukraine. At the end of the debate, the Council would consider a resolution establishing a commission of inquiry into violations of human rights and international humanitarian law stemming from Russia’s war. This initiative would become a next step with concrete practical implication in continuation of the United Nations General Assembly resolution called aggression against Ukraine, adopted yesterday with the overwhelming majority of United Nations Member States. All of those who had helped across the world and had expressed words of encouragement to Ukraine were thanked for their solidarity. This was a moment of truth, not just for Ukraine, but for the whole human rights system and its fundamental institutions, and those who were entrusted to protect human rights in the Council. The world should stand together to ensure accountability for the war criminals spilling the blood of Ukrainian children. Barbarians should have no seat in the room of alliance of civilisations.

Debate

Speakers said that Russia’s actions were a basic violation of the principles of international law and a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. The Russian military aggression was condemned in the strongest possible terms: hundreds of civilians killed, injured, displaced, this was the dire reality of the situation. There should be an independent commission of inquiry to look into all human rights violations committed in Ukraine, with the mandate to gather and analyse evidence to ensure that perpetrators were held accountable. The safety of those fleeing the attacks should be guaranteed, as should be humanitarian access. This was not a choice; it was an international legal obligation. The aggressor, Russia, and its facilitator, should be brought to justice. The democratic future of Ukraine must be defended. The Council must hold Russia accountable, and the international community must send a strong message to Russia that it must live up to its international commitments and provide support and assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine was a free, democratic and peaceful country, and Russia had unilaterally decided to escalate matters in a premeditated way. Russia was trying to re-write history, cynically using the pretext of genocide to justify its aggression, which was a dangerous precedent. None of the fraudulent assertions from Russia had been confirmed by a reputable and independent body. Russia should withdraw and recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine within its international borders.

The democratically elected Government of Ukraine was fully within its rights to defend its territory. All parties should take steps to end the conflict as soon as possible in a way that took all the interests of the parties into account, and should comply strictly with the rules of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and protect civilians. The principles of universal respect to the norms and standards of international humanitarian law were fundamental to establishing and maintaining peace and security, and all parties should respect them. There was concern for the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Ukraine, and all parties should work to ensure the safety and security of foreign nationals in the country, and to ensure that they could leave the country safety. The two parties to the conflict should proceed immediately to a ceasefire, finding a negotiated solution, which would minimise the number of fatalities. The General Assembly had sent a strong political statement already, and the brave Ukrainian people stood against the aggression. The Human Rights Council should not be used as a platform for distortion of the truth, as heard in the cynical allegations made in the chamber today. This was an attack on the values of the entire world: when it came to defending the inviolability of borders and combatting human rights violations, nobody could stand aside, all must join together. What was at stake were grave violations of international humanitarian law, and none should be a bystander to Putin’s war. Two-thirds of the General Assembly could suspend the membership of any country deemed to be in violation of its human rights obligations.

Some speakers said the Council could not stand silent in the face of the flagrant Russian actions. The humanitarian situation in Ukraine had been provoked entirely by Russia. Russia should implement strictly the provisions of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Any further escalation of war propaganda should cease. The worst human rights violations were perpetrated during armed conflict, and the attacks by the Russian armed forces on civilian infrastructure and the use of indiscriminate weapons on civilian areas were against the rules of international conflict. The violation of the human rights of peaceful protestors and the limitations on the freedom of the press in both Russia and Belarus were condemned, as were the limitations placed on the freedom of expression and freedom of dissent. The International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice needed to take action to investigate all reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

All United Nations Member States had committed themselves to ending war and advancing humanity, speakers said. Human rights abuses and violations could not go unpunished, in particular all violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Council should monitor the situation and document all human rights violations. A comprehensive peaceful solution was vital, in line with international human rights and international humanitarian law, and it was important to give peace a chance. The longer the decision took, the more victims there would be. It was up to the Council to show leadership: the conflict harmed all, and benefited no one, and it was the duty of the Council to respond, although it was hard to find what to say that would or could make a difference. Nevertheless, the international community should respond swiftly and explore all avenues that could lead to an end to the conflict. Many speakers also detailed the humanitarian and financial aid that their countries were providing to Ukraine, as well as offering to take in refugees, with some concluding their statements saying “slava Ukraine” (glory to Ukraine).

A number of speakers raised the cause of the conflict, saying that it was in part due to the hegemonistic policies of the short-lived governments of the West, including the United States and the European Union. It was not up to the Human Rights Council to discuss the situation, given the hypocrisy displayed by that body, and given the human rights violations committed by the Ukrainian Government over previous years. Unilateral coercive measures should not be applied, as they were against human rights and violated countries’ sovereignty.

Source: UN Human Rights Council

Tripoli– Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Libya “Ali Al-Hibri” met with the US Ambassador to Libya “Richard Norland” to discuss the progress of the unification process of the Central Bank of Libya and its governance procedures.

During the meeting, which was held in the capital, Tunis, Al-Hibri affirmed that the Central Bank of Benghazi is committed to the unification process and to work for its success, according to what the Benghazi branch of the Central Bank of Libya supervised through its official Facebook page.

Al-Hibri stressed the need to implement urgent measures, such as providing cash, opening the bank clearing system, processing commercial bank balances in the Benghazi Central Bank, and documentary credits procedures.

Source: Libyan News Agency

Libya again has two rival administrations pressing claims to be the rightful government. Both sides have armed loyalists. Outside powers should join hands to help stop them from clashing once more.

Libya is at a perilous crossroads – again. On 1 March, the country’s Tobruk-based parliament, the House of Representatives, voted to endorse a new interim government headed by former Interior Minister Fathi Bashagha, giving it the greenlight to take over from the sitting prime minister, Abdulhamid Dabaiba. The vote’s proponents insist that the procedure was sound, but factions in the capital Tripoli say it was fraudulent. The latter reject the new cabinet and oppose appointing a new executive entirely. As the camps square off, omens of renewed fighting are visible for the first time since an October 2020 ceasefire ended six years of political feuds and intermittent conflict. Armed groups allied with the Tripoli-based government have already closed Libyan airspace to prevent incumbent ministers from travelling to Tobruk to take part in Bashagha’s swearing-in ceremony. With others gearing up for confrontation, what happens next will depend largely on how foreign powers react. A splintered international response could encourage an institutional split and military mobilisation. But a united international condemnation of the use of force coupled with a call on Libyans to chart a consensual way forward with UN assistance could avoid this scenario.

The 1 March vote risks breaking apart the unified interim government that formed in the months after a ceasefire declared in October 2020. That government brought together the country’s rival power centres, one based in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk, which formed after contested parliamentary elections cleaved the country in two in 2014. Efforts to instal a new government have been under way since early 2022, after the national electoral commission indefinitely postponed a presidential election that had been slated for 24 December, citing insurmountable legal disputes regarding the candidates running for the country’s top position.

Since then, Libya’s main political camps have put forward conflicting ideas for resolving the impasse. The Tobruk-based group, which includes House speaker Aghila Saleh, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (who led forces that besieged Tripoli in 2019) and Tripoli-based factions that want to oust Dabaiba, said politicians should form a new government and amend a draft constitution before new elections. The other, which includes western Libya’s main political blocs, wanted Dabaiba to stay in power until a new legislature is elected and can choose a new executive. Even presidential hopeful Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, son of the late dictator, who is historically at odds with the second camp, echoed the need to keep the Dabaiba government in place and proceed with a legislative ballot.

The polarisation between these two broad camps deepened after 10 February, when the House appointed Bashagha as prime minister-designate and tasked him with forming a government by the end of the month. This appointment was the result of a deal among Bashagha, Saleh, Haftar and their respective allies in the House. At first, the agreement also had the approval of Khaled al-Mishri, the chairman of the High State Council, the rival assembly located in Tripoli. But Mishri withdrew his support in late February, seemingly under pressure from several members of the Council he heads, who opposed the move to put a new government in place. The pro-Dabaiba camp responded to the House’s manoeuvres by announcing that the government was working on its own roadmap to hold a legislative ballot in June. They said the Tobruk-based parliament had no right to appoint a new executive and that Dabaiba would hand over power only to a successor backed by a popular vote.

Divisions among foreign actors mirrored Libya’s cleavages. Cairo and Moscow gave their initial blessing to the House’s efforts to instal a new government, seemingly believing that Libya would benefit from an alliance among former enemies like Bashagha and Haftar. Beginning in early 2022, Egyptian officials actively supported reaching an understanding between the two and proceeding with the plan based on their deal. Turkey, while maintaining friendly ties with Bashagha, stuck by Dabaiba and called for fresh elections, banking on polls being a better guarantee of long-term stability. The UAE backed Dabaiba, while its Gulf adversary Qatar, made discreet overtures to Bashagha while still bankrolling its traditional allies aligned with Dabaiba. In effect, the Gulf monarchies’ allegiances have shifted: barely a year ago, Abu Dhabi was aiding Haftar militarily, while Doha was providing diplomatic and financial support to the Tripoli-based authorities. Amid these fast-changing developments, the U.S. and other Western states have adopted a wait-and-see approach.

The UN did not oppose the attempt to replace the government. But the UN Secretary-General’s special adviser, Stephanie Williams, imposed conditions for accepting the move. First, she said, the new government’s appointment should be “consensual” and have the High State Council’s buy-in. Secondly, the confidence vote in a new interim premier should be transparent and meet legal requirements – though her office never clarified what these might be. Foreign diplomats said the vote would be valid only if at least 50 per cent of House members plus one supported the new government. But House members advanced their own interpretations. Another point lacking clarity was how many lawmakers the House would need for a quorum. Many of its original 200 members had defected to the Tripoli-based authorities, said they would boycott the proceedings or been replaced. Legislators gave the UN conflicting estimates of the remaining number of parliamentarians, ranging from 164 to 188. As a result, estimates of the quorum for a valid confidence vote varied between 82 and 94. After the High State Council withdrew its support, Williams knew her first condition would not be met and could not be sure her second condition would be, either.

The 1 March parliament confidence vote made matters worse. The House speaker counted 101 members in attendance, and 92 voted in favour. This number was close to or higher than the earlier quorum estimates. But video footage showed fewer attendees than 101, and only 88 names were read out during the roll call for the vote. The number of parliamentarians who pronounced the word “confidence” (thiqqa) was unclear because they did not speak into microphones. On 2 March, parliament clarified that the discrepancy in numbers came about because eight lawmakers had dialled in from remote locations for security or health reasons, while others preferred to cast their votes anonymously after receiving threats from pro-Dabaiba armed groups. The House also changed the total number of those in favour of the new government to 96, adding to the confusion. Bashagha said the ballot was “clear and transparent” and vowed to take office in Tripoli in “a peaceful manner”. The next day, however, Dabaiba called the vote a “coup” attempted through fraud. On 3 March, Bashagha and most of his ministers took the oath of office in Tobruk. On that occasion, House speaker Saleh listed all 96 names of the lawmakers who had supported the new executive, in one last attempt to dispel doubts about the vote of confidence.

The power struggle could disrupt the calm Libya has enjoyed since factions signed the October 2020 ceasefire agreement. It risks undermining reconstruction efforts and the wider economy. Political rivals are also becoming more dependent on armed loyalists. Gunmen allied with the Tripoli-based government reportedly detained two new ministers, preventing them from assuming their duties. It is unclear how Haftar-led forces, who control the east of the country and are allied with the Bashagha cabinet, will respond. The risk of war depends both on the answer to this question and on what the sides’ foreign backers decide to do. For now, the foes in the civil war appear unlikely to take up arms again, due to general war fatigue. Neither do outside powers seem eager for renewed conflict. That said, rising animosity between the two governments could change this calculation.

Geopolitical shifts could also affect tensions in Libya. The precarious balance between Turkey and Russia, both of which have military personnel in Libya, could be rapidly upended. Turkey is allied with the Tripoli-based government. Russia deployed fighter jets and the Wagner Group’s private military contractors to support Haftar-led forces in the 2019-2020 war, and while it has subsequently sent some of its assets elsewhere, it retains a presence on the ground alongside Haftar. As fighting in Ukraine intensifies, there is a risk of spillover that could drag Libya into a new proxy war. For now, Moscow is the only foreign capital to officially welcome the Bashagha government. The Kremlin’s confrontation with the West over Ukraine makes its strategy in Libya unpredictable.

Other capitals have thus far kept a deafening silence, perhaps waiting to see how the UN responds. On 2 March, the UN Secretary-General said the vote “fell short of the expected standards of transparency and procedures and included acts of intimidation prior to the session”. This wording is likely to push foreign powers in the direction of refusing the new government recognition, which would be a blow to those backing the Bashagha-Haftar deal.

Notwithstanding their divisions, external actors should speak with one voice in pressing all Libyan parties to show restraint and condemning the forcible detention of the new government’s supporters. Such a minimum international consensus should be attainable, given that outside powers have a common interest in preventing a return to a divided Libya or a relapse into civil war at a moment of already great geopolitical upheaval. The two sides in Libya should accept UN mediation to break their deadlock and return to negotiating a realistic political roadmap for the way forward. Finding a consensus between the two rival governments admittedly will not be easy, but for each there are good reasons and incentives to accept external mediation: the Bashagha government will be short-lived if it does not receive broad international recognition or, alternatively, gain access to state funds (both of which will be difficult without the UN’s support); the Dabaiba government risks losing out if member states begin to gradually flip their recognition in favour of the new executive. The UN’s Williams should call on the parties to refrain from violence and urge them to accept her good offices for mediation. Foreign governments should follow her lead in calling for negotiations.

Source: International Crisis Group