Hamlet

引用:

原帖由 48191 於 8-10-2016 22:46 發表
不敢說，但是對方似乎人數不算多。按道理來說，就算情況多惡劣，也不至於要突然逃走...何況不是只有中國軍隊，也有埃塞俄比亞軍也在，如果聯手，也可以扭轉劣勢。

聯合國未授權既話唔可以直接參與到戰爭入面，上次雙方交戰俾砲彈擊中一架LAV一個軍人殉職嗰次都係，個難民營企正交戰區當中最多淨可以開火驅離，駐地解放軍我記得就係一個機械化步兵連，最重火力就係92式6輪LAV，25mm機關炮同7.62同軸機關鎗。根據上次難民營砲擊嗰單新聞既圖片睇到，南蘇丹交戰雙方有坦克，估計係南蘇丹政府軍流出黎。

Hamlet

根據上次嗰單砲擊事件，嗰難民營係聯合國管理，而個機步連係專責保護聯合國人員同設施，但上次嗰件事之後報導過嗰個地方，地形不利於防守，一個連睇唔晒，最攞命係個難民營企正交戰區，一出門口乒乒乓乓嗰隻

Hamlet

引用:

原帖由 48191 於 9-10-2016 09:36 發表
中國作為聯合國安理會五大常任理事國，在聯合國的軍事及人道救援工作上理應出多點力。不是嗎？

除佐南蘇丹之外，非洲有老解參與聯合國部隊既仲有馬里、利比里亞、剛果，不過單純作戰部隊既就係南蘇丹，其他係工兵、輜重兵同軍醫，利比里亞無記錯既話仲有一隊公安防暴隊參加埋。

就非洲黎講最活躍嗰五常係法國，因為嗰頭以前唔少佢殖民地，但法國人個行動唔係聯合國委任，完全自己意志支配。至於美國，索馬里嗰次之後對派遣軍隊干預非洲內戰既嘢亦無興趣，有馬後砲話過，當年盧旺達大屠殺如果美國直接出兵干預做架兩，無死得咁多人。

Hamlet

引用:

原帖由 FBC1 於 9-10-2016 09:42 發表

我同意,我意思係呢種任務吃力不討好而巳.

聯合國維和部隊最活躍既一個國家其實係巴基斯坦，但佢個動機就唔講得上偉大，佢係為佐出人出鎗黎頂番要交既會費，有多當賺老美咁⋯⋯

Hamlet

我好奇咁去facebook講既o個份報告睇緊，英文唔好睇得慢唔好見怪。
首先提到老解既係第五頁一段講機步連四級軍士長楊樹鵬同下士李磊殉職既

As fighting intensified on July 10–11, peacekeepers responsible for protecting the POC sites performed
unevenly. Because guard towers along the POC1 perimeter did not have adequate protection from gunfire,
the Chinese peacekeepers there withdrew to ditches and vehicles below. Then, during the early evening
of July 10, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded near a Chinese armored personnel carrier (APC) in POC1,
wounding six peacekeepers. UN House was not equipped with a surgical team or blood bank to provide
appropriate treatment, and UNMISS was unable to negotiate a medical evacuation to the hospital on the
Tongping base, only 15 kilometers away. Two of the peacekeepers died, one after bleeding out without
adequate care for 16 hours. If the protection of civilians is to remain at the heart of modern peacekeeping,
Member States and the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support need to take
immediate steps to improve medical care and to establish guaranteed standards of medical evacuation in
South Sudan and other locations where peacekeepers are deployed.


跟住就係講話佢地離開陣地後撤入難民營辦公區
POC1 was left increasingly unprotected—a problem that deteriorated in particular after the Chinese
peacekeepers took casualties. First, the pedestrian gate was left open and unguarded; SPLA soldiers could
have walked in unobstructed. Then, as fighting resumed on the morning of July 11, Chinese peacekeepers
abandoned their posts in POC1 entirely, withdrawing into the core UN House base. While fleeing, some
peacekeepers left behind weapons and ammunition that were taken, at least temporarily, by IDP youth. With
nowhere inside POC1 to shelter from gunfire and no protection from the peacekeepers, approximately 5,000
civilians fled over fences and barbed wire into the core UN House base. There, UNMISS forces struggled to
manage the situation. According to seven independent witness accounts, on the morning of July 12, UNMISS
fired tear gas on the civilians with little or no warning.

http://v.ifeng.com/include/exterior.swf?AutoPlay=false&guid=01d7526e-10c2-412c-9e78-3796287f776b

http://video.weibo.com/player/1034:5302a0f56f35b52278a5aefb473218b9/v.swf

[ 本帖最後由 Hamlet 於 11-10-2016 01:17 編輯 ]

Hamlet

The peacekeepers responsible for protecting civilians inside POC3 and Tongping base typically performed
better than those at POC1. Although some Ethiopian troops appear to have withdrawn from their perimeter
positions in POC3, civilians there consistently described how other Ethiopian peacekeepers provided them
with protection by remaining at their perimeter posts, helping evacuate civilian casualties, giving instructions
to civilians on how to take cover from crossfire, and, on at least a few occasions, returning fire when
fighters targeted the camp. At Tongping, where fighting prevented civilians from accessing the compound
gates, Rwandan peacekeepers assisted civilians to enter through the perimeter fence and provided initial
humanitarian assistance, such as medical care, water, and shelter.

下面尼段話老解同埃塞俄比亞部隊拒絕出擊
While the performance of peacekeepers in protecting the POC sites varied, UNMISS’s ability to protect
outside was nonexistent. On the afternoon of July 11, around 80 to 100 SPLA soldiers attacked the Terrain
compound in Juba, where they proceeded to rape and gang rape at least five international aid workers,
physically or sexually assault at least a dozen others, and execute a South Sudanese journalist—apparently
because of his Nuer ethnicity. Several departments within UNMISS received information about the attack
shortly after it began, and orders were given directing a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) to respond. No QRF
ever tried to leave the UN House gates, however, with at least the Chinese and Ethiopian battalions refusing
to go. UNMISS even secured assistance from South Sudanese authorities to help the QRF navigate SPLA
positions on the road, but the contingents still were unwilling to try to intervene.
老解同尼泊爾警察部隊

Even after the ceasefire on July 11, civilians continued to be targeted with violence, without effective
response by UNMISS. Women and girls in particular experienced high levels of sexual violence in the vicinity
of the POC sites, as they were often compelled to leave the sites in order to find food for their families. CIVIC
documented at least one case in which SPLA soldiers abducted a woman in the immediate vicinity of both
an armed Nepalese Formed Police Unit (FPU) sentry post and a Chinese military peacekeeping position in
POC1. Neither group tried to intervene despite being aware that the abduction was taking place.


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Of the three locations in Juba where peacekeepers were tasked with protecting South Sudanese civilians on
UN bases, the performance appears to have been the worst at UN House’s POC1, where around 8,600 IDPs
live. POC1, handled primarily by Chinese peacekeepers and a Nepalese Formed Police Unit (FPU), sits close
to the main UNMISS offices (see map on page 2), separated by a metal gate as well as a perimeter fence
topped with barbed wire. As fighting intensified on July 10 and 11, many of the peacekeepers abandoned
their posts, eventually even running back into the core UN base area—and instructing IDPs to follow.


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
講佢地離開崗位
On Sunday, UN House found itself at the center of fighting between the government and opposition.
A dozen IDPs in POC1 described to CIVIC how, as shooting intensified in the vicinity of POC1, Chinese
peacekeepers left the sentry posts along the perimeter. “They abandoned their posts when the fighting got
heavy,” said a 22-year-old male student who lives in POC1. “They came down [from the guard towers] and lay
down. No one was looking outside.”


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
再次提及炮擊事件
Chinese Peacekeepers Hit by RPG, Temporarily Leave Part of POC1

After coming down from the sentry posts, many Chinese peacekeepers huddled near their armored
personnel carriers (APCs), located at several positions just inside the POC1 perimeter. Around 6:30 p.m. on
Sunday, an RPG fired by fighters outside POC1 exploded near an APC along the northern side of the camp.
An IDP who works for a humanitarian organization inside POC1 described to CIVIC:

I was lying [not far from them], in the same area. The bomb came; it was very terrible. ... Some
[peacekeepers] were inside the vehicle, others were on the ground. … I was lying down [covering my
face] when it hit. When the firing stopped, that’s when I saw [the Chinese peacekeepers]. The injuries
were serious.

Six Chinese peacekeepers were wounded, two of whom ultimately died (see text box on p. 45 on the lack
of medical care and evacuation). Several civilians who were in that part of the POC site told CIVIC that,
after the RPG strike, the other Chinese peacekeepers there left, moving into the areas where IDPs live to
take shelter.

There were conflicting reports both among IDPs in POC1 and UNMISS personnel, but at least some of the
Chinese peacekeepers appear to have returned later that evening to their positions along the northern side
of POC1.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————


By the morning of July 11, many, if not all, of the
Chinese peacekeepers undoubtedly knew that their
injured fellow soldiers were still trapped at UN House,
unable to get medical care or a medical evacuation.
When heavy fighting restarted in the vicinity of POC1
that morning, the remaining Chinese peacekeepers
fled en masse, running into the core UNMISS base.

“They did not have enough power to defend
themselves, so they evacuated themselves,” said
a 33-year-old IDP in POC1. “On [Monday], all of
them evacuated.” 134 Another IDP, who works for a
humanitarian organization in POC1, told CIVIC: “They
left the POC. Those who were guarding the POC, they left their posts. They went to UN House because it’s
stronger than the POC. … They left their tanks, they left their guns, they left their ammunition—they were just
running. … There were no peacekeepers in the POC.”

[ 本帖最後由 Hamlet 於 11-10-2016 01:40 編輯 ]

Hamlet

中國國防部今日回應今次尼單野
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
“聯合國維和部隊未能在南蘇丹衝突中保護平民”，10月5日起，這個號稱由美國一非政府組織發表的調查報告在西方媒體中廣為報導，傳播。值得注意的是，該報告多次提及中國駐南蘇丹首都朱巴的維和官兵在衝突升級後“放棄哨位”，在遭遇襲擊後一度放棄位於難民營的崗位，向聯合國主營區“逃跑”甚至導致部分武器彈藥丟失。針對這份報告，中國國防部新聞發言人楊宇軍10日獨家回應“環球時報”稱，報告中對中國維和部隊的指責根本不符合事實，純屬惡意炒作。


據美聯社5日報導，總部位於美國華盛頓的非政府組織“衝突中的平民中心”（Civic）發布的該報告主題為“遭受襲擊：2016年7月朱巴暴力事件及聯合國的應對”其工作人員通過大量實地調研，採取了100餘名直接遭受暴力衝突影響的平民，聯合國南蘇丹特派團（簡稱“聯南蘇團”）的文職和軍事官員，人道主義組織的代表等，形成了此報告。其主要內容稱，2016年7月南蘇丹朱巴發生的大規模衝突事件，給南蘇丹平民造成了嚴重傷害，而在當地執行維和任務的聯合國南蘇丹特派團未能履行職責，無法給衝突中的平民提供保護。


報告引用大量所謂“目擊平民”，“人道主義工作者”，甚至還有部分聯蘇南官員的“證詞”，指責我維和人員只顧自身安危，一度放棄崗位。團的官員表示：“中方一度放棄了1號難民營，這是一個事實，中方不願過度暴露自己。”報告還暗示中國維和戰士向在聯合國營地的避難民眾發射催淚瓦斯，且對遭遇性侵害的人道主義工作者沒有進行救援，對發生在難民營和周邊的性侵害事件也無動為衷，稱維和部隊無法有效制止營地外的衝突和暴力事件等。


楊宇軍在回應中表示，今年7月，南蘇丹國內爆發衝突，根據聯合國南蘇丹特派團司令部的指示，中國在南蘇丹首都朱巴的維和步兵營負責執行聯南蘇團朱巴總部及其附近1號難民營的安全防衛等任務，全力保證相關聯合國維和人員和難民的安全。7月10日，武裝衝突加劇，中國維和步兵營堅守各個警戒哨位，一輛步戰車遭火箭彈襲擊維和士兵李磊，楊樹朋犧牲，5人受傷。中國維和部隊官兵堅守崗位，迅速組織增援，並在救助受傷官員的同時繼續執行聯南蘇團賦予的各項任務。


7月11日，南蘇丹國內衝突雙方動用了武裝直升機，坦克，步戰車等重武器，在聯合國營地附近發生激烈交火。其間，有部分武裝分子潛入1號難民營，直接威脅難民安全，為及時驅除持槍武裝分子，履行保護難民職責，中國維和步兵營迅速派出就近執勤官兵進入難民營搜尋武裝分子。由於衝突雙方交火時部分流彈落入難民營內，導致部分難民產生驚慌，衝破鐵絲網進入聯合國營區。根據聯南蘇團指令，聯合國警察，尼泊爾防暴隊和中國維和步兵營部分兵一起，盡調控制局勢，平撫難民情緒，並妥善安置。


楊宇軍錶示，目前，聯合國正在對南蘇丹衝突期間維和部隊表現進行調查，在聯合國的調查結果公佈以前，任何針對聯合國維和行動和維和人員指定都是不負責任的。


據“蘇丹論壇”網站報導，聯合國南蘇丹特派團發言人博茲亞尼6日否認該報告的指責，稱在7月的衝突升級中，聯南蘇團為多達4000名臨時躲避戰火的南蘇丹難民提供了庇護及力所能及的醫療幫助，直到局勢平息至他們可以被安置在正式難民營。


據“環球時報”記者了解，報告中所提及的“我維和部隊在衝突中放棄崗位，發射催淚瓦斯”等完整是不實之詞。7月10日晚，南蘇丹首都朱巴衝突升級，聯合國維和部隊位於朱巴的主營地受戰火波及嚴重，我維和人員在1號難民營等地堅守崗位，在遭遇砲彈襲擊導致嚴重傷亡後，我戰士依然沒有放棄崗位。11日上午，中維戰士繼續堅壘難民營和聯合國維和部隊主營區的哨位，冒著炮火進行以保護聯合國機構和庇護難民為主的維和工作，沒有對難民使用催淚瓦斯。而“不願救助在危險中的人道主義援助人員“這一指責也可謂”莫須有“，當時考慮到中國維和部隊剛剛蒙受的犧牲和承擔的任務，聯南蘇團指揮部將這一任務交給了其他國家駐南蘇丹的維和部隊維和戰士在南蘇丹維和期間蒙受巨大犧牲，卻依然繼續履行職責，受到聯南蘇團和南蘇丹人民的充分肯定，但現在卻被如此惡意中傷，實在令那些仍在危險之地執行維和使命的戰士們“流血又流淚”。


據聯合國統計數據，目前有來自60多個國家的約1.3萬名維和人員在南蘇丹執行任務，印度，盧旺達，尼泊爾，埃塞俄比亞，中國，肯尼亞等國都是主要貢獻國，派兵均超過千人英美兩國派出的維和士兵加上維和警察只有20餘人。今年7月，聯合國一份內部備忘錄還指出，在朱巴衝突升級後，12名來自英國，德國和瑞典的維和警察在沒有通知聯南蘇團的情況下臨陣脫逃，搭乘撤僑飛機回國，受到聯合國方面嚴厲指責。


南蘇丹於2011年獨立。今年7月南蘇丹戰火重燃後，聯合國安理會於8月通過決議，宣布將向南蘇丹增派4000人維和部隊，主要由地區國家派兵，以加強聯南蘇團維和能力，盡快恢復當地穩定。但增加動作遭到南蘇丹政府的堅決反對，認為此舉是對其國家主權的侵犯。在國際社會壓力下，南政府後來雖勉強同意增兵，但仍在與聯合國就派兵規模等問題進行談判​​。9月底，南蘇丹反對派領導人，前第一副總統馬沙爾在蘇丹首都喀土穆發表聲明，向南蘇丹基爾政府再度宣戰。當前，衝突雙方仍在南蘇丹多地繼續激戰。

[ 本帖最後由 Hamlet 於 11-10-2016 12:04 編輯 ]

Hamlet

完整版貼佐N次都食字，我放link算……http://world.huanqiu.com/hot/2016-10/9532882.html

[ 本帖最後由 Hamlet 於 11-10-2016 12:15 編輯 ]

Hamlet

引用:

原帖由 loveless 於 11-10-2016 12:53 發表


今朝都睇到路透社版本, 好老實中國o個回應好似冇乜根據.
對正常觀眾黎講, 國防部呢種官腔回應好似幾倒米...

7月難民營遇襲，機步連兩死六傷，佢解放軍亦都要派人去調查寫報告，如果話一無所知係無可能，國內就算話演習訓練有死傷都要調查，今次事件咁嚴重添。

Hamlet

去達富爾地區就係蘇丹同南蘇丹曾經打過仗既地方，嗰度有中資石油公司搵食，去都好。