Juba, South Sudan: South Sudan is softening its rejection of a regional protection force a day after the UN Security Council voted to deploy 4,000 additional peacekeepers.

But a government spokesman says it will accept the force only if it can negotiate the size, mandate, weapons and contributing countries.

Presidential spokesman Ateny Wek Ateny said on Saturday that “the door is open” but would not say whether South Sudan has dropped its objection to the force answering to the existing UN peacekeeping mission.

The spokesman also says neighbouring Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya cannot take part.

An outbreak of fighting in the capital, Juba, saw civilians, aid workers and UN staffers come under attack.

South Sudan government officials have been vague about how they will respond if the new protection force enters uninvited.

The Security Council on Friday approved a US-drafted resolution granting expanded powers to peacekeepers requiring them to use “all necessary means” to protect UN personnel and installations and to take “proactive” measures to protect civilians from threats. The resolution also adds an additional 4,000 soldiers from Africa nations, bringing the peacekeeping force’s troops to around 17,000

The United Nations Mission in South Sudan, or UNMISS, has been criticised for failing to protect civilians when UN sites came under attack last month. It has also been accused of failing to intervene in cases where government forces allegedly committed rapes outside UN camps.

The vote was 11 in favour, with Russia, China, Venezuela and Egypt abstaining. Those abstaining cited concerns over the Security Council’s failure to obtain South Sudan’s consent for the regional protection force that would patrol around Juba, the capital.

South Sudan’s Ambassador Akuei Bona Malwal told the council his country rejected the resolution because it failed to consider his country’s views.

“The adoption of this resolution goes against the basic principle of UN peacekeeping operations which is the consent of the main parties to the conflict and also goes against the UN Charter,” Malwal said. “Consent of South Sudan to the mandate and operational modalities of the protection force outlined in the resolution would have been important as it would have given the force all the necessary freedoms to carry out the outlined mandated tasks.”

US deputy ambassador David Pressman said he was aware of South Sudan’s reservations.

“We recognise the importance of government cooperation, but the United States would point to the actions of the government. For while we expect the South Sudanese government to treat the United Nations like the partner that it is, that is simply not is happening on the ground in South Sudan today. Instead, as we all know, the Government of South Sudan’s troops are actively blocking United Nations personnel from carrying out their life-saving work, which in some cases has led to the deaths of UN peacekeepers,” Pressman said.