Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- Nepal has been one of the UN's recent success stories, if seen in context, at least for now. But even on this, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has managed to get publicly criticized. Nepal recently requested a six-month extension of the UN Mission in Nepal, UNMIN. Ban responded with a report asking for more clarification from Nepal, and stating that "should this matter remain unresolved by the time the Council considers the present report, I would recommend a one-month extension."
In the July 18 Security Council session about Nepal, the Ambassador of India Nirupam Sen said "it is difficult to accept parts of the Secretary-General's latest report... It seems inappropriate for [Ban] to advise this Council to extend the mandate for one month unless Nepal's request is 'clarified.' In other words, unless Nepal's request is in line with what UNMIN want it to say, the request is not good enough."
Minutes later at the UN's regular noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to India's critique. She noted that Ban's Special Representative Ian Martin had, in his comments that morning to the Council, recommended at six-month rather than one-month extension. But Martin's statement was made before the Indian Ambassador spoke; India went forward and criticized Ban anyway, criticized him for even asking for the clarification.
One week ago, when Zimbabwe's Ambassador said that "the Secretariat" could not be viewed as impartial, because the UN Department of Political Affairs' reports on Zimbabwe only criticized the government and never the opposition, Ban's Spokesperson responded with a statement on Saturday expressing "deep concern" at the "highly inappropriate" comments of the Zimbabwean Ambassador. This stood in contrast to this Spokesperson's declining to criticize or respond to comments by Russia's Ambassador, about law-breaking in connection with Ban's reconfiguration of the UN Mission in Kosovo. The theory was that since Russia is a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, and could veto any second term by Ban, his office did not express concern when criticized by Russia. On July 15, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Okabe
Inner City Press: Over the weekend, your Office put out a statement calling a statement by the Zimbabwe Ambassador highly inappropriate and unacceptable, for having said that, in his opinion, DPA reports were one-sided. How are his comments different from ones like those of Russian Ambassador Churkin, who said the Secretariat was breaking the law with EULEX, and then I was told it was just his right to have that opinion? What’s the basis for calling an Ambassador’s commentary highly inappropriate?
Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: It's evident that the Secretary-General felt strongly about the Ambassador's remarks, because, as you know, the Secretary-General has been discussing the situation in Zimbabwe and how to bring a resolution to that situation with parties in the region. He's been talking with SADC, with his partners, all regional parties and this is an area where he’s been working very closely. And, as you know, he had dispatched an envoy to the region and I think that he did not find such comments helpful to the efforts that he was exerting.
Inner City Press: I think that's something people don't understand, like on Kosovo. He's making a lot of efforts, but he’s been subject to criticism. So what's the difference? Is it that Russia’s one of the P-5?
Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I'm not going to engage in comparing the situations. That's the way he felt about this situation and I gave you the reason why.
But did Ban change his proposal from one month to six months entirely because he was satisfied with Nepal's clarification? Or because India, a country certainly larger than Zimbabwe and that wants a permanent seat on the Security Council, let it be known, even before Friday morning's meeting, of its dissatisfaction with him even asking for clarification?
Why did India go forward with its public critique even after Ian Martin announced Ban's new position? Since the critique is that by demanding the clarification, Ban made Nepal say what he wanted to hear, recommending a six month extension after receiving the requested clarification does not answer the critique. After making his statement, Ambassador Sen said he will only offer further explanation after the Security Council votes on the Nepal mission extension, currently slated for Tuesday, July 22. Ian Martin will speak at that time, as well, hopefully to offer an update on the deadly UNMIN helicopter crash among other topics.
It's worth noting that the same Department of Political Affairs which Zimbabwe's Ambassador criticized oversees Martin's UNMIN mission, and is in this cas being criticized by India.
And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html
