UNITED NATIONS, September 8 -- Robert Fowler, the Canadian whose abduction in Niger last year was followed by the UN's belated announcement that he had by stealth been serving as an Under Secretary General envoy to that country, has now expressed a belief that his kidnappers were tipped off about his location either by the Niger government or by Al Qaeda sympathizers in the UN in Niger or headquarters in New York.
Inner City Press on September 8 asked UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if Fowler is still serving as a USG, and what the UN or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon makes of a current or former USG speculating that there may be Al Qaeda sympathizers in the UN who fingered him for kidnapping. Video here, from Minute 16:15.
Haq claimed that Fowler hadn't said that, that he only speculated that someone leaked his itinerary. Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm what the UN refused to, during Fowler's captivity, that he was visiting a Canadian owned gold mine, without UN security, when he was grabbed. Haq insisted that Fowler when kidnapped had been "going about his regular duties." But why did these duties include visiting a Canadian owned gold mine?
Fowler has said that the government of Niger "hated" the mission Ban ostensibly sent him on, mediating with the Taureg rebels including about uranium claims. If the UN, which so often describes itself as a club of member states, can appoint an envoy to Niger which the government there hate, some ask why Ban Ki-moon has not done anything of the sort in light of the bloody conflict in Sri Lanka?
While Haq did not answer Inner City Press' question of whether Fowler is still a USG, the UN belatedly disclosed, at least internally, that he began in the post on July 21, 2008. Will the UN now say that his term simply ran out, organically, on July 21, 2009, without explaining more?
Here are other still unanswered questions about l'affaire Fowler, for the UN to confirm or deny:
--The Fowler Party did not have ANY UN- or Host Country-provided close protection (or any form of security whatsoever) on its ill-fated and unauthorized side trip to a Canadian owned gold mine in Niger last December -- yes or no?
--Fowler and his associate, Louis Guay, did not have UN-issued travel orders prior to their excursion to Niger, and that travel orders have been created by the Secretariat after the fact, contrary to UN rules and regulations -- yes or no?
--The Department of Safety and Security was not informed by the Department of Political Affairs about the Fowler trip in advance, contrary to UN rules and regulations, and therefore did not provide security clearance in advance -- yes or no?
--The use of a UNDP driver and vehicle was not authorized by the appropriate UNDP security and administrative authorities, contrary to UN rules and regulations -- yes or no?
--The Nigerien Government was not aware of the Fowler Party's side trip to the gold mine, and was not informed that Fowler was undertaking any UN responsibilities in Niger during that trip besides representational duties related to Niger's national day celebration the Friday prior to his abduction -- yes or no?
Watch this site.
Footnote: Fowler, who while at UN Headquarters being "debriefed" never spoke to or answered questions from the press, gave his interview to Canadian Broadcasting, CBC. During the time of his detention, CBC obediently did not report on the story or scandal. Some surmise that was in exchange for the access now granted. If Fowler won't answer the questions about, the UN should. In fact, both should. We'll see.
