UNITED NATIONS, September 9 -- After months of denying then refusing to comment on reports that its putative Niger envoy Robert Fowler was visiting a Canadian owned gold mine on the day of his abduction, the UN on September 9 admitted they didn't know where he was going that day, and later reconstructed that it was to a mine that had nothing to do with its supposed UN mandate. This reversed even the UN's September 8 statement that Fowler was on UN business at the time.
Some cynics conclude that the UN covered up Fowler's activities until Fowler turned on the UN and said that perhaps UN supporters of Al Qaeda "sold" him. Then the UN admitted the truth about Fowler's foray, but only as revenge or retaliation. Others say tell Inner City Press that Fowler's mission to Niger was about uranium, and was in fact supported by four of the P-5 Plus One...
Notably of his co-visitor to the mine, Louis Guay, Fowler has said "I have a moment, just a moment, and I said Louis, tell them the truth. No matter what happens, tell them the truth. You don't have anything that is so important to protect that it's worth your life." Some wonder, why was Fowler's partner trying to lie? Is it because of the mining visit ?
Entirely disagreeing with the UN's statement Wednesday about its knowledge of his itinerary, Fowler has said
"The president of Niger, whose name is Tanja. It was clear from the first time I met him in August that he was offended, annoyed, embarrassed by the fact that the secretary general of the UN had seen fit to appoint a special envoy for his country. In fact, some of the stuff I've read since I got out, with Niger government spokespeople talking about my mission. They said I was there to see if I could get hold of illicit arms trafficking, which was not my mission. My mission was to get the government to make peace with the rebels. As long as there was no peace with the rebels, the enemy was at the gate, right? If al-Qaeda is taking people on the outskirts of the city, the enemy's really at the gate. And governance of national security makes sense, right? So I don't know who shopped me. I know somebody shopped me. Who could it be? It could be the government of Niger. Could be an al-Qaeda sympathizer in the UN office in Niger. In the UN office in West Africa. In the secretariat building in New York. All of them had my agenda, my itinerary."
At the September 9 noon briefing, UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said that "we ourselves at the United Nations were not always fully apprised of his travels; and in fact the day he was abducted we had to try and to reconstruct what had happened on the day that he was kidnapped."
Inner City Press followed up:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask a follow-up on Mr. Fowler. In what you just said, you just said that the UN, I just want to be clear -- you’re saying that the UN didn’t know where he was going or what he was doing that day? I mean, I wanted to know, is it the protocol…[interrupted]?
Associate Spokesperson: We did not know at the time; we had to reconstruct that afterwards -- after the abduction.
Question: But what’s the protocol if an Under-Secretary-General is in the country of known -- I’m not sure what the security threat was -– isn’t he supposed to tell security, at lease DSS [the Department of Safety and Security] where he is going? Did he have security with him that day? I guess not.
Associate Spokesperson: As you’re well aware, he did not have security with him. There were Mr. Fowler, Mr. [Louis] Guay and their driver, Soumana Mounkaila, were travelling -- just the three of them.
Question: And does that violate UN procedures?
Associate Spokesperson: I don’t want to get into that particular question. As you know, Mr. Fowler kept people apprised sporadically. But, at the very moment that he was abducted, we did not know about his travels over those previous several hours.
Question: And just when you reconstructed it, can you now say where was he going? Because many people, many newspapers have reported that he was headed to a gold mine that’s owned by a Canadian firm. Is that true or not true?
Associate Spokesperson: He was headed back from a trip to that mine. He’d visited the mine, which was part of a private visit, but he was actually going back to the capital, to Niamey.
Question: You’d said yesterday that he was performing his official duties at the time it took place. Is it official duties to visit a mine?
Associate Spokesperson: He’d done a number of official duties that day and in fact he was going to a working meeting back in Niamey at the time that he was abducted.
Yet until September 9, the UN never admitted that Fowler had engaged in a "private visit" to a Canadian owned mine. The conflict of interest, and even violation of the UN charter, is obvious. But the UN apparently has or enforces no rules in this regard. Inner City Press asked a question left unanswered from the previous day's briefing:
Inner City Press: I’m just wondering; is he still a USG or not, or has his term expired?
Associate Spokesperson: He’s no longer working for the United Nations.
And then, for the record:
Inner City Press: Are there any other USGs that have been named, say, this year, that have not been announced in this room?
Associate Spokesperson Haq: If they have not been announced, I am not aware of them.
The answer seems spurious: there are many things the Office of the Spokesperson is aware of and does not announce. We'll see.
Footnote: Sources tell Inner City Press that Fowler's mission to Niger was about uranium, and was in fact supported by four of the P-5 Plus One...And see, www.innercitypress.com/un9fowler090909.html
