Saturday, November 7, 2009

UN's Af-Pak Contradictions, on Threat Levels and No Bashardost Run-Off

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama7sideline110209.html

UNITED NATIONS, November 2 -- As in Kabul UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon assured Hamid Karzai that UN staff will stay in Afghanistan, the UN announced that it is pulling its international staff out of Northwest Pakistan, declaring the area at the UN's "Phase IV" security threat level. Is it safer in Afghanistan, where five UN staff as well as at least two others were killed last week before the second round of voting was canceled?

Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Michele Montas, who declined to provide the UN's threat level for Afghanistan. The UN press office in New York routinely refuses to discuss issues it deems about security. Why then did the UN in Pakistan, in a press release, declare the rise to Phase IV?

The press release, by Isharat Rizvi of UNIC Islamabad, says that Mr. Ban "has declared Phase IV (Emergency Operations) in NWFP and FATA." When Inner City Press asked about it, Ms. Montas replied, "That should not have happened." Video here, from Minute 17:27.

But again, why not? The UN has been criticized in Algeria for giving in to the government's desire that the threat level be kept low, in the run-up to the bombing of the UN in Algiers. So does the UN withhold its threat assessment levels to placate governments? The U.S. State Department, for example, issues public travel advisories for certain countries. But the UN is "owned" by its member states. Did Pakistan complain about the public raising to Phase IV?

Inner City Press also asked, for the second time, if the UN had contacted the third place finisher in the first round of Afghan elections.

Back on October 22, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe

Inner City Press: the number three candidate in Afghanistan, I know you’ve said we may get this hook up, so I wanted to ask you this now. The candidate who came in number three, Mr. Bashardost, has said that he may tell those who voted for him -- 10 per cent of the voters -- to boycott the second round due to continuing concerns of fraud. I wanted to know, in all this, in the UN’s engagement both with Abdullah Abdullah and President Karzai, is the UN speaking to this number three candidate and what do they make of his critique of the second round in advance?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I’m sure that the UN is supporting all efforts by the Afghan authorities in ensuring that a successful second round takes place.

Now the second round has been canceled, after Abdullah Abdullah withdrew, and the UN apparently never contacted the number three candidate, Ramazan Bashardost. Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas on November 2; she replied that the decision to cancel was up to the Independent Electoral Commission, which most see as dominated by Hamid Karzai.

But even before the IEC announced its decision, the UN's Kai Eide called for a "timely" conclusion. Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas to respond to those who see Eide's comment as indicating a preference, shared by the U.S., that the second round be canceled, not least for security of their people. No, Ms Montas seemed to claim. The UN had no preference. Video here, from Minute 17:27. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama7sideline110209.html