UNITED NATIONS, April 21 -- With questions mounting about whether and why the Afghan National forces killed UN security officer Louis Maxwell in Afghanistan last October, and why the UN said nothing publicly about this until being repeatedly asked about it last week, things heated up Wednesday at the UN in New York.
After in Kabul Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's representative Staffan de Mistura dodged Afghan television questions about Maxwell's death, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, lashed out at Inner City Press' use in a "blog" of the word "cover up" This is how UN staff in Kabul who raised the issue to Inner City Press characterize the UN's response.
Inner City Press on Wednesday asked Nesirky if the UN has in its possession the weapon assigned to Louis Maxwell, or whether it was stolen during, and perhaps as the goal of, his murder. A witness has come forward about the
"people died in the guesthouse about forty yards from my door. One of those people was an American by the name of Louis Maxwell, a security guard for the United Nations...Louis Maxwell committed himself effectively and honorably and survived the Taliban attack. It was only after he came down from the roof, and after the ANP had secured the compound, that he was killed. According to video obtained by the UN, he was shot at point-blank range by Afghan police in the courtyard of the guesthouse. The reason? They wanted his gun."
Inner City Press asked Nesirky to state, yes or no, if the UN has Maxwell's gun in its possession. Rather than answer this question, Nesirky went into a seemingly prepared statement that, "let's be clear, you have written that' management of information is one thing, cover up and lies are another'... that is outrageous."
When Inner City Press explained that cover up and lies precisely the characterizations used by the UN staff in Kabul who have raised this to Inner City Press, Nesirky chided Inner City Press for not then putting the words in quotes and presumably identifying the speaker. But the UN has a history of retaliating against whistleblowers, so it is perhaps this request -- and misuse of the bully pulpit of the UN's briefing room rostrum -- which some find outrageous.
Once the UN became aware -- and more, with the video footage -- that Maxwell may have been executed by Afghan National forces, why did it say nothing publicly? Nesirky did not answer.
If this "Board of Inquiry," Ban Ki-moon's awareness of which his spokesman Nesirky would not describe, were to conclude that there is no definitive evidence Maxwell was killed by a particular member of the Afghan National forces, would the UN ever have disclosed the doubts and inquiry?
In Kabul, Ban's SRSG di Mistura was asked:
TV ONE [translated from Dari]: In view of recent comments by a UN spokesperson, I want to know your views on the UN staff member killed in the Bakhtar attack?
SRSG: Can I first reply to questions on the elections? Today we are focusing on questions on elections, but I will come back to you.
Before Inner City Press began asking questions about the death of Louis Maxwell, it received this and other requests:
Dear Matthew,
I wish to bring to your attention the disgraceful lack of action by the UN Secretary General in response to aspects of the tragic attack upon the Bakhtar Guesthouse in Kabul, Afghanistan on 28 October 2009 which resulted in the deaths of five UN staff members and injuries to many others. I am referring to the following facts which came to light during the investigation.
* UN Security Officer, Louis Maxwell, (US citizen), who heroically resisted the attackers thus allowing many others to successfully escape, was summarily executed at point blank range by an Afghan National Army member while in their custody, unarmed and not offering any resistance. The extra-judicial killing was captured on video by a staff member of the German Embassy and copies were provided to UN investigators. The video has since been posted on the German 'Der Spiegel' media site although they have failed to realise (or at least publish) what exactly it is they are airing. In the aftermath of the incident many Afghan security forces are interviewed on camera by the local Afghan media and one Army Officer admits killing an 'Arab' terrorist outside the guesthouse. (Mr. Maxwell was an African American). Irrespective of whether he was mistaken for one of the attackers, his killing was nothing short of murder. UN SG Ban has refused to allow the issue to be raised with the Afghan government for political reasons and wants the US authorities to handle the 'problem.'
* Three of the other staff members killed during the incident were actually shot by indiscriminate and undisciplined fire from the Afghan security forces. The only staff member to actually die from the attackers actions was the UNICEF staff member who burned to death.
SG Ban needs media pressure to explain his failure to follow up on this crime with the Government of Afghanistan to ensure that those responsible are held accountable for their actions.
Again, once the UN became aware -- and more, with the video footage -- that Maxwell may have been executed by Afghan National forces, why did it say nothing publicly? Does the UN have in its possession Louis Maxwell's weapon? Watch this site.
From the UN's April 21 transcript, Inner City Press' questions and OSSG's Nesirky's responses:
Question: I wanted first to… I have a question about Sudan from yesterday, but I wanted to follow up on this Afghanistan Board of Inquiry questions. One is that a witness to the events has come forward and said that Mr. Maxwell was killed for his gun, that the Afghan national forces wanted his high-end assault rifle, and therefore killed him to take it. They say it’s a… the gun is a Heckler and Koch g36k assault rifle. What I wanted to know is, even as this is going on, does the UN have in its possession at the end of those events the weapon used by Louis Maxwell in defending the other staff members? And also, is the Secretary-General, I think I’d asked this in a written question I sent to you, before Ms. [Susana] Malcorra convened this Board of Inquiry, was the Secretary-General aware of this issue and did he approve of the composition and mandate of the Board of Inquiry?
Spokesperson: Well, let’s roll back a little bit. As I have said, the Board of Inquiry is finalizing its report. It has not yet done so. It has not yet been presented to those, as I outlined, who would be presented either with the report or with the findings, depending on who it is. So, I can’t say here and now what the findings are, because that report has not been finalized and has not been handed over. Therefore, on a very specific question such as the weapon, I cannot give you an answer to that. This is a Board of Inquiry…
Question: [inaudible] factual question [inaudible]
Spokesperson: It may be a factual question, Matthew, and let us be really clear about one thing, I seem to recall that you have written somewhere that management of information is one thing, but cover up and lies are another. Well, let me say here and now that this is pretty outrageous and also insulting. We’re talking about the death of one of our staff, a UN security officer who helped to save many lives. It’s our responsibility, it’s our duty to find out the facts. That is exactly what we are doing. And this is a Board of Inquiry; everything is being done as it should. And once this has been finalized and given to those who need to know first, there will be a briefing, I am sure, as I have said, this has been done in the past. And there will be an opportunity for you to ask further questions.
Question: That’s from a communication actually from UN staff in Kabul who, when they initially raised this, said that they had been asking the Secretariat to raise this to the Afghan Government for months with no action. So, just so, you can say it’s outrageous, but I am saying…
Spokesperson: No, that’s…
Question: …those who work there…
Spokesperson: Matthew, Matthew, let’s be really clear. Let’s be really clear: what’s outrageous is what you wrote in your blog, not what you’ve just put to me. And I have just quoted you this one…
Question: [inaudible] believe that the Secretariat has covered up the death of one of their colleagues because it is inconvenient to raise it to the Afghan Government. Your response is that it is outrageous. That’s…
Spokesperson: No, it’s outrageous what you wrote. It was not a quote, it was not a quote. It’s what you wrote in your blog.
Correspondent: Okay, fine.
Spokesperson: And it was not a quote from someone.
Question: I didn’t know that this was a forum for you to critique articles, but I just wanted to know [inaudible].
Spokesperson: No, it is, because it is possible for me to respond to you in the same way that it is possible for you to respond to me. What I am trying to tell you is that -- let me finish. The UN lost a number of people, including the security officer, Mr. Maxwell, who had saved many lives. We want to know what happened. We’re looking into this. We want to know what happened. There is a Board of Inquiry that has looked into this and it is finalizing its report. That’s the most important thing that we’re trying to find out. We want to know. You want to know, we want to know. And when the Board of Inquiry has finalized its report, then those who need to know first of all, would be told.
Question: When was the UN going to say publicly that they were aware of an alternative theory of the death of Louis Maxwell and three other staff members?
Spokesperson: There is a Board of Inquiry that has been working on this for a long time. You’ve seen the timeline.
Question: But you’ve also said that if only in cases where, depending on the finding, it may or may not be made public. If this inquiry were done, and I think this was the sense of staff in Kabul, if the inquiry were done and the UN decided to conclude that there wasn’t conclusive evidence that Louis Maxwell was killed by Afghan national forces, would the UN have ever said anything publicly about this?
Spokesperson: There is no need for the United Nations to -- let’s put it this way, the United Nations wants to know. Colleagues want to know. Friends want to know. Family want to know. We want to know. He was our guy. We want to know what happened. And the Board of Inquiry is doing, and has been doing, the job that it was asked to do, which is to find out. There is a due process here that is being followed.
Question: Due process for who? For the Afghan national, unnamed Afghan national forces, that’s what I know; I mean due process usually means the accused.
Spokesperson: It means following the procedure for, with -- as I have said to you -- standard operational procedure for these kinds of boards within the United Nations. And I have said here before, that if warranted, this will be taken up with the Afghan authorities -- the findings.
Question: Okay. I know, I understand. Just to be clear, I just want your quote. To those who feel that the lack of any public statement by the UN from -- since October -- about this issue despite their knowledge amounts to a cover up, what would you say?
Spokesperson: Absolutely not the case. Absolutely not the case. This is a Board of Inquiry that was set up to look into what was obviously an extremely tragic event, and to ensure that, to the extent possible, we find out what happened. My point was to you Matthew, very specifically, about one line in your blog that was not a quote from people, it was something that was just written there.
Question: [inaudible] I don’t quote them because they’re speaking off… they believe that the UN would retaliate against them. I mean, that’s… maybe you are unaware of those concerns. I wanted to ask about Sudan, because I think we may have exhausted this, at least for today.
