By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- Why would the UN Mission in Sudan, and Reuters, refuse to release or even quote from an ostensible apology from UNMIS for the summary exclusion of a Sudanese journalist working for Reuters from the UN Security Council's plane from Juba to Darfur?
As first reported by Inner City Press, as the Council delegation prepared to fly to El Fasher last week, UN Security determined there was one extra person on board. Rather than ascertain who was on the flight but not the manifest, a Sudanese journalist sitting directly behind Inner City Press was told to leave the plane.
When he asked a question, his backpack was thrown to the ground and he was told he would be “forcibly” removed. He left, with three other Sudanese journalists (employed by BBC and Xinhua) joining him in solidarity.
None of the Council Ambassadors said anything. (One Permanent Five member later in the trip expressed surprise to Inner City Press about the incident, and said it was being used to make the UN and Council look bad.)
At the Council's last press conference in Khartoum, it was rumored that an apology was delivered. Inner City Press waited in the front row, hand raised. But no apology was read out, and Inner City Press was not allowed to ask any questions.
(Afterward, a UN spokesperson told Inner City Press it had been decided to limit questions to “local” journalists, which included as the first question a non-Sudanese western wire service reporter resident in Khartoum - because potentially relevant, a Reuters reporter.)
Back in UN Headquarters, an UNMIS statement about the incident was put on the counter of Office of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson (previously of Reuters, some note), which was met with skepticism by UN correspondents and was then no longer available.
Inner City Press asked UNMIS for a copy of the statement, and received in return this response by UNMIS spokesman Ashraf Eissa:
“It was a pleasure meeting you in Sudan Last week. I hope your flight back to NY was not too taxing. Here is our response... UNMIS has received formal complaints re the incident from the two institutions with which four journalists who traveled with the SC group are affiliated. UNMIS has formally responded to these complaints.”
Why not say what the “formal response” was? Security Council members, including a Permanent Five member whom Inner City Press spoke with about it, saw and then read out the ejection of the Sudanese media. What is UNMIS' response? Inner City Press asked again, and was told:
“The response was given to two organizations who sent the letters. It is up to them to disclose it if they choose to do so.”
While three media organizations were reportedly involved, Inner City Press asked Reuters in New York for a copy or summary of UNMIS' letter. From London, 24 hours later, this was the response:
“We have received a letter from the U.N. Mission in Sudan, however we will not be releasing this. But I would like to provide you with the following statement, which you are welcome to use:
'The U.N. Mission in Sudan has responded swiftly to our complaint, with an apology for the treatment of our staff. We appreciate the speed with which the matter was addressed and the apology we have received. We now consider the matter to be closed.'
This statement should be attributed to a 'spokesperson from Reuters'.”
Why would Reuters refuse to release or even quote from the ostensible apology from UNMIS? Did UNMIS ask Reuters to keep it confidential? The question is relevant in that UNMIS (and the wider UN) can grant or restrict access to the media which cover it.
UN Plane in Sudan, Sudanese journalists' exclusion and apology not shown (c) MRLee
For this reason, the best practice would seem to be to release the letter. In fact, Reuters and other media have in the past demanded that the UN release copies of other letters described as apologies. Why not this one?
Footnotes: As Inner City Press reported at the time, " The disparate treatment of the Sudanese journalists began earlier in the day, in the base of the UN Mission in Sudan. The reporters traveling with the Security Council including Inner City Press were told to disembark the bus for lunch. The Sudanese journalists were left onboard and only rejoined the group after the UNMIS sandwiches were eaten."
Also, as many on the trip noticed, US Ambassador Susan Rice was accompanied by an entourage of four, while most other Ambassadors were told to bring, and in fact brought, no one else. Might there be another side deal or apology? Watch this site.
