By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on Exclusive
UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- Four days ago, Inner City Press reported Rwanda complained to the UN Security Council that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous and his MONUSCO mission flew FDLR leader Gaston Iyamuremye / Rumuli Michel on UN aircraft even as Ladsous' travel waiver request was denied.
And so on June 27 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric a simple factual question: did MONUSCO fly Rumuli around inside the DRC before any Security Council decision on Ladsous' request?
This is a yes or no question, about the use of UN resources and money. But Dujarric did not answer it on June 27, and MONUSCO chief Martin Kobler did not answer it on June 28 or June 29.
So on June 30 Inner City Press asked Dujarric again. He said, as he increasingly does, if he gets something on that, he'll pass it along. But that is UNacceptable. Did he even ASK Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping?
Dujarric sat next to Ladsous on May 29 while Ladsous said,"You know I do not respond to you, Mister" - and said nothing. Video here. When asked later if this was acceptable in Ban's UN, he did not say no. There is more for we'll leave it here for now.
It is undoubtedly newsworthy that the UN, or really France, chose to put at the helm of UN Peacekeeping in the Great Lakes a person who in 1994, in the Security Council, argued for the escape of genocidiares from Rwanda into Eastern Congo. Inner City Press story here; sample 1994 memo by Ladsous here.
Ladsous' history has caused needless problems; when asked about it, rather than answering Ladsous has adopted a policy of refusing that and any related question. Video compilation here.
Now in the Congo Martin Kobler, who works for Ladsous, has not answered the simple question of flying Rumuli inside the DRC; instead MONUSCO tweets photos of Kobler singing in a choir in Kinshasa. Ladsous has turned the UN into a joke -- and it keeps getting worse.
That the French government is in denial about its role in 1994 in the Rwanda genocide is one thing. But why aren't they told they have to appoint a chief of DPKO - a position they claim to own - without this pernicious baggage?
A bare minimum: shouldn't this official at least have to answer questions?
