By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 17, with a song -- On the UN having brought cholera to Haiti, the US government on July 7 filed another letter supporting the UN's immunity -- or in this case, impunity.
On August 28, the plaintiffs filed their sur-reply, which Inner City Press put online here.
On September 17, the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti held a conference call about the status and background of the case. IJDH's executive director Brian Concannon said that cholera was introduced to Haiti in October 2010 by UN peacekeepers.
Concannon said the UN waited 15 months then called the claims "not receivable" -- the same phrase the UN used as to whistleblowers in a belated answer it sent to Inner City Press during the IJDH call, click here for that.
He described serving the legal papers on Ban Ki-moon and Edmond Mulet, the head of the MINUSTAH mission (and, also on September 17, briefing the Security Council about peacekeepers giving over their weapons, vehicles and even uniforms to the Jabhat al Nusra rebels in the Golan Heights).
IJDH Legal Fellow Shannon Jonsson described how the UN failed to provide any out of court process to consider claims, in violation of two treaties (and the UN's Status of Forces Agreement.)
Finally, IJDH Staff Attorney Beatrice Lindstrom described broader advocacy , in Congress and among UN member states, to get justice for those harmed by the UN's introduction of cholera to Haiti. She quoted Martin Luther King that the arc of history is long but bends toward justice. There will be an upcoming demonstration at the UN's logistics base in Haiti. We'll have more on this.
The US' 15-page letter cited in support of UN immunity the case of Cynthia Brzak, regarding sexual harassment by UNHCR's Ruud Lubber, and a letter to US Ambassador Samantha Power from the UN's counsel Miguel de Serpa Soares, which Inner City Press is putting online, here. TheUS letter to the court is here.
Beyond supporting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodging the service of legal papers -- on which Ban's spokespeople have themselves dodged and more -- the US letter cited the UN - Haiti program on cholera on which theUN's Pedro Medrano has still to take Press questions.
The US letter says, "The General Convention and the SOFA provide that any dispute between a state party and the UN shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, see General Convention, art. VIII, § 30; SOFA art. VIII, § 58; and the SOFA provides that any dispute between MINUTSAH [sic] and the Government of Haiti shall be submitted to arbitration, see SOFA art. VIII, § 57."
So much for "we the peoples."
The sur-reply filed August 28 states that "under the doctrine of unclean hands, the request for immunity should be refused. The Government fails to present any response to this argument."
Back on May 15, opposition to the US' first iteration of its position was filed, with amicus support from a bevy of law professors, an ex judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and former UN human rights rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak.
Nowak said, "the UN needs to understand that immunity cannot mean impunity. If it refuses to provide people alleging harm with a path to justice, courts will refuse to uphold its immunity.”
But then as now, the UN under Ban Ki-moon wouldn't even bring its envoy on cholera Pedro Medrano forward for questioning. Inner City Press has asked, for example onApril 21:
Inner City Press: … seemed to quote Mr. Medrano as predicting in advance that this panel he would be on with the Government may provide assistance, but he said, like, the word “compensation” won’t be used. So I wanted to know, is that a UN position? Is it his prediction of that the Government doesn’t want the word “compensation” used? And is there some way that we can have by video or otherwise, a kind of, some kind of presentation by Mr. Medrano?
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: Sure, on Haiti, over the weekend, the terms of reference on this high level committee on cholera, which would be a UN and Government of Haiti committee, have been officially agreed on. And the aim is really for the joint effort of to fight cholera between the UN and the Government of Haiti. The Committee aims at further improving the coordination response to the epidemic and obviously we expect to have an official announcement in the next couple of days. But this is a very important… the establishment of this committee is a very important one in terms of our efforts, and most importantly the Government of Haiti’s efforts, to address not only cholera but also the associated water and sanitation issues....
Inner City Press: Just on Medrano, I will like to say again if you could do a briefing in this room it would help.
Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you.
But did he? There has still been no briefing. Members of the US Congress have written to State Department diplomats about this case in the past. Based on this letter, will they do so again?
As the first US answer was released, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was partying with in-house scribes, most of whom never pursued this most outrageous case of UN impunity, or even asked if Ban Ki-moon like a scoff law was hiding from the process server.
Now on July 8, these same scribes are offering symbiosis, bread and circuses, or pretzels and beer, in the large room Ban's UN gives them, usually sitting empty even as the News Agency of Nigeria was evicted due to lack of space. This is today's UN.
Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:
Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?
Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.
Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?
Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.
Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:
On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...
Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.
8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.
That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.
