Wednesday, March 8, 2017

On Nepal, ICP Asked UN of Abuse of Madhesi Community, Spox Won't Explain Withholding Info


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 7 – What is the bare minimum a spokesperson should be expected to do, for an organization like the UN? Should it include, if a spokesperson has no answer to a journalist's questions at an in-person briefing, e-mailing an answer when it becomes available? Not in today's UN Spokesperson's office, at least not for Inner City Press which that Office evicted from the UN Press Briefing Room and then the UN, and still restricts. On March 7, holdover Deputy Spokesperson Haq wouldn't even explain why he had not provided available UN information,video here. On March 6, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq about Nepal. From the UN transcript: 
Inner City Press:  I know that the UN used to have a mission in Nepal, but there's been kind of increasing problems in the Madhesi and Tharu communities there, including now today people killed by security forces.  And it seems to be politically there are groups trying to mobilize.  So, I just wondered, since the Secretary-General talks about preventative diplomacy, is the UN actually looking at this growing problem in Nepal?  And does it have any idea of trying to somehow get involved as well as commenting on the killing of unarmed individuals by the security forces?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, of course, we want to make sure that any excessive use of force will be investigated.  Beyond that, we're monitoring the situation.  If there's anything further down the line, we'll let you know at that point.
   "We'll let you know." Well, the UN Office in Nepal put out a statement that it is "seriously concerned by the escalation of tensions in the lead-up to the local elections announced for May," which others (not in the UN) then sent to Inner City Press. From the UN's two holdover spokesmen, nothing. On March 7, Inner City Press asked Haq why he hadn't followed through on his "if there's anything further down the line, we'll let you know" line. From the March 7 transcript: 
Inner City Press:  yesterday I’d asked you about Nepal, and you said, you know, “I’ll get back to you if something comes out”.  Something actually did come out from the office of Nepal.  So I… maybe you’ll read it from here, but, like… wasn’t that… when you say “I’m gonna get back to you”, does it mean I’m going to send you something if the UN system provides the information?  Like, what happened?

Deputy Spokesman:  It means exactly what it means.  We’ve been dealing with each other for years.  You’ll get answers down the line once we get them.

Inner City Press:  So do you have… you’re unaware that the office of Nepal has actually put out a statement about the incident I asked you about yesterday, or do you have that?

Deputy Spokesman:  I’m aware that they’ve put out a statement.  That was after I was at the briefing.  If it was before the briefing, we could have mentioned it then.

Inner City Press:  Right, but since… between the two briefings, like, once they put it out.
  Beckett. Or Pinter. This is similar to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked last week about the abuse of Anglophones in Cameroon, not even asking or providing a response from the Department of Political Affairs, whose Jeffrey Feltman in a rare Q&A session on March 6 said that ONUCA's Francois Lonseny Fall had visited the region. Lazy spox, indeed. UNacceptable. We'll have more on this.

Earlier (2016) here.