For UN Human Rights Day Event, UN Flags as “Barred” Inner City Press Which Asks Speakers Michelle Bachelet and Andrew Gilmour Why They Accept SG Guterres Censorship With No Due Process of Critical Press

By Matthew Russell Lee, CJR PFT NY Post

UNITED NATIONS, December 7 – With UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and her Deputy Andrew Gilmour set to speak in the UN on human rights day on December 10, Inner City Press responded to an invitation and was told, "Thank you for registering to attend the Human Rights Day event at the United Nations on Monday 10 December. On Monday, please come to the UN Visitors’ Gate on First Avenue opposite 45th street starting at 2pm, at which time entry passes will be distributed."

Then, past six p.m. on Friday, December 7 this from Bachelet's and Gilmour's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: "Dear Matthew, We have received notification from UN Security that your name was flagged as "BARRED" on the list we submitted for passes for Monday's event (3pm, ECOSOC Chamber).We will therefore not have a pass for you and are unable to facilitate entry. Thank you for your interest and best regards, OHCHR New York Office."

   Inner City Press immediately wrote back, to the sender and Bachelet and her assistant, to Andrew Gilmour and to the moderator of the event, "Particularly since you are the UN Office of the High Commissioner for *Human Rights,* did you not ask why a journalist who asks the Secretary General and his spokesmen about the killings in Cameroon, Burundi, UN corruption, UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of civilians, and Sri Lanka, is “BARRED” from attending your human rights event - without any hearing or appeal? I will appreciate your Office's answer to this."  We'll have more on this.

 Bachelet gave a speech on October 15 in the UN's Third Committee, she emphasized a prioritization of social and economic rights and said one of the officials of her office is "on mission in Silicon Valley" in the US. There are questions about this - but Inner City Press which has covered human rights and the UN for more than a decade was for the first time banned from access a High Commissioner's speech. This has been raised repeated to Bachelet since she took office but she has so far done nothing, not even responded. Meanwhile on October 12 Cameroon, from whose Paul Biya Secretary General Antonio Guterres took a golden statue and favors in the Fifth (Budget) Committee and remains silent on the slaughter of Anglophones, was elected to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This system is failing - but if Bachelet cannot even answer on Guterres maintaining a secret banned list including not only Inner City Press but also "political activists," then the UN has hit a new low.

   Inner City Press was never given a hearing by Smale before her August 17 letter with withdrew Inner City Press media accreditation. Nothing in it said anything about a ban from entering the UN as a person, a tourist, or in another other way. But this is what happened, without any recourse. Pure Kafka-esque censorship, by a former New York Times Berlin bureau chief to hinder coverage of the corruption of the former Portuguese prime minster Antonio Guterres, see September 23 New York Post here. What next? Watch this site.

In Central African Republic, Rape by UN Peacekeeping Reported by Amnesty International, UN Cover Up Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it a year ago, the UN and UNICEF did nothing, until UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower in March of this year.  Inner City Press asked UNICEF about its role, here.

   Now Amnesty International reports in detail on the alleged rape by UN Peacekeeping of a 12 year old girl in the PK5 neighborhood of Bangui on August 2. This was a day after UN Peacekeepers were fired on there: that is, it appears to be a case of rape as a weapon of war.

 So why, as Inner City Press has previously asked, doesn't the UN's Sexual Violence and Conflict office and Special Representative Bangura deal with UN Peacekeepers using rape as a weapon? This is not, as Bangura previously answered Inner City Press, sexual abuse or exploitation: it is rape as a weapon of war. Where is Ladsous, and how does he remain in his position?

  For the Panel that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon belatedly announced, Inner City Press on August 4 asked if they will travel to CAR to do any interviews. Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq insisted "that is nothing we could know in advance." Transcript below.

  On August 5, Inner City Press asked UN Peacekeeping's leader in CAR, Babacar Gaye, who said that the Panel had visited Bangui. So, UN Peacekeeping knew.

  Did only Ladsous' DPKO, in the UN Secretariat, know about this visit by the "independent" Panel? On August 6, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, as transcribed by Inner City Press, video here:

Inner City Press: Earlier in the week, I asked Farhan if the panel would travel to CAR, and he said there’s no way we would know. Yesterday Babacar Gaye said they have already traveled there. Does DPKO know where they’re traveling, and you don’t?

Spokesman Dujarric: I think the point is, I’m not keeping track of them, because they’re independent. So, they go wherever they need to go, they do whatever they need to do. They do what they need to do. Obviously, their travel needs to be arranged, there are logistical arrangements that they rely on us for. They’re not traveling on their own. There are logistical and security concerns I’m sure people know where they are going. But it is not my job to keep up with them and give you a play by play of who they’re talking to or where they’re going. We’ll see what they come up with ata the end and, as I said, we will share their report.

Inner City Press :Any update on the French prosecution of the individuals accused?

Spokesman Dujarric: No. I do not. My understanding is that that investigation is continuing.

 From the UN's August 4 transcript:

Inner City Press: Two questions about the Central African Republic.  One is just there was a study report, I guess, it came out on Friday by Amnesty International about the… this sort of forced conversion of Muslims in the Central African Republic and the fact that many of the people that left are basic… those were thought to come from Chadian or Sudanese grandparents are not returning.  I wanted to know if… I don’t know if you had some response or the UN had some response about how its mission can deal with those two issues.

And the other one has to do with the panel on the sexual… the allegations of the child sexual abuse in CAR by Sangaris.  I wanted to know if the panel… I know you’re going to say they’re independent, but there’s a… whether they are, in fact, going to travel to the country to do any interviews.  And the reason I’m asking is, what is their budget?  Where does the budget of the panel come from?  And what is the budget of the panel?

Deputy Spokesman:  At this stage, they are free to go about their work as they see fit.  They will submit figures on their budget once they’ve completed their work.  At this stage, it’s a work in progress.  We don’t have nor do we ask for details about what their work is going to be.  They will complete it, and then they will inform us of what their work is.  So whether it includes travel on the ground or not, that’s their call, and it’s nothing that we would learn in advance.

Regarding the Amnesty International report, of course, we’re concerned about the situation there.  You’ll have seen what our own human rights officers on the ground have been saying about the situation, and it’s a tremendous cause for concern, both the displacements and the sort of inter-community and inter-ethnic and interreligious violence that there’s been.

Inner City Press:  Could I just… to understand the budget issue.  Obviously, they’re supposed to pay for it out of their own pocket and get reimbursed, or how is the actual work of the panel being paid for currently?

Deputy Spokesman:  We have different accounts that can deal with expenses, such as unforeseen expenditures, like new panels.  Regarding what specific accounting they will do, that… you know, that will become clearer as… you know, once they’ve gone about their work, so we’ll have to wait and see what they submit for their budget.

   Now both the UN's outgoing -- gone -- "Ethics Officer" Dubinsky and the three person panel UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named to investigate are under fire. On July 31, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about... Ms. Dubinsky, the Ethics Officer contract extension, which would give her a lifetime pension, and the extension was given just as she discussed investigating Mr. Kompass on the Central African Republic rape allegations.  And I’m asking you this because the head of Aids-Free World and Code Blue, you say you respect, as well as the Government Accountability Project, both find that an extreme… extremely troubling timing and say that it calls for… demands Secretary-General Ban’s personal attention, the idea of a conflict of interest of giving $12,000 a year for life to the person that was investigating the whistle-blower of these rapes.  What’s your response?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Indeed, I ... very much respect the work that Ms. Dubinsky has been doing over the last five years.  I know the Secretary-General does as well.  This is her last day.  She’ll be retiring as of tomorrow... I think in accordance with UN staff regulations and staff rules, the authority for the selection of staff members at D-2 Level and above rests with the Secretary-General including the retention of staff members beyond the retirement age should the need arise.  The Secretary-General attaches great importance to the selection and appointment of senior managers as a priority seeks to have smooth transition during a change in leadership.  We’re not in a position to discuss individual staff members’ contracts.  The UN has an obligation to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of all staff records.  As I mentioned, her term ends today.  Again, the Secretary-General is grateful for her work.  And I think, you know, what is also of concern, I think, is the fact that some of her personal data was leaked, was leaked to the press and personal information concerning her.

Inner City Press:  Who’s the next Ethics Officer?  If the rationale for giving the extension was continuity…

Spokesman:  We hope to announce someone in due time.

Inner City Press:  Has she been spoken with by the panel on these rapes...

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  The panel is independent.  I’ve made it a point to have no contact with them unless asked to, and I won’t ask them who they plan to talk to.

Inner City Press:  And just finally, the Government Accountability Project, again a respected organization, has now said that two of the three panellists are not, in fact, independent because of the dangling of future UN appointments in front of the--

Spokesman:  I think the panel put together is an extraordinary panel.  I think everyone can always find something to argue with.  They are… they are people of great ethical standard.  They are people who have had great legal careers, have been outspoken human rights defenders, have done great reform work in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces.  I would ask people to judge the panel on its report and to be a little bit patient and see what they come up with.

  But there is an ever-growing pattern here.

  After BuzzFeed's Jina Moore documented that when an aid worker was allegedly raped inside UN Peacekeeping's Bentiu "Protection of Civilians" site in South Sudan, the UN system did little to nothing -- until on July 27, in transcribing Spokesman Stephane Dujarric's answerto Inner City Press' questions, the UN added in a parenthetical that Nobert did not work for the UN.

 On July 30, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about yet another case in this unfolding scandal, this one again involving one of Herve Ladsous' peacekeeping missions, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Video here.


From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: I’m sure you’ve seen the story in The Guardian, actually by one of our colleagues or former colleagues here, Roger, about the systematic rape by an air contractor of the MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission] in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo].  And they basically say that there’s some pretty horrendous evidence or descriptions of what happened, that the UN kept paying the contractor after, with some idea of rehabilitating it.  But I wanted to ask you about, there was an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation of it, and it seems since it’s also a vendor, it obviously brings up this other… this case in Bentiu, which it was a vendor, and the UN said it could do nothing.  First, what can you say to those who say it’s pretty horrendous to continue to pay a contractor which raped an underage girl in the DRC?

Spokesman Dujarric:  What is…  What is horrendous is what happened to the victim and what was done to the victim by those two employees of UTair.  We go back to a story that was, in fact, reported, I think, when it happened a few years back.  Our understanding is that the contractors have been… at the time, were removed and fired from the company.  Both the DRC judicial authorities and the Russians were informed of the… of our investigation into the case.  As we explained in the article, a procedure was put in place at the time to monitor the vendor and the behaviour of the vendor and its staff.  That monitoring mechanism continues.  Every six months, it is reported to our colleagues in the Department of Management, who review it.

I think…  Again, I think the issue of vendors and contractors is a very legitimate one to explore.  Given the criticality of air support, there was a discussion among the Department of Management.  A system was put in place to ensure that this particular company was monitored and monitored on a regular basis, and that continues to do… we continue to do that.  The behaviour of our vendors and the staff that work for them should be at the same level of ethics and behaviour that we expect of our own staff, as they represent us.

Inner City Press:  And was there any accountability for the victims or victims in the DRC, was there actually any accountability, either criminal or civil?

Spokesman:  Again, those… the findings of the OIOS investigation, the UN investigation, were presented to both the DRC and to the Russian authorities, and I think you’d have to ask for them what happened on the criminal end.  As you know, we have no criminal authority.

Inner City Press: In the South Sudan case, where it was also an alleged rape by an employee of a vendor, was any information given to the authorities of either South Sudan…?

Spokesman:  I think we’re still… what happened to Megan Nobert is being looked into.  As I’ve said, both here and in interviews, she suffered horrendously, and our heart goes out to her.  The… you know, UNICEF [United Nations Children’s Fund], which was the agency that had the contract with the vendor for which her accuser… the alleged attacker worked for, was in contact with the vendor, got him removed.  I know our colleagues at UNICEF are absolutely appalled by what happened to Ms. Nobert.  And when I have more information, I’ll share it with you.

Question:  One final thing.  Do you see this as a pattern?  And two, for example, since it’s a UN system, did UNICEF impose any of these similar rehabilitation and reporting requirements on…

[inaudible]

Spokesman:  Like I said, I don’t have all the facts surrounding this case.  I think, again, I would say that we expect…  I wouldn’t call it a pattern.  I think there are hundreds, if not more, of vendors and contractors that work on behalf of the UN who do a spectacular job, partner agencies, partner humanitarian NGOs [non-governmental organizations].  But we do expect anyone who works on behalf of the United Nations to behave to the same ethical standards.  I will…

Inner City Press: The pattern I was asking about is a pattern of a lack of accountability.  Because the UN is working in places that may have not very good… not… not very developed judicial systems and because the UN itself is immune…

[inaudible - the reference was to the UN shirking responsibility for introducing cholera into Haiti]

Spokesman:  I think it’s obviously something we need… it’s something we need to look at.  Our ability to prosecute people criminally is obviously not there.  It’s up to national… either the authority where the crime took place or the citizenship of where the people worked."

  Shouldn't the UN provide some protection and accountability for aid workers in the employ of non-governmental organizations funded by the UN system, particularly inside UN "protection" camps like that in Bentiu?

 Given the vendor issue in both the DRC and South Sudan cases, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access opines that it would have been better if the Guardian had linked to BuzzFeed on South Sudanin its otherwise good story.

 On July 28, Inner City Press asked the UN's top humanitarian, Emergency Relief Coodinatory Stephen O'Brien, about the case. Video here. O'Brien said he had recently been in the Bentiu camp but, not speaking specifically of the case he said he did not know, to his credit he said that facts should be looked into and investigated. But will they be?

  Minutes later Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric why such an investigation was not done in this case -- did it turn on the fact that the alleged victim did not work for the UN system but for a UN fundee? Video here.

   The UN to its July 27 transcript added, "[The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.]" Compare to actual briefing, video here.

  She worked for Nonviolent Peaceforce, which received a $1 million grant from UNICEF for child protection in South Sudan, click here for that.

  Not only did UN spokesman Dujarric refuse to identify UNICEF, run by former US government official Anthony Lake, as the UN agency which did not act on the alleged rape, except to provide "contact information" of the contractor -- UNICEF, which was in charge of the bore hole drilling in which the alleged rapist was engaged, has not directly responded on the scandal.

   Nonviolent Peaceforce, meanwhile, has simply published anadvertisement for a(nother) "Senior Programme Manager, Nonviolent Peaceforce, South Sudan," here.

  The alleged rapist, named as Amed Asmail, seems to also be called Ahmad Ismail, whose Facebook page here pictures him playing music,listing in his bio working with "South Sudan -Life For Construction."

 Inner City Press on July 27 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what accountability there is when UN agency personnel themselves are raped. Video here, and embedded below.

  Dujarric began by calling it a horrendous act - then said that what the UN system did was give the victim the contact information of the contractor. But, Inner City Press asked, since Sudan-based Life for Construction has let the alleged rapist Amed Asmail's contract expire, how will this "contact information" help the victim?

  Dujarric declined to even identify the agency, which used public funds to contract for water bore holes for the Bentiu camp; when Inner City Press asked if it was UNICEF or IOM, he cut the question off. Video here.

  What we can report is that UNICEF, nearly always in charge of the water cluster for the UN system, said on its website in April 2014, here, that UNICEF

"has maintained staff in Bentiu and is rapidly responding to the urgent needs, drilling new boreholes for water, and today flying in parts for the construction of new latrines. However, UNICEF said it remains hindered by a lack of funding and access."

  UNICEF also sat on reports of the sexual abuse of children in Central African Republic; we'll have more on this.


For now, here's this, and now UN's transcript of briefing - a [parenthetical] was later added, highlighted below in bold:

Question:  Sure.  Questions on Burundi but I wanted to ask you something, you may have anticipated coming.  It was a story which was on Friday on BuzzFeed, quite detailed, about an aid worker in the UNMISS camp (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) in Bentiu, who alleges that she was raped by a UN vendor or contractor working for Life For Construction.  Basically the gist of the article is that the UN did absolutely nothing and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) said they could not investigate and there are no recording or reports of sexual abuse or exploitation by vendors anywhere in the UN, DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) or other systems.  So I wanted to know, what is your response to it?  What does the UN owe people in its protection of civilian camps if they are raped there, and why was nothing done in this case?

     Spokesman:  Well, I think this was clearly a horrendous act and I think people who work, aid workers, humanitarian workers, who work within UN camps are owed the best possible protection, that's clear.  In this particular case, the agency for which Ms. Nobert worked is greatly concerned for the well-being and safety and security of all those working with it to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world and it took these particular allegations very seriously.  [The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.] When it became clear that the person accused of the attack on Ms. Nobert was, in fact, an employee of a company hired to undertake work for the agency and not an UN staff member, the agency concluded it was not a position to conduct an investigation into the alleged actions of that person itself.  All of the agencies private contractors are aware of the high standard of conduct the agency accepts from their staff and the agency gave Ms. Nobert the contact details of the employer of the person accused of attacking her, so that she could take her complaint directly to the company.  The agency also instructed the company to remove the individual immediately from any project involving the agency. 

However, given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the agency had to respect both the need for Ms. Nobert to raise her very serious complaint with those who can take actions and the rights of the accused person for due process.  It therefore did not share the specific nature of the complaint with the contractor, allowing Ms. Nobert to decide on how and when she wanted to do that.

The agency concerned believes that in this complex circumstance it did the best it could to support Ms. Nobert, to take her complaint forward.  I think it's clear that, in any of these cases, we also need to take a look how we responded and how we can do better in responding to horrendous cases like this one.

     Question:  Thus seems to imply… obviously, Life for Construction, they have already terminated the individual, so there is no more relationship between them. So is there… what is the UN saying is the accountability mechanism for this alleged rape?  And, two, you keep saying the agency. Was the agency in charge of boring water holes in the Bentiu camp?  Was it UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), was it IOM (International Organization for Migration)?  Which agency are you speaking of?

     Spokesman:  As the article makes clear, Ms. Nobert specifically requested the agencies she had contacts with shall not be named and we will respect her wishes.

     Question:  Who is in charge of boring the water holes?

     Spokesman:  That is what I have to share with you and, if I have, more I will share with you. 

See above - and InnerCityPress.com

  

Egypt Sentenced 509 to Death in 2014, Obama Releases Jets, Amnesty International Releases Report

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 1 with video -- In Egypt in 2014, 509 people were sentenced to death. 

  On March 31, 2015, on the very day the UN belatedly criticized airstrikes in an IDP camp in Yemen, and Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross complained of the blockades that prevent medical supplies from getting in, US President Barack Obama said he is releasing tanks, jets and rockets to Egypt, which is part of the military offensive and blockade.

 On April 1, Inner City Press asked Amnesty International's representative at the UN Renzo Pomi about the death sentences, and the Obama administration's decision. Video here.

  While Pomi had no direct comment linking the two issues, Amnesty International was fast in reporting civilian casualties from the Saudi-led, Egypt-involved offensive on Yemen. 

 (And, Amnesty notes, in 2014 "the USA continued to use the death penalty in contravention of international law and standards," citing the cases of Edgar Tamayo, Askari Adullah Muhammad, Paul Goodwin and Ramiro Hernandez Llanas.)

 In Amnesty's study of executions in 2014, Pomi told Inner City Press, only "judicial" executions were considered. This apparently means, by a state or recognized entity such as in Gaza. ISIS is not counted, though its executions have led to others. Are all states judicial? We hope to have more on this.

  The White House read-out began, "President Obama spoke with Egyptian President Abdelfattah al-Sisi today regarding the U.S.-Egyptian military assistance relationship and regional developments, including in Libya and Yemen.  President Obama informed President al-Sisi that he will lift executive holds that have been in place since October 2013 on the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles, and M1A1 tank kits."

 The NSC specified that "President Obama has directed the release of 12 F-16 aircraft, 20 Harpoon missiles, and up to 125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits that have been held from delivery."

   The timing is strange. Or perhaps not.

 Amid continued airstrikes in Yemen, on March 30 came reports of an airstrike on an internally displaced persons camp in Haradh. Inner City Press immediately sought confirmation (and comment) from the UN.

 On March 31, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid issued a statement on Yemen including this:

'I am shocked by Monday’s airstrike against the Al-Mazraq camp for internally displaced people in Harad, in the north of Yemen,' Zeid said. There are different accounts as to how many people were killed in the airstrike, but UN human rights staff in Yemen have verified at least 19 fatalities, with at least 35 others injured including 11 children. This camp, home to some 4,000 people, was established by the UN in 2009 and recently received at least 300 new families displaced from Sa'da."

  Meanwhile UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was in Kuwait, talking about "a deeply moving video entitled 'Clouds over Sidra.'  It is an amazing virtual reality production of the starkness of life in the Za’atari Refugee Camp through the eyes of a beautiful young girl by the name of Sidra."

  Ban speaks on this virtual reality - but remains silent on the inconvenient reality of the airstrike on the real IDP camp in Haradh in Yemen.

   

On Yemen, State Department Can't Corroborate Civilian Casualties, Inner City Press Asks of Process, Benomar, Houthis

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON DC, March 27 -- Amid continued airstrikes in Yemen, Inner City Press on March 27 asked State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke if the US has been in contact with the UN's Jamal Benomar. Rathke said he didn't have such information in front of him.

  So if the goal is to get the Houthis back into talks, whether in Doha or elsewhere, Inner City Press asked, what is the process?

  "There are a variety of ways that the Houthis and other groups in Yemen can express their readiness to return to the process," Rathke said. Some wonder: does that mean capitulation?

From the State Department transcript:

Inner City Press: On Yemen, has the U.S. had any contact with Jamal Benomar, the special advisor who’s supposed to be mediating?  And how do you think that the – what’s the process from bombing to getting the Houthis back to the table?  Is anyone actually reaching out to them?

MR. RATHKE:   I can check and see if we have any contact with Benomar.  I don’t have any information in front of me.  It’s possible we’ve been in contact; I’d just have to check.  [Updated here.]

Inner City Press:  But if you’re calling for these – for talks to resume, what’s the process?  Is he still the sort of center point for that, or is there some other process?  What should – what’s the next step?

MR. RATHKE:  Well, there are a variety of ways through which the Houthis and other groups in Yemen can convey their and express their readiness to return to a political process.

  On civilian casualties in Sana'a, Rathke said "we’ve always been clear that in every conflict, all sides should avoid civilian casualties.  I don’t – I’m not able to corroborate those reports that you’ve mentioned, but clearly, we think it’s important to act in a targeted way in any kind of military conflict." Here is Amnesty International's report.

 Inner City Press also asked Rathke about the Maldives government threatening migrant workers with deportation for demonstrating about abusive conditions, and the 11 year sentence imposed on former defense minister Nazid. Rathke said he may revert with some comments. [The State Department answered Inner City Press later on March 27, here.]

 On March 26 Inner City Press asked Rathke if the US thinks former President Saleh could play any role going forward, and for its position on Sudan participating in the "Saudi coalition" the US supports.

  Rathke replied about the US Treasury Department sanctions imposed on Saleh on November 10, 2014, and reiterated previous US criticism. From the State Department transcript (video here from Minute 26:49)

QUESTION:  Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press.  I wanted to know what the U.S. thinks of the role of former President Saleh, and do you think that he has any role to play in the negotiations that are trying to be had?  And also, you said repeatedly that the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, and it’s said that Sudan is one of the partners and that they’ve offered three air force planes.  And I wanted to know, would the U.S. support Sudanese participation in bombing Yemen?

MR. RATHKE:  So I’ll take the second one first.  We are aware that the Government of Sudan has announced that it is taking part in the actions organized by the Saudis.  We’re not in a position to confirm the details of or the nature of their participation.  Again, this is a Saudi-organized and Saudi-led coalition, so I don’t have more to say on that aspect.

You asked about former President Saleh.  And so we have long made clear our concerns about the obstructive role that former President Saleh plays in Yemen.  He has consistently sought to undermine Yemen’s political transition.  This is widely recognized by the international community, which, in fact, sanctioned former President Saleh under UN Security Council Resolution 2140 just a few months ago.  That was in November 2014.  And the reason was for his obstruction of the political transition and undermining the government.

The U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned former President Saleh on November 10th, 2014 for engaging in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, and stability of Yemen.  So our position on him and his role, I think, is quite clear. 

  On Inner City Press' question on Sudan, note this is the same Sudanese air force bombing civilians in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states.

   Inner City Press also asked Rathke about the US restricting Cuban diplomats to within 25 miles of Columbus Circle in New York -- Rathke said this is being negotiated, along with the US' desire for free movement in Cuba -- and if the US will be replacing Russ Feingold as Special Envoy on the Great Lakes.

  I have no personnel announcements, Rathke said, twice.

  Earlier in the day reporters complained about the lack of answers from the International Monetary Fund. Rathke at least kept fielding questions, and had a surprising number of if-asked statements in his binder.

   Inner City Press at the International Monetary Fund briefing on March 26 asked again about the status of the IMF program in Yemen.  From the IMF transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Yemen. I asked online actually a couple of times ago, and you had said it wasn’t helpful but there would be a review in the spring. Now, with these air strikes by Saudi Arabia and Houthi’s moving on Aden, what is the status of the IMF’s program, and what is the thinking, how are you going to review it?

MR. MURRAY: Thanks for that question. Well, obviously, we are watching the rapidly evolving situation in Yemen carefully and closely at the moment. Given a host of uncertainties surrounding Yemen at this moment, the first review under the Fund supported program is postponed until the situation clarifies.

When it will clarify? Can’t say. Certainly, the review mission is postponed. One of our biggest concerns about Yemen is the impact on the poorest there, and the economic reverberations of events. Way too soon to say what those will be, but we are just going to have to keep an eye on the situation.

Inner City Press: Has the IMF had any kind contact with the Houthi’s since they have been in contact --

MR. MURRAY: I’m not aware of any recent contact with the Houthi’s, certainly not in recent days. I really don’t have any recent guidance on that.

   Back on January 22, Murray had answered Inner City Press that while events in Yemen were not helpful, the review was not until Spring. Now it is postponed indefinitely.

  Inner City Press also asked Murray to confirm that the IMF may declined to proceed with Haiti if it continues to subsidize electricity. Murray said he would get an answer to the question and that it would be circulated and inserted into the transcript. Watch this site.

Three days after the UN Security Council convened on Yemen for a rare Sunday meeting on March 22 and issued only a Presidential Statement against outside interference, Saudi Arabia began airstrikes against the Houthis inside Yemen, citing Article 51 of the UN Charter.

   At the US State Department briefing on March 25, outgoing spokesperson Jen Psaki would only confirm that Hadi left his residence -- "voluntarily" -- while at the UN in New York Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq cautioned against increased militarization in Yemen.

  Will the UN Secretariat criticize Saudi Arabia now? 

 On March 24, Hadi wrote again to the Council and asked for "the Security Council to issue a binding resolution under Chapter VII inviting all willing countries who wish to to provide immediate support;" he also cited al-Qaeda and Daesh.

  This is not the way Iraq did it. 

On March 23 the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia seemed to express this willingness. (On March 24, Saudi Arabia spoke in the UN Budget Committee to say same sex relationship are "morally unacceptable;" Yemen, perhaps because of the pending request, did not vote.)

   Inner City Press on March 23 asked the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: there have been two statements I wanted to ask if there's any response to.  One is by the new Foreign Minister of Yemen calling for a no-fly zone, making this request presumably to the Arab League, and also from the Foreign Minister from Saudi Arabia saying they'll take whatever necessary measures to curb Houthi advance.  So I’m just wondering, Jamal Benomar said there is no military solution and there should be talks, but is there any response by the UN to these two statements?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, in general, like I said at the start of this briefing, Mr. Benomar did urge all sides in this time of rising tensions and inflammatory rhetoric to appreciate the gravity of the situation and de-escalate by exercising maximum restraint, ceasing all hostilities and refraining from provocation and using violence to achieve political goals.  And that remains our standpoint as a whole. Regarding a request to the League of Arab States, of course, that will be for them to consider

  Call it deferring.  

  After the two-hour closed door meeting of the Security Council, during which Permanent Five members' Permanent Representatives drifted away one by one, no one came out to the UN Television stakeout to speak on the record and apparently little new was said behind closed doors. 

  Hours after the UN Security Council scheduled the emergency meeting on Yemen, the US announced:

"Due to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen, the U.S. Government has temporarily relocated its remaining personnel out of Yemen.  We have informed President Hadi of this step as part of our close coordination with the Yemeni government.  We will continue to engage the Yemeni people and the international community to strongly support Yemen’s political transition.  We also continue to actively monitor terrorist threats emanating from Yemen and have capabilities postured in the area to address them.  As we have in the past, we will take action to disrupt continuing, imminent threats to the United States and our citizens.

"There is no military solution to Yemen’s current crisis.  We urge the immediate cessation of all unilateral and offensive military actions.  We join all of the other members of the Security Council in underscoring that President Hadi is the legitimate authority in Yemen and re-emphasize our support for his efforts to lead Yemen through crisis.  We call upon the Houthis, former President Ali Abdallah Salih, and their allies to stop their violent incitement that threatens President Hadi, Yemeni government officials, and innocent civilians.

"We encourage all Yemeni factions to constructively engage in the UN-led political dialogue to achieve an inclusive power sharing agreement.  No unilateral assertion of authority will succeed in Yemen.  We urge a renewed commitment to a peaceful political transition consistent with the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative, the National Dialogue Conference outcomes, and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

"We are concerned that the well-being of all Yemenis now stands threatened by increasing instability, with extremists trying to capitalize on growing volatility as witnessed in the unconscionable March 20 attacks that killed over 130 Yemeni men, women, and children.  Progress in the political transition process offers Yemen the best hope to address these grave threats.  The United States remains committed to supporting all Yemenis in this endeavor and to aiding those who continue to strive for a peaceful, prosperous, and unified Yemen."

  Five weeks after the last Yemen resolution of the UN Security Council was adopted on Sunday, February 15, now on Sunday March 22 the Council held another emergency meeting on Yemen. Much has changed, most recently airstrikes on Hadi's headquarters in Aden and more deadly bombing of largely Houthi mosques in Sana'a.

  With less than 24 hours notice on March 21 the new emergency Security Council meeting was reported by the UN Spokesperson, Inner City Press, Lithuania, Jordan which requested the meeting, and France the Council's president for March. 

  It was said Hadi requested the meeting; some speculated he wants the "Houthi coup" language that was dropped from the February 15 resolution revived. But with the Houthis themselves targeted, how would this play? And if a first round of sanctions didn't stop these developments, would a second round?

Update: Sources tell Inner City Press that UN envoy Jamal Benomar abruptly left Yemen, and that Hadi's goal is to get (more) UN Security Council authorization for military action against the Houthis "and Saleh." But he could already claim to be authorized for that. A Presidential Statement doesn't mean victory on the ground, though... 

Update II: a question, of course, is how all this UN Security Council action relates to its P5+1 talks with Iran on the nuclear file. Seems the draft PRST would call on "all member States to refrain from external interference which seeks to foment conflict and instability and instead to support the political transition." ALL member states? Including Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Or only Iran?

  On a cold Sunday in New York, the UN Security Council scheduled a 5 pm vote on a resolution on Yemen.Diplomats rushed in. The Gulf Cooperation Council had submitted a draft with the word "Houthi coup" in it, but the phrase did not survive.

  After the watered down resolution was adopted 15-0, Inner City Press asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative about the threat of new sanctions, given how little previous sanctions on Ali Saleh and two Houthi leaders accomplished - and, does he think the Houthis are working with Saleh? (Video here and embedded below.)

  He replied that both are spoilers, they could work together directly or indirectly. The Gulf Cooperation Council will be continuing to push the Security Council, for example on the house arrest of Hadi and others.

  Jordan's Permanent Representative added that come members did not want the word coup.

 Inner City Press notes that while Hadi consented to US drone strikes, a coup would leave such consent "up in the air."

 After the diplomats left, two different Arabic language channels described what had occurred in entirely different terms: one as a "strong message," the other as "weak."  And so it goes.

    

In Ukraine, Sergeyev Tells Inner City Press, Separatists Dress Up as Pro-Kyiv Aidar Battalion: So AI Blind?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 12 -- When Ukraine's Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev re-appeared at the UN on September 12, Inner City Press asked him about Amnesty International's damning report about the pro-Kyiv Aidar Battalion, and about Point 11 of the Protocol, "Economic Reconstruction of Eastern Ukraine."

  On Aidar, Sergeyev replied that the separatists had been dressing up in the pro-government militia's uniforms. Is that something that Amnesty would have entirely missed? Their report is online here.

  On economic reconstruction, Sergeyev distinguished between regions that were never with the "terrorists," those that had been liberated, and... others, presumably Donetsk and Luhansk. 

 On a second around, Inner City Press asked Sergeyev about reports Ukraine is getting sophisticated weapons from a "non-NATO" country. He said there are negotiations that he couldn't get into the details of, since the counter-parties might pull out.

   In past Sergeyev briefings, for example on September 4, the first question has been claimed by UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance. On September 12, there was no UNCA representative present -- an insider briefing elsewhere about which the scribes are not supposed to report. Sergeyev was thanked by the new Free UN Coalition for Access for showing up and answering questions on-the-record, as it should be.

 In that spirit, Inner City Press put online each of the five pages of Sergeyev's opening statement, here, here, here,here and here.

   Back on September 4, Inner City Press asked Sergeyev about challenges from the right to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, for example from Right Sector, AVOZ, and militia commanders like Dmytro Linko and Semen Semenchenko, who has spoken of the need “to establish our own internal command.”

  Sergeyev replied that “naturally, some generals want to be stronger.”

  So are these are generals? Despite talk in Minsk of a ceasefire, Sergeyev insisted that the “law enforcement action” would continue.

  Sergeyev began on September 4 by offering thanks to USg Jeffrey Feltman and to Valerie Amos -- but not John Ging.

  Back on August 24 when Amos visited Eastern Ukraine, her and Ging's agency OCHA put out a press releasesaying that

Amos visited an internally displacement persons' center in Krasnyi Lyman and “met women who had fled the fighting with their families.” The UN OCHA statement on Sunday said that “since March this year, around 200,000 people have fled their homes in search of safety within Ukraine and tens of thousands have fled to neighboring countries.”

  What does "tens of thousands" mean -- and why is it so different from what OCHA official John Ging told the UN Security Council on August 5? In that Council session, Ging said

“since the start of the year 168,677 Ukrainians are registered as having crossed into Russia, with nearly 60,000 of these having applied for refugee status and a further 115,952 having applied for other forms of legal stay.”
  
    Ging on August 5 acknowledged that “this is not the full picture as many Ukrainians that have fled their homes do not register with Ukrainian authorities or officially apply for assistance. The Russian authorities and UNHCR are reporting that 740,000 people have crossed the border since the start of the year.”

  While technically both 740,000 and 168,677 are made up of "tens of thousands," there is a striking disparity between what Ging told the Security Council on August 5, and the OCHA's August 24 press release on Amos' visit to Krasnyi Lyman.  What explains it?

   Back on August 24 just as an emergency but closed-door meeting of the Security Council about Ukraine began, and after the US, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued this statement:

The Secretary-General follows with deep concern reports that a Russian aid convoy has crossed the border into Ukraine without the permission of the Ukrainian authorities. While recognising the deteriorating humanitarian situation, any unilateral action has the potential of exacerbating an already dangerous situation in eastern Ukraine.

Once again, the Secretary-General urges all sides, in particular Ukraine and the Russian Federation, to continue to work together, in coordination with the international community, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches the most affected areas. He reiterates that all sides should continue to exercise maximum restraint and avoid escalation.

In this regard, he is encouraged by the announcement from President Petro Poroshenko that Ukraine will do everything possible to prevent more serious consequences as a result of the convoy moving into Ukrainian territory.

 How was this statement formulated? By whom? Inner City Press asked: What is the position of the UN's humanitarian chief Valerie Amos, who has elsewhere called for cross-border aid?

   At the Churkin presser, Inner City Press asked about the draft press statement Russia proposed on August 21.

 Churkin said that the “indefatigable” Lithuanian delegation “sent in amendments” that dropped references to Russia and included references to the European Union and dropped the reference to a ceasefire. Then, Churkin said, the US delegations send in amendments dropping the ceasefire and blaming the separatists.

  Inner City Press also asked about a report by CNN from Eastern Ukraine in which correspondent Diana Magney asked why Russia was sending salt if there are salt mines in Eastern Ukraine.

  Churkin said, "You can mine salt if you are not shelled.  If you are hiding in your cellars, mining salt is problematic."

   Later the Voice of America's correspondent asked about accusations that the convoy was only to support the rebels.

  "With baby food?" Churkin asked.

   "Rebels have babies too," the Voice of America correspondent said. The implication seemed to be that starving children based on the positions taken by their parents would be okay. We'll have more on this - for now, click here.

   Back on July 30 when Ukraine's Permanent Representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeyev held a UN press conference on July 30, Inner City Press asked him about the Human Right Watch report his government is using Grad rockets, killing at least 16 civilians between July 12 and 21 near Donetsk.

  Sergeyev responded first about the UN's (or Ivan Simonovic's) report, then emphasized that Russian media is saying Ukraine is using ballistic missiles.

  Inner City Press repeated the question, emphasizing it concerns Human Rights Watch's report, not the UN's, and not Russian media.  Sergeyev provided essentially the same answer.

  Here is the HRW report, online.

  Inner City Press also asked about the status of the International Monetary Fund program, after the downing of MH17. Sergeyev said Ukraine has met with the IMF's Christine Lagarde and "will" get the next tranche of the program in late August.  But won't there be an Executive Board meeting?

After Russian foreign minister and US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone on July 27, the US State Department issued two read-outs, or a readout in two stages.

  The second, an "additional point" by a Senior State Department Official, was that Kerry "underlined our support for a mutual cease fire verified by the OSCE and reaffirmed our strong support for the international investigation to show the facts of MH17."

  Inner City Press on July 30 asked Sergeyev for Ukraine's position on this. Sergeyev cited as "pre-conditions" the closing of the border with Russia, and the release of all hostages.

  Procedurally, Ukraine set aside the first question at its press conference saying, "Pamela, traditionally you open our session." Using this UN Correspondents Association set-aside, Pam Falk of CBS asked about rebels mining the MH17 site. Her UNCA sidekick asked about "Russian propaganda." 

   And so it went until, fifth, the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked about HRW's report. This is how it's working, with the UN's Censorship Alliance. In this context, the Free UN Coalition for Access is against the automatic setting-aside of questions.