After Reuters Steals Inner City Press Exclusive on New UN Rapes in CAR, Editor Grebler Tells ICP "Will Look Into"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Series

UNITED NATIONS, February 15 -- Amid a litany of rape charges against UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press exclusively obtained and on February 12 published UN emails showing another round of sexual abuse of minors in Ouaka prefecture in the Central African Republic by UN Peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here to view.

  Reuters first tried to claim these were "old" rapes, here -- then when shown otherwise, simply stole the story with no credit. This is apparently policy.

  So Inner City Press raised the issue of theft of exclusives (and lack of objectivity, at least at the UN) to Reuters itself. For now, we've received this, cc-ed also not only to the (repeat) offender but also to Reuters' genial seeming Brian Moss and Clive McKeef:

"Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The appropriate Reuters staff will look into it and get back to you as soon as feasible.

Regards,
Dan Grebler
Desk Editor, Americas Desk"

 The underlying emails, dated February 11, 2016, describe at least four underage victims, two of whom were impregnated by the rapist UN peacekeepers -- "in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture."

  On February 15, after emailing questions for two days to UN spokespeople in CAR and New York, Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the rapes, and the email it published on February 12. Haq answered, dodging on part of the email but not denying it. Video here.

 Then Associated Press asked, what about these new allegations? Video here. Haq answered - and from that, AP wrote its own derivative and belated story -- without credit, and without any mention of the critique of the UN in the emails. This is how it works, or doesn't.

 This too - Reuters UN "bureau chief" on Monday evening first reflexively came to the UN's defense saying that "Alleged Central African Republic rapes UN spox talked about today are same ones UN CAR said Feb 4 it was probing," citing (what else) a Reuters story of February 4 -- about a Human Rights Watch report about rapes in Bambari. But read the February 11 emails Inner City Press exclusively published, here:

“Herewith sharing with you a report I have just received from UNICEF indicating four minor girls aged between 16 and 17 years were victims of sexual exploitation and abuse allegedly committed by members of the DRC battalion in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture.”

  Up the email chain, Mercedes Gervilla in UN headquarters writes that “it would seem that many among the troops concerned, including Commanding officers were well aware of the abuse to which these children were being subjected. I also regret to inform you that in addition to these new 4 cases, there will likely be two more...”.  [We'll have more on this.]

  This is called... spinning for the UN. This is a trend at Reuters, even last week, here.



And there is a history: this same Reuters UN Bureau Chief Louis Charbonneau, when challenged, wrote to Stephane Dujarric, UN Spokesman, trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, here.

  When this was exposed, Charbonneau cited Reuters to get his email to the UN taken out of Google's search, saying he never meant for it to be public and it was somehow copyrighted. (See his filing here, made public by EFF's ChillingEffects.org). That's censorship... by Reuters.

  This this case, after being shown this reflexive defense of the UN was wrong, Reuters simply re-wrote the story and stole it, with no credit.

 And now we must go back: Charbonneau announced a policy of not crediting Inner City Press, see here.

 This was raised at the time to Reuters, including to Stephen J. Adler. What kind of company is this?

  (Inner City Press previously asked the decaying UN Correspondents Association, while it tried to censor Press coverage of its boss, to promulgate a best practice for media at the UN to credit others' exclusives; it never happened. AP at the UN speaks for this UNCA, and apparently it for AP.)

  In the email chain Inner City Press exclusively published, middle management at the UN noted that the majority of sexual abuse in CAR has been committed by the battalions from the DRC and the Republic of Congo. And so Inner City Press posed these questions to UN spokespeople in both New York and the CAR:

"This is a request for your comment on, and any update on, the sexual abuse and exploitation cases in the Feb 11, 2016 emails now here

Also, what will be done with the Republic of Congo and DR Congo contingents? We are interested in if the UN and DPKO can, as currently be configured, be reformed.What is the status of the sexual abuse and exploitation cases that have been listed, including in the UN Press Briefing Room?"

  The response received by Inner City Press on Saturday afternoon in New York was from Bangui-based MINUSCA spokesman Vladimir Monteiro:

"Regarding your questions on DRC and Congo, here is Minusca's position:

"On DRC contingent, a decision to repatriate them has already been taken. It will be completed without delay by the end of the month. It is just a matter of planning it properly.

"On the 120 troops from Congo, they have been cantoned in Berberati to permit investigations by national investigators before their repatriation to their country  which will occur on 20 February 2016. For further details on this matter please contact HQ."

  But of course Inner City Press has already contacted "HQ" or UN Headquarters, including for example Ismini Palla of Ladsous' DPKO, who gave Agence France Presse the response to questions Inner City Press has publicly posed to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, to the DPKO spokesman Nick Birnback, also cc-ed.

  So where ARE the updates on the cases the UN's Diane Corner listed in the UN Briefing Room? Why was it reported in early January that the DRC contingent had "been dismissed" when, in mid February, they are still in place? What is the status of the Burundian contingent in CAR? Follow up questions have been submitted to UN officials and spokespeople in CAR and headquarters in New York.

  Well placed sources tell Inner City Press these two countries' soldiers have been in the UN MINUSCA mission nearly entirely due to Ladsous and, more outrageously, the / his French government due to its political relations with the Republic of Congo and DRC.

  Ladsous, as Inner City Press has reported, told Burundi's Vice President that he is "pragmatic" about human rights; even on camera, Ladsous linked the rapes to "R&R," click here for video.

  While Ladsous' DPKO and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson announced that the DRC contingent would be pulled out of Bambari and CAR in late Janaury, Inner City Press is informed this never happened: they are still there.

  Ladsous' DPKO, and now the UN Spokesperson's Office, are engaged in misleading the press and public, and doling out what information they provide to only the friendliest media.

 For recent example, Inner City Press for week has reported on and asked about the repatriation from CAR of Burundian troops charged with abuse during the crackdown on opponents of Pierre Nkurunziza's third term. Even after Inner City Press obtained and published on February 9 proof of three repatriations, all UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press is that he would seek an update.

  Simarily, Ladsous' lead spokesman Nick Birnback told Inner City Press DPKO would have something to say about the particular Burundian officers in CAR Inner City Press asked him about.

  Then Ladsous' spokespeople including Ismini Palla gave their limited confirmations to Reuters and Agence France Presse, who published it without credit or context. (Neither media reported on Ladsous linking rape to R&R - nor did AP.)

 In a February email by UN official Anthony Banbury, soon to leave the UN after some heartfelt tears of outrage at peacekeepers' rapes, it is said:

"We have a pack of predatory criminals and rapists, preying on young girls,
under the banner of the United Nations. How can we stand by? In my view that battalion should be ordered to cease operations today, same with the RoC battalion, and be confined to camp and guarded full time so they cannot continue to abuse children. While we would pay a short-term price in terms of operations, we would gain so much in terms of the integrity and reputation of the UN, in the CAR and internationally, and we would almost certainly prevent more rapes of minor girls. We simply cannot sustain the argument that the benefit these troops are bringing to the UN and PoC is greater than the harm they are doing."

  What will the UN do? What will France, with new foreign minister Jean Marc Ayrault, do? How long can Ladsous - and the Congolese contingents - remain in place?

Exclusive: UN Emails Show New Rapes in CAR, Ladsous' Contingents by Matthew Russell Lee

  Back on January 27 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman to confirm new allegations in the Central African Republic by Republic of Congo and DR Congo troops.. The spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, declined. But on February 4, it was confirmed.

 On February 11, Inner City Press exclusively reported and then asked the UN about, member states went to the UN's 38th floor to ask where Ban's response to the issues and Deschamps report is. It was due by the end of January, as Inner City Press has asked.

  Now, the sources told Inner City Press, Ban is trying to delay it until March. Ban in fact wasn't there to meet the member states on February 11 - he is in Canada -- and neither was his Deputy Jan Eliasson. The task fell to Chief of Staff Edmond Mulet, who replaced Susana Malcorra before she issued the promised response. So it goes at the UN.

At the February 11 noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, UN transcript here.

 More than a week after Inner City Press' January 27 question, and nearly two weeks after the UN learned of the rape charges, the UN announced them on February 4. Dujarric's Deputy Farhan Haq read them out, and Inner City Press asked questions, transcript here.

On January 29, first High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid then this same UN spokesman issues statement about (what else), new rape charges in CAR. But even these lists do not appear to be complete, omitting alleged rapes that UN officials have spoken about involving UN peacekeepers from Burundi, the Republic of Congo and Gabon.

  Inner City Press asked now departing Assistant Secretary General Anthony Banbury about these still unreported cases, and why it was him and not the head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, who was answering for the charges at the UN's January 29 briefing.  Video here.


  Banbury, visibly upset, shed tears during the briefing. But again, why isn't Ladsous as the person responsible, named in the Deschamps report as having failed to vet contingents subsequently charged with rapes, the one answering questions?

  In the briefing, the UN set aside the first question for a representative of the UN Correspondents Association, and then two UNCA board members: none of these questions involved the head of peacekeeping Herve Ladsous. We'll have more on this.

Having been told by sources of more rapes by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, Inner City Press on January 26 reported them and on January 27 asked the UN's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric to confirm them - but wouldn't. UN transcript here. Video here.




  So what is the protocol of UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who linked the rapes to "R&R," here? How many more do they know about?

The UN report on rapes in the Central African Republic, released on December 17, found that UN Peacekeeping's Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous “illustrate[s] the UN's failure to respond to allegations of serious human rights violations in the meaningful way.”

 Ladsous has yet to take any questions about the report -- this as Inner City Press exclusively hears from sources of yet more sexual abuse cases in CAR, involving DR Congo AND Republic of Congo, and changes of abuses will in detention.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about these new charges, transcript here.

On January 5, Ladsous mission in CAR issued a press release about yet more allegation of sexual abuse of minors by its peacekeepers, below.

 On January 18, Inner City Press managed to ask UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about the report -- the UN Deputy Spokesperson appeared intent on not allowing the question, but Eliasson to his credit took it. Video here.

Earlier in the month,  Inner City Press asked the Permanent Representative of New Zealand and of Uruguay, President of the Security Council for January, about the report(s). Video here.

  When the Panel's three members held their December press conference, Inner City Press asked about Ladsous' failure to vet and his linking of rapes to “R&R.” Video here.  Marie Deschamps said pointedly she wouldn't comment on Ladsous' remarks; Yasmin Sooka said these are crimes for punishment, not recreation.

  As the last question, Inner City Press asked what it had wanted to ask Ban, and tried to ask Dujarric: what does this say about Ban's management? Video of Q&A here. Didn't Ban's chief of staff Malcorra, criticized in the report, do it for Ban? Didn't the “senior official” who ostensibly let the rape information die on the vine in the 38th floor work in an atmosphere created by Ban's nine years? We will pursue this.

And this: if OIOS' Lapointe was wrong, isn't James Finness, who continues the OIOS campaign? While the UK has spoken, where is France, given Sangaris and Ladsous?

  As to Ladsous, the finding was made even though the three authors of the report do not mention, and apparently have not yet seen, the notes from Ladsous' October 1, 2015 meeting about the CAR mission withBurundi's Vice President, in which Ladsous said he is “pragmatic” on human rights, in Burundi and by extension elsewhere, nor Ladsous' September 11, 2015 on-camera comments linking the rapes to “R&R,”video here.

  But Ladsous still as of December 17 holds the senior UN position into which France, which has chosen the last four heads of UN Peacekeeping, put him in September 2011. How much longer?

By contrast, the former head of OIOS Carman Lapointe, of whom the panel finds an abuse of authority, is conveniently gone, as is Babacar Gaye, who worked for Ladsous at the CAR mission.

  Perhaps it was easier for the panel to make the formal finding against people who had already left the UN by the time the report was released.

  One wonders: if responses like Ladsous' legalistic (and largely false) November 2 letter were received so long ago  by the panel, why did they withhold the report all the way until December 17, the day AFTER Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's rare (and last of the year) press conference?

  High Commission Zeid, of whom it is said he was slammed in the report, in fact gets the same treatment -- critical, but no formal abuse of authority -- as Ladsous, who is airbrushed out and conditions access to information and answers about Peacekeeping on positive / false coverage.

 The same finding is made with regard to former Chief of Staff Susana Malcorra. Will the critical language hurt what chance she has, as a non Eastern European, to try to follow Ban Ki-moon as Secretary General?

 More generally, how does all this criticism reflect on the tenure of Ban Ki-moon? The report does not mention the concurrent scandalsregarding UN Secretariat documents purchased by now indicted Ng Lap Seng through former President of the General Assembly John Ashe, nor Ban Libya envoy taking instruction and a cushy job with the UAE while representing Ban on and in Libya.

  In December 2015, Ban allowed those who cover him, at least the UN Correspondents Association, to sell seats with him for $6,000. And it is these same who have airbrushed out Ladsous and others. We'll have more on this.

On DRC, Reuters to BBC Spun Only Burundi - Rwanda, Inner City Press Published Full Report

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive publication

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- A mere two paragraphs out of a more than 20-paragraph UN Group of Experts report were trumpeted by Reuters on the evening of February 3: Rwanda is training Burundian opposition fighters, in DRC, citing 18 such combatants.

  Amazingly, BBC Radio then put on air the scribe who was handed the report, Michelle Nichols -- without the BBC apparently even looking for the full report itself. Audio here. Is this what mainstream or British journalisms has come it? BBC presenter Akwasi Sarpong said, "You've seen the report" -- as if he couldn't see it himself, here, merely with Google. Is this incompetence or more propaganda?

   There was, of course, much more to this 12-page UN report, including simply as one example that the UN Peacekeepers from Tanzania was described as meeting / working with the ADF rebels, mis-speaking and getting in a firefight with the Congolese Army. But this lead section of the report was not in Reuters February 3 lead story by its UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau.

  Later Charbonneau would promote his propaganda protege Michelle Nichols' apparently, only about Rwanda, on BBC Radio - the torch as been passed? Note that it is Reuters, and Nichols, who in a murky process has been handpicked to "memorialize" the Security Council's interactions with the Great Lakes, along with a Voice of America scribe Margaret Basheer who "saw" Liberians while in Burundi last month. 

 Inner City Press, having seen this before, put the entire 12 page UN DRC Group of Experts report online on the morning of February 4, here, and asked about it at the February 4 UN noon briefing, transcript here(some then left the briefing room, on which we'll have more.)  Video here.

Inner City Press asked about it again on February 5, including the Tanzania links, here.

   Only on the afternoon of February 4 did Reuters note the other sections of the report, including the Tanzanians - and then, not by the bureau chief but the correspondent.

For the record, the Reuters bureau chief first tried to get Inner City Press out of the UN -- then asked to have his anti-Press filing with the UNremoved from Google's search as purportedly copyrighted, an abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and a move at odds with Reuters claimed embrace of freedom of information. His filing, put online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Chilling Effects project, is here; his underlying email to the UN's (now spokesman) Stephane Dujarric  is here.

Other at Reuters got involved, a Freedom of Information Act request by Inner City Press revealed: but the company's executives refused to explain their policies as requested.

  Then the Reuters correspondent tried, with a stealth filing with the UN. Less stealth, in the briefing room and on video here, on February 3 this Reuters correspondent tried to cut off Inner City Press questions to the UN deputy spokesperson about corruption involving indicted Ng Lap Seng and the UN Correspondents Association, on whose board Reuters has a seemingly permanent seat, and tried to use to oust the Press. We'll have more on this.

After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on New Year's Eve issued a statement surreally praising the Burundi “talks” held in Entebbe, Uganda, multiple sources told Inner City Press these not really talks but rather a photo op. The January 6 session announced for Arusha did not happen.  Inner City Press requested to cover the UNSC's trip to Burundi, but was UNtransparently rejected.

Transparently, Inner City Press  published the DR Congo Group of Experts Update Report including about 18 Burundian combatants, hereand see below.

At the February 4 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here:

Inner City Press: I've seen the Group of Experts' report and actually published it, and I wanted to ask you the following: you said there's a Group of Experts, the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) sanctions Group of Experts.  And there's two paragraphs in the report... if you can say from this podium, what is the mandate of that Group of Experts?  And I ask because, previously, they were asked to look into the  Burundian Government's youth militia training in South Kivu, and the answer was that this was beyond their mandate, that they are the DRC sanctions committee.  So I wanted to know, was there some change in their mandate, and, perhaps relatedly, what is the process to replace… you've announced that Movses Abelian is getting a promotion, all to the good, what is the process for replacing the head of SCAD, the Security Council Affairs Division, and does it involve consultation with the P5 members?  Thank you.

Deputy Spokesman:  First of all, regarding your first question about the mandate of the Group of Experts, that mandate is set by the relevant Security Council resolutions.  I'd simply refer you back to those.  Regarding Mr. Abelian, yes, we announced that he will be in charge of the Division of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Management and, while we… while we look for a replacement through the usual procedures, there will be an acting head of the office.  Regarding how selections are made, of course, it's the standard process by which we hire personnel.

Inner City Press:  Is Kelvin Ong either a candidate to replace him or who's in charge now of SCAD?

Deputy Spokesman:  I would never, never…

Inner City Press:  Who's in charge of SCAD?

Deputy Spokesman:  For all personnel appointments, we don't go into lists of candidates.  I would check who's the acting head right now.  I don't believe that Mr. Abelian has started his next job already, so it may be him right now.  But there will be an acting head. 

  Handpicked to go and memorialize the trip was Reuters, which barely reported what happened. There is a history, of Reuters UN bureau hereand here; on February 3, Reuters correspondent Michelle Nichols went so far as to cut off Inner City Press' questions to the UN, Vine here.

  On February 3 Reuters' UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau, a censor,  channeled a UN (DRC) report -- note not only the former Reuters official turned Eritrea sanctions “experts” exposed by Inner City Presshere, but also that this same now discredited Reuters / UN individual was previously ON the DR Congo panel. Typically, Reuters did not actually put the report online.

  Inner City Press in the spirit of transparency is publishing the (update) report, dated January 15, 2016, signed by Coordinator Gaston Gramajo, and its two paragraphs about 18 Burundian combatants, here. 

DR Congo "Group of Experts" Progress Report Including on Burundi by Matthew Russell Lee

Readers can draw their own conclusions, including about the mandate and motivation, and if these 18 is really the way it would go.

 At the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ban Ki-moon barely if at all pushed for peacekeepers for Burundi; his or France's head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous had largely undercut the idea with a memo than Inner City Press published in full.

(Inner City Press has reported the UN Peacebuilding Configuration will visit February 15-19, click here for that.)

On January 29, the UN Spokesman threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room then on February 1 made this threat, here. This wasechoed on February 2. 
 On January 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about a meeting held but not televised on January 27, at which it was urged that mass grave sites in Burundi be preserved as evidence,video here, transcript here.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople about the trip on January 20, 21 and 22 - including asking why the UN was not providing a video or at least audio stream of the January 22 press encounters, says it has a  "UN Information Center" in Bujumbura, which produced a smiling photo of the French deputy ambassador Alexis Lamek on the tarmac. The UN said it couldn't.

  Local media in Burundi put online a video in which Lamek spoke at length; afterward a pro-government Burundian media quoted Lamek that "we" take seriously the question of interference by Rwanda to destabilize Burundi and will be working on it.

  But the four scribes handpicked to accompany the Security Council trip, inlcuding Agence France Presse, it seems, for some reasons didn't cover it. Why? We'll have more on this. Instead, AFP, Reuters andVoice of America (which saw "Liberians" then cited auto-correct) filed near-identical stories with no quotes from opposition figures or attacked journalists. None of the three even tweeted on January 23, other than Reuters as a robot: talk about Old Media.

  How could "Agence France Presse," handpicked to publicize the UNSC trip co-led by France, not even cover the controversy? What about Reuters?

  We note that the French Mission to the UN said that Lamek was being misrepresented (the same French Mission has tried to shield Lamek from critical Press questions, which here on Vine Lamek has refused to answer even when entirely audible). Later an AFP quote emerged of Lamek saying that any AU force, even the 100 human rights observers, should significantly focus on the Rwandan border.

  On the evening of January 23 the UN has put up select clips including a mere 16 seconds of French deputy ambassador Lamek, much less than the local Burundian media present at the same press encountered had.  If the UN filmed the press encounters, why did it so selectively edit them?

  More specifically, now, who decided on the edits?

  Inner City Press asked the head of the Campaign Against the Third Term (“Halte au troisième mandat”) Vital Nshimirimana about the UNSC visit, and why the AU human rights observers are not yet in place. His answers to Inner City Press:

"As for the deployment of the AU Human rights observers, I would recall that the same was decided back in June following the June 13, 2015 Johannesburg Summit on Burundi. Initially, the number was to be about 70 observers but the government refused and allowed a narrow team.

"My thought over the issue is that Nkurunziza has chosen to humiliate everybody in as much as he does not care about any principle or value. So, the AU and other bodies as well choose to deal with him very carefully for he is a man (and a regime) "irrational," likely to commit whatever crime, insult whomever.....

"With regard to the UNSC visit, I hope this is the very last warning towards a kind of regime likely to commit genocide. They are expected to dually and objectively assess the situation and especially the strength and presence of Imbonerakure, the CNDD-FDD militia.... And this was shown through a huge anti- peacekeeping mission mission to Burundi, MAPROBU rhetoric.
Burundians expect the UNSC support the deployment of such a mission in line with the responsibility to protect (Pillar III) since Burundi is no longer able and is unwilling to protect citizens from crimes against humanity (ongoing from April 2015) and genocide (of which dozens of signs suggest that it is likely to happen and some acts are already undertaken).

Lastly, the UNSC is expected to talk with Nkurunziza and the AU as well regarding peace talks. They should assess Museveni's performance, after what conclude that he should be assigned AU and UN teams (to enhance his capacity) or change him.... I commend your endeavors to keep the world informed about the Burundi crisis."

 We'll have more on this -- including in light the UN Deputy Spokesperson's response to Inner City Press that transcripts may be provided.

  Here are parts of an Inner City Press interview with a journalist attacked by the Nkurunziza government and for that reason anonymous:

In English: "It would be better if the Security Council met for example UPRONA leader Nditije Charles, with the non-governmental branch of the UPRONA party) or his Spokesman Thacien Sibomana. The Council should try to meet civil society but  there is almost no one left to really speak with now in Bujumbura. All those still in Bujumbura, they can't say anything about the abuses of authorithies. If it was possible, they should ask to meet the young men in prison. They should see themselves how the government abuses those young men, with tortures... Tell them visit to the prisoners in Gitega (those who are accused to attempting a coup d'etat) UN has the right to visit prisoners."

  Inner City Press note: another source says "the government moved several detainees from the SNR jails. I highly doubt they'd allow a visit to detainees."

 Tellingly, IWACU reports that bike taxi and motorcycle taxi drivers offered money to protest in favor of Nkurunziza weren't, after the fact, paid: here.
    At the January 21 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the "community works" and meeting(s). Video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you this just because I'm trying to cover it, and I know that you'd said yesterday that the Special Adviser, Jamal Benomar, is in Burundi in part of the trip.  So what I wanted to ask you is, I've seen documents that show that the… the… the… tomorrow, the meeting with the President, [Pierre] Nkurunziza, will involve a demonstration of “community work”, i.e., people have been asked to go and I don't know if it's to show how happy they are — Gitega and Karuzi.  Does the Special Adviser… not the Security Council, does the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General believe that this type of… of… of show is the right one and will they be meeting with UPRONA and other opposition groups or prisoners currently in jail?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, we'll be able to provide details of the meetings once they've taken place.  As you know, the expectation is for the members of the Council to meet with President Nkurunziza.  That hasn't happened so far, but once that's happened, we'll see what the circumstances are and what the views of Mr. Benomar are.



 This is reminiscent of the type of dog-and-pony show Sri Lanka's then President Mahinda Rajapaksa put on for visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and that Inner City Press accompanied and covered(apparently not to the UN's and its allies' liking - it has been Banned from trips since.) But will the UNSC, unlike Ban, have the fortitude or leverage to reject a dog and pony show? Watch this site.

On January 19 at the UN, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, about Burundi and the Council's trip. Video here.

  On January 21, Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accessasked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about his stop-over on Addis Ababa, "will you as UK meet with AU before heading to Burundi? About AU's proposed deployment?"

   Rycroft replied, "Yes! Looking forward to meeting @AU_Chergui today. Will also return to Addis with whole UNSC after Burundi."

  In Addis, Chergui had filed the Concept of Operation for the MAPROBU peacekeeping mission. We'll have more on this.

  Burundian civil society has written to Ban seeking the repatriation of the country's peacekeepers. Inner City Press has put the letter from Vital Nshimirimana to Ban online here, and will be asking the UN about it. Watch this site.

  On December 30 Nkurunziza threatened to have his forces attack peacekeepers proposed for the country.


Obtained by Inner City Press

Ladsous' lack of vetting was criticized in the recently released report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic. Earlier, Inner City Press exclusive reported on Ladsous in his October 1, 2015 meeting with Burundi's vice president saying that he is "pragmatic" on human rights.

 On December 16 Inner City Press was banned from questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but learned from the mission MINUSCA that Baratuza was already in Entebbe. Inner City Press asked several Security Council members, then Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December17.

Dujarric told Inner City Press Baratuza's deployment is suspended and he is being repatriated: "based on the information we've received regarding the Lieutenant Colonel, his deployment has been suspended, and he will be repatriated back to Burundi." Video here. Dujarric told Inner City Press this shows the UN system working - on a day when a report on rapes was issued showing UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous not sufficiently vetting for human rights. We'll have more on this.



 Amid the escalating killings in Burundi, last weekend's summary executions in neighborhoods opposed to Pierre Nkurunziza's third term stand out. But Burundi Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza was quoted on December 12 blaming all of the deaths on attempts to steal weapons to free prisoners.

   Inner City Press had heard that Mr. Baratuza was already in the process of being deployed to the UN Peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) even when he was giving these quotes, issuing statements and speaking to state-owned radio, and so asked MINUSCA's acting spokesperson, “Is Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA job?”

  On December 16, hours before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a rare press conference, MINUSCA's acting spokesperson sent this to Inner City Press:

"To: Matthew.Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
From: Vladimir MONTEIRO [at] UN.org
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2015
Subject: ICP question: Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA-related post?
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

"No decision related to Lt Col Baratuza's deployment can be taken before we finish looking into the matter. We can confirm that Lt Col Baratuza is in Entebbe but he has not yet deployed to MINUSCA.  Regards. VNM"

There are some questions about Baratuza, a Colonel in Burundi's Army, being listed by the UN as “Lt. Col.”

  Despite multiple follow-up questions by Inner City Press, Mr. Monteiro - previously a spokesperson for the UN electoral mission in Burundi - replied that “This is what we can say about this issue.”

   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Pressexclusively reported on an October 1, 2015 meeting in which Ladsous told Burundi's Vice President Joseph Butare that he is “pragmatic” on human rights.



 Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman declined to take Inner City Press' questions on December 16, as they did on December 14. Vine here.  Watch this site.

Reporters Without Borders RSF Ranks Turkey Low & Sri Lanka Lower, Of UN & Its Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12 -- Reporters Without Borders has again ranked 180 countries on their degree of press freedom, here. Sri Lanka, for example, is in the worst tranche, below Turkey.

 The Free UN Coalition for Access, beyond believing that in such studies the United Nations with its lack of content-neutral accreditation policies and lack of any Freedom of Information Act should also be ranked, compares Reporters Sans Frontieres' Index with Twitter's disclosure of which countries try to ban the most Tweets (in that, Turkey far outstrips Sri Lanka.)

 The RSF / RWB study, out from under embargo twenty minutes before this publication, is here. As to the UN, consider that its officials met secretly with board members of the UN Correspondents Association about trying to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. This UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance, through its past and present president Giampaolo Pioli demanded the removal from the Internet of reporting about Sri Lanka; others did so on behalf of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping, who refuses to answer Press questions, video here, Vine here.

  Tellingly, one of the UNCA board's anti-Press complaints to the UN has even been censored from access on Google, here, under Reuters' Louis Charbonneau's claim of "copyright" under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Click here for notice via EFF's Chilling Effects project. Forms of censorship are evolving, and so should the methodology for studying -- and combating -- them.

  At the UN, transparency and access are in decline, due to collusion. On February 6, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked,video here, asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric whether in the trip to Saudi Arabia Ban had announced only to the UN's Censorship Alliance Ban would raise the case of flogged blogger Raif Badawi.

  Dujarric said wait and see, but when Ban spoke at the end he said no individual cases were raised; he did not mention freedom of expression.

 By contrast, even the UK's Prince Charles did raise Badawi's case to King Salman. Ban's excuse was that, after flying all the way to Saudi Arabia, there was no time to raise individual cases. Prince Charles had more time?

From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press / FUNCA: You said about the Secretary-General and freedom of expression.  So I wanted to ask you, on this upcoming trip beginning today to Saudi Arabia, is the situation of the blogger, Raif Badawi, who’s been in prison and scheduled to be flogged, is that something that the Secretary-General intends to bring up?  I wanted to ask because I saw the announcement was made in a way where it was sort of, things then went off the record.  It seems you were there; I saw what was put out by your office.  Was this answered in that context?  If so, was that asked even in that context?  And finally, who’s paying for the travel on this trip?  Is he flying commercial, paid by the UN?  Or is he--

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  He’s flying commercial, paid by the United Nations.  The issue of freedom of the press is something the Secretary-General routinely raises, and I think we will give you a readout of the meeting with His Majesty after it happens and the Secretary-General also has a press encounter scheduled following his encounter with the King, and those remarks will be made public.  But you know, the issue of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is raised in many different contexts and many different countries. 

  On February 5 the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said

"You might be aware of this already, but I have a trip announcement for you; I believe the Secretary-General mentioned this to some of you yesterday.  The Secretary-General will depart for Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on Friday, 6 February, to convey his condolences to the people of Saudi Arabia, who had recently lost their leader, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.  During his two-day stay in Saudi Arabia, the Secretary-General will also meet with country’s new leader, King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud."

  The "some of you" referred to the Executive Committee of the UN Correspondents Association, which released no transcript of the spoon-feeding session, merely tweeting from the session, at 1:42 pm, "#UNSG Ban tells UNCA committee he will travel to #SaudiArabia on Friday to meet King Salman to talk Mideast challenges, then on to #UAE."

 No mention for example of Saudi flogged blogger Raif Badawi, from an organization which claims to care about freedom of the press - actually, it doesn't -- now any other questions. A mere pass-through. 

   

On Ukraine, Reuters Conceals It Is Excluded From Russia's Statements

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 24 -- Here's a journalism ethics question: does a media, particularly a wire service which charges money to its customers, have a duty to disclose when it had been excluded?

  In December, the Russian Mission to the UN said openly that Reuters UN bureau chief had lied about its role in Darfur -- in a story on which Inner City Press noted Reuters let off the hook Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row -- and since then, cut off Reuters.

 So on January 24 when the Russian Mission to the UN sent out its explanation for objecting to a proposed UN Security Council Press Statement about Ukraine, it sent it to AFP, Bloomberg, AP, and Inner City Press among others - but not to Reuters.

  But Reuters never disclosed this, instead repeating content available in a public Tweet at something said to Reuters "on condition of anonymity." 

  This is pathetic. But is it also unethical, to not disclose when one is excluded?

 Inner City Press for example discloses when it is excluded by Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, even running video of Ladsous refusing to answer its question then taking Reuters' Louis Charbonneau into the hall to give his quotes, here.

  But Charbonneau does not disclose his exclusion, while Reuters sells his partial output, for example to the US government's RFERL, here. Is this ethical? We'll have more on this.

  After the shelling of Mariupol on January 24, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemnation of the shelling and of rebel statements, the UN Security Council failed to agree.

 UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant went public that a Press Statement had been proposed; he and Lithuania then complained that Russia blocked it. Then at 9:36 pm the Russian Mission to the UN sent a statement to a range of UN reporters, including AFP, Bloomberg and AFP but not Reuters, the censoring one whose UN bureau chief it had requested be fired for Darfur propaganda, which said:

“Throughout the day of January 24 we were discussing a possible UNSC reaction to the events in Mariupol, which caused civilian casualties. The consensus has not been reached though because the delegation of the UK insisted on condemnation of some of the self-defense forces’ statements. However there were different statements from the self-defense forces today, not to mention that the UNSC Western members throughout the entire conflict have been refusing to condemn any statements and actions (often very aggressive) made by the Kiev authorities.”

   This takes things to a new level. There have been some statement from Kiev, none of them condemned. Why wouldn't the UK and Lithuania - neither Permanent Representative in Haiti - or the US, whose Samantha Power is there, divided the statement in two, shelling condemnation set apart from quoted the DPR leader? Did they want it to be blocked? 

  The US Broadcasting Board of Governors' RFERL used Reuters to report on the issue - but Reuters didn't have Russia's statement, and RFERL didn't either, here.

   Reacting from Davos a day after quotes in Donetsk, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 24 said he “further denounces yesterday's unilateral withdrawal from the cease-fire by rebel leadership, and particularly their provocative statements about claiming further territory."

  In the same statement, Ban slammed the "rocket attack on the city of Mariupol, which reportedly killed dozens of civilians and left over one hundred injured. He notes that rockets appear to have been launched indiscriminately into civilian areas, which would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.”

 (Ban remains in Davos while dispatching his deputy Jan Eliasson to Saudi Arabia to see new King Salman; reportedly, Ban could not procure a private jet for the trip from and to Davos as he's obtained for other trips. We may have more on this.)

 Here is the full text of Ban Ki-moon's January 24 statement:

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns today's rocket attack on the city of Mariupol, which reportedly killed dozens of civilians and left over one hundred injured. He notes that rockets appear to have been launched indiscriminately into civilian areas, which would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.

“The Secretary-General further denounces yesterday's unilateral withdrawal from the cease-fire by rebel leadership, and particularly their provocative statements about claiming further territory. This constitutes a violation of their commitments under the Minsk accords.

“The Secretary-General urges all concerned to redouble their efforts to revive the Minsk accords. Ukraine's peace, territorial integrity and stability, intrinsically linked to that of the broader region, must be urgently restored.”

Also on international humanitarian law but not yet mentioned by Ban at least while he is in Davos, on January 23 the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke belatedly on pension and travel restrictions imposed by the authorities in Kiev.

 On pension and benefit payments, which Inner City Press has reported on since November, OHCHR spoke on 

"the impact on civilians of the recent decision by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine to restrict movement in and out of the areas controlled by armed groups. As of 21 January, people traveling to and from these areas need to obtain special passes and provide documents to justify the need to travel. These limitations are worrying, especially in light of the escalating hostilities. It adds to concerns created by the Government decision in November 2014 to discontinue providing State services in the territories controlled by armed groups. The introduction of such restrictions will likely have a severe effect on the most vulnerable groups, such as older people, mothers with children and people with disabilities who may depend heavily on social benefits. We urge Ukrainian authorities to take immediate steps to redress this situation."

  But will they? UNHCR, the UN's refugee agency, added on January 23 that

  “New security clearance procedures are put in place and specific documentation is now required to pass through checkpoints in the east of Ukraine. These new procedures apply to Ukrainian nationals, the United Nations, NGOs, national and some other international humanitarian organizations.

   “These restrictions on movements within Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the east of the country further complicates an already difficult situation for those forcibly displaced and made worse by the intensified fighting we have seen in recent days,” the UNHCR briefing notes said. “These practices restrict access to non-government controlled areas and limit the delivery of needed humanitarian assistance into the conflict zones. The Ukrainian government has reportedly adopted this resolution which entered into force yesterday (Thursday 22 January) limiting all movements in and out of the conflict zones."

   So will those who've denounced such restrictions elsewhere pursue these, imposed by Kiev, with similar vigor? Are these the policies, for example, that the International Monetary Fund should be supporting?

   On January 22 UNSG Ban Ki-moon's spokesman made a statement as an "If-Asked," in response to a question, so that while longer than other statements made it would not go on the UN's website. 

   Six hours later, the UN Security Council issued its own Press Statement, past six p.m..  That one will go on the Council's web site (and is below).

  Here is Ban's "if-asked" statement:

"The Secretary General is deeply alarmed by the unrelenting violence in eastern Ukraine. Lack as adherence to the ceasefire has resulted again today in the loss of dozens of lives, including of at least ten civilians when their trolleybus was hit be shelling in Donetsk city, in what appeared to be a targeted attack, and many other civilians in the city of Horlivka. Targeted attacks against civilians constitute grievous violations of international humanitarian law and must be investigated.

"The Secretary General welcomes the meeting of the Normandy Format Foreign Ministers in Berlin yesterday aimed at finding a way to halt this devastating violence. He notes that some progress in the discussions regarding a demarcation line and withdrawal of heavy weaponry was made on this occasion and appeals to all concerned to urgently translated this positive political development into tangible action on the ground.”

The Secretary General reiterates that the enforcement of a sustainable ceasefire, which presently exists in name only, is urgent. Other elements of the broader Minsk [agreement] must also be implemented without delay to ensure a peaceful, independent and unified Ukraine.”

    On January 21 in the first Ukraine meeting of the UN Security Council since last November, UN official Jeffrey Feltman said “today in Davos, President Poroshenko stated that there were over 9,000 Russia regular troops in Ukraine, an accusation that Moscow refutes.”

  He didn't mention, but the IMF did, that Poroshenko also spoke with Christine Lagarde, who then announced that "the Ukrainian authorities have requested a multi-year arrangement with the Fund, supported by the Extended Fund Facility, to replace the existing Stand-By Arrangement."

   In US President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 20, he said the US is "opposing Russian aggression, and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.. Mr. Putin’s aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and strength.  That's what I heard from some folks.  Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters.  That’s how America leads -- not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve."

  Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, speaking in the Security Council on January 21, asked rhetorically "after about thirty times of discussing Ukraine here, the question arises, how much are these declarations in line with the situation in the country? Are they given just for eloquence's sake but can be thrown aside when political suitability takes precedent?”

  The January 21 session was going to be consultations, where members speak less formally (sometimes). But then it was public, just speeches. We'll have more on this.

  On the cut off of pensions, which we've covered since November, Churkin said "Kiev is doing everything so that in essence the South East is isolated. A decision has been made to move out state institutions from that, to stop budgetary expenditures including welfare and pensions.”

   Back on n November 12, UN Assistant Secretary General Jens Toyberg-Frandzen said, among other things, that "on November 5, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk announced that pensions would be halted to areas under rebel control."

  Inner City Press, covering the meeting from just outside the Council chamber, spoke to a range of passing diplomats and was left with this question: isn't the halting of pensions to rebel held areas a form of collective punishment?

 Once posed, with the words "accrued pensions," two defenses of the practice came in. First, that pensions in Ukraine are not accrued but are based on taxes collected and none are being collected in Donbas. Second, that trucks with pension payments were being robbed.  The word "Western Union" was bandied around.

 While the UN spoke about the death of children on a playground on Donetsk on Novmeber 5, they didn't say who did it. Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative Pankin said it was Ukraine's army. Later he stated that an adviser to Poroshenko said on October 24 that "the ceasefire is going to work in our favor, tank factories working around the clock." 

  Ukraine's Sergeyev mentioned this in his reply, neither confirming nor denying the quote. The meeting ended; Sergeyev headed up the escalator to be interviewed by scribes. And so it goes at the UN.

  Last month, Ukraine was scheduled to speak at the UN about its “Committee on Information” on October 21, but as UN speeches usually go longer than allowed, its turn was postponed until October 22.

That didn't stop the “UN Radio” Russian service from reporting on the speech on October 21 as if it had in fact been given that day. As translated, UN Radio on October 21 reported

“The representative of Ukraine accused Russia of using the information strategy of the Cold War

“One of the main prerequisites of violence in Ukraine became a propaganda information. This was stated by the representative of the Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, speaking at a meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly.”

  The UN's Fourth Committee did meet on October 21 - but Ukraine didn't speak. Instead it was the first speaker on the afternoon of October 22. Its speech, delivered in perfect French including the word “rigolo,” linked Russia to Joseph Goebbels.

  In reply, the Russian mission's spokesman brought up the recent Human Rights Watch report of the Ukrainian government using cluster bombs in and against Donetsk, and the lack of clarity on who called the snipers shots in Maidan Square.

  Later in the Fourth Committee meeting, Bolivia slammed “powers” who use information technology to intervene and violate privacy, bringing to mind USAID's “Cuban Twitter” and, of course, the NSA.

  Then Jordan said it was first among Arab nations to enact an Access to Information law, in 2007. The Free UN Coalition for Access has been pressing for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, click here and here for that.

  FUNCA covers the Fourth Committee, including on Decolonization, and the Committee on Information, where at least theoretically the UN's descent into censorship could be raised and resolved. The old UN Correspondents Association, a part of this trend toward privatization of briefings and even censorship -- ordering Press articles off the Internet, getting leaked copies of their complaints to the UN's MALU banned from Google's search, here -- was nowhere to be seen. We'll have more on this.

   

After Reuters Serves Ladsous on Darfur by Scapegoating, Russian Mission to the UN Calls Out Censoring Scribe Louis Charbonneau

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16, more here -- UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous stands accused of covering up attacks on and failures to protect civilians. In Darfur, now the gambit is to try to blame this on an underling, to try to save Ladsous. 

  As Inner City Press noted on December 14, a story passed-through in Reuters tried put the blame for Ladsous' cover up, which extend to DR Congo for example, on a staffer at UNAMID, Karen Tchalian -- Russian, as it happens.

  Now the Press Section of Russia's Mission to the UN has issued this statement:

"We regard the Reuters piece by Louis Charbonneau “Moscow opposes
Western requests to fire Russian at Darfur mission: envoys” as an example
of dirty journalism. The piece does quote the spokesman of our Mission as saying that 'we are not aware of any complaints' about a senior Russian official in UNAMID. 

"But in the article’s title the author chooses to believe unnamed 'envoys' who, somehow, possess better knowledge of our actions than we do.  Reuters declares that their 'journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation.' On that basis it looks like Mr. Charbonneau and his editor should be fired."

  Inner City Press' experience with Reuters is that when it wrote to editors including Stephen J. Adler, about what we'll call "unauthorized, uncredited use of exclusive Inner City Press content" by Charbonneau, Reuters refused to provide a copy of any rules - in fact, it told Voice of America it supported VOA's request to try to get Inner City Pressthrown out of the UN, and / or to sue Inner City Press.

  Among with saying that he has a policy of not crediting Inner City Press' exclusives, Charbonneau claimed he was not responsible for any unauthorized uncredited use of Inner City Press exclusive material because though listed on the Reuters article, he was not the author or "byline." In that light we noted he is bylined on this story in question, and the listed editors were Frances Kerry and David Storey.

  Then Charbonneau made a filing with Google to get his "for the record" complaint to the UN against Inner City Press blocked from Search, as allegedly copyrighted. Click here for that.  The underlying complaint, as was another spurious one by Reuters, was entirely about speech. But we're sure we'll see Reuters or at least Charbonneau's response - he was seen smoking in a tuxedo on December 16 outside the $100 ball of the UN's Censorship Alliance.

Reuters' Louis Charbonneau, banning from Google, shaking with Ban: on what?

 Not in attendance at the UNCA Ball or Bull was UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladous, who is the beneficiary of the Darfur scapegoat Reuters piece.

  But even beyond the December 12 shooting at unarmed demonstrators by Ladsous' "peacekeepers" in Haiti, on which he spoke in the past for the ouster of Aristide, there are cover ups in the DRC Congo on his watch, and by him.

  On the mass rapes in Minova, Ladsous refused for months to answer Press questions, video here.

  Now a report by none other than Human Rights Watch, loath to criticize Ladsous, says in connection with attacks in Beni in the DRC, "UN officials said that the army has resisted its attempts at coordination to protect civilians and has blocked UN troops from carrying out patrols in certain areas."

 Inner City Press on December 16 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric who these "UN officials" are - and why Ladsous, as he stands accused in Darfur, did not go public with the blockages in real time.

  Dujarric said, among other things, that the Sudan and DRC cases are quite different. Perhaps. But the common denominator is Ladsous. Continuing under-performance in DRC cannot be blamed, as is tried in Darfur, on a lower level staff.

  In Darfur, ten days after after the UN issued a statement on its internal investigation into charges it covered-up attacks, its UNAMID mission there under Herve Ladsous on November 9 issued a statement that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area" and that no evidence of rape was found.

  While that UNAMID statement remains online and of record, UN Peacekeeping sent Meg Cary to Darfur. On December 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric why:

Inner City Press: there is a new AU [African Union]-UN Mission on the ground led by Margaret Carey of DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] — that it is in Nyala.  And they described its mission as looking into alleged covering up of reports of crimes against civilians in Darfur.  I thought that report had already been done and partially released to the Security Council.  What is the mandate of this Mission?

Spokesman Dujarric:  My understanding is that this is part of the strategic review that will be delivered to the Security Council.

Inner City Press:  Will she be going to Thabit?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I do not know.  But obviously, we have not received any clearance to go to Thabit, as far as I'm aware, as of this morning

  Multiple sources told Inner City Press that the goal was to blame, for the problems in UNAMID, staffer Karen Tchalian, not even the head of UNAMID, much less of UN Peacekeeping.

 Whatever the sins of Tchalian, the problems of UN Peacekeeping are more extensive and are ultimately the fault of its chief, Herve Ladous: the failure to protect civilians in the DR Congo, the outright shooting at demonstrators on December 12 in Haiti. What are those who spun / used their pass-through wire going to do about Ladsous' peacekeepers shooting protesters for democracy in Haiti? 

 On December 4, Inner City Press asked Ladsous, Why did UNAMID not say on November 9 that it was surrounded by soldiers? Video here,and embedded below.

  As is his habit, Ladsous did not answer on December 4, even with his UN Peacekeeping under fire for cover ups. It is a pattern with Ladsous. He refused Press questions for months about rapes in Eastern Congo in Minova by DRC Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports: video compilation here; Vine here.

  On the morning of December 4 Ladsous claimed to the Security Council that UNAMID's findings were "inconclusive" due to army presence. But his UNAMID's press release whitewashed the situation in Tabit and did not mention the army presence. The covering-up continues, with no credibility, as Ladsous did on the Minova raped by DR Congo Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports.

 On November 25, a wide range of groups in Darfur petitioned the UN Security Council about UNAMID's malfeasance. Inner City Press that morning obtained the letter (h/t) and put it online in full here, and below.

 While UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked at noon, said he had not seen the letter, by 6 pm when Inner City Press asked November's Security Council president about the letter, he confirmed receipt.

  Quinlan said he had circulated the letter to the other 14 Council members -- as of 3 pm, one of them had not yet received it -- and that he expects the issues to be considered when the Security Council takes up UNAMID "next week, under Chad's presidency." 

 (On November 26, the UK Mission to the UN"s Arran Skinner told Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly. In terms of contents, on alleged rape cases, the Security Council issued a press statement calling for a full investigation. The UK initiated the call for a press statement and so agree that this issue needs to be looked at." Another Security Council mission has yet to confirm receipt or comment, but it's expected.)

  On Ban Ki-moon's report into UNAMID under-reporting attacks on civilians and even peacekeepers, Inner City Press asked and Quinlan repeated it should be taken up soon, the question is finding the right, credible (or disinterested) briefer. Watch this site for that. Here is the letter:

11/25/2014

Dear Gary Quinlan, Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations,President of the United Nations Security Council, November 2014

United Nations

New York, NY

c. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General
Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations United Nations

Dear Ambassador Quinlan,

As Darfuris in the diaspora, we have watched with great sorrow and growing anger the plight of our people in this ravaged region of Sudan. Darfur at one time commanded considerable attention in the United Nations, but no longer. 

The international community in general has drifted into an acceptance that somehow the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) is an adequate means of protecting millions of vulnerable civilians. It is clearly not, and the recent mass sexual assault on women and girls in Tabit, North Darfur, makes this all too clear.

But the disgraceful "investigation" by UNAMID of events in Tabit should be the occasion for our remembering that this is, in fact, a UN-authorized mission; it has UN Chapter 7 authority; it is deployed with a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated by the UN and African Union (February 2008), even as the agreement is now simply a travesty, violated at will by the Khartoum regime. It is not, however, simply the failing of UNAMID and the African Union that must be reckoned with. It is the Security Council, the Secretariat, and UN Department of Peacekeeping Affairs (UN DPKO) that must accept responsibility for a failing mission; and it is UN DPKO that must do most to explain what it will do in light of this failure.

It is in this context that we demand that the following questions be addressed forthrightly and expeditiously:

[1] UNAMID, even if augmented and re-directed along the lines recently suggested by Secretary Ban Ki-moon, cannot provide adequate security for the people of Darfur. We demand that plans be made immediately for an UN force that can adequately take on the "responsibility to protect" civilians at risk, per the September 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document (§38, §39).

[2] We demand that the Security Council and UN DPKO confront the Khartoum regime over its countless flagrant violations of the SOFA.

[3] We demand that UN DPKO undertake a full review of UNAMID's performance to date. The context here should be the fact that more than 2 million Darfuris have been newly displaced since UNAMID took up its mandate in January 2008; we would remind you of how closely violence and displacement have correlated over the past decade of conflict. Moreover, insecurity has increased steadily for more than two years—this on top of the insecurity that prevailed so widely in earlie years.

[4] We demand that UN DPKO, in consultation with the Security Council and the Secretariat, formulate plans to provide adequate protection to the civilian population of Darfur. This must include contingency plans for a very rapid acceleration of what is already unacceptable insecurity for civilians and humanitarians.

[5] We demand in particular that UN DPKO ensure that UNAMID is prepared to provide adequate protection to the people of Tabit, especially girls and women, from retaliation by Khartoum for having had the misfortune of making clear to the world just how brutal this regime is.

[6] We further demand that UN DPKO instruct UNAMID to provide all necessary protection to humanitarian efforts to reach Tabit. Many residents have been badly traumatized and injured.

[7] We also demand accountability from those who are responsible for the failures that led to the brutal crimes at Tabit, and so many others over so many years. Accountability must extend to the leadership of UNAMID and the African Union Peace and Security Council, as well as to the UN DPKO. As part of this assigning of responsibility, there must be a full and competent investigation, authorized by the Security Council of how this atrocity crime was essentially white-washed by all parties, most notably UNAMID. But we must emphasize as well that we are deeply troubled by the silence of UN DPKO.

[8] We demand that UNAMID be guided by the "rules of engagement" for UNAMID in Darfur that have been previously negotiated. UN DPKO must ensure that these "rules of engagement" are widely understood and dictate the actions taken by UNAMID personnel.

[9] We demand that UN DPKO assess the possibility that insecurity is now so great that there will be an exodus of international NGOs providing critical relief aid to Darfuris. Many INGOs have expressed their deep concern for the safety of their workers in Darfur, more than 95 percent of whom are Sudanese nationals. The safety of these workers must not be discounted because they are African and Khartoum permits no news coverage of Darfur and no human rights reporting presence.

Would relief workers similarly threatened in other parts of the world be regarded in the same light as Sudanese relief workers?

[10] We demand that UN DPKO communicate with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in order to ascertain when a continued humanitarian presence by the UN might become impossible for security reasons.

[11] We demand that UN DPKO assess the implications for future UN peacekeeping missions if

UNAMID is allowed to continue to fail so conspicuously. The events at Tabit and the performance of UNAMID investigators bring this question into high relief.

[12] Most generally, we demand that UN DPKO speak forthrightly about its understanding of the limitations and weaknesses of present peacekeeping in Darfur and the provision of civilian security.

We remain troubled by the comments of the Under-Secretary General for DPKO when in spring 2012 he declared that security "conditions on the ground" had improved sufficiently that UNAMID could begin to draw down its forces (a figure of 4,000 personnel was promulgated at the time). This ghastly error in judgment was never acknowledged, even as by July of 2012 we saw a tremendous upsurge in violence, especially in North Darfur. How can we trust statements from UN DPKO when egregious errors are not acknowledged?

[13] We demand that the United Nations collectively develop an effective response to the gross deficiencies of UNAMID in protecting civilians and humanitarians. UN DPKO in particular must develop benchmarks for assessing UNAMID's performance and formulate emergency contingency plans in the event of a massive and precipitous withdrawal of humanitarian personnel.

These are matters of the deepest concern to us; to date, there are far too few answers from UN about why the Darfur genocide continues more than a decade after it began. We demand clear evidence that the people of Darfur will not be further abandoned.

Sincerely,

Darfur People's Association of New York

Darfur People's Association of Maryland

Fur Cultural Revival

Darfur People's Association of Houston

Darfur People's Association of Dallas

Darfur People's Association of Illinois

Darfur Human Rights - USA

Massalit Sons' Association - USA

Darfur Rehabilitation Project

Sudanese Revolutionary Front

Sudanese Opposition Forces- USA

Broad National Front

Justice & Equality Movement - Sudan

Sudan Liberation Movement - MM

Sudan Liberation Movement - Wahid

SPLM-N

Umma Party

Girifna

Sudanese Marginalized Forum - USA

Sudanese National Democratic Forum - California

National Sudanese Alliance - Philadelphia

Peace & Democracy Center - New Jersey

Democratic Alliance, USA

Federal Democratic Alliance

Sudanese Front for Change

Kush Liberation Movement

Democratic Unionist Party

Activists without Borders

Sudanese Congress Party

Darfur People's Association of Boston

Darfur People's Association of Indiana

Darfur People's Association of Utah

Darfur People's Association of Nebraska

Darfur People's Association of Seattle

Darfur Son's Union of Greater Washington DC

Darfur People's Association of Iowa

Darfur People's Association of Arizona

Darfur Women Action Group

Darfur Association of the United States

Darfur Self-reliance Organization - San Francisco, California

 Inner City Press on November 21 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to explain UNAMID's November 9 press release in the context of the internal memorandum, put online here, that UNAMID knew Sudanese security was filming the interviews, had even put together a "committee" of Thabit residents to speak to UNAMID. Video here.

  Dujarric said he wouldn't start now to comment on leaks. There are other leaks implicating UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous. Is not commenting, like Ladsous has refused to answer Press questions, the right approach for the UN?

 Inner City Press on November 19 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what the UN would do in the wake of its (cover up) November 9 press release, and about bombing in North Darfur three days earlier.

 On November 20, UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci was in charge of the UN noon briefing, and read out a statement that UNAMID is trying to verify the reports of bombing on November 16.  One has to wonder, are they mishandling this like the rape reports in Thabit?

  So Inner City Press asked, what is actually being done to get into Thabit, after the cover-up press release? Inner City Press asked about UNAMID's acting head Abiodun Bashua's reference to "rumors" of rape in Thabit - is that the UN's position? And why hasn't UNAMID accessed the site(s) of the November 16 bombings, four full days later?

 On November 21, Dujarric returned with an answer, that UNAMID had in this case done out and had found "craters." But apparently UNAMID drew no conclusions from that.

  Inner City Press at the November 17 UN noon briefing asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Sudanese forces having filmed UNAMID's interviews and to confirm the new blockage.

 Haq did not comment on UNAMID letting its interviews about rape be filmed by Sudanese authorities; he confirmed the blockage and said to expect a comment from Ban.

  And two hours later it came:

"The Secretary-General is deeply troubled about persistent allegations of mass rape in Thabit, North Darfur. The African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) visited Thabit on 9 November. However, the heavy presence of military and police in Thabit made a conclusive investigation difficult.  UNAMID has since then attempted to gain further access to shed light on what happened.

"The Secretary-General is concerned that after intense consultations with the Government in Khartoum and with local authorities in Darfur, UNAMID was yesterday denied access to Thabit. Only a full investigation by UNAMID will help shed light over these serious allegations. The Secretary-General therefore urges the Government of Sudan to grant UNAMID unfettered access, without further delay, to Thabit and its population so that these reports can be verified."

   Ban does not mention that his and Herve Ladsous' mission had this to say, on November 9: "Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area. None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Thabit on the day of that media report. The team neither found any evidence nor received any information regarding the media allegations during the period in question.”

  Who is going to take action, on whom, about that? Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access are asking.

  On November 13, Inner City Press again asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq what had been done in the last 48 hours.Video here. 

 Haq was unable to describe any investigation done without Sudanese military presence; instead, he said that the Force Commander of UNAMID, already charged with cover-ups, spoke with Herve Ladsous, who refused to answer Press questions about 130 rapes by the DR Army in Minova. Video here.

  How to have confidence in this investigation?

 On November 11, Inner City Press again asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about it:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask again about the allegations of rape in North Darfur.  Radio Dabanga there has not only questioned, you know, the UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] press statement but has interviewed both victims and has quoted a local community leader in Tabit, basically threatening people that if they spoke on the rapes to UNAMID, they would face the consequences.  So I wanted to know, now at this remove… yesterday the President of the Council spoke about it, at this remove, what is UNAMID going to do to get to the bottom of it?  And also, the reporting to Ms. Aicha Elbasry’s allegations, who would brief the Security Council on that?  He said yesterday, the President of the Council, that they are looking to take it up and are looking for the right briefers.  Does the Secretariat have in mind either the author of the report or who would be the appropriate briefer?  Thanks.

Deputy Spokesman:  As the Council President informed you, they'll be looking at briefers, so we'll work that out with them.  Regarding your initial question, yes, we've been in touch with the UN-African Union Mission, UNAMID, who have informed us that security personnel were in fact present during UNAMID's mission to Tabit.  The African Union-UN Mission in Darfur will continue to look into the rape allegations in the area of Tabit, North Darfur.  As reported to the Security Council yesterday, the findings of the UNAMID team, which was granted access to Tabit on 9 November, are inconclusive and need further investigation.  UNAMID remains committed to this and it will revert with any additional findings that might shed light on these allegations.

Inner City Press:  [Inaudible] I just wanted to ask you again if there's been any reflection again on that line where it says residents… and I'm going to paraphrase it, residents said that they get along fine with the military.  Just seemed the line was such a clunker, basically, it was totally inconsistent with other reports…

Deputy Spokesman:  I'm not going to second-guess how my colleagues write press releases.  Different press releases are written by different people at different times.

Inner City Press:  Who wrote this one?

Deputy Spokesman:  Someone from the Mission.  The point is: you're writing, trying to get all the information out as best you can in the circumstances you have.  What I have been able to say right now is that we are aware that security personnel was present during UNAMID's mission there. 

  We'll have more on this. Later on November 11 Inner City Press asked International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda if she had seen the whole UN report on allegations of cover-ups by UNAMID, or only a summary. She said only the summary, and only the day before. We'll have more on this too.

  On November 10,  Inner City Press asked UN Security Council president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia about the UNAMID press release, and if and when the Security Council will act on the "cover-up" report, including requesting the full report from the Secretariat, which to date has provided only a summary. Video here. From the Australian transcript:

Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. I wanted to ask on Darfur. Thanks for what you said about what Ms Bangura said. There’s a press release put out by UNAMID that has this line in it: “Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they co-exist peacefully with local military authorities in the area.” The press release doesn’t mention at all the military presence. So I wanted to ask you, one, if you could comment, what do you make of this press release by UNAMID? And two, does the report by the Secretary-General on allegations of covers up by UNAMID of attacks on civilians and on peacekeepers, where does it stand? He said that the, the Spokesperson said that an executive summary of the report went to the Council. Is the Council going to have a meeting on it? Are you going to have a full report?  And are you satisfied with UNAMID’s press release on these allegations of rape?

AMBASSADOR QUINLAN: Matthew, on the second part of the question. Members of the Council are very concerned on this whole question of UNAMID and UNAMID reporting, but also what UNAMID is doing. And one of the big issues there is the denial of access and restrictions that are imposed largely by the Government of Sudan, with whom UNAMID has a formal arrangement on access. But also, of course, by armed opposition groups and that is inherently more difficult sometimes to get the access that’s needed.

That report has not yet been discussed by the Council. I expect that it will be over the next couple of weeks. A number of members of the Council are extremely interested in it. We want to be sure that we’ve lined up the briefers from the Secretariat to have a proper discussion of that report.

Secondly, in relation to the UNAMID press release, I think the key is that they’ve indicated that they had access but it was the first time since November 4, when they’d been seeking access. And they had proactively been seeking access to be able to undertake investigations. That’s a long period to have access denied, by the way, in a circumstance like rape. You really do need, as Ms Bangura reminded us, to have access straight away, for obvious reasons. So that’s one point I’d make. The second point is UNAMID has made it extremely clear in its press release that it will conduct further follow-up actions, including possible further investigations and patrols and that they will do that in cooperation with the Government of Sudan and other parties. We have confidence that that will happen. SRSG Bangura is making this a top priority for her and so is the Secretariat itself and we were reassured about that this morning by ASG Mulet. So I think that’s basically it. 

  We'll continue to follow this -- but how can a peacekeeping mission already accused of covering up for the Sudanese government say, today, that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area"? To some, this is shocking - and indicative of problems in today's UN Peacekeeping.

Inner City Press on November 7 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the challenges to the UN's statement it couldn't and didn't access the site of mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur. Video here; transcript:

Inner City Press: there are witnesses in Darfur who actually say that the UNAMID investigators, rather than being stopped outside Tabit went inside and interviewed four people and after that they were spoken to by Sudanese military intelligence.  And so these are credible people that have been reporting on Darfur for some time and see the reports being issued by UNAMID although as a reaction to the quote “cover up report” as not being accurate.  And I wanted to know, can you check with them to be sure that the UNAMID investigators didn't in fact enter Tabit Tuesday at 5 am and whether they were spoken to by Sudanese intelligence and decided to say that they hadn't been able to enter the town?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not going to judge the credibility or lack of credibility of people who have been reporting on Darfur.  I mean, they report.  What I can tell you is the Mission clearly stands by its reporting.  They've sent us a bit more detail, said the verification patrol comprising of military police and civilian personnel on Tuesday, 4 November, that it was sent on Tuesday, 4 November, from Shangil Tobaya to Tabit to 14:50 hours,  I assume local time.  The patrol was denied access at the outskirts of the town at a Sudanese military checkpoint.  Attempts to negotiate access to Tabit were unfruitful and the team returned to the base in Shangil Tobaya.  We've repeated… the Mission's leadership has repeated its call to the Government to grant the UN, to grant UNAMID unfettered access to the whole of Darfur and obviously especially in areas where we're trying to investigate horrendous reports of mass rape.  So that's a longer, a long way of saying that the Mission stands by its reporting. 

   But if UNAMID and UN Peacekeeping was just outed for under-reporting attacks, how it is now automatically credible? On November 6, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about similar cover-ups in Central African Republic, exposed by an Amnesty International report about that country. 

From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: I'm sure the Secretary-General has seen the Amnesty International's report today about the peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic.  They basically, I mean, they say a number of things.  Maybe you have some kind of response to it.  But, I wanted to especially ask you about the reporting aspect of it they describe a number of killings and attacks that have taken place in Dekoa, Bambari and elsewhere in [the Central African Republic] about, which, at least being here every day, I've heard nothing from this podium.  So, I wanted to know both substantively what's the response of UN peacekeeping to not protecting civilians and in terms of communications and transparency the response to what appears to be an underreporting similar to that analogous to that in Darfur?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Sure.  Obviously, a big part of the Missions' mandate is the protection of civilians.  The Mission, its peacekeeping forces, its formed police units, are doing that to the best of their ability.  Obviously, it's a very challenging situation.  It's a challenging terrain in which they work.  And there is, obviously… one could always use more troops and more police.  I'm not sure they're up to their mandated force as of yet.  As far as reporting goes, you know we report from here whatever we receive from the Mission.

Inner City Press: Because of the Darfur thing, I wanted to ask:  Their report is very detailed.  The report, it says names of places, number of people killed.  Maybe, first of all, does the Mission send it to [the Department of Peacekeeping Operations] in New York and they're supposed to give it to your office?  At what point has this information in the Amnesty report, has it reached New York before or is it a surprise to UN?

Spokesman:  I can only speak to what I receive from the Mission

Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked if the full Darfur report will be released, at least to the Security Council, and about under-reporting of attacks in the Central African Republic. Video here.

  Dujarric said that even before the summary was given to the Security Council members -- so that is apparently all that has been given to them -- UN missions were told to be sure to report attacks. He said he reads out what the missions sent him.

  So has the UN mission in CAR, MINUSCA, simply not send in reports about killings in Bambari and elsewhere? We'll see.

Despite a request from Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access the UN will not release the report. Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked, given that even the sanitized statement says information on attacks was withheld from the media and UN Headquarters - at its request? - who is responsible? Video here.