At UN, Jose Ramos Horta's Panel Must Balance UNSC Mandate Concerns with Darfur Cover-Ups, Haiti Cholera

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- The review of UN Peace Operations chaired by Jose Ramos Horta of Timor Leste kicked off with a press conference then an interactive dialogue with the Security Council on November 20.

In the press conference, Ramos Horta was asked of scandals facing UN Peacekeeping, from cover-ups in Darfur of attacks and now 200 rapes in Thabit, to a lack of accountability for cholera in Haiti to the use of private military contractors and even “eavesdropping.”

  Inner City Press asked Ramos Horta about UNAMID's pro-government press release of November 9 denying theThabit rapes, and about Haiti cholera, which Ramos Horta vowed to raise to his fellow panel members.

  Some of these members spoke with the Security Council later on November 20, and a smaller subset with Inner City Press after the meeting. From that and what some Council members said, it appears that the Security Council's vision of the panel's mandate is far narrower and more bureaucratic, on such issues of how mandates should be drafted.

  That's all well and good for the pen-holding countries in the Security Council, some of which contribute few to no peacekeepers to UN missions. But what about the people ostensibly served by those mission? Those in Haiti, impacted by cholera? Those in Darfur, under-protected, now criticizing UNAMID and the ultimately the Department of Peacekeeping Operations run by Herve Ladsous?

  One outgoing Security Council member, Rwanda, said it had raised the cases in which UN Peacekeeping does not live up to its mandate, like letting civilians be attacked and killed mere miles from its bases. Others pointed out that while many Troop Contributing Countries question the mandates now being given, those drafting the mandates come from countries without their own soldiers in the field.

  Permanent Five countries are well represented on the panel, including former Ambassadors who served in the Security Council, former diplomats who then served the UN like B. Lynn Pascoe, long time UN-ers like Ian Martin (who, for the record, is interested in Sri Lanka but not working on it at the moment). 

  Norway's Hilde Johnson, after what some view as a controversial time at the helm of the mission in South Sudan, was present on November 20 but did not speak afterward. Others did, like Wang Xuexian of China, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, still the head of the Department of Field Support and Alexander Ilitchev of Russia. Radhika Coomaraswamy, named an “ex officio” member by Ramos Horta, did not appear to be present for this dialogue with the Security Council, at least not in the hallway afterward.

  Ramos Horta has vowed to listen to all constituencies, including those impacted by UN Peacekeeping. This could result in needed reforms, or at least a report publicly calling for them. Watch this site.

   

Amid UN Peacekeeping Cover-Ups, Crashes & Cholera, Ban Ki-moon's Review Panel of 14 Has Only Two Africans, Heavy with Insiders, Ladsous Defenders?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 31 - UN Peacekeeping has become subject, under Herve Ladsous, to mounting questions about its operations, from crashed drones, selective “neutralization” of some rebels groups and not others, like the FDLR in the DR Congo, covering up attacks in Darfur and lack of accountability for negligently introducing cholera to Haiti, to name just a few.

While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by former Timor-Leste leader Jose Ramos-Horta.

In a run-on sentence, Ban listed the panel’s topics: “the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices and peace-building challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements, planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians, uniformed capabilities for peacekeeping operations and performance.”

Inner City Press asked Dujarric about a word NOT in the list: drones. Earlier on October 31 in the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, the representative of Ecuador said that UN Peacekeeping’s use of drones should be subject to review by the General Assembly’s C-34 Committee: that is, by member states. (Ladsous evaded the C-34, then deployed more drones than he’d mentioned to the Security Council, and won’t answer on the reasons behind the crashes; DRC envoy Martin Kobler told Inner City Press it was due to “wind.”)

Dujarric cut the question off, saying that it was “too granular” and that drones might fall — as one did in DRC — under “the changing nature of conflict.”

But the question is, should UN Peacekeeping and Ladsous be subject only to review by a panel picked by Ban Ki-moon, or by the member states? Dujarric said Ban’s panel’s report will go the the General Assembly.

It is called an “external” panel, but included not only a number of long-time insiders, but even the current Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, Ameerah Haq. This reporter asked Dujarric if this meant that Haq is leaving, and Dujarric said yes. The Free UN Coalition for Access opines: she is the wrong one to be leaving.

Strikingly, only TWO of Ban’s Panel’s 14 members are from Africa, where the vast majority of UN Peacekeepers are deployed. These members are from Ghana and Tunisia, not from countries with UN Missions like DRC, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Central African Republic if not to say Liberia, where Ladsous is said to be planning “emergency responses” with a government that has quarantined whole neighborhoods like West Point in Monrovia.

Recently during the Security Council proceeding to renew the mandate of the mission in Haiti, many ambassadors from Latin America said Troop Contributing Countries weren’t sufficiently consulted; Argentina said it would not participate in certain policing or repression activities. Will that be reviewed? We’ll have more on this.

Beyond Ramos-Horta, the Panel’s members include Jean Arnault of France — some wonder if he’s there to protect Ladsous — Abhijit Guha of India, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, Andrew Hughes of Australia, Wang Xuexian of China, Hilde Johnson of Norway after a troubled stint in South Sudan, Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu of Ghana, Floriano Peixoto Vieira Neto of Brazil, Bruce Jones of Canada, Youssef Mahmoud of Tunisia, B. Lynn Pascoe of the US, whom Inner City Press reported was in the mix to replace Alexander Downer as UN envoy to Cyprus but was said to be blocked from getting it, Alexander Ilitchev of Russia and Ian Martin of the UK, who returned to the UN to mull mediation after starting the ill-fated UN Mission in Libya. Martin’s previous Board of Inquiry report on bombing in Gaza in 2009, Ban Ki-moon undercut with a cover-letter. We’ll have more on this, too.

   

In South Sudan, 3 Killed as UN Copter Downed, Inner City Press Asks UN About Peter Gadet, UNanswered

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 26 -- After a UN contracted helicopter was downed in South Sudan's Unity State, killing three crew members, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to describe the UN's contacts with rebel Peter Gadet.

  Dujarric didn't answer, saying an investigation is underway. He was asked as if Gadet's spokesperson admitted to the downing, when it was the government saying so: "South Sudanese rebel commander Peter Gadet had warned the UN last week not to fly over his territory, said the spokesperson for the governor of Northern Bahr el-Ghazal state, Akol Ayom Wek. Gadet's forces shot down the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade, said Wek."

 So what does Gadet say? And what has the UN and its UNMISS mission been saying to Gadet? Previously, he was used to disarm others, and then-envoy Hilde Johnson when asked by Inner City Press said it was not so important WHO was doing the disarmament.  Really?

 Back on June 2, four weeks after the United States announced South Sudan sanctions on Marial Chanuong and Peter Gadet on May 6, it clarified that paying "taxes" to Gadet's militia wouldn't necessarily violate the sanctions:

Q: Are humanitarian aid groups prohibited from making payments to or otherwise transacting with non-designated individuals or entities in South Sudan, including militias and armed groups under the command or control of a designated individual?

A: An entity in South Sudan that is commanded or controlled by an individual designated under Executive Order 13664 is not considered blocked by operation of law. Payments, including “taxes” or “access payments,” made to non-designated individuals or entities under the command or control of an individual designated under E.O. 13664 do not, in and of themselves, constitute prohibited activity. U.S. persons should employ due diligence, however, to ensure that an SDN is not, for example, profiting from such transactions

   One wonders about the timing of the Q&A - was this really a "frequently" asked question?

  (Inner City Press also wonders whether US State Department envoy Russ Feingold has inquired with Burundi into the jailing of human rights defender Mbonimpa. Sanctions on that, or on arming the CNDD youth wing, in camps in Eastern Congo which the UN mission MONUSCO won't even go and check?)

  On May 6 a US Senior Administration Official, when asked by Inner City Press if thought had been or will be given to sanctioning the Kiir government officials who took to the radio waves prior to the deadly attack on the UN compound of UNMISS in Bor, resisted discussing anyone not yet on the list.

   But it would seem clear that there could be at least one further intermediary step of sanctions before reaching Kiir and his former Vice President.

  Gadet was previously used by the government for disarmament. Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about it on March 15, 2012 and Johnson replied that to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant. Now Gadet is under US sanctions.

  Beyond the sanctions, Inner City Press asked the US Senior Administration Officials about Secretary of State John Kerry's emphasis in Addis Ababa on the need for a legitimate force to help make peace: in the US' thinking, would this force be part of UNMISS?

  A second Senior Administration Official replied that conversations are ongoing, that the regional force would be related but, it seems, might be separate. 

  Now it seems the force, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda, will be related and technically a part of UNMISS - but Hilde Johnson is leaving as envoy in July. Watch this site.

Footnote: When the US Treasury Department put online the specifics, it appeared that Peter Gadet, now subject to a travel ban, has no passport.

US Transcript:

MODERATOR: Our next question is from.. Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks a lot, [Moderator]. I wanted to ask, there was a – it was said that in Security Council consultations at the UN that senior government officials were named in a radio broadcast prior to the attacks in Bor on the UN compound in killing the civilians. I just wonder if you can say are these people – is that the case? Do you know the names of people that sort of called for that attack, and in which case, why aren’t they on this list?

And I also – this might for Senior Administration Official Number Two. Secretary Kerry was talking about a legitimate force to help make peace. And I just wanted to know, is the UN – is the U.S. thinking of that as part of UNMISS mission or as the IGAD force? And if so, would it require a Security Council approval? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first, I mean, we typically do not comment on actors against whom we are – we have not yet – we have not yet acted, a clunky way of saying we don’t comment on those who are not part of our designation. But anyone who is contributing to the violence, whether that’s by directing violence, whether that’s by funding it, fueling it, contributing arms, can be a subject of designation in the future. And I’ll leave it to my State Department colleague to answer the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the question about the regional force and on UNMISS, we – it is something that conversations and discussions are ongoing between countries of IGAD, with New York, with ourselves and others on how best to create this additional force presence that we are working very much with UNMISS and see this as part of the same effort. But we do think it’s very important that the regional forces are able to join this effort in larger numbers and appreciate the efforts of, particularly, the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, who are leading the mediation and who are seeking to work with UNMISS in this regard.

   

Leaving South Sudan, Hilde Johnson Dodges on Cluster Bombs & Peter Gadet, Free Press Questions Remain

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- Hilde Johnson is leaving as UN envoy to South Sudan. On June 30 when Johnson gave her last UN press briefing on June 30, Inner City Press asked her who used cluster bombs in this stage of the conflict, and about having in 2012 told Inner City Press that militia leader Peter Gadet leading “disarmament” was OK. Gadet is now under US sanctions.

  Johnson dodged on the cluster bombs, that UN Peacekeeping's UNMAS had made a report “to New York” -- still confidential -- and that she couldn't go beyond what UNMAS has said publicly: nothing.

  UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous routinely refuses Press questions and refuses to provide the most basic answers, such as about flying sanctioned FDLR leader Rumuli in the DR Congo. It seems to have spread to Hilde Johnson, even as she leaves.

  On Gadet, Johnson recounted that he was a militia leader brought in by Salva Kiir's “Big Tent” strategy, which she said was “unavoidable” and brought peace. Well, it didn't bring peace: was it unavoidable? Doesn't the UN usually pretend to speak for accountability? Or not any more, under Ladsous?

Inner City Press had hand raised to ask another question, about press freedom. But Ban Ki-moon's spokesman gave some media but not other a second round. For this reason, setting aside the first question to UNCA, in this case Pamela Falk, is UNacceptable. When all questions can't be asked, no one should automatically get the first question. Will it even be reported on? Watch this site.

   

On South Sudan, US Says Sanctions Don't Necessaritly Bar Taxes or "Access Payments" to Peter Gadet's Militia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 2 -- Four weeks after the United States announced South Sudan sanctions on Marial Chanuong and Peter Gadet on May 6, on June 2 it clarifiedthat paying "taxes" to Gadet's militia wouldn't necessarily violate the sanctions:

Q: Are humanitarian aid groups prohibited from making payments to or otherwise transacting with non-designated individuals or entities in South Sudan, including militias and armed groups under the command or control of a designated individual?

A: An entity in South Sudan that is commanded or controlled by an individual designated under Executive Order 13664 is not considered blocked by operation of law. Payments, including “taxes” or “access payments,” made to non-designated individuals or entities under the command or control of an individual designated under E.O. 13664 do not, in and of themselves, constitute prohibited activity. U.S. persons should employ due diligence, however, to ensure that an SDN is not, for example, profiting from such transactions

   One wonders about the timing of the Q&A - was this really a "frequently" asked question?

  (Inner City Press also wonders whether US State Department envoy Russ Feingold has inquired with Burundi into the jailing of human rights defender Mbonimpa. Sanctions on that, or on arming the CNDD youth wing, in camps in Eastern Congo which the UN mission MONUSCO won't even go and check?)

  On May 6 a US Senior Administration Official, when asked by Inner City Press if thought had been or will be given to sanctioning the Kiir government officials who took to the radio waves prior to the deadly attack on the UN compound of UNMISS in Bor, resisted discussing anyone not yet on the list.

   But it would seem clear that there could be at least one further intermediary step of sanctions before reaching Kiir and his former Vice President.

  Gadet was previously used by the government for disarmament. Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about it on March 15, 2012 and Johnson replied that to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant. Now Gadet is under US sanctions.

  Beyond the sanctions, Inner City Press asked the US Senior Administration Officials about Secretary of State John Kerry's emphasis in Addis Ababa on the need for a legitimate force to help make peace: in the US' thinking, would this force be part of UNMISS?

  A second Senior Administration Official replied that conversations are ongoing, that the regional force would be related but, it seems, might be separate. 

  Now it seems the force, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda, will be related and technically a part of UNMISS - but Hilde Johnson is leaving as envoy in July. Watch this site.

Footnote: When the US Treasury Department put online the specifics, it appeared that Peter Gadet, now subject to a travel ban, has no passport.

US Transcript:

MODERATOR: Our next question is from.. Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks a lot, [Moderator]. I wanted to ask, there was a – it was said that in Security Council consultations at the UN that senior government officials were named in a radio broadcast prior to the attacks in Bor on the UN compound in killing the civilians. I just wonder if you can say are these people – is that the case? Do you know the names of people that sort of called for that attack, and in which case, why aren’t they on this list?

And I also – this might for Senior Administration Official Number Two. Secretary Kerry was talking about a legitimate force to help make peace. And I just wanted to know, is the UN – is the U.S. thinking of that as part of UNMISS mission or as the IGAD force? And if so, would it require a Security Council approval? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first, I mean, we typically do not comment on actors against whom we are – we have not yet – we have not yet acted, a clunky way of saying we don’t comment on those who are not part of our designation. But anyone who is contributing to the violence, whether that’s by directing violence, whether that’s by funding it, fueling it, contributing arms, can be a subject of designation in the future. And I’ll leave it to my State Department colleague to answer the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the question about the regional force and on UNMISS, we – it is something that conversations and discussions are ongoing between countries of IGAD, with New York, with ourselves and others on how best to create this additional force presence that we are working very much with UNMISS and see this as part of the same effort. But we do think it’s very important that the regional forces are able to join this effort in larger numbers and appreciate the efforts of, particularly, the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, who are leading the mediation and who are seeking to work with UNMISS in this regard.

   

From South Sudan, Hilde Johnson to Hit the Road, US-Based Press Spin, Tony Banbury to Stay: No Lute?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- For months there have been calls in South Sudan for Hilde Johnson to go. When she resigned on May 30, the UN Mission quickly clarified she had not quit, she was simply leaving after three years. Thou doth protest too much?

  Immediately the spin machine began. 

  Voice of America, which earlier this week acted as a pass-through for Hilde Johnson's putative boss Herve Ladsous, called it analysis when they ran a few random tweets, ending with an arch "comment, which was posted on South Sudan in Focus' Twitter feed, accused Johnson of cozying up to opposition leader Riek Machar. That comment included profanity and will not be published. Karin Zeitvogel contributed to this report from Washington."

  The above was date-lined Juba, mind you. VOA's worst byline is at the UN - as is the case with some other publications including behind paywalls. One had predicted an American would replace Johnson, then said more quietly this won't be the case.

  These media said nothing when Ladsous began refusing to answer hard Press questions about South Sudan. (Othersoutside noted it.)  Even the latter's questions weren't asked this week. It's called phoning it in -- if not, of course, to again say "spoon-fed."

  Inner City Press can report UN Peacekeeping sources, beyond expressing disgust at Ladsous' leadership, say that American Department of Field Support deputy Tony Banbury has re-upped, making selection of American Jane Holl Lute to replace the department classy Ameerah Haq less likely. And no American in Juba?

Background: Here's how it works at the UN: in South Sudan UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous emflamed people by transporting Ghana soldiers' weapons, mislabeled, by road into a conflict zone.

   When media criticized the UN, Ladsous used a Security Council speech to call for the press stories to stop. But henever took questions on this at the UN Security Council stakeout.

  On May 27 when the Council scaled back the UN Peacekeeping mission UNMISS, Ladsous did not come to the UN Television stakeout, as even his predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean-Marie Guehenno would have done.

   Instead Ladsous arranged to meet US state media, Voice of America, in the hallway and spoonfed a quote.  Inner City Press observed this and reported it, here and here, predicting a propaganda story would could out of it.

  And now it has, here. Voice of America doesn't mention the Ghana weapons, or Ladsous' refusal to make public that report, or one on cluster bombs -- which are mentioned in the Council's March 27 resolution. The soft-ball story is entirely pro UN, quoting Ladsous without any critical questions. It is pathetic.

  This comes at a time when Congress is considering formalizing that Voice of America must be propaganda. Is that even necessary?

Background: after the UN Security Council amended its South Sudan mission's mandate on May 27, including support to Juba's police ostensibly subject to the UN's "Human Rights Due Diligence Policy" (Operative Paragraph 4(a)(vi) of the resolution, here) -- what does that Policy actually mean?

   UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous instead of taking questions at the UN Television stakeout about the policy, and failures in South Sudan, met Voice of America's scribe in the hall. There is history of this: video here.

 There were other questions he should have answered, about the failure to publicly issue the report on cluster bombs or the admitted failure in moving Ghana's troops weapons by land. 

  New questions were raised about UN Peacekeeping firing in the air in South Sudan, and giving the government as little as 48 hours notice to sign off on logistics or be charged with obstruction.

  The human rights due diligence policy is supposed to mean that the UN will not support units which engage in abuse for which they are not held accountable. 

  But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, after only two FARDC soldiers were convicted for more than 130 rapes in Minova in November 2012, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has NOT suspended support to the 41st and 391st Battalions implicated in the rapes.

  Ladsous refused to answer questions about the rapes, and has provided no explanation since the impunity ruling in the DRC. Inner City Press asked again at the May 27 UN noon briefing.

  So are Council members fooling themselves, or others, by saying it's meaningful that UNMISS' support in South Sudan would be under this UNexplained and UNenforced "Human Rights Due Diligence" policy?

  And, separately, what of UNMISS chief Hilde Johnson welcoming and taking photographs with David Yau Yau? We'll have more on this.

Background: after the May 12 South Sudan speech of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcoming “the ceasefire agreement signed in Addis Ababa on Friday,” Inner City Press asked Ban about the ceasefire being broken, and elections now delayed two or three years.

  Ban replied that he is disappointed that the ceasefire “was not honored in Bentiu,” and said he is engaged with the regional IGAD leaders about it. UN Transcript below. Ban did not respond on the delay in elections, even as he called for the elections in (parts of) Ukraine to go forward this May 25.

  Ban's opening statement to the press also addressed Boko Haram's kidnappings in Nigeria, saying he has sent UN envoy Said Djinnit there. 

  He did not bring up Syria, but two of the questioners selected for him by his spokesman brought up Syria: the projected departure of envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and if Ban, said to be too mild on accountability in Syria, supports a referral to the International Criminal Court.

  Inner City Press has reported on a close ally of Tunisia's former dictator Ben Ali Kamel Morjane being in the running to replace Brahimi: would that reflect weakness on commitment to democracy?

  The cynically sculpted resolution to refer to the ICC not all of Syria, to exclude the Golan Heights and even some fighting Assad, reflects weakness not strength on international justice. But perhaps that can be addressed in Ban's next press availability. Watch this site.

  Footnotes: in fairness the Free UN Coalition for Accessopines that this Ban press availability was better than many of Ban's in the past. It was not limited to, although it featured many, of the insiders of the UN Correspondents Association who met with Ban and used some quotes but never released a tape or transcript. It included some less than fawning questions. And, we'd say for both those reasons, Ban did better than usual. Could it be a trend? We'll see.

  On the other hand we have to note that standing to the side of Ban's stakeout was his head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who outright refuses to answer Press questionssuch as the interplay between the UNMISS mission and the IGAD force. 

  In the face of mounting, factual questions about UN Peacekeeping, including Ban's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy in the aftermath of a mere two convictions for 130 rapes by Congolese Army units the UN supports, this cannot continue. What this site.

Update with UN Transcript:

Inner City Press: You praised the agreement – the South Sudan agreement that was reached in Addis. But it seems that since then, both sides have said that the ceasefire has been broken, and also the Government of Salva Kiir has said there will be no election in 2015; that it should be put back two or three years. I wondered if you think that is a good thing for the country, and also what role does IGAD regional force, in your view, should play with UNMISS? Should they coordinate militarily? Should it be under UNMISS? What does the UN think of that?

SG: It is disappointing that this agreement on Friday has not been implemented and has not been honored. The fighting has taken place in the area of Bentiu, and I am urging the two leaders to abide by their agreement.

At the same time, the special envoys of IGAD met this morning to discuss this matter. We will continue to work with the IGAD leadership. I myself, as well as my Special Representative, Hilde Johnson, will continue to contact both leaders, so that they are committed to meet their obligations which they signed just a few days ago.

When political leaders commit themselves, they should honour their commitment. We will continue to do that, and I asked the Security Council that they should continuously be engaged, and render strong political messages, including taking necessary measures.

   

In South Sudan, UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy Dubious, UNenforced in DR Congo by Ladsous on Minova Rapes by Congolese Army

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 27 -- With the UN Security Council set to amend its South Sudan mission's mandate, including support to Juba's police ostensibly subject to the UN's "Human Rights Due Diligence Policy," what does that Policy actually mean?

  It is supposed to mean that the UN will not support units which engage in abuse for which they are not held accountable. 

  But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, after only two FARDC soldiers were convicted for more than 130 rapes in Minova in November 2012, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has NOT suspended support to the 41st and 391st Battalions implicated in the rapes.

  Ladsous refused to answer questions about the rapes, and has provided no explanation since the impunity ruling in the DRC. Inner City Press asked again at the May 27 UN noon briefing.

  So are Council members fooling themselves, or others, by saying it's meaningful that UNMISS' support in South Sudan would be under this UNexplained and UNenforced "Human Rights Due Diligence" policy?

  And, separately, what of UNMISS chief Hilde Johnson welcoming and taking photographs with David Yau Yau? We'll have more on this.

Background: after the May 12 South Sudan speech of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcoming “the ceasefire agreement signed in Addis Ababa on Friday,” Inner City Press asked Ban about the ceasefire being broken, and elections now delayed two or three years.

  Ban replied that he is disappointed that the ceasefire “was not honored in Bentiu,” and said he is engaged with the regional IGAD leaders about it. UN Transcript below. Ban did not respond on the delay in elections, even as he called for the elections in (parts of) Ukraine to go forward this May 25.

  Ban's opening statement to the press also addressed Boko Haram's kidnappings in Nigeria, saying he has sent UN envoy Said Djinnit there. 

  He did not bring up Syria, but two of the questioners selected for him by his spokesman brought up Syria: the projected departure of envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and if Ban, said to be too mild on accountability in Syria, supports a referral to the International Criminal Court.

  Inner City Press has reported on a close ally of Tunisia's former dictator Ben Ali Kamel Morjane being in the running to replace Brahimi: would that reflect weakness on commitment to democracy?

  The cynically sculpted resolution to refer to the ICC not all of Syria, to exclude the Golan Heights and even some fighting Assad, reflects weakness not strength on international justice. But perhaps that can be addressed in Ban's next press availability. Watch this site.

  Footnotes: in fairness the Free UN Coalition for Accessopines that this Ban press availability was better than many of Ban's in the past. It was not limited to, although it featured many, of the insiders of the UN Correspondents Association who met with Ban and used some quotes but never released a tape or transcript. It included some less than fawning questions. And, we'd say for both those reasons, Ban did better than usual. Could it be a trend? We'll see.

  On the other hand we have to note that standing to the side of Ban's stakeout was his head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who outright refuses to answer Press questionssuch as the interplay between the UNMISS mission and the IGAD force. 

  In the face of mounting, factual questions about UN Peacekeeping, including Ban's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy in the aftermath of a mere two convictions for 130 rapes by Congolese Army units the UN supports, this cannot continue. What this site.

Update with UN Transcript:

Inner City Press: You praised the agreement – the South Sudan agreement that was reached in Addis. But it seems that since then, both sides have said that the ceasefire has been broken, and also the Government of Salva Kiir has said there will be no election in 2015; that it should be put back two or three years. I wondered if you think that is a good thing for the country, and also what role does IGAD regional force, in your view, should play with UNMISS? Should they coordinate militarily? Should it be under UNMISS? What does the UN think of that?

SG: It is disappointing that this agreement on Friday has not been implemented and has not been honored. The fighting has taken place in the area of Bentiu, and I am urging the two leaders to abide by their agreement.

At the same time, the special envoys of IGAD met this morning to discuss this matter. We will continue to work with the IGAD leadership. I myself, as well as my Special Representative, Hilde Johnson, will continue to contact both leaders, so that they are committed to meet their obligations which they signed just a few days ago.

When political leaders commit themselves, they should honour their commitment. We will continue to do that, and I asked the Security Council that they should continuously be engaged, and render strong political messages, including taking necessary measures.