UNITED NATIONS, May 15 -- As the UN Security Council, the United States and the UN Peacebuilding Configuration on Burundi on Friday evening issued statements urging calm in the country, Inner City Press learned of a quite different trend, from within the UN itself.
UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, multiple sources exclusively complained to Inner City Press, wrote a letter urging that Burundi's government be provided with weapons, ostensibly for peacekeeping, including grenades. One letter was to Montenegro.
The sources asked Inner City Press what safeguards if any were in place that these grenades and other weapons are not used against democracy protesters in Burundi itself. They noted that Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations "let Nkurunziza take nine million dollars from the contingent-owned equipment fund," which one called "a variation on Rwanda in '94."
Another noted that since Ladsous had, as French Deputy Permanent Representative in the Security Council in 1994defended the escape into Eastern Congo of the Rwanda's Hutu genocidaires, this push to sell grenades to Nkurunziza was "not surprising." But why should such an individuals be head of UN Peacekeeping? Apparently it is up to France and France alone.
Others noted a closed door session of the UN's budget committee set for next week in which Ladsous' intervention to try to force out the whistleblower who revealed French "Sangaris" troops' child rapes in Central African Republic would have to be defended, this time by Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Susana Malcorra.
"Why don't they just fire Ladsous?" one well place diplomat asked Inner City Press, then answering the question: "because France." But for how long? Watch this site.
During the UN Peacekeeping configuration meeting on May 15, Inner City Press is exclusively informed, Tanzania's Ambassador asked the UN's head of Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman why the UN and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had been so slow to condemn the coup.
Inner City Press put the question to Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq at the UN's public noon briefing on May 15, to give the UN a change to publicly explain.
But as on a scandal about Ban and his nephew being reported on here by Inner City Press and media in Vietnam and South Korea, where Ban Ki-moon is headed, Haq response was essentially that the UN is good, that is does not need to explain (in the case of Ban's nephew) or should be presumed to be always deeply engaged and deeply concerned. Some simply don't believe that.
UNITED NATIONS, April 23 -- Yesterday's announcement by the UN mission in the DR Congo that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous is in the DRC inevitably brings up history, twenty one years ago and this year.
But these inevitable questions were avoided by Ladsous, not only in UN Headquarters but now in a staged interview with the UN's own Radio Okapi. This station, which the Free UN Coalition for Access has always said has some good and energetic reporters, was debased into “interviewing” its boss Ladsous without for example asking about this history with the Hutu militia that became the FDLR, nor now his rejection of an invitation to a “Protection of Civilians” event in Rwanda.
Instead Ladsous on his Okapi pontificated about the rule of law - and is not asked why his Department Peacekeeping Operations waived its supposed rules to participate in military operations against the Lord's Resistance Army but not the FDLR. This is a new low.
And here is new exclusive reporting by Inner City Press, from the DPKO that Ladsous has been destroying in New York: multiple sources describe to Inner City Press how long time power in DPKO Meg Carey is now out, with no public explanation - again, like in some of the “regimes” the UN pontificates again. And similarly, Ladsous' scribes who have neglected reporting that this Emperor has no clothes have not reported that Meg Carey, who helped spoon-feed them, is out. We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press: Well, on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Under-Secretary-General [Hervé] Ladsous. I saw in the MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] press conference they did today that he's there, they said, for five days. Can you confirm that? And what is… is trying to get the UN active against the FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda] one of the goals? And relatedly or not, I wanted you to just confirm either here or maybe later today that Mr. Ladsous rejected an invitation from Rwanda to attend a protection of civilians event in Rwanda.
Spokesman Dujarric: I don't have anything on the latter part. And Mr. Ladsous is indeed in Kinshasa where he's obviously having discussions on one of the UN's largest peacekeeping operations.
While the UN Spokesperson''s Office and DPKO have not answered about Ladsous' rejection of Rwanda's invitation, sources in DPKO, along with telling Inner City Press, how Ladsous has inappropriately personalized everything in the Department, say now he may sent Edmond Mulet in his place. Seems he sure can't sent Meg Carey any more. We'll have more on this.
In 1994 Ladsous argued for the escape of Hutu genocidaires into eastern Congo; this year he blocked UN participation in military operations against their successors the FDLR. Ladsous refused to waive a stated rule which WAS waived to fight the LRA.
Now Inner City Press can exclusively report that Ladsous has refused to attend a high level "Protection of Civilians" event in Rwanda in May. His reason, made known to diplomats? Rwanda has, Ladsous hautily believes, been rude to him.
This is how the UN allows Ladsous to operate - he can refuse to answer questions from media which asks about this history; now he can refuse invitations from and talk badly about a member state like Rwanda.
Here's what his MONUSCO says about Ladsous' visit to the DRC:
"Le Secrétaire général adjoint des Nations Unies chargé des Operations de maintien de la paix,Hervé Ladsous, est arrivé à Kinshasa le 21 avril 2015. Au cours de sa visite de cinq jours, monsieur Ladsous se rendra à Goma et à Bukavu. A Kinshasa, il rencontrera les membres du gouvernement congolais et le Président de la République."
We'll haver more on this.
Twenty one years after the beginning of the genocide in Rwanda, UN Peacekeeping remains under the thumb of Herve Ladsous, who in 1994 acting as France's Ambassador in the UN Security Council argued for the escape of the Hutu genocidaires into Eastern Congo. See Ladsous' memo here, put online by Inner City Press. On April 7, the French Presidency said it would declassify some documents. But will those like Ladsous', and more, be released? Why?
Notably, Ladsous has banned UN support to a military offensive to “neutralize” the heirs of the genocide, the Hutu FDLR militia. Ladsous refuses Press questions on this -- so on April 7 Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcribe here, video here:
Inner City Press: A follow-up on this question of the twenty-first anniversary of the Rwanda genocide. I saw the statement by the Special Envoy in the Great Lakes, Said Djinnit, basically saying the FDLR [Forces Democratiques de Liberation du Rwanda] should be defeated. What can you say about the seeming contradiction, despite these various statements of how important it is to eliminate the FDLR, the decision relatively at the last minute by MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] or the Force Intervention Brigade and DPKO [Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations] not to participate against the FDLR? And does it make it less likely they, in fact, will be defeated and will continue?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think MONUSCO and our peacekeeping colleagues have very good reasons not to participate in that… in that. This is an issue that the Congolese Government also needs to deal with. And I think we had good reasons not to participate.
Inner City Press: The reason I'm asking about the contradictions is it seems this same human rights due diligence policy was explicitly waived in the case of pursuing the Lord's Resistance Army and was, at least in some people's mind, seemingly waived or delayed in the case of the Minova rapes. So it seems for this to be the one invocation of it as regards to the group that's basically the successor to the genocidaires.
Spokesman: I think you and I can agree to have different views on this
This too: Ladous has twice had his spokesmen physically remove the UNTV microphone from Inner City Press, which asked.
On April 6 it was claimed that Ladsous' spokesman was pointing to another journalist as Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' questions - but he grabbed the microphone, as happened before, here.
Among documents put online on April 6, 2015 was the Mucyo Commission report, which says of the Security Council advocacy involving Ladsous that in the Security Council, the French Ambassador “did a lot of lobbying with the the Member States of the Council to avoid the Security Council's use of the expression 'genocide.'” Page 179,here.
But the documents released jump from June 1994 to 1998, thus missingthis Ladsous memo. Pre-selected coverage, focused on US Bill Clinton, John Shattuck, Prudence Bushnell and Joyce Leader and UK David Hannay, omits this link to current events at the UN as well. We'll have more on this.
When today's UN Peacekeepers are determined, by the UN itself, to have shot at civilians by using inappropriate force, what accountability is there? None, with Herve Ladsous atop UN Peacekeeping. But even the supposed reporting in the incidents is inconsistent.
On Mali, after Ladsous' MINUSMA reached side deals with the MNLA rebels about Tabankort, there was a protest in Gao.
UN Police ultimately under Ladsous' command shot and killed three civilians. In this case, because the Malian government wanted an investigation of the killing of protesters which supported its positition, the UN did an investigation and at least released a summary. (Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' questions including about the roots of the protest, his mission's deal with the MNLA in Tabankort.)
Vine here. These questions took place at the UN Security Council stakeout, but Reuters and Agence France Presse did not mention it, only blaming Rwanda. Both previously tried to censor Inner City Press coverage of Ladsous and French colonialism, to the extent of moving to ask the UN to throw Inner City Press out.
Which approach is journalism?
AFP wasn't even AT this stakeout - Ladous sought to avoid questions by repeating his talking points in French, but no AFP. Then Reuters told UNTV to give it the microphone, to ask about Rwanda. Ladsous leered. Then a retired Reuters reporter was pointed at by Ladsous' spokesman Nick Birnback, who then grabbed the UNTV microphone to take it away from Inner City Press.
On April 2 Ladsous appeared at the UN Security Council media stakeout but after reading a prepared statement refused to answer Press questions about the underlying Tabankort agreement with the MNLA which led to the Mali shooting. Video I here.
Inner City Press also asked about shooting at civilians by Ladsous' peacekeepers in Haiti, caught on video, and asked if that withheld report would be released. Ladsous said, I do not respond to you. Video II here.
Inner City Press asked if it isn't now a pattern, peacekeepers shooting at unarmed civilians not only in Mali but also Haiti, and if Ladsous will take responsibility.
Ladsous' spokesman Nicholas Birnback then grabbed the UNTV microphone and moved it away from Inner City Press. This happened before with Ladsous and his previous spokesman. Video here, story here. At that time, after the Free UN Coalition for Access complained, the UN Spokesperson told FUNCA it would not happen again. Now it has. Accountability?
Tellingly, the Ladsous scribe who angled for and got the first question asked pointedly if the peacekeepers in Mali weren't from Rwanda. Ladsous leered and said the Troop Contributing Country, then spoke again at the end to lay the blame on them. Video II, here, near end.
In the public record is Ladsous' 1994 memo supporting the escape of the Hutu genocidaires who formed the FDLR into Eastern Congo, where now Ladsous' MONUSCO finds one excuse after another NOT to neutralize the FDLR as it did the largely Tutsi M23 armed group.
Inner City Press, which has been asking the UN Spokesperson - sinceUN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refuses Press questions -- about the killings since they occurred in January, on April 2 asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq if the report will be made public, and if any verdict or sentence against the peacekeepers would be made public. Haq did not say yes to either.
A report on Ladsous' peacekeepers in Haiti firing at unarmed demonstrators hasn't even been summarized, much less released.
As to the killings by peacekeepers in Gao, Haq would not even publicly state the nationality of the peacekeepers. Talk about impunity. He said the Ladsous will briefing the Security Council -- behind closed doors, of course -- about the report, then will come to the UNTV stakeout. But Ladsous refuses Press questions, on his cover up of rapes in DR Congo and Darfur and every other question. Video here, Vine here.
This is a new low in UNaccountability.
Here is the UN's summary as read-out by Haq, video to follow:
The Inquiry launched by the Secretary-General to determine the facts surrounding the violent demonstration that took place on 27 January 2015 in Gao, Mali, in front of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) Regional Headquarters has submitted its report.
The Inquiry determined that members of a MINUSMA Formed Police Unit used unauthorized and excessive force on civilian protesters during the demonstration, resulting in the death by gunfire of three protesters and the wounding of four others.
The Inquiry also established that some protesters and organisers of the demonstration bear responsibility for the violence of the protest, which included Molotov cocktails, stone throwing and attempts to breach the perimeter of the Regional MINUSMA Headquarters in Gao. The Inquiry noted that MINUSMA security forces were left to face the protesters on their own in violation of the Status of Forces Agreement with the host country. Five MINUSMA police officers were wounded during the event.
The Secretary-General profoundly regrets the casualties among civilians resulting from the excessive use of force during this event by the MINUSMA personnel concerned. He condemns it as a violation of the MINUSMA Directive on the Use of Force. The Secretary-General is committed to ensuring that the responsible individuals are held fully accountable for their actions.
Steps are being taken in this regard with the authorities of Mali and the relevant police-contributing country. The Secretary-General encourages the Government of Mali to take the appropriate steps to prevent future such incidents. Communications, management and crisis procedures within MINUSMA will also be examined to prevent the recurrence of such acts.
The Secretary-General is committed to ensuring justice for the victims and their families according to local customs and appropriate United Nations procedures. MINUSMA is in contact with the local authorities and with the individuals and families concerned in this regard.
On behalf of the United Nations, the Secretary-General expresses his deepest apologies to the victims and their families.
The United Nations, and MINUSMA in particular, remain committed to supporting the stabilisation of Mali.
Ladsous did this on the Congolese Army rapes in Minova, using the same scribes; he is preparing the same scam to explain his mission's covering up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, Sudan (more on this to come).
"The United Nations has threatened to withdraw support for a planned Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) military campaign against Rwandan rebels if the government does not remove two generals accused of human rights abuses by the end of next week, a senior U.N. official said on Wednesday. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the world body has told Congolese Foreign Minister Raymond Tshibanda: 'If you keep these guys we're not going to be in a position to support you ... get these people out.'"
Inner City Press: Since it's UN Social Media Day, MONUSCO 46 minutes ago said that — I'll say it in French: Les operations militaires contre les #FDLR, lancées hier jeudi, seront dirigées et planifiées conjointement par la #MONUSCO et les FARDC. So unless I'm misunderstanding this, they're claiming that it's a joint operation, “conjointement”, on their Twitter feed. I wanted to know, why would they be doing that, given what you've just said?
Spokesman: I think without going into a deep analysis of French and English, which you obviously are able to do and I couldn't try to keep up with you, I think it is a different characterization maybe, a different use of words, but I think the point is that it's an FARDC-led operation with the support of the UN.
On February 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric more specifically,video here,
Inner City Press: On the DRC, I wanted to ask you about the action against the FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda], if you can be a little more specific on what the UN's MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and its Force Intervention Brigade's role are. Have they fired any shots? And is the human rights due diligence policy in place? And how does it relate to support being given to the units of the FARDC [Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo] who are firing? And do these units include the 391st and 41st battalions that were engaged in the rapes in Minova?
Spokesman Dujarric: The operational questions as to what operations are taking place, I think if they're answered, will be answered by MONUSCO. If they're ongoing military operations, they will make the decision of what is announced and what is not announced. In terms of MONUSCO, its support will be in strict compliance with the UN's human rights due diligence policy, and as you know, the policy requires that the UN ensures that its support to non-UN security forces will not contribute to grave human rights violations. The policy is being implemented by MONUSCO in close collaboration, obviously, with the national authorities. And you know, if… I will find out on the specific units, but if problems do arise because of past issues, either related to the records of units or commanders, there are substantial grounds to believe that, you know, either the commanders or units, there are risks of human rights violations — support to those units is withheld unless adequate mitigating measures can be put in place.
Inner City Press: And is Bruno Mandevu, he's been named as a commander. Is that a problem for the UN?
Spokesman Dujarric: Obviously, if there are commanders that are… where we have issues then we are in discussions with the DRC authorities to see how… you know, how they can address the concerns that we have. But overall, the operation is being done within the framework of our human rights due diligence policy.
That's called NOT answering a question, about whom the UN is supporting.
"The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo threatened in 2013 to withdraw support for two Congolese battalions accused of involvement in the mass rape. The mission decided to keep working with the battalions after 12 senior officers, including the commanders and deputy commanders, were suspended and about a dozen soldiers were charged over the rapes in Minova."
This is propaganda -- only two lower ranking soldiers were convicted. The Reuters implication is that Ladsous' DPKO is tough on human rights: false.
On January 22 Ladsous made a speech about freedom of the press in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thursday to the US Security Council, and made excuses for not acting to “neutralize” the Hutu FDLR rebels as the UN did the largely Tutsi M23.
Then Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout, ostensibly to take questions.
Inner City Press asked, “On the neutralization of the FDLR, what is the hold up?”
Ladsous said "I don't respond to your questions, Mister." Video hereand embedded below.
Then Ladsous turned and gave the question to Reuters, the same trolling correspondent. When that back and forth was over, Inner City Press asked if any of the countries in the UN's Force Intervention Brigade are well than willing to attack the FDLR, as senior diplomats at the UN have told Inner City Press.
Ladsous refused to answer this question, and gestured that Ban Ki-moon's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler, standing behind Ladsous at the stakeout, shouldn't answer it either. Reuters took or was given another question, distancing the FDLR from genocide.
(One can only imagine the advise this “communications professional” is giving Ladsous. Perhaps he can help Ladsous address his history with Hutu groups as evidence in this memo. These are Press questions.)
UNITED NATIONS, May 4, more background here -- US envoy on the Great Lakes Russ Feingold, like Secretary of State John Kerry, spoke about Congolese president Kabila's delay in going after or neutralizing the Hutu FDLR militia. He was more detailed than Kerry, specifying that the decision to go after the ADF-NALU first took up resource. (He said the Lord's Resistant Army is outside of his mandate.)
On the FDLR, Feingold said:
it’s difficult taking on all these different groups, that the operations against the ADF have been – consumed significant resources of his military. But he also has told me, as recently as a few weeks ago, that he intends to give the green light... I’ll just repeat again, as Martin Kobler and I did yesterday and when we spoke to the Secretary, that MONUSCO is ready, the FIB is ready, it is time for it to happen... We are already the largest supporter of MONUSCO, and I don’t have any particular information about how much that particular operation will be. I believe the resources are there for this operation to occur. That’s not the problem. The problem is making sure the green light is given.
So who will make sure that the green light is belatedly given?
Kabila's government, and therefore UN Peacekeeping led by Herve Ladsous, has continued to say it would neutralize the FDLR after this was done to the M23. But then the ADF-NALU came first, and the commander of the Force Intervention Brigade went back to Tanzania. (Feingold insists the FIB is ready, that some or all of it participated in the targeting of the ADF.)
Here in fairness is Kerry's lengthy statement on the FDLR, and a possible third term for Kabila:
With respect to the election process, the constitution, and the FDLR, we want to see the process of providing stability and completing the task of disarming the armed groups in the east completed. So that includes not just the completion of the efforts with the ADF, but also obviously, indeed making sure that the FDLR is held accountable and that the initiative with respect to them will commence.
The president – we did discuss it. The president made it clear that he intends to do that, and I think that there is a schedule. I don’t want to discuss it because I think it would be inappropriate to do so. But the answer is the president gave his word that that is not just on the agenda, but that he has a specific process in mind and timing.
And with respect to the constitutional process, we talked about the election. I believe the president’s legacy is a legacy that is very important for the country, and that he has an opportunity, which he understands, to be able to put the country on a continued path of democracy. And I believe it is clear to him that the United States of America feels very strongly, as do other people, that the constitutional process needs to be respected and adhered to. That’s how you strengthen a country.
I have no doubt that President Kabila’s legacy will be defined by the progress he has made in the – particularly the last year in addressing the security issues of the east, the economic issues of the country. And he’s a young man with an enormous amount of time to be able to continue to contribute to his country. And I’m quite confident that he will weigh all of those issues as he makes a decision about the future.
But clearly, the United States of America believes that a country is strengthened, that people have respect for their nation and their government, when a constitutional process is properly implemented and upheld by that government. And we obviously believe – we’re a country with term limits. We live by them. We had several hundred years of transformation under that process, and we encourage other countries to adhere to their constitution.
Back in March after the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo mission MONUSCO was extended one year, with a reference to the 1994"genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed," it was UN Security Council pen-holder Gerard Araud of France who came first to speak to the media.
While Araud has resisted Press questions following articles comparing the treatment of a French diplomat to a more recent Indian case, on March 28 he answered two Press questions, in his way. So we note it.
As soon as Araud finished his prepared remarks, apparently written by his spokesperson Frederic Jung, Inner City Press asked of something Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said, calling on the Security Council to ensure accountability in implementation of the mandate -- to neutralize the Hutu FDLR.
Inner City Press asked Araud how the Council - on which France is a Permanent member - would ensure this, and why after the M23, the Mission went after the ADF before the Hutu FDLR.
Araud answered dismissively, but he answered, calling it a military and not a political question. Many would disagree if the sequencing of targeting the Hutu FDLR is not political, but it is an answer, and we report it.
To the side, the former Reuters bureau chief was observed by a member of the Free UN Coalition for Access cackling happily that Araud had been dismissive of Inner City Press' first question - this same scribe began theMarch 27 nearly empty press conference about the ICTR by asking leadingly about its fights with Paul Kagame. But no questions on MONUSCO?
Araud said, correctly, that it is the same language as in January's Resolution 2136. Inner City Press reported on that process in January:
When the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council, 15-0, Rwanda's Permanent Representative Gasana emerged from the Council chamber. Inner City Press asked him about his DRC counterpart's comment that Gasana was educated in the Congo. Video here and embedded below.
Gasana laughed and said he was born in Burundi. He mused that the Congolese might want to adopt him. Then he turned to go.
Wire services Reuters and Agence France-Presse pursued him to the esclator, where Reuters UN bureau chief asked Gasana about Rwanda being accused of supporting the M23. Gasana replied that the DRC has other problems, for example in Katanga. He said Rwanda is a scapegoat for the DRC's wider problems.
Reuters insisted that the Group of Experts report had been welcomed by the Security Council resolution. "Because they need that," Gasana replied. "This is the raison d'etre of the Security Council."
In the January 30 resolution, the language compromised on is "the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed."
Sources exclusively told Inner City Press that the United States resisted calling it a genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda, even saying that there is a US policy against referring to it in this way.
Inner City Press has asked the US Mission to the UN for an explanation. It was said one might be forthcoming after the vote.
Where would such a US policy be written down? It seemed strange, particularly during a time of Holocaust events at the UN, from one aboutHungary to another about Albania.
On January 29, Inner City Press asked a US Council diplomat, who said spokespeople would be asked. Inner City Press was told to wait for the language to be final, then, for the vote.
In the Council's January 29 debate, the representative of the DRC spoke about Rwanda and the M23 rebels. Rwanda's Deputy Permanent Representative replied with a series of questions: was it Rwanda who killed Lumumba? Was Rwanda responsible for Mobutu? Who hosted and failed to separate the genocidaires from Rwanda in 1994?
This continued on January 30 after the vote. Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said UN Peacekeeping should investigate links between the DRC Army and the FDLR.
The DRC representative asked to be given specifics about links between his country's army the FARDC and the FDLR militia. The resolution voted on provides:
"Noting with deep concern reports indicating FARDC collaboration with the FDLR at a local level, recalling that the FDLR is a group under United Nations sanctions whose leaders and members inchide perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed, and have continued to promote and commit ethnically based and other killings in Rwanda and in the DRC, and stressing the importance of permanently addressing this threat"
"107. The Group interviewed 10 FARDC soldiers in Tongo, in North Kivu, who reported that FARDC and FDLR regularly meet and exchange operational information. These same sources stated that FARDC soldiers supplied ammunition to the FDLR. Col. Faida Fidel Kamulete, the commander of FARDC 2nd battalion of 601st Regiment based at Tongo, denied such collaboration, but declared to the Group that FARDC and FDLR do not fight each other."
Going further back, it is impossible not to note, particularly given the lack of explanation or transparency, that US Permanent RepresentativeSamantha Power began her 2001 article "Bystanders to Genocide" in the Atlantic with this sentence: "In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority."
Given that, why would the US Mission be saying it had a policy of describing the genocide as being against the Tutsi minority? Inner City Press asked again: Since I'm told that the US has said that there is a government position not to say the 1994 genocide was against the Tutsis, can you say what that policy is? Why does it exist? Does it apply to other genocides or atrocities?
A Rwandan diplomat told Inner City Press these were Hutu killed not because of their ethnicity but because they opposed the genocide against the Tutsi. "This is a precedent," the diplomat said. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, April 8, 2014 -- When UN Peacekeeping closes down or even just re-names one of its missions, what remains of its history, including its website and domain?
Well at least under Herve Ladsous as regards the old MONUC.org, now renamed MONUSCO, history is purged, sold off, covered up.
And then, tellingly, the UN dissembles, today telling Inner City Press that MONUC.org is not really gone. But it is - click here and watch as www.MONUCO.org redirects to www.waypathinternet.com - and along with it, history of complicity in the Rwanda genocide.
On April 7, 2014, the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda, Ladsous openly refused to answer Inner City Press' question about when MONUSCO will belatedly go after the Hutu FDLR militia, saying "Mister, you know I never answer your questions and you know very well why." Video here.
Why, then? Ladsous was France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide, and he argued for French policies including the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo. See sample memo, here.
Ladsous would certainly like that 1994 memo to disappear - in fact, by refusing to answer Press questions he tries to disappear the issue. But consider this:
"The serious and consistent allegations against Callixte Mbarushimana, the executive secretary of the FDLR, have been a source of considerable embarrassment for the UN for many years. After the evacuation of foreign staff, the 44-year-old computer technician appointed himself as Officer-in-Charge of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Rwanda, from 10 April to 4 July 1994. He is accused by dozens of witnesses, including former colleagues, militiamen and local administrators, of used his position, and the resources, of the UNDP, to advance the policy of massacres, including the murder of Tutsis who worked for the UNDP. Dressed in military fatigues, armed with a gun and carrying grenades in his belt, witnesses say that he lent the vehicles and satellite telephones of the UNDP to militaryofficers, that he also used the UNDP vehicles to facilitate his own contribution to the killings."
But attempting it on April 7, 2014 it emerged that the UN has not only abandoned the website of its largest and longest running peacekeeping mission - it has allowed a for profit company PathwayInternet.com to take it over. So much for preserving memory. Under Ladsous, the goal seems to be to censor or disappear memory.
And so on April 8 Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq what had happened to MONUC.org, and to the information about the Rwanda genocide that used to be on it. Haq's office returned with this, copied to lead spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, which leaves MONUC.org and that now missing information UNaddressed:
Subject: Your question on DPKO websites From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com Cc: Stephane Dujarric [at[ un.org>
Regarding the question you asked about MONUC and other websites of past UN peacekeeping missions, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has the following information:
UN Peacekeeping maintains pages on the UN Peacekeeping website for all past operations http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/
Most active missions run their own local website. In the case of MONUC, we understand their local website was renamed with a new url to reflect the establishment of MONUSCO:
http://www.monusco.unmissions.org/
But where is MONUC.org and the information that was on it? On the archivedhttp://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/monuc/ there appears to be no information on the UN's own Callixte Mburushimana. There are dead links.
It is noteworthy that despite the ease of verifying where www.MONUC.org points now, the above was sent - but Inner City Press' April 8 question about what Ladsous said about drones or UUAVs has not yet been answered. We'll have more on this.
Also in Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping there is a process of not speaking in the first place. At the event on April 7, 2014 where Ladsous refused to answer, Inner City Press also asked why for example Ladsous' Western Sahara mission MINURSO has no social media presence. It is listed at the bottom of UN Peacekeeping's website as a "missions with no social media presence."
The answer given -- not by Ladsous, who refuses Inner City Press questions -- is that for some missions, countries do no give permission for certain equipment or, apparently, Twitter accounts. But who could it be, banning MINURSO in Western Sahara from social media?
Ladsous tries to spoonfeed information to friendly scribes; in his favor first the UN Correspondents Association (requested by Agence France Presse) then the current spokesperson of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have made threats to discourage coverage. There's more on this - but this is yesterday's video, here; this is today's UN. Watch this site.
