UN Banned Its Eritrea Report after Ethiopian Zerihoun Talks to Some SC Members, ICP Publishes It, Here

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 28 -- Two days after Inner City Press noted, reported and asked the UN about the removal from the Internet of the "Report of the Secretary General on Eritrea," S/2012/412, Security Council sources told Inner City Press why it was taken down.

  Wednesday Inner City Press exclusively published the June 8 report which "the Secretariat" confirmed would not be put online again. 

  On Thursday multiple Security Council sources quoted Ethiopian UN official Taye-Brook Zerihoun as saying the report came down after consultations with Council members.

   This immediately gave rise to questions by Council members who had not been consulted. 

  They agreed in the abstract that the UN Secretariat has the ability to take down its own reports, even if it injures the UN's credibility. 

  But, they said, the Secretariat cannot do so after consulting with some but not all Council members.

   Given the role of the US and Ambassador Susan Rice in the passage of the Eritrea sanctions on December 2011 and the difficulty for that country's president Isaias Afwerki to address the Council before the sanctions resolution was finalized "in blue," Inner City Press waited to ask Ambassador Rice.

  When she left the Council's session on Sudan and South Sudan, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice about any US role in the taking down of the Eritrea report.

   Rice said without breaking stride, "What are you talking about Matt?"

   Then Inner City Press went to the day's noon briefing and asked about what Council members quoted Zerihoun as saying. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky repeated the answer he'd given the day previous, adding "I'm not privy" to what's said in Council consultations.

  Previously, the Spokesperson's office was allowed in, and present at, Council consultations. Under Ban they were thrown out, after what some Council members called a weak response from Ban's then chief of staff Vijay Nambiar. "Would Malcorra do better?" one mused.

 Again, we are publishing the June 8 report which "the Secretariat" has confirmed will not be put online again.

 

As circulated, Ban Ki-moon's report for example quoted Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki telling Ban in September 2011 that "the border issue with Ethiopia was a 'closed chapter' and that there was 'nothing to negotiate.'" See, Paragraph 17.

It recited Ban's July 24, 2011 meeting with "Eritrean Foreign Minister and Political Adviser to the Eritrean President" on Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Darfur. (See Inner City Press video of Yemane Ghebreab at that time, here on Inner City Press' YouTube channel with 28,000 views and counting.)

The June 8, 2012 report recited Eritrea's objections to Security Council manuevers in late November and early December 2011, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, which even after protest would only have allowed Isaias Afwerki, President of a country facing unprecedented sanctions, to speak to the Council AFTER the resolution was put in blue and finalized for a vote.

  But now all of that has been taken off line, as if it never existed. A diplomat from one of Eritrea's neighbors explained to Inner City Press that the June 8 report just "wasn't right," that it was not like other sanctions reports and not what his country has in mind.

  This was the approach taken when Department of Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous changed and watered down the most recent Western Sahara report. As many noted, but only Inner City Press explicitly emphasized, Ladsous is the fourth French chief of DPKO in a row, whose previous job was to serve discredited French foreign minister Michele Aliot-Marie including arranging her flights on planes of cronies of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali. 

 Since then, Ladsous refuses to answer Inner City Press' questions; Big Five media have moved to expel Inner City Press, now led by US government owned Voice of America asking the UN to review Inner City Press' accreditation status.

  But who -- not which countries, which is obvious, but which UN official beyond Ban Ki-moon -- is responsible for taking off line the Eritrea report, and what will happen and be issued next? 

 

 Again, we are publishing the June 8 report which "the Secretariat" has confirmed will not be put online again. Watch this site.

At UN, Ban Censors His Own Eritrea Report, "Not What We Had in Mind"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 26 -- Earlier this month the "Report of the Secretary General on Eritrea" was circulated and was put on the UN Security Council's web site, dated June 8, assigned symbol S/2012/412.

  Then, as Inner City Press exclusively reported on June 15, there were rumblings that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would change his 44-paragraph Eritrea report, like

"the two versions of the last report on Western Sahara were watered down to drop allegations against Morocco of limiting freedom of movement of the peacekeepers.

"Inner City Press exclusively learned on Friday that a similar amateurish post-publication is taking place on the forthcoming report on Eritrea. The report already has a number (S/2012/412) and has been on the UN's ODS Official Document Service.

"But unlike the Western Sahara watering down, in this case it's a matter of watering UP -- Ethiopia and others are said to want the report to be more damning of Asmara. And so it goes at the UN."

  Now, Inner City Press can report that while "Report of the Secretary-General on Eritrea, S/2012/412, 8 June 2012" is still LISTED on the Security Council's web site, the S/2012/412 link has done dead, leading to a message on the UN's ODS Official Document Service that "There is no document matching your request / Pas de reponse a votre demande."

  Well, no document anyMORE. As circulated, Ban Ki-moon's report for example quoted Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki telling Ban in September 2011 that "the border issue with Ethiopia was a 'closed chapter' and that there was 'nothing to negotiate.'" See, Paragraph 17.

  It recited Ban's July 24, 2011 meeting with "Eritrean Foreign Minister and Political Adviser to the Eritrean President" on Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Darfur. (See Inner City Press video of Yemane Ghebreab at that time, here on Inner City Press' YouTube channel with 28,000 views and counting.)

  The June 8, 2012 report recited Eritrea's objections to Security Council manuevers in late November and early December 2011, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, which even after protest would only have allowed Isaias Afwerki, President of a country facing unprecedented sanctions, to speak to the Council AFTER the resolution was put in blue and finalized for a vote.

  But now all of that has been taken off line, as if it never existed. A diplomat from one of Eritrea's neighbors explained to Inner City Press that the June 8 report just "wasn't right," that it was not like other sanctions reports and not what his country has in mind.

  This was the approach taken when Department of Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous changed and watered down the most recent Western Sahara report. 

  As many noted, but only Inner City Press explicitly emphasized, Ladsous is the fourth French chief of DPKO in a row, whose previous job was to serve discredited French foreign minister Michele Aliot-Marie including arranging her flights on planes of cronies of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali. 

  Since then, Ladsous refuses to answer Inner City Press' questions; Big Five media have moved to expel Inner City Press, now led by US government owned Voice of America asking the UN to review Inner City Press' accreditation status.

   But who -- not which countries, which is obvious, but which UN official beyond Ban Ki-moon -- is responsible for taking off line the Eritrea report, and what will happen and be issued next? Watch this site.

At UN, No Speaker from Eritrea, 5 Accusers Given Floor before Sanctions Vote

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- Eritrean president Isaias Afwerki had been told he could speak to the Security Council Monday morning, along with his neighbors and accusers, before the Council voted on sanctions against Eritrea on Monday afternoon.

Eritrea responded that this was not due process, with the sanctions resolution already locked in and "in blue." Late on December 2 Eritrea's Ambassador Araya Desta told Inner City Press "no one will come" under these circumstances.

On December 3 Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh submitted a letter to this effect.

When Monday morning came, there was no consultations meeting on the Eritrean letter. Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice on her way in if she thought Eritrea's neighbors and accusers should still speak, if Eritrea wasn't coming.

"They could have," Rice answered.

Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant the same question; he replied, "Anyone can speak who has a vested interested."

And the interests were vested, piped in by video conference from Addis Ababa. The president of Djibouti spoke about his country's land dispute with Eritrea.

The President of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government spoke, and the foreign minister of Kenya which has entered Somalia with troops it now wants put under African Union helmets, and paid by the UN. The AU representative of Uganda, whose UPDF troops already have that status, also spoke.

Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia spoke about his longstanding land dispute -- Eritrea claims its demarcation win was never implemented -- but insisted three times, "It is not a family quarrel." He emphasized the IGAD element and thanked Gabon and Nigeria but did not mention South Africa. (We will have more on this.)

The meeting was suspended after the speakers from Addis; the sanctions will be voted on at 3 pm. It felt like the sanctions, which Zenawi said were watered down, might be made harsher. "They're in blue," Inner City Press was told.

On his way out, Ethiopia's Permanent Representative to the UN Tekeda Alemu stopped to speak to Inner City Press and provide input. He said, "the Eritrean interest was never to have an opportunity for the president to talk."

One answer is, how will we know, if such short notice was given, to speak hours before an already in-blue resolution would be voted on?

While some on the Security Council described the "compromise" reached on November 30 as innovative and a good precedent -- to invite a head of state to speak -- to do so on such short notice, and to not provide for any gap to consult with capitals and modify a resolution if necessary, is questionable.

It ended up with some analogizing it to a kangaroo court, or perhaps a one-sided therapy session like an intervention. Only the intervenee was not present. The vote is at 3 pm. Watch this site.

To UN for Sanctions Vote, Eritrean Rep Tells Press "No One Will Come" on Short Notice

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- "No one will come" from Asmara to the UN in New York on Monday, Eritrea's Permanent Representative Araya Desta told Inner City Press after 5 pm on Friday.

After a Security Council fight resulting in an eleventh hour invitation to President Isaias Afwerki to address the Council on Monday just before new sanctions on Eritrea are slated to be voted on, throughout Friday afternoon there was discussion that the US hadn't come through with visas.

But by 5 pm the US bragged that 11 visas were being granted, for pick up Saturday morning.

This put the ball back in Eritrea's court. Three times Isaias Afwerki had asked to address the Council before it votes on further sanctions. The request was ignored until Gabon and the United States on November 29 pushed for a vote on sanctions the next day.

Facing opposition, it was agreed to invite not only Isaias Afwerki and but also leaders of Eritrea's neighbors to address the Council Monday morning, then vote on Monday afternoon.

But as Desta told Inner City Press on Friday night, this schedule lacked due process. He said, "They [fouled] it up, I'm sorry to say it that way. That's what Doctor Rice wants. No one is coming."

Desta provided reasons of timing, and of due process, first calling it "short notice, we would have had to arrange a charter. You don't ask a president to come within a day and a half." Still he emphasized, "My President was ready to come."

Then Desta pointed out that the sanctions resolution will already be "in blue" -- what if Security Council members wanted to consult that capitals after hearing the morning's speeches?

He said, "the Security Council should take time, the experts should meet and discuss on each and every paragraph. They don't want to do that. There is no crisis in the region. So what is the reason they are bringing it in a rush? You wrote it yourself, they didn't want to deal with the Russians."

To many, the push on November 29 to haul off and vote on November 30, the last day of Portugal's Council presidency, seemed strange. Desta said, "the way Doctor Rice has done was imposition, really outrageous."

It does look like a strange compromise now. As one Council member mused to Inner City Press, "to put a head of state into a situation in which he speaks to the Council in the morning, and they adopt sanctions against his country in the afternoon, is a set-up for a no-show."

Another suggested that the Council should have scheduled the President to speak as early in December as he could, and then hold the vote on another subsequent day. But that appears no longer here nor there. "No one will come," Desta told Inner City Press. Watch this site.