Showing posts with label John Kirby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kirby. Show all posts

Saturday, March 19, 2016

On Yemen, Inner City Press Asked US State Department Of Saudi Airstrikes Killing 107, UN Says 106, UNICEF 118


By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON, March 18, updated --  When Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby about Yemen on March 15, Kirby said "we welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities."
  On March 16, Inner City Press returned to the State Department and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrikes in Hajjah which killed, it asked, 41 or 107 people; Toner replied in part that the US could not verify the specifics, see below.
 On March 18, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has put the civilian death toll at 106, in a statement we publish below, while noting that UNICEF in Yemen puts the figure at 118 dead including 22 children:
"In the wake of another deadly airstrike that killed some 106 civilians in a crowded village market in north-western Yemen, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on Friday condemned the repeated failure of the Coalition forces to take effective actions to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, and to publish transparent, independent investigations into those that have already occurred.

“The carnage caused by two airstrikes on the Al Khamees market, in north-western Yemen on Tuesday was one of the deadliest incidents since the start of the conflict a year ago,” said Zeid, noting that it was the second such incident in the past three weeks. On 27 February, at least 39 civilians, including nine children, were killed, and another 33 injured, by an airstrike on the Khaleq market in a north-eastern district of Sana`a.

UN Human Rights Office staff in Yemen, who visited the site of the attack in northern Hajja Gvernorate on Wednesday and interviewed a number of eyewitnesses, said the airstrikes had completely destroyed 16 shops in the Al Khamees market, which is the primary shopping area for some 15 surrounding villages. The attack had apparently taken place during the afternoon rush hour when the market was particularly crowded.

There were 24 children among the 106 people reported dead so far. UN staff recorded the names of 96 of the victims, although a further 10 bodies were burned beyond recognition. More than 40 other people were reported to have been injured during the attack.

Since the beginning of the conflict a year ago, the UN Human Rights Office has recorded a total of just under 9,000 casualties including 3,218 civilians killed and a further 5,778 injured (from 26 March 2015 to 17 March 2016).

The UN human rights staff could find no evidence of any armed confrontation or significant military objects in the area at the time of the attack, beyond the presence of a check-point some 250 meters away from the market usually manned by a small group of policemen and Houthis.

“Looking at the figures, it would seem that the coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as all other forces put together, virtually all as a result of airstrikes,” the High Commissioner said. “They have hit markets, hospitals, clinics, schools, factories, wedding parties – and hundreds of private residences in villages, towns and cities including the capital Sana’a. Despite plenty of international demarches, these awful incidents continue to occur with unacceptable regularity. In addition, despite public promises to investigate such incidents, we have yet to see progress in any such investigations.”

“It would appear to be the case that the distinction between legitimate military targets and civilian ones -- which are protected under international law -- is at best woefully inadequate,” Zeid said. “And at worst, we are possibly looking at the commission of international crimes by members of the Coalition. There is an obligation to distinguish at all times between military targets and civilians. The Houthis and their allies have also been responsible for indiscriminate ground attacks resulting in civilian casualties, which I also condemn and which could qualify, likewise, as international crimes.”

One year on from the start of the conflict, the UN Human Rights Chief lamented the failure of the two sides to the conflict to agree a peace deal, adding he hoped that an announcement by a Coalition spokesman on Thursday that Saudi Arabia was planning to scale back major combat operations would indeed lead rapidly to a full ceasefire and peace agreement.

“I urge both sides to swallow their pride and bring this conflict to a halt,” Zeid said. “The people of Yemen have suffered enough. A very poor country is having its limited infrastructure decimated, and people are struggling desperately to survive.'"
 On March 16, Inner City Press returned and asked Kirby's deputy Mark Toner about the Saudi airstrike in Hajjah, full video here from Minute 56:28; Vine hereUS transcript here:
QUESTION: Inner City Press. I want to ask about Yemen and something about the UN.

MR TONER: Sure.

Inner City Press: On Yemen, yesterday, Mr. Kirby said that we welcome the fact that there’s a cessation of hostilities. And then, as I’m sure you know, there was a big airstrike in Haja province – some people say 41 killed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

Inner City Press: -- some say 107. What do you say to that? And related back to the genocide question, also still on Yemen, Sudan is part of the coalition. Sudan has troops in Yemen with the U.S.-supported coalition. And I’m wondering, how is that – does that – does the genocide finding as to Omar al-Bashir in Darfur have any implication for the U.S. not being part of a coalition or militarily cooperating with a government whose head of state is charged with genocide by the ICC and was found by Colin Powell to --

MR TONER: So to your first question, we’re certainly aware of the reports that civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike, I believe, near a market in Haja province. I can’t at this time – cannot verify the specifics. We remain deeply concerned by the devastating toll of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties, but also, obviously, in terms of the humanitarian situation that Yemen faces. We urge all sides to comply with obligations under international humanitarian law.

Speaking to the broader peace process, as you know, Secretary Kerry was just there. I was with him over the weekend, as was poor Dave here. And we were on a trip to Saudi Arabia. But one of the things that we discussed – he discussed, rather, with both the Saudi – His Royal Highness King Salman, also the crown prince, and the deputy crown prince as well as Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir – they talked about the need for a political solution to the situation in Yemen. And so we support the UN efforts to that end.

In terms of your second question, I’m actually – I just don’t know the specifics about that or what prohibits us – you’re saying why we would not have been part of this, are we prohibited from taking part in that?

Inner City Press: No, no, I guess I was saying – you were saying that there – or people were saying in this first round that there were some legal implications if you make a finding of genocide. And I don't know if those include not working with --

MR TONER: But I’m not sure whether they pertain to --

Inner City Press: -- the government who --

MR TONER: I’d have to – yeah, I can take that question. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know – just one other – because I think the question was taken yesterday.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about this corruption case about the UN. Today, in the Southern District of New York, the former deputy permanent representative of the Dominican Republic pled guilty and has pledged to cooperate against the former president of the General Assembly, John Ashe. I wanted to know the State Department’s position on it, and also on the Government Accountability Project. They wrote a letter – a public letter to the U.S. Mission to the UN urging them to get involved in opposing retaliation by the UN against the press that has been reporting on the corruption scandal. I think that some members of Congress are actually now – but I haven’t seen anything from the State – from the U.S. mission. So I’m wondering, is the State Department aware of the corruption case, and also separately of this GAP letter, and what’s their response to it?

MR TONER: I would imagine we’re aware. I’m not, unfortunately. I apologize we haven’t gotten back to you on that. We’ll take it.

At the March 13 press conference of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts, French Jean-Marc Ayrault, Italy's Paolo Gentiloni and the foreign minister of Germany, Yemen came up this way, from Kerry:
"We discussed Yemen, where we have agreed to work even more closely together in the next days to explore the possibilities of the political solution, and we both agree that it would be desirable to see if we can find a similar approach as we did in Syria to try to get a ceasefire. So we’re going to continue to work on that quietly, and we have a team of people who are going to continue to be working together to that effect."
Kerry mentioned it only in connection with his talks with Saudi Arabia -- no mention that the Saudis are responsible for two thirds of deaths, according even to the UN's Prince Zeid -- and Al Jazeera, cutting away, mentioned only Syria and Libya. France 24 wasn't even covering the press conference, stuck on an old show about Asia.
  Kerry spoke of medical aid in Syria; Inner City Press has been reporting -- even as the UN Secretariat ousts and harasses it -- on a developing resolution in the UN Security Council. The Saudi Ambassador said UNOCHA does not even want an aid access resolution on Yemen; the UN has not contradicted it.
  France's Ayrault spoke mechanically of support for Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Yemen. But where is he? 
On March 15, Inner City Press asked US State Department spokesperson John Kirby, from the US transcript:
Inner City Press: I want to ask about Yemen.  I saw the Secretary’s comments when he was in Saudi Arabia about possibility of a ceasefire similar to Syria and something about having teams on the ground working on that.  So I wanted to know – it seems like there’s talks between the Houthis and the Saudis that don’t involve Saleh or even Hadi.  It seems – what’s the U.S.’s – like, what was he referring to?  Is it – does he view direct negotiations between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as a positive thing?  Is that the ceasefire he’s talking about?  And what’s the role of the UN envoy, who seems not to be part of those talks, and of Mr. Hadi going forward?  Is he the future president of Yemen or is he – has time passed him by?

MR KIRBY:  So there’s a lot there.  There – we still continue to support the UN special envoy and his efforts.  That’s not going to change.  And when the Secretary was in the region over the weekend, Yemen was – as he said, was a significant point of discussion with Saudi leaders.  Nothing has changed about our support for the UN special envoy and his efforts to get a political process going and move forward.  And the United States is going to remain firmly behind that effort.

He also said that we welcome reports that there is a reduction in violence between Houthis and the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia.  We welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities, quite frankly, that appears to also be holding.  That’s a good thing, because we’ve long said that there needs to be an increased effort by the international community to get humanitarian aid and assistance to so many Yemeni citizens who are in need, and that’s hard to do when there is still violence going on between both sides.

So we welcome this – that development, and we welcome the news that there are discussions between the two sides.  If those discussions can lead to a resolution of the conflict and to a continuation of the reduction of violence, that too is a healthy thing.  But it doesn’t mean that we aren’t also going to continue to support the UN track here, because we still believe that that is an important part of putting in place a sustainable governing structure, one that the Yemeni people clearly deserve going forward.  So it’s both, it’s both.  And he’s very much focused on both tracks and I think you’re going to continue to see that be the case going forward."
 On March 15, a Saudi airstrike killed at least 106 civilians in northern Yemen... 
On March 14, Inner City Press had asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: on Yemen, there are obviously a lot of reports now that the Saudis are negotiating directly with the Houthis.  This was referred to by some degree by John Kerry in his visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend.  Where is the envoy?  Is the envoy part of this?  Is this outside the envoy…

Spokesman:  We referred to it, as well, on Thursday or Friday where this is something that the envoy welcomes and has been encouraging for some time.
 But is he involved?
  On March 5 Inner City Press published another exclusive: UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's email to UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, which contradicts what envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed most recently told the Security Council. The email exclusively published by Inner City Press shows flexibility on the Houthi side, with the prospects of meeting in Jordan or Morocco, while the Saudis insist on sending low level representation. The email is published in full, below.
 On March 7, two days after exclusively publishing Envoy IOCA's email to Feltman, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about it. He did not deny the email, instead saying that the envoy is working hard.
 But on March 8, when lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric gave a read-out of whom the Envoy met in Riyahd, there were no Houthis mentioned. 
 Inner City Press then asked Dujarric of the multiply-sourced Houthi - Saudi meetings: was Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed not even involved? If he was, why were the Houthis not included in Dujarric's litany of the Envoy's meetings? Vine hereFrom the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: On Yemen, you'd said that the envoy had been in Riyadh.  Yesterday, I'd asked Farhan [Haq] about this email that the envoy had written to Jeff Feltman about his discussions with the Houthis.  And now there's a report that the Houthis are, in fact, now in Riyadh and met at some level with the Saudis.  So, since the Houthis weren't listed in your readout of interlocutors, does he have anything to do with that, or is that a track outside of mediation--

Spokesman Dujarric:  We've seen these reports.  This is something that the Special Envoy has been encouraging for quite some time.  What's your second question?
An hour later in the UN Lobby Inner City Press asked UN OCHA's Stephen O'Brien about what Saudi Arabia's ambassador said March 4, that OCHA does not want a humanitarian access UNSC resolution for Yemen.
  I hadn't seen that, O'Brien politely replied. Inner City Press encouraged him, then, to check it out - the video's on YouTube. Watch this site.
 And dissembling to the Security Council? Likewise, Inner City Press asked Haq about the Saudi Permanent Representative to the UN saying that Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and senior leadership of Stephen O'Brien's OCHA, privately said no humanitarian access resolution by the Security Council is needed.
  Haq insisted to Inner City Press that what O'Brien said in the open session was his position. But Inner City Press pointed out, O'Brien said the "humanitarian IT equipment" the Saudis seized would be delivered to Aden by March 6 - whereas Haq on March 7 said "later this week."
  Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm or deny at least the delivery of the humanitarian IT equipment, by email since Haq's "squawks" over the press floor public address system don't reach it, with UN DPI Banning ICP from its longtime office (petition here). We'll see.
 Here is the email:
"Dear Jeff, I just completed a 2-day visit in Riyadh and wanted to give you a quick update on how things have developed since my discussions with H/Mohamed AbdelSalam last week in Muscat.
I had a private discussion with both State Minister Mussaeed Al Ayban and Abu Ali where I briefed them on the readiness of the Houthis to resume discrete face-to-face meetings with KSA representatives. While they welcomed the progress made and expressed their commitment to go ahead with this track, they also emphasized that:
i) in light of the progress the Coalition has been making on the ground and their advance toward Sanaa, the Houthis should seize this opportunity and discuss in good faith as they are in a weaker position on the ground and their options are narrowing;
ii) KSA will not consider elevating the level of their representation in the KSA-H talks, as Mohamed AbdelSalam had requested. KSA considers that the 2 representatives they are sending are at the level of Mohammed AbdelSalam and the Houthis should not expect a higher representation at this point;
iii) KSA accepted the proposal of Mohamed AbdelSalam to meet in a third country (Jordan). Mohamed Abe Assalem has suggested to me either Morocco or Jordan as the venue.
 I immediately called Mohemad AbdelSalam from Riyadh to share the outcomes of the meeting. He was going to talk to his leadership and revert to me with a confirmation. If the Houthis accept, the Houthi - KSA meeting could go ahead as early as next week, in Jordan. We of course would not participate nor be present. I have however already started coordination with the Jordan Ambassador to Yemen, as needed.
Although we still do not have an agreement for a new cessation of hostilities, we have continued to press for commitment to the De-Escalation and Coordination Committee (DCC), and a range of economic initiatives (especially in relation to the Central Bank's independence and the reactivation of the Social Welfare Fund).
In my meeting with the GoY delegation, I continued to impress upon them the importance of participation of the GoY in the DCC, and to training which we are planning to organize in Amman during the coming weeks. The UK Ambassador informed me that Foreign Minister and Head of GoY delegation AbdelMalik El Mikhalfi today had responded positively to his suggestion.
There are been positive developments on economic initiatives which I have supported as well. Foreign Minister Mikhalfi participated in the Central Bank board meeting last week in Amman together with the Minister for Finance and the CB Governor. DPM/MoFA Mikhalfi acknowledged that significance of the Governor's attendance from Sanaa and was very grateful for my personal efforts to secure his participation with the Houthis, which was seen by the GoY as an important confidence building measure. Mikhalfi agreed on the necessity of developing further economic initiatives including the support for the SWF and SFD. My office is working with the UNCT, World Bank and IMF in order to ensure a sufficient level of technical support for these proposals.
 I am now in Nouakchott for 4 days where I need to renew my G4 visa and will proceed to New York on 16 February ahead of the SC briefing. I intend to remain in NYC until 22 February in order to meet with key Member States and HQ officials. I plan to also travel to Washington DC 19 February and hold meetings there. I look forward to seeing you in New York in a few days.
Best regards, Ismail."
  The above email was sent on February 11 and contradicts what Ould Cheikh Ahmed told the Security Council; meanwhile Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the UN told the press on March 4 that envoy IOCA does NOT want a humanitarian access resolution.
 In the UN Security Council on the Yemen sanctions resolution adopted on February 24, language was added to try to discourage the Panel of Experts from looking into the act of the Saudi-led Coalition. Concessions were made, of a kind not made for or about other countries under sanctions.
  (Inner City Press had to follow the process from outside the UN, literally, the park on 43rd Street across First Avenue, because only days after Inner City Press asked why the UN was so quiet about false claims of Iranian military equipment in a UN WFP aid ship, Inner City Press was summarily thrown out of the UN for seeking three weeks earlier to cover an event in the UN Press Briefing Room, and Banned, without due process. Petition here.)
  On March 4 in the same UN Press Briefing Room, Saudi Ambassador to the UN Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi held an unscheduled press conference to announce that OCHA, whose Yemen pick up the pieces campaign Saudi Arabia largely funds, does not think there's a need for a humanitarian access resolution. If true, some will say that OCHA has been bought.
 Inner City Press asked al-Mouallimi why his Yemeni counterpart had claimed to Inner City Press, on the record, that the WFP ship the Saudis seized contained "Iranian military equipment"? 
Al-Mouallimi said, among other things, the ship DID come from Iran... and the equipment wasn't on the manifest and was "hidden." 
Inner City Press asked him about cluster bomb use; he denied it and many media printed that quote, without more. Inner City Press asked him, if opposed to the UN Panel of Experts looking into the impacts of the Saudi Coalition, who should do it? This was not answered, except to again emphasize how tied the PoE is to the underlying, one-sided resolution.
 At the end, Inner City Press asked Mouallimi to encourage the Yemen / Hadi delegation to hold its press session in this same UN Press Briefing Room, and not for Gulf and Western UNCA scribes only, a spoonfed breakfast,  see below. Al-Mouallimi said he would convey the request. We'll see.
 On March 1, back in on a reduced access pass, Inner City Press asked UN OCHA official John Ging about taking "aid" money from Saudi Arabia while it blasts away at Yemen. Video here.
 Ging said these two are "ring fenced," and that the UN doesn't allow Saudi Arabia to put conditions on aid or where it is delivered.

  Inner City Press asked, what about the Saudi threat that aid workers should leave Houthi-controlled areas? Ging said the UN had pushed back.
But quietly, as was the case with the Saudi diversion of the WFP ship. Does money talk?  Apparently yes. 

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

In Burundi, US Statement Against Third Term As UN's Ban Ki-moon Can't Even Reach Nkuunziza


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 2 -- Eighteen days after the UN Security Council, the United States and the UN Peacebuilding Configuration on Burundi on May 15 issued statements urging calm in the country given the return of Pierre Nkurunziza to presumably run for a third term, on June 2 US State Department Spokesperson John Kirby reiterated the US' anti third term position. Here is the full text:
"The U.S. government reiterates its position that the Government of Burundi should adhere to the tenets of the Arusha Agreement, to include the provisions on term limits.  The Arusha Agreement, which was carefully negotiated and accepted by most parties and sectors of Burundian society, brought an end to years of tragic civil war and established the foundation for Burundi’s post-conflict recovery.

"President Nkurunziza's decision to disregard the term limit provision of the Arusha Agreement has destabilized Burundi and the sub-region, triggered violence, and endangered Burundi’s economic well-being.  The government’s troubling actions to severely restrict political space and press freedoms, violently disrupt political protests, pressure the Constitutional Court and Electoral Commission, and reported use of an armed ruling-party youth militia to intimidate protestors and political opponents contradicts the basic principles of democratic governance and starkly contradicts President Nkurunziza’s claim that he is dedicated to respecting the Arusha Agreement and the rule of law.

"The United States echoes the East African Community’s calls for a postponement of the elections in Burundi, urges all parties in Burundi to cease violence and exercise restraint, and calls for the urgent disarmament of all armed youth groups allied to political parties.  The United States also encourages the region to play a leadership role in resolving the crisis, and encourages high-level visits from Burundi’s neighbors to Burundi to reiterate the importance of upholding the Arusha Agreement and ensuring the conditions necessary for free, fair, and credible elections."
  On May 29 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous accepting an allegedly abusive Burundian police officer Godefroid Bizmama into his MINUSMA mission in Mali. Video here, and embedded below. 
  Three days later on June 1, having no response from the UN, Inner City Press asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq again. He said that UN Peacekeeping, run by Herve Ladsous, said there is no officer Godefroid Bizimana with the UN. 
  But is he on his way? Inner City Press has seen and Tweeted the Burundi government letter referring him for a D-1 post in Ladsous' mission in Mali, MINUSMA. Where is the "due diligence," which is cited by Ladsous to NOT fight the FDLR militia in Rwanda?
  Haq on June 1 said Ban Ki-moon would be talking with President Kikwete of Tanzania. Why not to Nkurunziza? Inner City Press is asked if UN envoy Said Djinnit is able to meet with Nkurunziza.
  Meanwhile new UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien has on June 1 announced he's releasing $15 million for Burundians in Tanzania and Rwanda, refugees:
"More than 70,000 people, many of them children, have fled to Burundi’s neighbouring countries since political violence and civil unrest broke out in the capital Bujumbura in April. Some 46,000 Burundians found refuge in Tanzania and 26,000 in Rwanda.

'Children are arriving at borders sick and malnourished. Many are unaccompanied or have been separated from their families,' O'Brien said."
  In other cases, such announcements are accompanied by talk about also treating the root causes of the displacement. And here? Watch this site.   
From the May 29 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I’d asked you about this UN peacekeeping accepting police and soldiers from Burundi.  And you’d said that there’s some process.  So I want to ask you very specifically, I’ve now seen a letter that’s circulating… that’s been submitted to the UN to appoint a Mr. Godefroid Bizimana, who is a police officer, of which there are photographs firing into a crowd, to be a D-1 police officer in MINUSMA in Mali.  And I wanted to know:  how does the stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy apply in this case, which the UN says it’s so concerned about?

Spokesman Dujarric:  All right.  Let me check.  I hadn’t heard of this.
 But hours later when the UN Spokesperson's office closed for the weekend, there was not response from Dujarric. Nor did he allow Inner City Press to put into questions to Herve Ladsous during his rare, carefully controlled press conference on the Day of Peacekeepers. We'll have more on this.


  On May 27 Inner City Press asked the May presidency of the Security Council, Lithuania's Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius and Permanent Representative Raimonda Murmokaité about the closed door briefing, and why attacks on journalists in Burundi wasn't mentioned in the Council's most recent Press Statement on Burundi. Video here and embedded below.
  Raimonda Murmokaité provided a second summary of the meeting, and told Inner City Press that it surely knew how Council press statements work. (A corresponent in the front row, already called on, appeared to giggle.)
  Inner City Press replied that yes, it does know how the process works or is supposed to work -- so, was language about press freedom proposed and rejected? Or never proposed?

 Raimonda Murmokaité replied, Ask the penholder. That is France, and Inner City Press did ask, see below.
 An hour before Djinnit's briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript herevideo here:
Inner City Press: On Burundi, I'd wanted to ask you this.  The… in today's debate in the Council, a number of the Council members brought up the crackdown on media in Burundi alongside the, obviously, attacks on opposition and protesters, including the closing of three radio stations, the seeming shooting of a radio station reporter along with the opposition leader that was killed.  I wanted to know, is the UN doing… given all that's being said in the Security Council chamber today, is the UN and its existing missions in Burundi doing anything to actually try to protect journalists in Burundi?

Spokesman:  Obviously, the question of protection of journalists is one that's high on the agenda and you… as explained by the Deputy Secretary-General himself this morning.  It is critical for Burundi to move forward.  A critical part of Burundi moving forward in a peaceful way and political dialogue is a free press and that a free press be allowed to operate.  So, it's clearly part of the overall discussions that are going on.

Inner City Press: But in the Secretary-General's statement on the attack on the opposition leader, was he or DPA [Department of Political Affairs] or whoever wrote it unaware there was a journalist also gravely wounded at the same time?

Spokesman:  We may not have been aware of the full details, but obviously, attacks on journalists are condemned.

Inner City Press: And just one other question on Burundi.  There's a lot of discussion there, there's a picture, in fact, of a police individual shooting a submachine gun and also a picture of him in a peacekeeper uniform.  So, I wanted to know, is there… is DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] doing anything to see whether people previously deployed or prospectively deployed… there's another individual named Donat [a/k/a Rukonangwe] as possibly deploying… are involved in a picture of shooting in a crowd?

Spokesman:  I think… I haven't personally seen that picture.  If it turns out to be true, as we've seen in other cases, you know, troop contributors are not permitted to use UN insignia, symbols, emblems on uniforms or planes outside of UN peacekeeping operation, so, obviously, if this turned out to be true, it would… it would be in violation of those understandings.  Obviously, the vetting process of peacekeepers from all countries goes through… is cooperation between DPKO and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  I think there's a special focus if troops would be coming in recently from Burundi; at this point, Burundian soldiers are continuing to serve in UN peacekeeping troops, and obviously, we… the UN has no operational or any control over the troops that have returned to the country.  
  Note: the first asked about is Alfred Innocent Museremu...

  On the way into the UNSC for the 1:15 pm meeting, a Permanent member's deputy ambassador told Inner City Press there would probably be no outcome from the meeting. And so it was -- after an hour and a half, when the Ambassador of the Council's "penholder" on Burundi Francois Delattre emerged, he declined to speak on the UNTV camera.
  He did however to his credit answer questions on the stairs leaving the stakeout. Inner City Press asked him about the timing of the presidential election; he said the conditions are not met.
  But why not put that in a Security Council statement? To make it a Council position?
  Inner City Press asked Delattre about attacks on journalists, the Security Council's topic before and after the Burundi consultation. He genially said it might be a good idea for the Council to speak on that. We'll see -- cell phone video here, in the spirit of Freedom of the Press, by the Free UN Coalition for Access, along with this rough transcript:
Inner City Press: What about the timing of the presidential election?
A: There’s a wide unity around the table, conditions are not met. A wide unity, everybody says that conditions for election are not met. That’s what we should work on. Raising these conditions.

Inner City Press: what about attacks on journalists?
A: That’s a really good point, because you have these consultations on Burundi, and you have this debate on protection of journalists. That’s something that I stressed to my colleagues. Protection of journalists is everywhere and also in Burundi.

Inner City Press: Will there be a statement on it?
A: You had a statement already on Sunday, you cannot have a statement every day. These are real concerns.

  Meanwhile Inner City Press was multiply informed of an offer that had been made to Nkurunziza, to ween him from the third term dream: a high but honorary post in FIFA, the football federation, as a sort of goodwill ambassador.
  Nkurunziza turned it down, Inner City Press is informed by Permanent Representatives at the UN and other diplomatic sources. Now he has sacked ministers and said it is him or Al Shabaab. What could have been, FIFA. (Inner City Press also asked on May 18 about Qatar detaining a BBC journalist while he reported on the situation of migrant workers preparing there for the FIFA World Cup.)
  On Burundi, from the UN's May 18 noon briefing transcript 


Inner City Press: on Burundi.  I wanted to ask a couple of things.  One is that there are reports of both military and police stopping people at checkpoints, checking their phones to see if they participated in anti-third term protests.  So, I wondered is that… does Mr. Djinnit or the UN have any comment on the alleged crackdown on demonstrators?  I also wanted to know, has the Secretary-General made any calls beyond the previously disclosed one to President [Uhuru] Kenyatta about the situation in Burundi?  For example, to Rwanda? And finally, I want to know if you can speak to whether DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] has facilitated the purchase and acquisition of weapons by the Government of Burundi for allegedly or reportedly for its peacekeeping operations; and if so, what safeguards are in place that those weapons are not used domestically?  Thank you.

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Well, on the last one, there are safeguards to make sure that all of the equipment used for peacekeeping missions is, in fact, used in peacekeeping missions.  So, that would a matter for DPKO to follow up on, but certainly, none of that equipment is meant to be used domestically by any troop-contributing country, including Burundi.  In terms of other phone calls the Secretary-General made, on Friday afternoon, he did also speak with the President of Uganda.  And like I said, now, Mr. Djinnit is in Bujumbura and he can continue some of the discussions while he's there.  I'm not aware of any calls to the President of Rwanda.  And you've asked so many questions that I've forgotten your first.

Inner City Press:  As to that, in response to people's cell phones being checked to see if they protested, but I just wanted to understand more on this question of, you're saying weapons for peacekeeping?  I mean, most countries have their own military equipment, then they deploy to a country and they get reimbursed.  But, I’m not aware that the US makes… the UN makes sure they don't… how they're used in countries.  So, I wanted to know, very specifically, acquisition of grenades in this case, what safeguards are in place?  If a country procures them with the assistance of DPKO, do they remain out of the country?  If they go back to the country, how does the DPKO have any idea how they're used?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  DPKO follows up on how contingent-owned equipment is deployed and used.  Now on the first question, if we… if there is a confirmation of this sort of a crackdown, that would be a matter of grave concern.  Like I said, what we want to make clear is anyone responsible for ordering or committing human rights violations will be held accountable and we will take that very seriously. 
  On equipment and materiel, 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, they said, 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."
 And so on May 18, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to explain any safeguards concerning equipment or weapons acquired by Burundi for "peacekeeping" being used domestically.
  Haq said that DPKO monitors this. Video here.
  Inner City Press asked, since countries use their own equipment for overseas deployment and charge the UN for it, how does the UN monitor how it's used when it returns to the contributing country?
  Haq insisted that DPKO monitors for this.  (When Inner City Press asked why Ladsous over the weekend chided Malians for not being thankful enough to France, Haq told Inner City Press to "Ask DPKO" -- what, Ladsous who does not answer? His spokespeople who grab microphones or use file folders to block the filming of Ladsous?
  On the afternoon of May 18, a well place African Permanent Representative told Inner City Press flatly, Ladsous should resign.
  Inner City Press asked Haq about Burundian security forces searching civilians phones for evidence they protested the possible third term. Haq said "if that is proved" -- if. 
  Haq said envoy Said Djinnit might briefing the Security Council on Wednesday May 20, and might brief the press - might.
  Inner City Press asked if Ban had called any head of state beyond Kenyatta about Burundi. Haq said, Museveni of Uganda. We'll have more on this.

  Another noted that since Ladsous had, as French Deputy Permanent Representative in the Security Council in 1994 defended 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 hereby 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.
   While Haq at the May 15 noon briefing said that Ban, who has yet to speak with Nkurunziza, spoke with Kenya's President Kenyatta, Inner City Press is informed that in the closed Peacebuilding Configuration meeting it was said that Ban called Rwanda's Paul Kagame as well. If so, why didn't Haq say that? (Click here for another exclusive story about Ban's office not disclosing Ban's call with US John Kerry about Yemen).

 
  

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

On Burundi, US Supports EAC, Make Visa Denial Threat, Lethargy by Penholder France


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 13, with video -- Amid the protests and crackdown after Pierre Nkurunziza was nominated to run for a third term as President in seeming violation of the Arusha Peace Accord, on May 13 General Godefroid Niyombare announced the ouster of Nkurunziza while the latter was, like UN envoy Said Djinnit, in Tanzania for the East African Community meeting.
  On the evening of May 13, the US State Department through its Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf (with John Kirby set to take over the top spot vacate by Jen Psaki) issued this:
"The United States is deeply concerned by today’s developments in Burundi.  We call on all parties to immediately end the violence, to exercise restraint, and above all to prioritize peace in Burundi.  We support East African Community leaders’ call today for peaceful, democratic elections in line with Burundi’s electoral laws and the spirit of the Arusha Agreement.

"We urge all stakeholders to take the steps necessary to create the conditions required for peaceful, timely, credible and transparent elections, and to respect the rule of law, including those provisions of Burundian law regarding civilian rule.

"The Arusha Agreement was about ending years of violence and civil war in Burundi.  It is essential for all Burundians – both military and civilian – to uphold the spirit of this agreement and reject violence.  The United States will continue to monitor the situation in Burundi closely, and will, as appropriate, refuse U.S. visas to those who participate in, plan, or order violence against the civilian population."
 Throughout May 13 Inner City Press asked the Presidency of the UN Security Council for May, Lithuania, when Burundi might be addressed. At the luncheon with the Secretary General was the first response.
 Then after five p.m. Inner City Press asked Lithuania's Permanent Representative to the UN, who replied there will be an emergency meeting on Burundi on May 14 after the Council's previously scheduled meeting on Iraq; Said Djinnit will brief.
 But what will he say? 
 On May 15, the UN Peacebuilding Configuration on Burundi is set to hear from UN DPA chief Jeff Feltman. On Monday they heard from Minister Nduwimana - where is he now?
  The UN Security Council was late in meeting on events in Burundi - the penholder was less than vocal against the proposed third term - and one wonders how slow they will be on this coup.
  Inner City Press sources have told it that France's Ambassador to Burundi had been telling the opposition they should just accept the third term, allegedly in exchange for other "reforms." Now this.
On May 12, Inner City Press had asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask one follow-up on Burundi.  There's been a decision or announcement by a number of European countries to not actually pay funds they were going to pay for the upcoming elections.  Since there's a UN electoral mission there, is that… what does the mission think?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'll get a… I have not gotten anything from them. 
  That's today's UN.
On May 11, the UN Peacebuilding Configuration for Burundi met and sought answers from Burundi's minister by video.
  Asking questions were Swiss Permanent Representative Paul Seger and his counterparts from Belgium and Tanzania, Ambassador Manongi, as well as the UK's Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson. France, the penholder on Burundi in the UN Security Council, did not send its Permanent Representative Francois Delattre nor his Deputy Alexis Lamec.
  Questions were raised about the armed youth wing, the crackdown on media, the outward flows of refugees. The responses were generally dismissive -- Wilson wondered aloud at the disparity between the Minister's denials on the youth wing and all other available information -- and on press freedom, troubling. Media is political, the minister said, justifying the crackdown.
 But what will come next? Later on May 11, the US issued a travel warning on Burundi saying among other things that "Armed groups operate in Burundi... Exchanges of gunfire and grenade attacks have increased but are usually not directed at foreigners." It's that kind of thinking that the ruling party seems to be counting on. Watch this site.

 
  

Monday, September 22, 2014

US Begins Bombing in Syria, While Kerry and Syrian Opposition Coalition Share Night at the Museum - Where's UN, UNSC Vote?


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 22 -- After a day of UN formalities, and John Kerry with the Syrian Opposition Coalition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the US started bombing in Syria:
On the record from Rear Adm. John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary:

"I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time. The decision to conduct theses strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief. We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate.""
   The US was proud it did not coordinate. Obama would come to New York on September 23. Would it be a coronation?
   On  September 19 while the UN Security Council's meeting on Iraq went on, Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird came out to take questions at the Council stakeout.
  Inner City Press asked him if Canada thinks that for airstrikes in Syria against ISIL, the consent of the Assad government or of the Security Council should be sought.
  Baird said that on "intervention in Syria there are two views. One could say that every country has a right to defend itself. Iraq is being attack by terrorists in the neighboring country. We take great issue with Assad... That has yet to be determined."
  The Syrian Opposition Coalition, it emerges, will hold a press conference inside the UN building on September 22. But it will not be a UN press conference - instead, it will be in the clubhouse the UN gives to what has become itsUN Censorship Alliance (having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN), publicized only to those who pay money to UNCA in dues.
  Why not go through the front door, and have a member state like Canada sponsor the Syrian Coalition's Hadi Al Bahra in the UN Press Briefing Room, as others do? We'll have more on this.
  On September 18, the day after the US House of Representatives voted to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria, the Syrian Opposition Coalition said training 5,000 will not be enough. An hour later, they put out a statement about ISIL stranding 7,000 civilians on the Syrian - Turkish border:
"As the 'Islamic State' intensifies shelling on Ayn al Arab (Kobanê in Kurdish) in northern Syria, thousands of people remain trapped in the towns and villages in the area. As as a result, activists reported a mass exodus of civilians from the neighboring villages of Kaalak, Zark Qumshi, Zalkhek, and Turaman. The Syrian Coalition condemns ISIS's brutal tactics and calls on Turkish authorities to open borders in the area and provide refuge to those fleeing from the barbaric group. More than 7000 civilians are reported to be stranded along the Turkish Syrian borders since Thursday, most of them women and children."
 Echoes of Mount Sinjar in Iraq - and that led to airstrikes. Earlier on September 18, the Syrian Coalition put this out:
"Abdelahad Astepho, member of the political committee, said that the US Congress’s vote in favor of President Obama’s plan to train and equip the Free Syrian Army is 'a step in the right direction though it was made late. Limiting the training and equipment program to 5,000 FSA fighters is not enough to counter the threat of the Assad regime and ISIS. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of trainees to solve the whole problem of terrorism once and for all. Moreover, limiting the program to this small number may prolong the bloody conflict, thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.' Astepho calls on the US Senate 'to back the training and equipment program and for its immediate implementation, as any delay will cost Syrians more lives. Any delay in the implementation of this plan will lead to further expansion of the terror practiced by the Assad regime and the terrorist group ISIS.'"
 This after on the Senate floor just who these "moderate" rebels are was still being questioned. If 5000 is not enough, how many would be? To the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 17, former Ambassador Bob Ford said there are 80,000 "non-Nusra, non-ISIL" rebels. Where do these figures come front?
   Back on September 13, hours after US President Barack Obama's speech, the Syrian Coalition put out a press release requesting airstrikes and cash from Congress, pronto.
  On September 13 the Coalition put out this, about UN envoy de Mistura:
"Khatib Badla, member of the political committee, said that the new UN special envoy to Syria will not be able to succeed in his mission if he follows the same approach followed by his predecessors who failed to bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table," commenting on the statements of the UN envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, who described as “useful" his meeting with Assad...
 De Mistura has described his meeting with Assad as “long and very useful,” and underlined the “necessity of combating terrorism and helping Syrians solve their crisis politically. “Terrorist threats have become a source of concern for people all over the world, de Mistura told reporters after the encounter. He added that “combating terrorist groups is one of the UN's priorities and this move would not be made without solving the country's crisis to create better situations for Syrians, stressing this move would be made to coincide with a comprehensive political process taking into consideration UN Resolution 2170 tasked with combating terrorism.” 
  Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric the following, in writing:
"on Mr. de Mistura, state his contract status: When Actually Employed? Paid at USG level? Is he being allowed to continue working with / for any non-UN organization, if so which, and what review of possible conflicts of interest was made, and by whom?"
 Days later and no answer to the above-quoted questions: UNtransparent.

   

Monday, June 16, 2014

To Iraq, Obama Tells Congress Deploying 275 For Now, DoD on First 170, No Coordination with Iran


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- It's on, US in Iraq -- back to the future? Under the War Powers Resolution, US President Obama on June 16 told Congress of a June 15 deployment to Iraq:

"Starting on June 15, 2014, up to approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel are deploying to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat. This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.
"This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)."

   Pentagon Press Secretary RADM John Kirby added:

"Over the weekend, a number of teams totaling approximately 170 U.S. personnel began arriving in Baghdad from within the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility. We have also moved approximately 100 personnel into the region to provide airfield management, security, and logistics support, if required."

Also on June 16, while the US met with Iran about ISIL in Iraq, there was NO discussion of "military coordination or strategic determinations," a Senior State Department Official told the press:

 "We are open to engaging the Iranians, just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat post by ISIL in Iraq. The issue did come up briefly with Iran on the margins of the P5+1 in Vienna today, separate from our trilateral meeting. These engagements will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people. We will discuss how ISIL threatens many countries in the region, including Iran, and the need to support inclusivity in Iraq and refrain from pressing a sectarian agenda."
  Earlier on June 16 US Senior Administration Official told reporters the issue does not give Iran more leverage, while talks about Iraq may occur "on the margins," that is separate from the P5+1 process. 
  Asked of timing, the US official said "we are all focused on July 20... we can get this done."
  The official said that "World Cup fever has presented itself here in Vienna." Today Iran play Nigeria, and the US plays Ghana (with Vice President Biden in attendance).
  Asked again about Iraq, the official said that the situation in Ukraine hadn't impacted the P5+1 talks. Inner City Press wonders if, with the blocking in the UN Security Council of Russia's proposed statement on the attack on its embassy in Kyiv, that might change.
  And as set forth before, how Francois Hollande's and Laurent Fabius' open lobbying for BNP Paribas and its violation of Iran sanctions might have an impact as well.
 Fabius has said that Iran wants hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and that France is drawing the line there, copying itself from 2013.
   But how strange: Francois Hollande and Fabius defend BNP Paribas' violation of Iran sanctions, while loudly playing hardball. Playing is the operative word.  
   With the July 20 deadline to conclude the Iran nuclear talks looking more uncertain, early on June 7 the US State Department announced that “Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva for consultations with Iranian officials on June 9-10.”
  Beyond the two days' relation to the July 20 deadline, they also come as Iran sanctions violations by BNP Paribas are being actively defended by French president Francois Hollande and foreign minister Laurent Fabius.
  These June 9-10 US - Iran meetings was called a bilateral and other US attendees were named, including Brooke Anderson, previously at the US Mission to the UN, and Jake Sullivan, who was with Vice President Biden at Petro Poroshenko's inaugural in Kyiv on June 7.
  Then Iranian bilaterals with Russia and China, each separately, were announced. The question was raised June 7 by Inner City Press: what about France and the UK? What about the European Union?
  The EU quickly announced that its Helga Schmid will also play a role -- or “join” -- in Geneva. EU spokesperson Michael Mann said, “The US will hold a bilateral with the deputy chief Iranian negotiator in Geneva next week. EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join. Other bilaterals will follow in the next days.”
  So when is a bilateral meeting NOT a bilateral?
  Soon a US Senior Adminstration Official on background responded to questions: “As we've said - and as the EU just noted - these talks are intensifying. The P5+1 and the EU have been in total coordination throughout these talks, including regarding bilateral discussions. As such, EU Political Director Helga Schmid will join in Geneva as well.”
  So again: when is a bilateral no longer a bilateral? Will France itself try to participate, with Jacques Audibert's replacement Nicolas de Riviere a/k/a Flippy Nic? 
  How to compare France's hard-line position on Iran and sanctions violations now that Francois Hollande and Laurent Fabuis are actively defending sanctions violations, not only to Sudan but also Iran, by BNP Paribas? A new dynamic? Watch this site.