Showing posts with label Khartoum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Khartoum. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

On Sudan Sudan, Inner City Press Asked UN Of Split by Gadet, Khartoum Press Release Here


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- With yet another deadline for peace in South Sudan approaching, Inner City Press on August 11 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric of reports some UN Peacekeepers might leave, and of splitting in the rebel or Opposition side, including by Peter Gadet, video here. (Here is Gadet's press release, which Inner City Press is putting online here. It was supposed to be released in Kenya, but ultimately was in Khartoum.)
 From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: On South Sudan, there are two things.  One is, there's a report that Fiji is considering pulling its peacekeepers out due to the unraveling in the country, and there's also these two generals or one of whom was sanctioned, Peter Gadet and Mr. [Gathoth] Gatkuoth, who have broken away from the Riek Machar forces now and say that, even if peace is reached, they will continue to fight.  So what is… what is… does the UN have any response to that?  Does this make things more difficult to solve and…how would the Fijians be replaced?

Spokesman Dujarric:  The Fijians, I don't know.  I can check.  I think on the unraveling of the opposition, it's clear that every day that goes by without a political agreement makes the situation that much more complicated to solve.  The Secretary-General, as he said, very much hopes that a deal will be reached later this month through the IGAD [Intergovernmental Authority on Development] process, but this continued fighting, the continued lawlessness makes it that much more difficult to reach a deal, but we very much hope that, once a deal is reached, that all the parties involved will live up to their obligations.
   The UN speaks a lot about how it has opened its camps in South Sudan to protect civilians. But recently when Inner City Press asked about the UN refusing to allow civilians fleeing fighting from entering its Yambio camp, the UN first said it didn't know, then tried to explain the refusal away, see below. Now, after more Inner City Press question, there is a longer UN answer. Video here.
  On August 6, after Inner City Press asked again about the seeming double standard in Yambio -- national staff staying in the camp for safety while civilians except it seems for hotel guests kept out -- Dujarric was handed this:
UN Spokesman Dujarric: "UNMISS tells us that after assessing the security situation and engaging with state authorities, no civilians were admitted to the protection into its base in Yambio. UNMISS’s Open Gate policy is implemented as a last resort when the mission believes that civilians are under imminent threat. The mission has increased patrols in Yambio town and its surroundings in an attempt to restore a sense of safety and security and provide a reassuring presence. My understanding is that no one from the hotels were let in. And I do know, you mention national staff, national staff have IDs. If they need to stay in the camp and sleep in their offices, that’s fine.

Inner City Press: But wouldn’t you say that’s kind of inconsistent?
UN Spokesman Dujarric: No, it’s not. I think, UNMISS has done a tremendous job, and that’s probably not even a good enough word, in opening its camps to more than 100,000 people. As we all know, these peacekeeping camps were not designed to house this number of people. The idea to open up the gates was really a last resort, if people are under imminent  threat. It’s a hard call, that a mission obviously has to do. They made the call in this particular incident. Obviously if national staff feel, I’m not aware that national staff were told they had to stay in the camp. If national staff feel they would rather stay in their offices, no one would kick them out. No one would kick me out of my office if I don’t want to go home...

Inner City Press: Some people see this incident as either a shift in policy by the UN, or an over deference to the government.
UN Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t think there’s been a change in policy. As we’ve reported in the last month or so here, there’s often an increase, an uptick, in the number of civilians that are allowed into camps. So I don’t think there’s a change in the policy. The Open Gate policy is a last resort. Decision was made in this particular case, but it’s been absolutely no change in policy. On the press issue, I think as I said our colleagues at UNMISS are very much concerned over the recent closure of media outlets in South Sudan, and they reiterate that a free, diverse, and independent media is one of the cornerstones of an independent society.
 Back on August 5, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric:
Inner City Press: on Yambio in South Sudan, in a follow-up question to yesterday, Farhan gave an answer that seemed to acknowledge that civilians were not allowed in the camp but saying things had calmed down now.  What I want to ask is I’ve since heard two things, one that hotels in Yambio were closed during this fighting which people are basically saying was a retaliatory attack by Government forces on civilians and that the UN did take in hotel residents into the camp.  And I’m also told that national staff didn’t go home and stayed within the camp.  So I wanted to know, maybe you will need to ask them, but how is this consistent, if it’s safe enough for civilians not to be let in the camp, why did the UN keep its national staff inside the camp and allow in generally more affluent people from visiting Yambio into the camp but not those who live there?

Spokesman:  I don’t know, Matthew.  We can check with the mission.
  Eight hours later, there was no answer. But when asked again at noon on August 6, Dujarric read-out the above..
 Back on August 3, Inner City Press first asked UN spokesman Dujarric,video here:
Inner City Press: there are these reports of UNMISS in South Sudan, the Yambio base, turning away civilians seeking protection inside the base from fighting between the Government and rebels, and it seems to be true, because UNMISS is quoted as saying that, pursuant to their mandate, they informed the Government that it’s their… it’s their duty to protect people.

Spokesman Dujarric:  I… I… I’m happy… I’m happy to check.  What I do know is that the UN mission in South Sudan is currently protecting more than 100,000 civilians, but I will check on this particular case.

Inner City Press:  Yeah.  And if you can... explain why they turn them away.

Spokesman Dujarric:  Have a wonderful time.  We’ll see you at 1.
On August 4, Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq returned with this:
"We were asked yesterday about the situation in Yambio, South Sudan. The UN Mission there (UNMISS) says that the security situation has improved and that the majority of the civilians have returned home. As you know, opening UNMISS compounds to civilians is and will remain a last resort measure.

"Right now, the Mission is protecting civilians by various means to create security conditions for a safer environment.  These include engaging with local authorities and conducting patrols.  UNMISS has increased patrols in an attempt to restore a sense of safety and security in Yambio by patrolling day and night and providing a reassuring presence."
  Apparently this circumlocution is how the UN acknowledges that it did not allow civilians fleeing fighting from entering its camp.
   This comes as the UN has proved unable or unwilling to provide any accountability for, much less protect, an aid worker in its Bentiu camp was was allegedly raped by an employee of UNICEF contractor Life for Construction, click here for that. 
Back on July 1, UN Secretary General issued a statement condemning an attack on the UN's Protection of Civilians site in Malakal, specifically asking for an investigation from Riek Machar and Johnson Olony.
  But on July 8, after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous briefed the Security Council behind closed doors about South Sudan, and Inner City Press asked him about Malakal when he came out of the Council, Ladsous refused to answer. Periscope video here for now. (He also refused to answer if the Central African Republic sexual abuse investigation panel has spoken with him yet.)
 So when the Security Council's president for July Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand came to the stakeout, Inner City Press asked him if Malakal and how the UN can better protect civilians was discussed. He answered that this was not discussed in the consultation; neither was Riek Machar's public comments that fighting will continue as long as Salva Kiir, whose term expires on July 8, remains in power. Periscope video here, for now.
Inner City Press Q: On South Sudan, as to UNMIS, was there a discussion of the incident in Malakal where an IDP was killed? And, Riek Machar has said he’ll keep fighting as long as Salva Kiir stays in power, and that Salva Kiir's term expires today, July 8. Did this come up?

A: Neither of those specific situations have been discussed today.

  How could neither of this -- the Machar comments and especially the killing at Malakal and how the UN could do better -- have been raised by or to Ladsous? We'll be seeking more on this - and on the CAR sexual abuse panel. Watch this site.
 Of the UNSC sancctions, one of those now sanctioned, without a listed passport, is Peter Gadet, regarding whom Inner City Press has previously asked the US State Department, here. The individual WITH the passport is Marial Chanuong Yol Mangok, Passport no.: R00005943, South Sudan. Here's the full list, from US Ambassador Samantha Power's July 1 statement:
"Today, the Security Council took strong action in support of a peaceful end to the conflict in South Sudan by sanctioning six South Sudanese individuals for fueling the ongoing conflict and contributing to the devastating humanitarian crisis in their country.

Major-General Marial Chanuong Yol Mangok; Lieutenant-General Gabriel Jok Riak;  Major-General Santino Deng Wol; Major-General Simon Gatwech Dual; Major-General James Koang Chuol; and Major-General Peter Gadet will now be subject to a global travel ban and asset freeze for their contributions to a conflict that has  left more than 6.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and forced more than 2 million from their homes."
  Back on May 20, six days after the UN's envoy to South Sudan Ellen Loj spoke to the Security Council and to the Press at the Council stakeout on May 14, on the evening of May 20 the US State Department issued a statement about violence in South Sudan:
"The United States condemns the intensified fighting and violence in Unity, Upper Nile, and Jonglei states in South Sudan by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the armed opposition, and forces led by General Johnson Olony that have led to massive new developments and had a devastating effect on civilians.  We call on all armed groups to immediately halt offensive actions taken in contravention of the January 2014 Cessation of Hostilities Agreement.
Violations of international humanitarian norms, including the outright targeting of civilians already vulnerable to greater harm, especially women and children, and grave human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law by all sides are unacceptable.  The international community will hold those who perpetrate such abuses and violations to account.  We call on all sides to silence the guns immediately, permit the UN Mission in South Sudan to investigate the sites of all alleged human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, and allow all humanitarian workers immediate, free and unobstructed access to conflicted-affected communities regardless of their locations.
The human, social, and economic costs of this war have been devastating and the long-suffering people of South Sudan will also bear the brunt of the potential long-term consequences of this escalating fighting.  Any damage to South Sudan’s oil infrastructure is an additional life-long wound to the people and jeopardizes South Sudan’s development and rebuilding.  These resources belong to all South Sudanese people and the needs of the nation should be prioritized over the violent intentions of a few.
We will continue to work for a better future for all South Sudanese citizens and condemn those that intentionally jeopardize their collective future."
    Inner City Press on May 15 asked Loj about the UN Mission in South Sudan base in Bentiu, and more generally about proposals to lift UN immunity, called Code Blue, in the wake of the alleged rape of children in Central African Republic by French "peacekeepers" in the Sangaris force, allegedly covered up by French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous.   (While the Security Council, on which France has one of five permanent veto-wielding seats, has taken no action on this issue, the General Assembly's Fifth (Budget) Committee has summoned Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff to a close door meeting, as Inner City Press first reported.)
  The Council's statement mentions for example the UNMISS camp at Bentiu, but none of the issues raised to and by Loj at her May 14 stakeout and May 15 press conference. Video here.
  Loj acknowledged that the new Bentiu camp she had referred to the day prior was not yet ready, and that SPLA intelligence are sometimes in front of the existing camp. She again noted camp residents, not only in Bentiu but also in Juba, cutting the wires of the fence. Afterward, her and one of Ladsous' spokespeople said that journalists are free to visit the Bentui camp (although Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have heard differently; we hope to have more on this.)

  Here is the Security Council's May 17 press statement:

The following Security Council press statement was issued today by Council President Raimonda Murmokaité (Lithuania):

On 14 May, the members of the Security Council were briefed by Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ellen Margrethe Løj on the situation in South Sudan.

The members of the Security Council expressed condemnation at the renewed and ongoing large-scale violence in Unity State caused by the recent Government of South Sudan offensive and resulting in the displacement of more than 100,000 civilians and the suspension of nearly all activity and delivery of aid to populations in the affected areas, over 300,000 civilians, by humanitarian agencies and organizations.  The members of the Security Council further expressed their condemnation of the large-scale attack initiated on 15 May by the SPLM/A (in Opposition) on the town of Malakal, in Upper Nile State. 

The members of the Security Council underlined their grave concern that as a result of violence and increased insecurity since the beginning of the conflict, more than 50,000 internally displaced persons have sought shelter and assistance at the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) camp in Bentiu, and an additional nearly 25,000 at the UNMISS camp in Malakal, only further magnifying a dire humanitarian crisis.

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the repeated violations of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement accepted and signed by the Republic of South Sudan and the SPLM/A (in Opposition) on 23 January 2014, and underscored that there is no military solution to this conflict that has now lasted more than 17 months.  

The members of the Security Council called upon all parties to engage meaningfully in the peace process so as to bring about a political solution to the crisis and an end to the conflict.  They acknowledged the IGAD-led peace process and urged renewed regional and international efforts to swiftly implement a common plan and to table a reasonable and comprehensive solution to end the crisis in South Sudan.  In this context, they reiterated their willingness to impose sanctions against those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan as established in resolution 2206 (2015), and noted the 24 March 2015 African Union Peace and Security Council Communiqué on South Sudan and the 12 May 2015 African Union Commission Chairperson’s Statement on South Sudan in this regard.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for UNMISS peacekeepers and for the vital mandate they are performing under very difficult conditions, including to protect civilians in South Sudan.  They demanded that all parties end intimidation and harassment against UNMISS and humanitarian personnel, cease ongoing restrictions on freedom of movement, and allow UNMISS to fully implement its mandate.  They further demanded full adherence to the Status of Forces Agreement and permission for the deployment of essential assets and enablers currently being blocked by the Government of South Sudan.  The members of the Security Council underscored the importance of close cooperation and communication between UNMISS and the Government in addressing these issues.

The members of the Security Council condemned, and reiterated their demand for an immediate end to, all human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.  They reiterated that those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights must be held accountable and that the Government of South Sudan bears the primary responsibility to protect civilians within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, including from potential crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Security Council renewed its calls for the parties to the conflict to allow and facilitate the full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel, equipment and supplies to all those in need and timely delivery of humanitarian assistance in accordance with relevant provisions of international law and United Nations guiding principles of humanitarian assistance.

 Loj said that as a former diplomat she did not favor any blanket lifting of immunity. She said she has taken sexual abuse seriously, then said she is strict about curfew. One was left wondering how the UN will reform itself, if it ever will.  Let's see how you write this up, Loj genially said. Well here it is.

May 14 Video here.

 Loosely transcribed by Inner City Press (video here), Loj replied on May 14
"Let me say what UNMIS has undertaken in collaboration with IOM [the International Organization for Migration]. Primarily the project is primarily financed by the Dutch government. It’s actually a new site for the camp, on higher ground and with better drainage, because the Bentiu camp was totally flooded during the last rainy season. That work is being undertaken as of this week. We are hoping to get it finished…

As far as the fence, the problem with the fence is not that UNMIS is not putting up the fence. It’s that even if the fence were there, the problem with the fence is that the IDPs themselves cross the fence  in order to sneak out...

Yes, we have had troubles with the SPLA,  right outside the gates, and we have tried to solve it...We are doing our utmost to ensure that nobody enters the camp with weapons. We are doing regular searches in all camps … for alcohol and illegal substances…"
  She then said that UNMISS installed lights, but people break them. There was more to ask, including from great reporters on the bround. Inner City Press asked for another question but was told no, to ask on May 15. Watch this site.

After the May 14 stakeout, Loj told a story about UN staff in Liberia telling her all about Inner City Press, which after time she associated with her time on the UN Security Council. She has seen the UN from that position and now two countries.

Monday, December 23, 2013

On South Sudan, Ban Ki-moon Silent on Kiir's Threat to Re-Take Bor, Takes Softballs from Fashion Partners, Questions UNanswered 49 Hours


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- While the UN pulls out of parts of South Sudan and is now "advised" to get out of Bentiu, as Salva Kiir threatens to re-take Bor by force, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took four questions on December 23 but none on this.

  Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky gave three of four questions to board members of the United Nations Correspondents Association (a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), a group which most recently gushed about fashion photos it took with Ban last week. One of these three questions was not about South Sudan at all; another tried to blame everything on Khartoum.

  But what is Ban's position on Salva Kiir, which whom his (or Norway's) envoy Hilde Johnson is so close, threatening to re-take Bor by force? Inner City Press asked the question with Ban still in the room. The response was happy holidays and maybe Hilde will speak later in the week. After Bor is assaulted?

  Ban said, you can get answers through my spokesperson. Well, no. That has not been the case.

  Nesirky's office did not answer a single Press question on South Sudan submitted on December 21 and 22, even after they were re-sent to his office's supposed "Weekend Duty Officer" Eri Kaneko. What is the duty? Where are the answers?
 In the room for Ban's four-question presser was Kieran Dwyer, the spokesperson for Herve Ladsous - he has been allowed by his ostensible boss Ban to have a "policy" against answer Press questions. 
  Dwyer and UN Peacekeeping have yet to explain why on the afternoon of December 19 Indian ambassador Mukerji could tell Inner City Press about the killing of two peacekeepers in Akobo while UN Peacekeeping at that time did not know about it. An analysis of UNMISS communications is in preparation.
   Meanwhile Hilde Johnson's deputy envoy Toby Lanzer has issued a press statement, addressing neither issue. It listed two contacts, Tapiwa Gomo and Amanda Wyler, to whom Inner City Press immediately sent questions, three hours ago:
What is the situation in, including humanitarian access to, the Yide / Yida refugee camp?
Please state UNMISS' / OCHA's knowledge of the situation in Yuai. Have all UN peacekeepers been withdrawn? What about the civilians?
What is UNMISS' / OCHA's resonse to Salva Kiir's reported ultimatum on Bentiu, including advising UN and NGO staff to leave? Will OCHA leave (as it did from Kilinochchi in Sri Lanka in 2008)?
What is the situation in Bor? Has the UN evacuated any South Sudanese, or other foreigners?
These questions are directed to you as the contact on Mr. Lanzer's December 23 statement, and cc-ed to Mr. Lanzer as Humanitarian Coordinator.
 Three and a half hours later, no response at all. As to the first question, there's work of killing include of an NGO worker in the Yida camp.
  The UN has now announced that Hilde Johnson will hold a press conference at noon in Juba on December 24 - no word if it'll be webcast; the UN has said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will speak to the media at the UN in New York at 12:20 pm on December 23. Ban's office is in the clouds (photo here); the UN Security Council despite all this isdormant (photo here).
  Will Ban answer questions, including on his UN Mission's reaction to Kiir's ultimatum? His head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, does not. Video here, UK coverage here.  And Ban's Office of the Spokesperson has not, since the morning of December 21.
  IN Sri Lanka in 2008, the government told the UN to get out of Kilinochchi, and the UN did. Years later it has issued a post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" action plan. So does it push back against Kiir's threat to militarily re-take Bentiu? Or is such push back limited to government's the Western Permanent Three members of the Security Council don't like?
  Speaking of the Western P3, when two French journalists were killed in Mali, there was an immediately Security Council press statement. Now, the French NGO Solidarites International says one of its staff in South Sudan was killed, probably"assassinated." 
  But with France holding the Council presidency, still, there is not even a UNSC meeting or briefing yet scheduled. Is this based on the identity of those killed? Or of the killers, or their location?
   Rather than explain or answer questions about the UN's pull out -- and shift of assets away from a promised crackdown on the Hutu militia FDLR in the Eastern Congo -- the UN offers mere sound bytes and fundraising appeals. 
  But how many have been killed so far in Bor?
   With Bor in South Sudan under the control of Peter Gadet, the UN in New York not answered questions for more than a day. There is a history: back on March 15, 2012 Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about Gadet being given a role in "disarmament" around Bor. Video here, from Minute 9:35.
  Johnson, a vocal supporter of plans by South Sudan's Salva Kir government, told Inner City Press that it didn't much matter WHO did the disarmament. Video here, from Minute 12:55 (to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant.")
  Standing next to Johnson was the spokesperson for UN Peaceekping chief Herve Ladsous, Kieran Dwyer, who would later on video defend Ladsous' refusal to answer Press questions about his UN Peacekeeping partnering with Congolese Army units implicated in mass rapes (or here, for disarmament in South Sudan, with Peter Gadet.)
  Now that US aircraft have been fired at from Bor, and President Barack Obama has told Congress he "may take further action," did and does it really not matter? Where is the accountability? Where are the answers? 
  Rather than answer, the UN issues press releases from its envoy Hilde Johnson. Its communications officer for South Sudan Clare Santry has left the country and appeared for asoft two minute piece on BBC, her former employer, appealing for money from donors and insisting, as Johnson did, that the UN is not abandoning anyone in South Sudan.
  Really? Then why did the UN move to pull even its armed peacekeepers out of Yuai? What is the situation in Bentiu, with troubling reports of killings and seemingly a looming battle?
   On the morning of December 22, Inner City Press submitted additional questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, to the chief spokesperson Martin Nesirky and the "weekend duty officer" Eri Kaneko to whom actiong deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq's email auto-responder directed questions:
On the South Sudan crisis, while still awaiting any response to the questions submitted yesterday, must for now ask a few more:
What percentage of UNMISS personnel is it who are being moved from Bor to Juba? From Juba to Entebbe? How is this different, for example, from the pull out of UN staff from Kilinochchi in late 2008?
Given that the SG said "we are now actively trying to transfer our assets from other peacekeeping missions, like MONUSCO [the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and some other areas" --
which assets is he / the UN trying to transfer out of the DRC? How does this relate to the UN's pledge to now move to neutralize the FDLR? From what other missions is the UN trying to move assets?
Who in the UN has spoken to - or even reached out to - Riek Machar in the past days? Has the UN visited, or asked to visit, the arrested former ministers?
  No answer in four hours, on top of the then 24 hours of non-response before. The Spokesperson's office on December 22 has only put out a statement by envoy Hilde F. Johnson: “To anyone who wants to threaten us, attack us or put obstacles in our way, our message remains loud and clear: we will not be intimidated.” 
   This in the same statement announcing the pull-out of all "non-critical" UN staff from Juba to Uganda, while the UN and Johnson's deputy Toby Lanzer have not answer what percentage of UN staff are being pulled out. 
  How is this consistent with the UN's recent post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" action plan? In Sri Lanka in 2008, the UN pulled all humanitarian ("non-critical"?) staff out of Kilinochchi -- then concealed its own death counts in 2009.
  As Inner City Press asked on December 19 in the UN Press Briefing Room, is Hilde Johnson too close a supporter of Salva Kiir to mediate? This was not answered. Nor whether in the days since she has spoken with, or even reached out to, Riek Machar.
  As noted from Manila Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he would move "assets" from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to South Sudan.
   Given that the UN has made much of its new focus on "neutralizing" the Hutu FDLR militia in the DRC, Ban's statement cries out for explanation from the UN. Inner City Press was asked, from the Kivus, where Ban said this. It was in his Q&A in Manila, only belated added to the UN website,here.
  So too does the UN Mission in South Sudan UNMISS tweeting it is moving "non essential" staff out of the country, to Uganda, STILL cry out for explanation.
  What percentage of UNMISS would that be? And how is this consistent with the UN's ballyhooed post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front Action Plan"?  Rights seen from behind?

  What about the UN decision to try to pull all of peacekeepers out of Yuai? Was a UN helicopter shot down and abandoned on the way? The UN won't answer on this, or the questions below. But BBC has no analysis of the UN, only of "rebel" former vice president Riek Machar.
  BBC on December 21 showed former US official, now Texas A&M professor Andrew Natsios, who said the ICRC and IGAD ministers were blocked from visiting the ministers arrested by Salva Kiir. 
  Natsios suggested the ministers should be turned over to the UN for protection. What -- protection like the abandoned civilians around Yuai? 
  One reason the UN does not improvement is that it is not held accountable. Even on Haiti cholera, people make excuses, and those who don't are barely heard from. Shouldn't the UN at least be expected to answer questions?
  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in from Manila cited South Sudan and Riek Machar. But his Office of the Spokesperson has gone twenty hours without answering basic questions about South Sudan.
  After the UN Mission in South Sudan belated acknowledged on its week-old Twitter account that one of its helicopters "came under small arms fire" on the way to try to remove all peacekeepers from Yuai, Inner City Press asked a question.
   Did the UN copter in fact get shot, emergency land and be abandoned -- that is, get shot down?  Saying "came under small arms fire," in that case, would be an understatement.
  But the UN spokesperson's office in New York has left Press questions about South Sudan UNanswered since the morning of December 21.
  The US State Department has summarized John Kerry's call to Salva Kiir, informing him that US envoy Donald Booth is on the way. Will Booth reach out to Riek Machar? Who will tell the UN, which is ostensibly responsive to its member states, that it should answer questions?
  After news that three US military aircraft were fired at while approaching Bor in South Sudan, where some 15,000 people are in the UN base, Inner City Press put questions to US Africom and to the UN's two top spokespeople in New York.
  Africom quickly answered, twice. And the White House sent a statement that President Barack Obama was briefed, including by Susan Rice, and "reaffirmed the importance of continuing to work with the United Nations to secure our citizens in Bor."
  But from the UN came only an auto-response, that acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq will be out of the office until December 30, and to put any questions to the sole weekend duty officer of the Office of the Spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Inner City Press sent these, on the morning of December 21, more than four hours before deadline for first publication:
Now with 3 US aircraft shot over Bor, this is a press request for an update from the UN:
What is the UN's knowledge of military conflict in Bor, impact on civilians?
Is the army aligned with Salva Kiir seeking to re-take Bor? Is it coordinating in any way with UNMISS?
Since the beginning of the unrest in Juba, has UNMISS provided any support to which the UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy applies? If so, to which units?
Has any UN official spoken with Riek Machar during this period?
To the UN's knowledge, did Uganda or any other outside country take military action in Bor or elsewhere in South Sudan?
This is a request, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, that the Office of the Spokesperson hold (noon) briefings during this phase of crisis in South Sudan, certainly on Monday, December 23.
While some information trickles out from UNMISS in Juba, which only started a twitter account last week, it comes late.  
  This is why the UN's Office of the Spokesperson should be providing information, and / or Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping. Their twitter account is blithely promoting itself, with a few re-tweets from UNMISS. Where is Ladsous? He still of of December 2013 says he has a "policy" of not answering Press questions. Video here.
This is a time for the UN to communicate. But it is not. As was jotted during the Security Council's consultations on December 20 -- despite commitment and good work from many in UNMISS which Inner City Press also covers and would like to cover more -- there is a credibility crisis for the UN. And it is getting worse. Watch this site.

 
  

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Annals of UK Diplomacy: As UK Envoy to Jordan Peter Millett Calls Khartoum's Airport the World's Worst, What Was He Doing in Sudan?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- When the UK'sAmbassador to Jordan publicly opines that in his experience the airport in Khartoum, Sudan is the worst in the world, is it a form of naming and shaming? Or does it just given rise to the question, what was Ambassador Peter Millett DOING in Khartoum?

Earlier today Millett tweeted, "Which is your worst #airport in the world? For me it's #Khartoum Last week it was hot, dirty and devoid of any information or welcome."

Inner City Press has been in the Khartoum airport, and like many around the world it leaves a lot to be desired. But the lack of diplomacy seemed noteworthy, so when Inner City Press saw Millett's tweet it replied from @InnerCityPress,"This is classic UK diplomacy."

This in turn was picked up by the Sudan Tribune, which also asked, what was Millett doing in Sudan? Millett meanwhile has replied only to an ICT consultant who follows, what else, the Queen Alia International Airport in Amman, Jordan where Millett is based.
What's next, Millett's review of refugee camps? We'll be happy to publish what he puts out. Watch this site.

 
  

Saturday, July 13, 2013

As Seven UN Peacekeepers Killed in Darfur After Ladsous Met Bashir, Now at Bastille Parade with Ban Ki-moon


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 13, updated – Seven UN peacekeepers were killed in Darfur today, shortly after a visit by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous to Sudan, including meeting with president Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide in Darfur.
  While in Khartoum, Ladsous bragged about “keeping the body” of an assailant in Darfur and also claimed, despite his meeting with Bashir, that he cannot accept impunity. Back in New York, he refused repeated to answer Press questions about his statements in Sudan.
  Under Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, there have been at least two trends: the missions become more closely aligned with governments (and French foreign policy) against opposition groups, as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mali, and more deaths and injuries among peacekeepers. 
  And, Ladsous has refused to answer critical questions from the Press, choosing to seek out small groups of friendly reporters even on the kidnapping of peacekeeper in the Golan Heights.
  While the seven peacekeepers were being killed in Darfur,Ladsous was in Paris with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for the colonial Bastille Day military parade featuring soldiers from Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Chad (a country currently on the UN child soldier recruitment list, but accepted by Ladsous for the UN's MINUSMA mission in Mali.
 
 
Would Ladsous take and answer questions there? Or upon his post-parade return to New York? 
Here's what, after publication of the above, UNAMID put out:
On 13 July, a joint patrol of the African Union - United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) was ambushed in South Darfur.   The incident, which began at 9:00 hours, occurred approximately 25 kilometers west of the Mission's Khor Abeche team site. 
 The UNAMID team came under heavy fire from a large unidentified group. Following an extended firefight, the patrol was extracted by UNAMID reinforcements that arrived from the Mission's Khor Abeche and Manawashi team sites. Seven UNAMID military peacekeepers were killed and 17 military and Police personnel, among them two female Police Advisers, were wounded.   
"The Mission condemns in the strongest possible terms those responsible for this heinous attack on our peacekeepers," said UNAMID Joint Special Representative Mohamed Ibn Chambas. "The perpetrators should be on notice that they will be pursued for this crime and gross violation of international humanitarian law."

 Watch this site.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

On Peacekeeper Killed in Sudan, OCHA Responds, DPKO Silent, One-Way UN Information Center in Khartoum


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 22 -- While the question of who killed an Ethiopian UN peacekeeper in Kadugli, Sudan on June 14, asked by Inner City Press at the UN noon briefings of June 14 and June 18, has still not been answered by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson or UN Peacekeeping (DPKO), the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan has to its credit responded.
Acting on DPKO's failure to answer the question, a pattern under Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous, the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked in Sudan not only OCHA but the UN Information Center, which tweeted a link to OCHA's report.
That report said without qualification that the peacekeeper's death was due to shelling by the SPLM-North rebels. FUNCA asked: “This says SPLM-N killed the peacekeeper; OSSG & DPKO haven't said that. Explain?”
  UNIC Khartoum, run by the UN Department of Public Information, has yet to respond. But OCHA Sudan, again to its credit, did: “@FUNCA_info, the bulletin says 'according to media reports'... plus, SPLM-N press release claims responsibility for Kadugli shelling.”
  The part about the press release is true, making DPKO's silence all the more troubling, given that the UN immediately condemns after such claims the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Shabaab in Somalia.
  But the OCHA report does not cite “media reports” for who was doing the deadly shelling, only for WHY they were doing it:
"On 14 June, a member of the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) was killed and two others injured when shells fired by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) hit the UNISFA logistics base in Kadugli, the state capital of South Kordofan. According to media reports the shelling was aimed at military targets in Kadugli"
  But we want to again highlight OCHA's responsiveness -- they did the same thing earlier this year when a report of their on Haiti was mistranslated and called the residents of IDP camps in Haiti promiscuous. Once it was pointed out, they explained, and re-did the report.
By contrast, Ladsous' DPKO did not even explain an early attribution of the attack to South Sudan. Ladsous' spokesperson Kieran Dwyer put out a statement masquerading as a UN News article on June 14, that "'We condemn in the strongest terms this shelling. It is essential that the Governments of Sudan and South Sudan immediately cease hostilities and resume ceasefire negotiations,' Mr. Dwyer said."
This statement including South Sudan, though corrected to "SPLM-North" without explanation by Reuters, remains online not only on Reuters' website, but also on the Daily Star in Lebanon; RTTnews.com; the Premium Times in Nigeria, via NAN; Euronews and the Star in Malaysia, both again with the quadruple byline "Reporting By Michelle Nichols in New York and Khalid Abdelaziz in Khartoum; Writing by Maggie Fick; Editing by Michael Roddy."
  Still no explanation. And we note that the Department of PUBLIC Information's Khartoum UNIC did not respond.

  Rather it continues blithely one-way tweeting about the UN “Day of Public Service” and a June 24 meeting on sexual violence in conflict -- can you say, Ladsous' cover up of 135 rapes in Minova by two units of the Congolese Army that UN still supports? -- a meeting we will cover, on belatedly provided benches but not yet any worktable, which in the past facilitated new media coverage of the Security Council. Watch this site.