UNITED NATIONS, February 25 -- When a draft resolution was circulated on February 24 to the UN Security Council which would set up a South Sudan sanctions committee, wire reports focused on the views of the Western Permanent Three members of the Council -- the US, France and UK -- and did not make available to the public the actual nine-page draft.
Inner City Press in this exclusive dispatch on the morning of February 25 is publishing the full draft, here and embedded below, and can report that that of the Elected Ten or E10, African members Chad and Angola, as well as Latin America members Venezuela and Chile, urged that the African Union and the regional body Intergovernmental Authority should take the lead before any Security Council’s decision.
Sources tell Inner City Press that in this view, decision should only be taken on the draft after the Security Council meets with IGAD and the African Union Peace and Security Council, scheduled the sources tell Inner City Press for March 12 during a French-organized Security Council trip also including, the sources say, the Central African Republic and Burundi. We'll have more on this.
On an abuse in South Sudan on which the UN was slow and partial in reporting, Inner City Press on February 24 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask first about South Sudan. There was this very kind of high-profile kidnapping of dozens of children, and what I really wanted to ask you about is, although it was initially said it was unclear who did it, there are now reports that the militia that is responsible for it is basically part of the army of South Sudan. And I wanted to know what Ellen Løj or the human rights component of UNMISS, what they say about those allegations that seem to be serious?
Spokesman Dujarric: We’ve seen increased reports of kidnapping of children and forced enrollment into units, whether it’s the report you stated which our colleagues at UNICEF have flagged for us, or other reports, and I know it’s something that is of concern to all of us here. It is being looked at both by the Mission and by different departments here. But it’s obviously a big concern. We have worked very hard to ensure that children are freed from such activity, and we will continue do so.
Inner City Press: But do you expect the UN system to say who is responsible?
Spokesman Dujarric: I know they’re looking into these — we’ve seen these reports. We’re looking into them.
The full draft we are publishing, in the public interest, above. Reuters typically said they "obtained" it but did not publish it; Voice of America said they saw it, and mechanically quoted HRW on Russia and China, with nothing about the view of the African and Latin American members of the Security Council. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 5, more here -- A week after after the UN issued a statement on its internal investigation into charges it covered-up attacks in Darfur, Inner City Press on November 5 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the full report will be released, at least to the Security Council, and about under-reporting of attacks in the Central African Republic. Video here.
Dujarric said that even before the summary was given to the Security Council members -- so that is apparently all that has been given to them -- UN missions were told to be sure to report attacks. He said he reads out what the missions sent him.
So has the UN mission in CAR, MINUSCA, simply not send in reports about killings in Bambari and elsewhere?
It is reported, somewhat naively, that France, the UK and US have all expressed dissatisfaction to the UN Secretariat about the lack of accountability. First, France controls UN Peacekeeping, through Herve Ladsous. Second, if the P3 complained they'd get action. So we'll see.
Despite a request from Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access the UN will not release the report. Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked, given that even the sanitized statement says information on attacks was withheld from the media and UN Headquarters - at its request? - who is responsible? What about Mohamed ibn Chambas, recently head of the Darfur mission UNAMID until he got a promotion? Video here.
Back on September 12, eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that the head of the Darfur peacekeeping mission Mohamed ibn Chambas was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, the UN confirmed the move.
Inner City Press has asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians.
On September 12, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric insisted he didn't want to "pre-judge" the inquiry. But by giving the new post, this has already been done. Now this sanitized statement, with the report still withheld:
A review, initiated by the Secretary-General, was conducted into recent allegations that the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) intentionally sought to cover up crimes against civilians and peacekeepers.
The Review Team examined all the material related to 16 incidents, which were the basis of these allegations. It also interviewed former and current staff in UNAMID and at UN Headquarters. The Review Team did not find any evidence to support these allegations. However, it did find a tendency to under-report unless absolutely certain of the facts. In five of the cases examined, the Mission did not provide UN Headquarters with full reports on the circumstances surrounding these incidents, which involved possible wrongdoing by Government or pro-Government forces. The Review Team also found that the Mission took an unduly conservative approach to the media, maintaining silence when it could have developed a press line, even in the absence of all the facts.
The Secretary-General is deeply troubled by these findings. He recognizes that UNAMID faces unique challenges owing to its complex mandate and operating environment. Nevertheless, keeping silent or under-reporting on incidents involving human rights violations and threats or attacks on UN peacekeepers cannot be condoned under any circumstances.
The Secretary-General will take all necessary steps to ensure full and accurate reporting by UNAMID. Every effort will be made to ensure that sensitive information is systematically brought to the attention of UN Headquarters and the Security Council in a timely fashion. UNAMID’s media policy will be re-examined to ensure greater openness and transparency. The Mission will be expected to follow up formally and report on Government investigations into incidents where peacekeepers have been killed or injured.
Ensuring that the UN speaks out consistently against abuses and identifies the perpetrators is a key goal of the Secretary-General’s Human Rights up Front initiative. The Secretary-General will ensure that all missions are provided with clear guidance on the fulfilment of their reporting obligations, particularly with regard to human rights and the protection of civilians. He looks forward to the upcoming review of UN peace operations as an opportunity to comprehensively address this issue, which is a core element of his Human Rights up Front initiative.
Inner City Press: in Darfur, it seems that Mr. Mohamed ibn Chambas went to Kalma Camp and met with residents who expressed a variety of complaints, but he was quoted as saying there that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced, and it has left many people confused whether, what is UNAMID’s role in terms of protection of civilians given these [inaudible] entrances in the camp and people lying on the ground?
Spokesman Dujarric: I will… we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.
Two weeks, no answer. Now this.
UN Peacekeeping and its mission in Darfur continue take a selective and lax approach to protecting civilians.
This example concerns the UN's evolving statements on the Al-Salam camp.
After whistleblower Aicha Elbasri further exposed UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous as covering up attacks in Darfur, on June 17 several Security Council members joined International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in calling for an investigation.
On August 7, Inner City Press asked the Joint Special Representative of the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, about the status of the probe.
Chambas told Inner City Press he had met earlier in the day with the commission, whose members will be on their say to Darfur.
Inner City Press asked if the report will be public. Chambas only said his staff will cooperate. Apparently it will be up to Ban Ki-moon, or even Herve Ladsous, to decide to release or withhold the report.
Back in Khartoum on August 11, Chambas said this:
"And on the attack on Alsalam camp, let me state that we have information about this. We have always stated that the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Sudan lays with the Government. This is a sovereign country, it has law enforcement obligations, it has its justice system and the AU, the UN is only here to facilitate and ensure that law and order and justice are maintained and are enforced according to due process of law. So, we want to say that we will continue to engage with the Government of Sudan in accordance with its own protection of civilian mandate and to ensure that the activities on law enforcement agencies are carried out without infringement of the rights of innocent civilians specially vulnerable communities in IDP camps. We hope that on the other hand residents of IDP camps can understand and do understand that possession of weapons, carrying of weapons is not allowed in IDP camps under international humanitarian law.
"It’s also imperative, and it’s a responsibility of the leaders of IDP camps to ensure that no one is using these camps to keep weapons or to hide weapons, because this is against international humanitarian law. These are the issues involved there and we as UNAMID we will continue to work with both sides, with IDP leaders to educate them what is permissible in these camps and what is not, and at the same time working with Government to enforce legitimately law and order but to do that respecting the civic and human rights of the citizens and also respecting due process of law. Thank you."
Since this seemed to defer to Sudan's Abu Tira, and even to blame the victims, Inner City Press on August 13 asked:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Darfur, Missouri and Afghanistan. On Darfur, photos have come out of the Sudanese uniformed Abu Tira forces going through a refugee camp or [internally displaced persons] camp in El Salam and making the residents lie on the ground. And Mr. Chambas was asked about it and said that this was entirely up to the Sudanese and it just seems sort of strange. I mean, I know there is a Human Rights component to these peacekeeping missions. Does the UN, does UNAMID [United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] or does anyone in the Secretariat, are they aware of these photographs?
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: I will check.
Twenty three hours later, Dujarric sent nothing to Inner City Press. But UNAMID issued a belated statement, which seems to contradict or attempt to rehabilitate Chambas' dismissive August 11 comments:
"Following a security raid conducted on Al Salam IDP camp on 5 August when individuals were arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs, weapons and ammunition, UNAMID monitored the trials of those arrested during the operation; most of whom have since been released. UNAMID has been engaging relevant state authorities on the conditions of those still being detained.
"Other security raids have been conducted in Otash and Dereig camps and are part of a wider campaign by the South Darfur authorities to address the high level of criminality in the State, especially around Nyala.
"The security raids have generated alarm and anxiety amongst IDPs in Kalma camp, who are anticipating a similar operation at their camp and have expressed their concerns to UNAMID."
We'll continue on this.
Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if an independent investigation of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping will be done, and if not, why not? Video here.
Haq claimed that UN Peacekeeping is already acting on Elbasri's complaints, and that it had been telling the press about it. Inner City Press asked, where have these updates been provided.
Haq cited a read-out given in March, largely generic; then he said the requests made on June 17 would be studied.
Now on July 2, Ban's spokesman Dujarric - in the midst of a controversy about a non-factual response on June 27, not corrected when asked June 30 and July 1, about Ladsous' mission in the DRC flying sanctioned FDLR leaders around, released this:
"The Secretary-General is concerned about the recent serious allegations against the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). These allegations cover a wide range of issues, including inaccurate reporting of the facts on the ground in Darfur, specific instances of failure to protect civilians and accusations of mismanagement of UNAMID.
"UNAMID has undergone several investigations and reviews over the last two years, which have sought to address both strategic issues and specific incidents related to the Mission's performance. The Secretary-General’s Special Report of 25 February 2014 provides an overview of the strategic and managerial challenges faced by the Mission and the work being done at United Nations Headquarters and in UNAMID to address them.
"The Secretary-General remains committed to improving UNAMID's performance and is determined to take all necessary steps to correct any wrongdoing. He has instructed the Secretariat to review the reports of all investigations and inquiries undertaken since mid-2012 to ensure that their recommendations have been implemented and that any relevant issues have been fully addressed. This review, to be completed within one month, will enable the Secretary-General to determine what has already been done and, if recommendations are outstanding, what corrective action needs to be taken."
On DRC, Dujarric said "you can pick up the phone" - after siting next to Ladsous while he refused to answer Press questions on DRC.
Back on April 24 when Darfur as such was the topic of the UN Security Council, three major Darfur rebel groups wrote to the Council to investigate "all reports of the Peace Keeping Mission, including reports presented to the UNSC by [Under] Secretary General for Peace Keeping Mr. Ladous and the reliability of the sources he had relied on."
But unlike his abortive stakeout on the evening of April 23 about South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come out to answer any questions. And at the April 24 UN noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for a response to the request for an investigation of Ladsous and his reports, there was none: not one modified or corrected report was cited.
Instead, from the "holy seat" of the UN Correspondents Association a long time scribe followed up to say that it is not all Ladsous' fault, and to cast blame on the government. (This same dynamic was repeated at the June 17 noon briefing.) This reflexively shifting of blame from the UN to the government, whose new Permanent Representative spoke in the Council on April 24, is in this case particularly absurd: how can the government be responsible for the UN's own reports being inaccurate?
Those requesting this investigation of DPKO and Ladsous are not the government of Omar al Bashir, which whom Ladsous met in July 2013 without any readout, but rebels Abdel Wahid Mohamed Ahmed Nur, Chairperson, Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M-A/Wahid), Gibriel Ibrahim Mohamed, Chairperson of Justice & Equality Movement Sudan (JEM) and Minni Arko Minnawi, Chairperson Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M-MM).
Pending UN answers, again we ask: how can one write about the corruption of a UN Peacekeeping mission, at length, without naming the person in charge? Why would one airbrush that person, in this case Herve Ladsous the UN Under Secretary for Peacekeeping Operations, out?
Back on March 25, 2013, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokespersonabout how the UN Peacekeeping in Darfur could have let a group of Internally Displaced People be kidnapped while they were ostensibly protected:
Inner City Press: there is this incident where IDPs were taken hostage or kidnapped by people that were in Government army uniforms, and somehow UNAMID is saying that they opposed it and they denounced the kidnapping, but some people are wondering how armed UN peacekeepers could have IDPs under their care and they could all be kidnapped. Can you clarify how it took place and how it is consistent with protection of civilians?
Spokesperson: Well, I have asked the Mission for more details on that, and I think if you were listening carefully you will have heard me read out precisely what you just said to me.
Inner City Press: But what I am asking about specifically about how it could take place?
Spokesperson: I heard what you said, and I’ve said that I’ll see if I can find out more, which is what I have already asked the Mission and Peacekeeping Operations.
UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- While the UN pulls out of parts of South Sudan and is now "advised" to get out of Bentiu by Salva Kiir, the UN has now 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.
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?
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.")
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.”
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.
UNITED NATIONS, October 11 -- Since August Inner City Press has asked the UN to release its internal report on its failure in Sri Lanka in 2009 as 40,000 civilians were killed.
First Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said that Ban would have something to say on it in September. This was a brief reference in his General Assembly speech.
Then yesterday Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said "we will have, I think, more to say in, I believe, the days and weeks to come."Story herevideo here.
Since a lesson supposedly learned by the UN from its inaction was to have the courage to speak, withholding the report seemed and seems contradictory.
Today Inner City Press exclusively publishes here the UN's "Follow-up to the report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on UN Action in Sri Lanka," dated July 9, 2013 and marked on each of its mere six pages, "Internal."
The introduction says
"In 2009 the Sri Lanka crisis was a test. We failed it. It was - as characterized by the Internal Review Panel report that I commissioned - a 'systemic failure.' The challenges that plagued us in Sri Lanka were not new: they have been with us for many years and in diverse situations. They include failure to communicate evidence of impending crisis and lack of strategies to address serious violations drawing upon the full range of our diplomatic, legal and operational capacities. We do not always deploy and empower colleagues swiftly to address often rapidly changing circumstances, and back them up when they take risks. Lack of clear leadership at headquarters has resulted in mixed messages, reduced operational clarity and lost opportunities. Above all, we have not always been effective at getting Member States to reach agreement on concerted action."
Even while admitting "systemic failure," this underplays the degree to which the UN was complicit in what happened: it pulled out of Kilinochchi, an envoy was sent who was perceived (we'll leave it at that) to just want the LTTE Tamil Tigers wiped out, so much that a ceasefire was never even called for.
So what was learned from the cited 1999 Independent Inquiry on UN Action in Rwanda and the 1999 review on the fall of Srebrenica?
Syria is cited in, and explains, this "Plan of Action to strengthen the UN’s role in protecting people in crises." The report says: "Today we are witnessing the agony of the Syrian people. That conflict is a test - not just of Member States’ will to fulfil their responsibilities, but of the UN’s ability to use all the tools at its disposal to make sure that people are protected."
So, now a UN report and plan for "Rights Up Front."
The plan claims that Ban's UN "will also adopt an ‘Article 99 attitude’, and tell Member States what they need to hear (action 2). We must assert the UN’s moral authority and put Member States in front of their responsibilities." ButBan so often takes his cue from the Western P3.
What will be the next text of the UN needed to act without prodding from the US, France or UK?
