Darfur Cover Ups Taken Into UN Censor Club by Human Rights Watch, Both Silent on Ladsous & CAR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 4 -- That human rights abuses continue in Darfur with cover-ups by the Peacekeeping mission UNAMID should be shouted from the rooftops. Instead, Human Rights Watch next week plans to take the issue behind closed doors with the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Neither organization has offered any criticism of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, as he sought to cover up rapes in the Central African Republic (and Darfur and DRC before), and openly refuses to answer Press questions about it.

 As to Darfur, Ladsous met with Sudan's ICC-indicted Omar al Bashir, something HRW was notably silent about as on the cover up of the French troops' rapes in Central African Republic by Ladsous - as reflected in UN Dispute Tribunal rulings.

  To hold a press conference in the UN's actual Press Briefing Room requires only the sponsorship of a single member state; then the event is on UN Webcast and journalists who decline to support the UN's Censorship Alliance participation. But this is HRW's choice, just as they refused to provide even a summary of the issues they raised when granted a meeting with Ban Ki-moon -- contrary to the approach of other human rights groups.

  In terms of holding accessible press conferences in the UN, not going behind closed doors and off UN Webcast with the UN Censorship Alliance, consider in the same week, on September 10 at 10:30, a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room on the plight of children in the Central African Republic; we'll cover it.

  The past and present head of UNCA, back after a long vacation, has yet to ask any questions of the UN. Previously, he sought to censor coverage of his renting one of his apartment to Sri Lanka's then Ambassador Palitha Kohona. (Running a letter he could write about when he rented the apartment, and its relations or not to UNCA's screening of the Sri Lankan government's war crimes denial film Lies Agreed To, was not enough: he demanded all coverage be removed from the Internet: censorship.) These are HRW's partners? We'll have more on this. This event, in any case, conflicts with a Security Council meeting about Syria. So it goes.

Background:  In February 2015 with UN Peacekeeping underLadsous still providing few to no updates on its UNAMID mission's November 9 covering up of rapes in Darfur, just as Ladsous stonewalled about mass rapes in Minova in the DR Congo, here, some soft on the UN try to raise the issue without blaming those responsible for the cover-up.

  The report put out by Human Rights Watch had 48 pages, but does not mention UN Peacekeeping boss Ladsous once, nor his similar cover up of rapes in Minova in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, video here. What kind of report is this?

 Tellingly, in trying to "launch" this soft-on-Ladsous report inside the UN, Human Rights Watch instead of holding a regular press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room as other NGOs do has chosen to partner with the UN Censorship Alliance, a group whose board has tried to get investigative Press thrown out of the UN, including for its reporting on Ladsous. 

 On February 11, added to the UN's "Media Alert" is a meeting between Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and this Sudanese government official: "Ibrahim Ghandour, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chairman of the National Congress, Republic of Sudan."

  So will Ban be demanded access -- second access, after Ladsous' initial cover up -- to Tabit?

  While some claim that Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping is trying to get back to Tabit, on Feburary 10 a Sudanese diplomat told Inner City Press he had met with Ladsous on February 9 and "it was nice." How's that, for Ladsous' supposed commitment to get to the bottom of rapes and rights abuses?

 Instead, in order to NOT move against the FDLR militia, Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping is now claiming to care too much for human rights to support the Congolese Army's supposed offensive against the FDLR -- which, the UN belatedly acknowledged to Inner City Press, has not even begun.

  But on the Tabit rapes, that the Sudanese diplomat without irony described his February 9 meeting with Ladsous has "nice" is telling.

  It is easy and appropriate, of course, to blame Sudan, as it was and is to blame the Congolese Army and government for the rapes in Minova. But there is a pattern, and until UN Peacekeeping's senior leadership's cover up of these incidents - and even silence on dead peacekeepers for more than a week -- nothing will improve.

  So why is Human Rights Watch, which alongside its detailed work goes out of its way not to criticize the UN and especially Ladsous, for example on Central African Republic, as Inner City Press reported here, partnering to hold a privatized event on Tabit, not in the UN Press Briefing Room but among friends, as they say?

 Why have HRW and its hosts said nothing about posts in UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous being sold for money, exclusively exposedby Inner City Press on February 7, asked about February 9, and partially answered by the UN on February 10, here? 

  Any country can sponsor such a briefing in the UN Press Briefing Room. But HRW hides behind and in the clubhouse of the UN Censorship Alliance, Board members of which in the past have ordered changes to articles about Ladsous - and about Sri Lanka, more here. Human rights? Hardly.  Look how Human Rights Watch's selectively distributed invitation whitewashes UN Peacekeeping's and Ladsous' role:

"Between October 30 and November 1, 2014, Sudanese government forces entered Tabit, North Darfur, and carried out massive abuses against the town’s residents, including a mass rape of women and girls. Sudan responded by denying the abuses and has refused to allow international peacekeepers and other independent monitors to investigate the crimes."

  This is misleading - Ladsous' UNAMID was in Tabit on November 9, and put out a press release whitewashing the rapes and saying the people there like the government's security forces. This was shameful.

 More publicly, Inner City Press on January 26 asked Security Council ambassadors Mark Lyall Grant of the UK and Raimonda Murmokaite of Lithuania, "what happened with UNAMID going back for real investigation of rapes in Tabit?"

  Lyall Grant replied, "We continue to press DPKO to encourage UNAMID to revert on the Tabit allegations."

   Murmokaite added, "have been raising the issue at consultations, will continue."

 And so Inner City Press at the January 26 UN noon briefing asked Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here:

Inner City Press: two of the Security Council ambassadors this morning said they continued to ask DPKO to ensure that the Tabit site of alleged mass rapes is revisited. I want to know has any action been taken on that? Has there been any move by UNAMID?

Spokesman Dujarric: The request to visit Tabit stands. There's nothing to report.

 Nothing to report? Back on January 8 Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, video here:

Inner City Press: what has the UN system done in order to get access again to Thabit in Darfur, where there were allegedly 200 rapes, and then the Government didn’t allow any inspectors. What have you done since we last spoke on it? 

SG Ban: As for the first part of the question, as you know, we tried to have a thorough investigation. This report might not have been sufficient because of the lack of full cooperation of the authorities on the ground. That has really hampered our authorities to go into the field and get a thorough investigation. It is important that we have to have a thorough investigation and as a matter of principle, there should be a clear accountability process and justice. I am firm about this matter. And we will, in the course of time, have better information on this matter. 

  While appreciated, it is widely recognized that the more time goes by, the more difficult a credible rape investigation becomes. So why did UNAMID issue a cover-up November 9 press release? 
   

UN Is OK with Censorship In Burkina Faso, Silent on Killed Journalist in South Sudan, UN's Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 21 -- At the UN there is much talk about the protection of journalists in conflict situations, and about freedom of the press. But when Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access on May 21 asked the UN about a journalist killed in South Sudan, where the UN has a mission, there was nothing:

Inner City Press / FUNCA: In South Sudan, a journalist of Radio Tamazuj, Pow James Raeth, is reported to have been killed by gunfire in Akobo.  And I wanted to know whether UNMISS, which I believe still has a facility in Akobo, is aware of it, if they have any comment on it, and what they think is behind the killing of this journalist.

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  We'll have to check with UNMISS whatever details there are of that incident. 

  Seven hours later, there was no answer. The day before, on May 20, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked about Burkina Faso:

Inner City Press / FUNCA: Burkina Faso has announced that it's banning live political broadcasts for three months in the run-up to elections, and a number of press organizations have been critical of it.  Given DPA (Department of Political Affairs) and the UN's kind of involvement in different stages in Burkina Faso, do you have any view of that banning of live political broadcasts?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I don't know whether it's a banning or whether it's restrictions.  There are a number of countries that restrict political broadcasts in the run-up to elections, and sometimes that's designed to lessen the threat of electoral violence, so that's a more complicated issue.  So at this stage, we wouldn't have anything to say about that.  If there are concerns about actual harassment of journalists, that would be a case for concern.

 What about the killing of a journalist in South Sudan? Next week the UN Security Council under its Lithuania presidency has a meeting on the protection of journalists, and we will cover it. But we will not cover the RSF side event with Christophe Deloire held in the clubhouse of UNCA, which typically did not ask about the journalist killing in South Sudan or censorship in Burkina Faso. In fact, UNCA board members tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, for its reporting, becoming the UN Censorship Alliance.

Many organizations like to "launch" their reports at or in the United Nations, and so ask few questions about UN. The Committee to Protect Journalists did one earlier this year.

  Tellingly, while CPJ spoke out against the censorship in Burkina Faso, it has said nothing about the UN's defense of it. What is the likelihood of Burkina reversing itself, when it now has UN endorsement?

 On February 14, 2013, Inner City Press asked CPJ about the UN Correspondents Association's board members trying to censor its reporting about Sri Lanka and trying to get its UN accreditation "reviewed."

 The CPJ response was no comment on the "internal dynamics of the UN's accreditation process," saying its focus is "international press freedom issues." Isn't censorship at the UN international?

  Now it gets worse - the above quoted Q&A was at least in the open UN Press Briefing Room. Now CPJ intends to take its report launch behind closed doors in clubhouse the UN gives UN, its UN Censorship Alliance, publicized only to those who pay UNCA money. 

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access challenges all this - and CPJ's corporate and selective advocacy for only some journalism. It is a tuxedo approach such as on display in DC.

   Back on February 14, 2013 when CPJ came to the UN Press Briefing Room to “launch” its annual report on press freedom Inner City Press asked them, not for the first time, about the UN's own treatment of the full range of journalists, their right to access the UN and to due process if challenged. Video here, from Minute 29:12.

  As example, Inner City Press noted the UN limiting accreditation by geography and to those who abide by the “principles of the Organization,” and total lack of due process rules for journalists on complaints as those filed against Inner City Press in 2012 by Voice of America,Reuters' Louis Charbonneau and the “UN Correspondents Association” for which he spoke on Thursday. Video here, from Minute 12:04.

  Rob Mahoney of CJP, who had begun the press conference by saying “we look to the UN” on these issues, declined to comment on the "internal dynamics of the UN's accreditation process," saying he doesn't know enough about it since he focuses on "international press freedom issues." Video here, from Minute 30:40.

  But aren't unfair rules of the UN worldwide in denying access to journalists "international press freedom issues"? And how can you "look to the UN" to help if you don't first look AT the UN?

  While Charbonneau's UNCA in mid-2012 initiated a process against Inner City Press citing an article it wrote about Sri Lanka (and UNCA, see here), Inner City Press received death threats from supporters of the Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka.

  Inner City Press asked UNCA to stop or at least suspend its process; this was refused, including by Charbonneau, who told Inner City Press to “go to the NYPD.”

Remembering CPJ's Bob Dietz' focus on Sri Lanka, Inner City Press wrote to him and CPJ's Joel Simon. The response came from CPJ's Americas Research Associate Sara Rafsky:

“Thank you very much for alerting us about your situation. At the moment, the Americas program is swamped with urgent cases... Thus it will most likely be some time before I can look into your case.”

  These was no follow up by CPJ. The New York Civil Liberties a month later, citing the complaint against Inner City Press, asked the UN to state its due process rules, which the UN has yet to do.

   The  Free UN Coalition for Access, on behalf of which Inner City Press thanked Mahoney and his largely silent panel for coming, is pursuing changes to the UN's archaic and exclusionary accreditation rules and Media Access Guidelines.

   UNCA's, and Charbonneau's, response was to tear down flyers on the topic. Atop UNCA again is Giampaolo Pioli the past president who, after renting one of his apartments to Palitha Kohona, later granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's ambassador to screen that government's war crimes denial film "Lies Agreed To" inside the UN, under the UNCA banner. Inner City Press reported on it, was told to remove the article from the Internet or face expulsion from the UN. That is censorship, and CPJ was informed: but partners with UNCA. This is not press freedom.

   Then on February 12, 2014  when CPJ its "Attacks on the Press" report online, under the heading Africa there were pages on Tanzania and Swaziland, for example, but none on South Sudan or Mali.

  CPJ's Joel Simon began the February 12, 2014 "launch" press conference by explaining why it was held at the United Nations (he cited countries trying to use the UN to control the Internet). Inner City Press when called on asked if CPJ thinks the UN Peacekeeping missions in South Sudan and Mali do enough to combat crackdowns on the press there, for example the Salva Kiir government seizing a complete issue of the Juba Monitor, and theats against MaliActu.. 

 Now we wonder, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, what CPJ thinks of the UN bureau chief of Reuters, with essentially a permanent seat on UNCA board, mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Google to block access to a leaked anti-Press complaint to the UN from its search. Isn't that censorship? 

CPJ & Reuters current and former, Feb 14, 2013 (c) MRLee

   The problem here is that groups like CPJ like to use the UN to “launch” their reports. Mahoney joked with two separate Reuters reporters: click here, here and here for three (of many) documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reflecting Reuters and the UN.

Reuter's Charbonneau shakes with Ban: on what? (c) Luiz Rampelloto

  CPJ or at least Mahoney seem to assume that Big Media like Reuters (and Agence France Presse, click here) can do no wrong. But that is not the case. Watch this site.

Reporters Without Borders RSF Ranks Turkey Low & Sri Lanka Lower, Of UN & Its Censorship Alliance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12 -- Reporters Without Borders has again ranked 180 countries on their degree of press freedom, here. Sri Lanka, for example, is in the worst tranche, below Turkey.

 The Free UN Coalition for Access, beyond believing that in such studies the United Nations with its lack of content-neutral accreditation policies and lack of any Freedom of Information Act should also be ranked, compares Reporters Sans Frontieres' Index with Twitter's disclosure of which countries try to ban the most Tweets (in that, Turkey far outstrips Sri Lanka.)

 The RSF / RWB study, out from under embargo twenty minutes before this publication, is here. As to the UN, consider that its officials met secretly with board members of the UN Correspondents Association about trying to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. This UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance, through its past and present president Giampaolo Pioli demanded the removal from the Internet of reporting about Sri Lanka; others did so on behalf of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping, who refuses to answer Press questions, video here, Vine here.

  Tellingly, one of the UNCA board's anti-Press complaints to the UN has even been censored from access on Google, here, under Reuters' Louis Charbonneau's claim of "copyright" under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Click here for notice via EFF's Chilling Effects project. Forms of censorship are evolving, and so should the methodology for studying -- and combating -- them.

  At the UN, transparency and access are in decline, due to collusion. On February 6, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked,video here, asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric whether in the trip to Saudi Arabia Ban had announced only to the UN's Censorship Alliance Ban would raise the case of flogged blogger Raif Badawi.

  Dujarric said wait and see, but when Ban spoke at the end he said no individual cases were raised; he did not mention freedom of expression.

 By contrast, even the UK's Prince Charles did raise Badawi's case to King Salman. Ban's excuse was that, after flying all the way to Saudi Arabia, there was no time to raise individual cases. Prince Charles had more time?

From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press / FUNCA: You said about the Secretary-General and freedom of expression.  So I wanted to ask you, on this upcoming trip beginning today to Saudi Arabia, is the situation of the blogger, Raif Badawi, who’s been in prison and scheduled to be flogged, is that something that the Secretary-General intends to bring up?  I wanted to ask because I saw the announcement was made in a way where it was sort of, things then went off the record.  It seems you were there; I saw what was put out by your office.  Was this answered in that context?  If so, was that asked even in that context?  And finally, who’s paying for the travel on this trip?  Is he flying commercial, paid by the UN?  Or is he--

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  He’s flying commercial, paid by the United Nations.  The issue of freedom of the press is something the Secretary-General routinely raises, and I think we will give you a readout of the meeting with His Majesty after it happens and the Secretary-General also has a press encounter scheduled following his encounter with the King, and those remarks will be made public.  But you know, the issue of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is raised in many different contexts and many different countries. 

  On February 5 the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said

"You might be aware of this already, but I have a trip announcement for you; I believe the Secretary-General mentioned this to some of you yesterday.  The Secretary-General will depart for Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on Friday, 6 February, to convey his condolences to the people of Saudi Arabia, who had recently lost their leader, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.  During his two-day stay in Saudi Arabia, the Secretary-General will also meet with country’s new leader, King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud."

  The "some of you" referred to the Executive Committee of the UN Correspondents Association, which released no transcript of the spoon-feeding session, merely tweeting from the session, at 1:42 pm, "#UNSG Ban tells UNCA committee he will travel to #SaudiArabia on Friday to meet King Salman to talk Mideast challenges, then on to #UAE."

 No mention for example of Saudi flogged blogger Raif Badawi, from an organization which claims to care about freedom of the press - actually, it doesn't -- now any other questions. A mere pass-through. 

   

France Says Its "Journalist Protection" Event at UN on Dec 13 is Off the Record" and Can't be Reported On

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 12 -- The French-sponsored meeting about protection of journalists held December 13 in the UN will, ironically, be "off the record" and not for recording.

This is contrary to what French foreign minister Laurent Fabius promised when he announced the session, even before other Security Council members agreed to it.

After that, Inner City Press on the day of Council bilateral meetings asked the French delegation if the December 13 session would be open, though an "Arria formula" meeting.

"It's an open Arria," was the response.

At the next day's press conference, at which Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access planned to ask about this "open Arria," French Ambassador Gerard Araud preemptively announced that all the journalists were invited to the session.

  An invitation went out -- to some -- listing among participants not only Araud but also

Mrs Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO,

Mrs Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,

Mr David Rohde, Investigative journalist for Thomson Reuters,

Mr Christophe Deloire, Director General of Reporters Without Borders,

Mr Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,

Mrs Anne-Marie Capomaccio, Head of Office of Radio France Internationale in Washington.

  But now, it turns out, journalists are invited -- but cannot report on it. Araud's spokesman Frederic Jung sent this e-mail the night before the event:

"We have been advised that due to the specific format of this meeting, discussions will be held =off the record=, with no microphones or cameras."

  So France's event about "protection of journalists" will be "off the record, with no microphones or cameras." As they say... incroyable. Watch this site.

   

In Jordan, IPI Debates Who Is a Journalist As Corporate Media Lashes Out, Spoon-Fed at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- They gathered in Jordan in the shadow of the Syrian conflict and asked themselves, Who is a journalist?

  It was an opening session of the International Press Institute's "World Congress," and a range of attitudes, from self-serving to open, were on display, if only by twitter. (Tellingly, the event was not live-streamed, but hundreds of tweets from inside the Versailles-like hall conveyed the debate.)

  Corporate for-profit media is in hard times, and so it is important to them to circle the wagons and protect what's left of their monopoly, such the way lawyers and even doctors do, in the developed world.

  But others on the panel took a broader view. Laura Weffer Cifuentes from Venezuela focused on passion, calling journalism a "way of life." John Yearwood said simply that anyone involved in the mass distribution of news is a journalist. 

  What is mass, for example on Twitter? Five thousand followers? Or like some "professional" journalists, less than a thousand?

  Does typing up information spoon-fed by a public figure make you a journalist? At the UN, which Inner City Press covers in detail, does being a pass through from the views or even "scoops" of particular powerful countries' embassies make you a journalist?

  What is clear to Inner City Press is that big corporate mediacannot be the ones to decide who is a journalist. At the UN they have tried it, between Reuters and Agence France Presse and Voice of America - and at least for now it hasfailed. 

  But they continue to try, lobbying UN media accreditation official Stephane Dujarric (himself formerly of corporate media) to deny UN media space to the investigative Press.

  The moderator or main panelist was Jim Clancy from CNN. He recently spoke at the UN, where corporate media have tried to get others thrown out. It was raised to such paragons as the Committee to Protect Journalists, who did nothing. They are funded by the corporate media which tried to eject others. Something must be done.

  From the audience in Amman, a representative of the Ford Foundation (a "partner" of the endeavor) posited that it is the public who decides who is a journalist. But the professionals among them resisted, referring to education or membership in a union. Style over substance, form over function.

  There are acts of journalism, some less opinionated that others. To live tweet a Security Council debate is one thing. To find fresh information is another. To retype spoon-fed propaganda? We're not saying they don't have a place. But they can't define it. Watch this site.

As Ban Meets Rajoelina, No Follow Through on Security Abuse, Press Freedom

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- With Secretary General Ban Ki-moon slated to meet Madagascar's Andrei Rajoelina tomorrow afternoon, his UN's silence on attacks on the press and security forces' abuse in southern Madagascar speaks volumes.

  Back in May 2012, the UN was partnering with Rajoelina's Ministry of Communication to celebrate World Press Freedom Day in Madagascar. On this same day Reporters without Borders directly criticized the Minister of Communication for threatening to shut down Radio Free FM and for his part in the detention of 2 Free FM journalists.

  Then after evidence of abuse including gang rape and the burning of twenty-some villages in southern Madagascar emerged, the transitional prime minister -- whose place Rajoelina now reportedly seeks to take until he runs again in 2018 -- said an investigation would be launched. But has it?

 Sources tell Inner City Press that Rajoelina's agenda may be to seek Ban's support to change the order of elections to have legislative elections happen on May 8 rather than presidential elections. 

 Now that Rajoelina has given in to pressure and declared himself out of the running for president, there is public speculation that he wants to set up a stand-in to run for president in 2013 with Rajoelina as Prime Minister, then Rajoelina runs for president in 2018. Rajoelina has already declared his candidacy for 2018.

   France has publicly stated that it may support a candidate in Madagascar’s upcoming presidential election ("si nous encourageons une candidature, ce sera aussi discrètement que possible"). 

  Perhaps as part of this support, the new French ambassador recently declared that ousted-president Ravalomanana should not be allowed to return to his country before the election. 

  So France favors forced exile counter to Article 20 of the SADC roadmap for a way out of the crisis which states that Ravalomanana should be allowed to return to his country unconditionally. Vive la France.

  The UN's related laxity on press freedom and follow through on public commitments to investigations is become more and more pervasive. 

  Ban's chief of peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold the post, back in December said a probe of 126 rapes in Minova by the Congolese Army, his partners, would be finished by the end of January. But it has not been.

   Ladsous has overseen the same sleight of hand on the killing of internally displaced people in Cote d'Ivoire, along with envoy Bert Koenders. 

  Meanwhile Ladsous refuses to answer Press questions, and Ban's for-now partner on press issues, the UN Correspondents Association, has said nothing about Ladsous' stonewalling, choosing instead to go out into the hall with him for private briefings, video here.

   Ban's UN protects Ladsous, concealing even the few actions they take on his misdeeds. We'll have more on, this week. And tomorrow, as Ban meets Rajoelina. Watch this site.