As UN Senate Notes UN Is UNtransparent on Peacekeepers' Rapes, Ladsous Edits Central African Republic Report?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 9 -- When US Ambassador Samantha Power testified to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee about UN Peacekeeping on December 9, Senator Ben Cardin asked her about the lack of transparency in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeepers.

  Power replied that the issue will be taken up in the Security Council, sometime Inner City Press asked her about on December 1, see below. But there is more to be said. Of the delayed UN report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic, finally due this month, Inner City Press is told by well placed sources that the uncensored report strongly criticizes, or criticized, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous.

  This is inevitable: UN Dispute Tribunal rulings say Ladsous tried to get the whistleblower on the rapes, Anders Kompass, fired. More recently, Ladsous at a UN press conference linked the rapes to "R&R," video here.

  Ladsous demanded changes and additions to the report. But will its review by the Security Council - and if necessary, elsewhere - lead to the needed changes atop UN Peacekeeping? Watch this site.

 When Power held a press conference about Security Council's work on December 1 Inner City Press asked her about two items on her Program of Work: the use in Yemen of troops from Sudan.

 Inner City Press also asked Power about one item not yet listed on the month's Program: the twice-delayed UN report into how allegations of rape by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic were handled by the UN.  Video here and embedded below.

  Power spoke with passion about the latter topic, saying that during her recent trip to India she devoted a third of one of her speeches to the topic. Power said that the UN must repatriate accused troops, and that the troop contributing countries, including where applicable the US, must investigate and prosecute the allegations as if they had taken place in their own countries, against their own citizens.

   The report on CAR was announced on June 22 and was supposed to take ten weeks. Then it was delayed past the General Assembly high level debate week into November, then delayed again into December. Power said the US would like it taken up in the Security Council, whether considered in connection with CAR in the December program of work, or in January if it is not released until then.

   On the Saudi-led coalition's use of troops from Sudan in Yemen, Power said that it had to be acknowledged that Sudan's military violated the laws of war in South Sudan, in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, and in Darfur. She said the Saudi-led coalition was asked to be discerning. Inner City Press didn't have time to ask, but there are increasing reports that the United Arab Emirates is employing mercenaries from Colombia in Yemen.

We'll have more on this. For now, below is a fast transcription byInnerCityPro.com:


Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about two things. On the program of work you have Yemen, and you also have Sudan ICC, so I wanted to ask about something that brings them together, which is, the use of Sudanese troops in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition. Some people have said it’s sort of strange, given their record and the fact that the government of Sudan is under ICC indictment, for the use of these troops in Darfur; it seems like a funny part of the coalition in Yemen. So I wanted your thoughts on that.

And also, during the month of December, the long-delayed report on sexual abuse in CAR is supposed to come out. Do you think the Council, given the importance of this issue of peacekeepers and accountability, will the Council take it up? And what do you think, either personally or nationally, should happen?

Ambassador Power: On the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation, I did travel all the way to India and did give a speech, a third of which was dedicated to that topic because it is clear that whatever the notional zero tolerance policy that exists here, the spate of allegations is extremely disturbing and the loss of trust that results when civilians who are counting on the UN for protection begin to view them as predators, cannot be overstated. I think the Secretary General has taken a series of steps now that are aimed at filling some of the gaps that have existed. Fundamentally, if we don’t do what I sought to do on my visit overseas, and what we are now talking about bilaterally around the world, which is elevate the issue of accountability in capitals, every capital, including if US personnel were accused of carrying out these kinds of abuses. Where the accountability needs to exist in the first instance is of course at the UN, individuals need to be repatriated and an investigation needs to be launched. But fundamentally it is the member states that are going to need to take ownership of what their troops are doing in other countries, as if it was happening in one’s own country.

I don’t really have a comment on CAR. I don’t yet know in terms of how we will take it up. We do have, as I mentioned, a lot happening related to CAR. It’s possible we could combine discussion of the report. I think it depends on the precise timing. But if it isn’t in this month, it certainly is something that the United States will support discussing at the earliest possible occasion.

On Sudan and Yemen, first of all underscore that under the leadership in Khartoum the Sudnaese government has fought in a manner, whether it was against the South Sudanese people for many many years, or in Khordofan or Blue Nile over the last couple of years, God knows in Darfur, the manner in which Sudan has employed force has consistently ignored or violated international humanitarian law. There’s just no way around it. It is the use of indiscriminate weapons of war, and seemingly scant regard for civilian life. So we would be very concerned that any units that were involved in the kinds of atrocities we have seen in Darfur, on the ground or from the air, or those in other parts of Sudan, if they were involved elsewhere, and have encouraged the coalition to be extremely discerning and to make every effort to ensure that anything they are doing in Yemen is in compliance with IHL." [International Humanitarian Law]

   On Syria, Power said among other things that there are procedures in place to adjudge which groups are terrorists and which are not (State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner earlier in the day twice said that Al Nusra is a terrorist group).

  On North Korea, Power said that as much light as possible should be shed from outside the country. One wanted to ask, what could a trip by Ban Ki-moon at this time accomplish, but time did not allow.

   Inner City Press has been reporting extensively on Burundi, and on this subject Power said that a Security Council trip is still in the planning stages, but is unanimously supported by the Council's members. Yesterday Inner City Press reported, based on sources in the Council, that Angola expressed the position at least that a visit in December might be too soon.

Power answered about her trip to India, and mentioned her visit to Sri Lanka which came after that. Inner City Press hear from Lankan sources that a film crew accompanied Power into certain meetings; one awaits the broadcast.

  On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, as it did with last month's president Matthew Rycroft and his predecessors, Inner City Press asked Power to hold question and answer stakeouts after Council closed door consultations, “so we can learn what went on inside.” Power quipped that it is not all that interesting, which may most of the time be true. But at least we can ask. And we will. Watch this site.

With US Freedom of Information Act Reforms Blocked by Sen. Rockefeller, Silence by NYT, Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 7 -- With the window closing on a bill to improve the US Freedom of Information Act, and outgoing Democratic Senator from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller putting a block on the bill, S. 2520 (statement here), there's been little coverage by media like the New York Times and Reuters.

 Here is the official summary of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014:

FOIA Improvement Act of 2014 - Amends the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to: 

(1) require federal agencies to make agency records that can be disclosed under such Act available for public inspection in an electronic format, 

(2) limit the authority of an agency to charge a fee if the agency misses a deadline for complying with a FOIA request, 

(3) establish a presumption in favor of disclosure and prohibit the application of exemptions from FOIA based on technicalities, 

(4) expand the authority and duties of the Chief FOIA Officer of each agency for promoting compliance with the FOIA disclosure requirements, and 

(5) establish a Chief FOIA Officers Council to develop recommendations for increasing compliance with FOIA
requirements. Requires the head of each federal agency to: 

(1) review agency regulations and issue regulations for the disclosure of records in accordance with the amendments to FOIA made by this Act, and 

(2) include in such regulations procedures for engaging in dispute resolution through the FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services. Expands the program for the efficient management of federal agency records to require agency heads to establish procedures for: 

(1) identifying records of general interest or use to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and 

(2) posting such records in a publicly-accessible electronic format. Prohibits the authorization of additional funds to carry out the requirements of this Act.

 So where is the coverage of a single Senator blocking it, for example in the New York Times and Reuters?  

  Back in July, US Voice of America as propaganda was belatedly covered by the Times, but ignoring the role of VOA and its Broadcasting Board of Governors as censors, trying for example to get the investigative Press thrown out of the United Nations (where it and the Free UN Coalition for the Access are pushing for a FOIA for the UN. At the UN, Reuters is in the business of censoring information, such as its "for the record" complaint to the UN trying to get the investigative Press thrown out, via ChillingEffects.org, here.)

  The Times covered the House of Representative bill which Inner City Press panned in April, focusing on a split between the union and some who work at VOA.  

   Alongside the draft US law to further make "clear that the Voice of America mission is to support U.S. public diplomacy efforts," there are still claims that VOA currently is more independent than this.

   At the United Nations, this has hardly been the case.Significantly, Voice of America not only at the UN but from its Washington headquarters, in a formal complaint submitted to the current UN spokesman by editor Steve Redisch with the approval of supervisor David Ensor, asked the UN to "review the accreditation" of the investigative Press, click here for that.

  In e-mails subsequently obtained by Inner City Press under the Freedom of Information Act, the VOA bureau chief sought and said she had obtained support for censorship from the United Nations Correspondents Association and the bureau chiefs of Agence France Presse and Reuters, here, here and then here (censorship under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

  Back on January 8, with Voice of America's Broadcasting Board of Governors still not having addressed censorship bids by VOA which it oversees, President Obama nominated to the BBG Michael W. Kempner, a founder of New Jersey's ConnectOne Bancorp and a bundler of campaign contributions.

   We asked and ask again, why does the US government need a propaganda network, and why turn it loose inside the US? And why would its BBG, after first granting Freedom of Information Act access and fee waivers then try to reverse all this after the documents released proved embarrassing?

  After that, BBG's FOIA Officer Andrew Krog suspended processing in the October 2013 government "funding lapse;" then Appeals Access Committee chair Marie Lennon denied access to any documents about taxpayer funded BBG programming in Sudan and Afghanistan (see below.)

This is one example of why the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014 is needed.

 Back on July 2, 2013, Inner City Press published a short critique of Voice of America and its Broadcasting Board of Governors, here.

  In the three days that followed, mail poured in providing yet more detailed accounts of BBG and Voice of America incompetence and assaults on the principles they supposedly uphold. 

  The union that represents workers there, AFGE Local 1812, has written that

“poor morale was made markedly worse by a decision in 2010 to re-appoint the present newsroom director [Sonja Pace]. A correspondent since the 1980’s, she had been reassigned from the position of news chief more than a decade earlier. Fast forward to 2010: An audio recording of an open meeting in VOA’s newsroom shows that strong protests against the reappointment of the former news director were dismissed by VOA's Executive Editor [Steve Redisch] a former CNN employee. In the recording, the Executive Editor rejected staff concerns, saying 'you’re responsible for your own morale.' Though he has known of the morale crisis in VOA’s Central News Division created by the 2010 decision, current VOA director David Ensor has allowed this situation to continue.”

  Inner City Press in 2012 had its own experience of these three individuals. VOA's Executive Editor Steve Redisch wrote to the UN asking that Inner City Press' accreditation be “reviewed.”

  The only communication Inner City Press had received from VOA or BBG in Washington prior to this was from Sonja Pace, that “regarding VOA’s Charter and Code, we absolutely stand by those mandates and guidelines, without exception.”

  Apparently Voice of America's principles don't include the First Amendment. Subsequent inquiring under the Freedom of Information Act found David Ensor involved in the decision to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. Ensor served the US State Department in Afghanistan and perhaps re-formed his view of press freedom there.

  In mid 2013, the Obama administration nominated former Afghanistan envoy Ryan Crocker to join the thenhalf-empty Broadcasting Board of Governors, along with John Kerry, while claiming that the output under the BBG is entirely independent from the US government. This is not credible.

  The Colombia Journalism Review, with its own conflicts, has made this point, and BBG has belatedly responded. Will any of this finally bring accountability? Watch this site.

  

On Iran P5+1, Could A Deal Be Undermined Like IMF Reform in US Senate?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 21 -- With foreign ministers flying in and out of Vienna for the Iran P5+1 talks ahead of the November 24 deadline, one has to wonder: even if an agreement is reached, would US Congress action on sanctions undermine or unravel it?

  To Inner City Press, which also covers the International Monetary Fund, it is analogous to "IMF quota reform," something that the Obama administration agreed to but which has yet to be implemented due to lack of US Senate approval.

  Back in March the Obama administration tried to use the situation in Ukraine and Crimea to strong-arm the Senate into approving IMF reform. That didn't work, and it's dubious that things would be easier in the case of Iran. 

  While the type of up-front UN Senate approval needed for IMF quota reform may not be required in the case of the Iran nuclear talks, there are several things Congress could do, particularly with the changes coming in on January 1. We'll have more on this.

Back on October 27 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights. 

  Last year Inner City Press obtained and exclusively published an internal OHCHR plan to take over the "rule of law" functions of the rest of the UN system, and the staffing of the Special Representatives on Children and Armed Conflict, Sexual Violence and Conflict, R2P and the Prevention of Genocide.What has happened on that? Are rapporteurs, like sanctions monitors, still not given any training or orientation by the UN?

Footnote: on October 27, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

On Iran's Nominee as UN Rep, UN Dodged on Host Country, Now Voice Vote in US Senate

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 7, 2014 -- What does the US' Host Country agreement with the UN mean? On April 3, Inner City Press asked: 

Inner City Press: a lot of the discussions has been in the US Congress that they would have a right to bar a country’s Permanent Representative from coming to New York, can you say generally whether the Host Country Agreement between the UN and the US requires the US to allow in diplomats to attend UN meetings or to represent their country at the UN?  Is that what it requires?

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Well, I would just refer you to the text of the Host Country Agreement.  At this point, like I said, this is something to be dealt with bilaterally and we’ll leave it to them.  If this needs to involve the Host Country Agreement, we’ll have to see at that stage.

 Now after that dodge, the US Senate by a voice vote says it is barring Iran's nominee as ambassador. The New York Times reports it, but does not get into the Host Country agreement. 

  But under that, even Serbia's Milosevic came to 42nd Street, as did Sri Lanka's Mahinda Rajapaksa. Does this mean the US or the US Congress endorsed them?

  With the Iran nuclear P5+1 talks now resuming in Vienna, a US Senior Administration Official on April 4 told the press they are "on pace" to begin "drafting in May."

  But what about the US position on Iran's reported new Permanent Representative to the UN, about whom Inner City Press asked the UN on April 3? (The UN called it "bilateral" and would not comment on the US' duties under the UN Host Country Agreement).

  The US Senior Administration Official called the reported nomination troubling, but would not say how it may impact the P5+1 process. 

  Nor would the Official comment on moves to impose non-nuclear sanctions on Iran pitched by Eliot Engel (D-NY) here. The official declined comment on yet unseen legislation.

  There are also unseen transactions, only rumored, like a $20 billion oil for goods deal between Iran and Russia. Concern was expressed, but there is no evidence the deal is taking place.

  So: on pace to begining drafting in May? We'll see.

   Way back in October, the spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Michael Mann, canceled a briefing for journalists in Geneva covering those talks. His Twitter feed went silent for 15 hours in the middle of the talks, after Ashton's belated condemnation of a deadly attack on UN peacekeepers in Darfur four days previous.

  Inner City Press asked if this was "on delay." The document Mann linked to does not even MENTION Darfur or UNAMID.

  Inner City Press noted the incongruity, for example, of Reuters covering the Geneva talks with four separate scribes even as editor Stephen Adler speaks of five percent newsroom cuts. (Perhaps relatedly, as Fars got scoops Reuters tweeted the price of hamburgers in Geneva. It is true,as this internal UN post-Sri Lanka proposal exclusively published Friday by Inner City Press puts it, that New York is viewed as a cheaper "duty station" than Geneva.)

 But Iran is the big one for Reuters: at the UN in New York, they festooned their office door proudly with copies of complaints about their reporting from Iran's Mission to the UN. Was this for gumshoe reporting or simply getting leaks from the UK and France?

  (The irony of Reuters and leaks is that the agency's UN bureau chief has used a Digital Millennium Copyright Act filing, here, to get Google to ban from its search a leaked copy of the Reuters chief's "on the record"anti-Press complaint to the UN, with the same strategy Erodgan used to declare his leaked phone calls "copyrighted.")

  In Geneva back in October, a first scoop came from Iran's Fars agency. As noted, when Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York, the only journalists who went up to Ban's 38th floor office to cover it were with Iranian media and Inner City Press.

  Up there, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif quipped to UN Syria envoy Lakhdar Brahimi that he would see him soon in Tehran. Downstairs, the so-called UN Correspondents Association used UN resources to celebrate themselves, having hosted a faux UN briefing by Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba. This is how it works -- UNCA or its first vice president from Reuters also in essence spy for the UN, click here for story, audio, document. This has yet to be explained.

It is at the level of foreign ministers that Iran wants the November talks. There are sure to be questions to the US State Department's Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, present at the talks, about this. Harf was tweeting, even as other parts of the US State Department said they stopped, including on theUN Security Council's recent Africa trip, due to or to highlight the US government shutdown. Ah, politics. Watch this site.

   

On Ukraine, IMF Defers Most Press Questions on Quota Reform While Mission “In Field,” Hungary Insiders?

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON, March 13 – The day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on.

  The IMF visit to Ukraine should end tomorrow, so we'll see – on Sudan and South Sudan as well: responses will be published upon receipt.

  In another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

On DR Congo, UN Still Won't Say When - Or If - It Will Go After Hutu FDLR Militia, Day After Feingold Testified Should Be "Soon" - Credibility?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 27 -- The day after US Special Envoy on the Great Lakes Russ Feingold called for the UN to "soon" neutralize the Hutu FDLR militia, for its own credibility, Inner City Press asked the UN spokesperson when this will start.

   Spokesperson Martin Nesirky responded that he would not answer about "operational activities that have not yet started and that might not start." Given previous UN statements that it was only a question of "when," this "might not start" line triggered a follow up question.

   Will the UN in fact only go after the FDLR if the Congolese Army does so? Spokesperson Nesirky said that "there is always going to be a level of coordination," and that "this is turning into a little bit of an interview here." But shouldn't the questions be answered? Particularly with Ban Ki-moon attending a "Kwibuka 20" memorial to the Rwanda genocide on the afternoon of February 27?

   Also in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 25,  not only Feingold and Ben Affleck testified -- they were joined by former UN envoy Roger Meece.

  When Meece was in charge of the UN Mission MONUSCO, there were questions including raised by Ambassador Susan Rice about failing to protect the victims of the Walikale mass rapes, following by a failed project Inner City Press dubbed "Meece's mills."

  Affleck on February 26 praised Meece's tenure at MONUSCO, perhaps being diplomatic -- but he also called for MONUSCO to sunset, to at long last finish. It's similar to calls in Haiti that the MINUSTAH mission be dissolved and the funds be devoted to combating the cholera the UN brought to the island.

   Affleck talked up a kind of organic chocolate bar -- for sale at Whole Foods, he added -- calling it the "magic of capitalism." This goes over big in the US Senate; Senator Flake called it bipartisan, and both sides (and Affleck) praised Cindy McCain.

  Back on February 25, "Sexual Violence in Conflict" was the topic of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his UK counterpart William Hague. One hoped for an update on or at least mention of the more than 100 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012.

   Instead the news was Kerry saying that there will be no US visas for those who perpetrate or order sexual violence in conflict zones. 

  OK, here's a place to start: the US-trained 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army FARDC, which took part in the mass rape at Minova.

   That was more than 14 months ago, and yet at today's press conference by the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO, it was reported that in the already delayed interview of victims in Minova, interviewers spoke with barely a quarter of the more than 200 listed victims. Still no justice. So will there be visas? This is a test case -- for outcome if any of the Affleck - Kerry - Russ Feingold talks as well.

  Yesterday's Kerry - Hague transcript mentioned "DRC" five times, and "Congo" three, but there was nothing on Minova. Instead, the implication is that all the rapes in Eastern Congo are by the M23 -- not the FDLR, much less the Congolese Army, which the US supports.

  In fact the 391st Battalion, one of two charged with the Minova rapes, was trained by the United States. (Click here for comment the US Mission to the UN provided to Inner City Press, which also first reported that Ambassador Samantha Power raised Minova to Joseph Kabila in October.) 

  So maybe a Minova update next time? Or on February 26, when Kerry meets Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold as well as Ben Affleck? From the February 25 transcript

Secretary of State Kerry: "In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts."

  Back on January 13, after UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council about "the need to address ill-discipline within the [Congolese Army] FARDC and National Police and to pursue all outstanding cases of misconduct," Inner City Press asked him about the FARDC's mass rapes at Minova in November 2012. 

  Kobler acknowledged that the most recent hearing in the Minova case had been postponed, that witness statements have still not been taken. Video here, from Minute 6:32. 

  Given that the UN says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy of not supporting army units engaged in abuses, how much longer will the UN accept this? Thirteen months and counting.

  Perhaps relatedly, after rumors of the death of Rwanda's Paul Kagame were shot down, across the border in the Eastern Congo, a time-stamped photograph was tweeted of a UN truck full of people on the back, captioned "MONUSCO in Goma celebrating the death of Pres Paul Kagame."

  It seemed worth asking the UN mission chief Martin Kobler to comment on or explain the photograph, and Inner City Press sent this, to Kobler and three MONUSCO spokespeople:

"Please comment on / explain this time-stamped photo, which is being described as a UN truck participating in "celebrations" of the rumor of the Rwandan president's death. Do you dispute that the photo was taken on January 10? To whom is the UN giving a ride in this truck / photo? In what context?"

   After a time, UN envoy Kobler replied:

"@innercitypress Ceci apparait de toute évidence comme une utilisation frauduleuse d'un véhicule de la #Monusco. C'est inacceptable"

  Translated: "This appears clearly as a fraudulent use of a vehicle of the #Monusco. This is unacceptable."

(Translation not by Google, not only because of NSA spying issues but also acquiescence in Digital Millennium Copyright Act abuse by Reuters UN bureau, click here for that.)

  The question became, now what does Kobler, or those above him in New York, do?  

  Inner City Press on January 10 went to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's press conference, 11 am in New York, to ask this question: "in the DRC this morning, after false rumors of Paul Kagame being dead, a MONUSCO truck was photographed in what some call celebrations and Martin Kobler told me is "unacceptable." What do you think your UN should do about this, in terms of the perception of impartiality or bias by the UN?"

  But Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq did not call on Inner City Press, instead automatically giving the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association(a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), then mostly questions soft on the UN about Syria.

  Next came spin from MONUSCO, e-mailed to the Press:

Fraudulent use of MONUSCO truck in Goma

Kinshasa, 10 January 2014 - MONUSCO is aware of a photo being circulated on the internet showing a MONUSCO truck in Goma during a demonstration.

In reality, the truck was taken over by demonstrators while on a regular mission. The driver was alone and unarmed when the incident happened. MONUSCO condemns this agressivity against its assets.

MONUSCO has launched a full investigation to ascertain the circumstances and the context surrounding the incident. 

  But how does the UN explain, then, this UN jeep or Four by Four in this longer video of the anti-Kagame protests, from Minute 1:04 to 1:54? http://youtu.be/L9EPcUOpT1M

 On January 13, Inner City Press asked Kobler about the two vehicles. He said that both had been taken over, which now seems to mean that the UN drivers remained in the vehicles, carrying the protesters, on the single road from Sake to Munigi, through Goma.

  Kobler said the drivers were unarmed, but even if armed would not have tried to get the demonstrators off, at least not be using force. He said the protesters got off or disappeared out by the Uruguayan peacekeepers' base by the airport. There is more than a little skepticism. But that is what Kobler said: video here, from Minute 6:32.

   Watch this site.
   

On Syria, Brahimi to Russia for G20, William Hague Meets Saudi's Jarba, UN and UK Race for Relevance

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 5 -- To work the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Russia trying desperately to save the long-promised Geneva Two talks on Syria, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has announced envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is on his way to St. Petersburg.

Brahimi when last seen, other than through a dubious Twitter account, was saying more clearly than Ban had or has that military action on Syria must go through the UN Security Council. (Click here for Inner City Press story on that.) Will that be his message to the US and France at the G20 meeting?

Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Jarba has been calling for air strikes, disappointed to even wait for process in the US Congress, where the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted "Yes," 10-7, on September 4.

In the UK, where such action on Syria was roundly voted down, Foreign Secretary William Hague meets today with Jarba. Why not just talk with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal? After losing in the House of Commons, the David Cameron - Nick Clegg government is in its own Race for Relevance.

  Jarba when last seen in New York was in a faux "UN briefing" publicized only to those who paid money, held in a third floor room the UN gives to its UN Correspondents Association (now under Pamela Falk of CBS known as the UN Censorship Alliance, yesterday trying to block or exclude a question that rebels may have used chemical weapons in Syria, click here.) Also this (Reuters as spy) story, audio, document.

  Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN whether this for-pay session by Jarba (a/k/a Jarbucks) could legitimately be called a "UN briefing" -- still without any answer. In its Race for Relevance, this UN will do almost anything. Watch this site.