UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- After the UN Security Council's open meeting about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the UN Mission there on March 19, DRC Foreign Minister Raymond Tshibanda told Inner City Press that the UN had given waivers and worked on Itura and against the Lord's Resistance Army with the two Congolese generals it now refuses to support to fight the FDLR militia.
This give rise to the question, if the UN Security Council says neutralizing the FDLR is so important, why is MONUSCO or DPKO in New York applying a more strict standard for UN support to this fight than they did to the fight against the LRA?
When UN Security Council President for March Francois Delattre of France emerged after Council consultations, Inner City Press asked him just this.
Delattre's answer, video here, was about the UN's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, but did not explain why a waiver was sought and granted for the LRA fight, and now not to fight the FDLR.
From the French Mission to the UN's transcript:
Inner City Press : On the due diligence policy, the foreign Minister Tshibanda here said that the two generals had issued that MONUSCO had previously worked with them in Ituri and on the LRA. So, some people are left wondering, if fighting the FDLR is so important, why was a waiver given to other fight and not for this one ? Despite how important the policy is. What has changed that MONUSCO can’t find a way to be involved or fight the FDLR directly ?
A: Here, our understanding is that, as you said, this question is really part of the UN human rights due diligence policy. This policy has been in place in DRC for many years and has proven its usefulness to ensure that all military operations in DRC are conducted in accordance with human rights and international humanitarian law. So we have a framework here and we fully support this policy in DRC and elsewhere by the way.
Inner City Press began to ask this follow-up on the waiver but was cut off. While others spin, we will continue with this question - watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- UN Peacekeeping's refusal under Herve Ladsous to support operations against the Hutu FDLR militia was exposed on March 19.
UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council that the UN suspended its participation and support against the FDLR due to the inclusion of "officers who formerly commanded units with a credible history of human rights violations."
But then Congolese Foreign Minister Raymond Tshibanda told Inner City Press that the UN had in the past worked with the two generals at issue, in Ituri, and against the Lords Resistance Army.
Inner City Press went to the March 19 UN noon briefing and asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about this. Haq said to ask Kobler.
At the Security Council stakeout, after a question by Reuters that did not ask about this previous UN support of the generals, which undermines its coverage, Inner City Press asked Kobler directly if the UN had supported the two generals in the past.
Yes, Kobler admitted, saying even that there was a UN waiver in those cases.
Inner City Press asked the obvious question: if UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous claims despite history that it is committed to neutralizing the FDLR as it did the M23, why wasn't the case treated as important as Ituri, with waiver or otherwise?
Back on February 6 after the UN claimed to be jointly fighting the FDLR rebels with the Congolese Army FARDC, then to be supporting the FARDC to do so, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric more questions, and he said "the military actual fighting has not, as far as we know, has not commenced." Video here.
This has been reiterated repeatedly by the UN: no action has been take by the FARDC against the FDLR. Nevertheless once again on February 23 Reuters made it appear that the Congolese Army under Joseph Kabila IS fighting the FDLR, with no mention of UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' history and seeming double game. With two editors, Reuters"reports" that
"President Joseph Kabila said last week that the operation had started without MONUSCO. A government spokesman said Congo "renounces, in the most official manner, the support of MONUSCO to track the FDLR. We are going to track them alone."
So, did the operations start? On February 23, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric:
Inner City Press: On DRC. The Radio Okapi which I understand is a UN-supported media in the Congo has reported abuses about the FDLR in and around Lubero. Since I would assume that means that MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] is aware of them and it’s been said that they have a protection of civilians mandate totally outside of the neutralization of the FDLR, has MONUSCO done anything about these UN essentially reported —
Spokesman Dujarric: Valid question. I have not gotten an update from MONUSCO today, but we will try to extract one.
Five hours later, nothing. On February 18, Inner City Press asked Dujarric the question of why Herve Ladsous' MONUSCO has not itself taken action on the FDLR:
Inner City Press: A spokesman for the Congolese Government, Lambert Mende, has said that MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] is free to do its own operation against FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda]. He says that the Government has nothing against that. And I know that it's come up that, somehow, the UN, because of its stated human rights concerns is not going to work with the Government to go after the FDLR. But, if the Government there is essentially giving its consent, what am I missing? Why isn't the UN doing what was said it would do following 2 January?
Spokesman: I would… I would check with the Mission itself. I have nothing to say from here.
The UN - and Ladsous, given his history - SHOULD have something to say.
On February 17, Inner City Press asked again, "Are you aware of any action taken by the Congolese Army against FDLR? Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq replied, "I'm not aware of offensive military operations, no."
It 'reports' that "'The next step is the dispatch of formal letters to the relevant Congolese authorities concerning the cessation of support to the FARDC in these anti-FDLR operations,' said the U.N. official."
What anti-FDLR actions? Tellingly, the story doesn't even purport to give a reason for according the "UN official" anonymity.
So what is Reuters' policy on granting anonymity? Shouldn't the reason be stated? Reuters has previously refused to explain basic policies - including on censorship like this.
This Reuters series, praising the UN for "pausing" or suspending action against the FDLR that never even began, is affirmatively misleading. UN Peacekeeping hands faux secrets to Reuters in exchange for positive, uncritical coverage.
On February 11, Inner City Press asked Spokesman Dujarric about this Reuters "exclusive" on a spoonfed quote: how can something that never began be paused? February 11 video here. There is as yet no answer.
Inner City Press: I want to know whether the UN can say whether the FARDC has, in fact, begun any operations against the FDLR. And you read the resolution and it says “unilateral”. It says that the MONUSCO can take action as it did on M23 [23 March Movement], and so, I'm wondering, are there preparations to do just that?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Well, that same resolution 2147 (2014), also spells out the phrase “consent of all parties”, and that's an important phrase for us. MONUSCO will act under the instruction of the Security Council, like I said. It's got the technical capacities. It has sufficient enablers and is well-trained and it has well-trained and well-equipped professional peacekeepers to conduct such an operation successfully. If there's any UN operation to be taken against the FDLR, it would have to be taken in line with international humanitarian law. In this regard, contingency plans are being reviewed...
Inner City Press: And is there a FARDC action yet? Sorry. I just wanted to get back to that. Are you aware of any action taken by the Congolese Army against FDLR?
Deputy Spokesman: I'm not aware of offensive military operations, no.
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a self-described senior UN official had said they have laid down an ultimatum as to two generals that are leading the Congolese stated fight against the FDLR [Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda]. And today Lambert Mende, spokesman of the Government, has said that they reject these ultimatums and so I wanted to know, the way it’s described is that the UN — I’ve been asking you here, but obviously something was said elsewhere in the building to some that the ultimatum is until 13 February or they would forfeit MONUSCO’s support to the operation. So I wanted — I don’t think it’s an operational detail. I want to know: Has the UN been providing support to units of the FARDC [Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo] engaged with the FDLR? Which units are those? And would it, in fact — will it now, given this statement, be suspended?
Spokesman Dujarric: A couple of things. First of all, my understanding from here is that the FARDC operations have not commenced in terms of the military operations. The discussions regarding the human rights issues that we’ve raised about the two generals are ongoing and they’re ongoing in Kinshasa.
Inner City Press: Right. But can you react — the spokesman for the Government has said we will only replace them if there is…
Spokesman: Well, I did hear your question. My reaction is that the discussions are ongoing in Kinshasa.
Inner City Press: One last thing because I’ve seen there have been various statements about the actions have already started. “We welcome the action.” “We are fleeing the action.” Do you know… [overlapping talking]
Spokesman: I’m just saying, my understanding is the military actual fighting has not, as far as we know, has not commenced. The operation is under way. But obviously, we understand that the actual — there’s been no actual fighting reported as of yet.
Inner City Press: Why can’t we get DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) on the record to speak about this matter?
Spokesman: Well, I think as I said this is a — this operation is being led from — our support for the operation is being led from the field, and I think the questions will be answered there.
Inner City Press: Was a senior official here in the building or—
Spokesman: You know what? The one thing we do have a lot of here are senior UN officials. Thank you.
On February 5, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq when Inner City Press asked if ANY support from the UN is being given, did not say Yes. Video here.
Ladsous did this on the Congolese Army rapes in Minova, using the same scribes; he is preparing the same scam to explain his mission's covering up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, Sudan (more on this to come).
"The United Nations has threatened to withdraw support for a planned Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) military campaign against Rwandan rebels if the government does not remove two generals accused of human rights abuses by the end of next week, a senior U.N. official said on Wednesday. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the world body has told Congolese Foreign Minister Raymond Tshibanda: 'If you keep these guys we're not going to be in a position to support you ... get these people out.'"
Inner City Press: Since it's UN Social Media Day, MONUSCO 46 minutes ago said that — I'll say it in French: Les operations militaires contre les #FDLR, lancées hier jeudi, seront dirigées et planifiées conjointement par la #MONUSCO et les FARDC. So unless I'm misunderstanding this, they're claiming that it's a joint operation, “conjointement”, on their Twitter feed. I wanted to know, why would they be doing that, given what you've just said?
Spokesman: I think without going into a deep analysis of French and English, which you obviously are able to do and I couldn't try to keep up with you, I think it is a different characterization maybe, a different use of words, but I think the point is that it's an FARDC-led operation with the support of the UN.
On February 2, Inner City Press asked Dujarric more specifically,video here,
"The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo threatened in 2013 to withdraw support for two Congolese battalions accused of involvement in the mass rape. The mission decided to keep working with the battalions after 12 senior officers, including the commanders and deputy commanders, were suspended and about a dozen soldiers were charged over the rapes in Minova."
This is propaganda -- only two lower ranking soldiers were convicted. The Reuters implication is that Ladsous' DPKO is tough on human rights: false.
On January 22 Ladsous made a speech about freedom of the press in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thursday to the US Security Council, and made excuses for not acting to “neutralize” the Hutu FDLR rebels as the UN did the largely Tutsi M23.
Then Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout, ostensibly to take questions.
Inner City Press asked, “On the neutralization of the FDLR, what is the hold up?”
Ladsous said "I don't respond to your questions, Mister." Video hereand embedded below.
Then Ladsous turned and gave the question to Reuters, the same trolling correspondent. When that back and forth was over, Inner City Press asked if any of the countries in the UN's Force Intervention Brigade are well than willing to attack the FDLR, as senior diplomats at the UN have told Inner City Press.
Ladsous refused to answer this question, and gestured that Ban Ki-moon's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler, standing behind Ladsous at the stakeout, shouldn't answer it either. Reuters took or was given another question, distancing the FDLR from genocide.
(One can only imagine the advise this “communications professional” is giving Ladsous. Perhaps he can help Ladsous address his history with Hutu groups as evidence in this memo. These are Press questions.)
UNITED NATIONS, November 11 -- Now that the UN has used attack helicopters to drive out the M23 rebels, and the Congolese Army is reported arresting and even robbing civilians in the area, the government of Joseph Kabila declined to sign the peace agreement on Monday in Kampala.
But now that Kabila and his foreign minister Raymond Tshibanda say they want only a "declaration," Ban's two envoys, Mary Robinson and Martin Koblers, along with the US' Russ Feingold and his EU and AU counterparts called on both sides to be flexible on "format." So much for the UN's expectations.
And what of the UN's inquiries, which took so long (and still without effect) on the 135 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova a year ago? On November 11, Inner City Press asked:
Spokesperson Nesirky: Thank you, last question, please?
Inner City Press: I want to ask you about DRC ( Democratic Republic of the Congo) and also Lebanon. In the DRC there are these reports--
Spokesperson Nesirky: I said last question, so choose.
Inner City Press: I’ll go with the DRC, but… There are reports of people being arrested by the Congolese army in Kiwanja and in Bunagana for suspected collaboration with M23 (23 March Movement), these are apparently civilians that weren’t part of the armed group. What is MONUSCO (United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), is MONUSCO aware of this? Are they tracking this and what do they say about it?
Spokesperson Nesirky: We’ll check with the Mission. Thanks very much. Have a good afternoon.
Later on Monday, as Ban Ki-moon told the General Assembly of "good news from the Democratic Republic of the Congo" where he said it is "essential that the Government quickly restore its authority," his spokesperson sent this to Inner City Press:
Subject: Your question at noon on the DRC From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding your question on reports about reprisals in Bunagana and Kiwanja, the UN Mission, MONUSCO, is aware of the allegations and is trying to verify them.
Verify like Minova? And then what - continue to support the FARDC units even while no one is prosecuted?
From the November 6 transcript:
Inner City Press: Laurent Mende, the Minister of Information and Communications, has said the DRC Government may not sign the Kampala agreement and instead just issue some kind of a statement, a unilateral statement. They are saying now that since they were defeated militarily, there is no reason to sign an agreement and I wondered, since the announcement by M23 seemed tied to a signing of an agreement, does the UN believe that the understanding is that an agreement will actually be signed by the two parties?
Deputy Spokesperson Haq: I am not going to speculate on what may happen in the coming days, but our expectation remains that the parties will be able to deal with each through an actual agreement.
And now, even that UN position changes. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, October 5 -- The UN Security Council is in Kinshasa and there is a lot of happy talk. As of Friday night it was unclear if President Joseph Kabila would hold a direct meeting with the Council. By Saturday some Council diplomats were tweeting about Kabila's speech to the closing of the national consultation, and noting that they or the UN received applause.
It's nice. But what does it mean? If the SADC Intervention Brigade had killed more M23, or even just Rwandaphones, the Council members might be applauded. Would that be good?
In 2013 many of the diplomats are doing their own tweeting, which is all to the good. Shocking is that the journalists that France hand-picked for the trip have send out NOTHING.
The second was about child soldiers, a swipe at Rwanda. Maybe that's why Reuters will finally start reporting: to trash Rwanda and focus only on the M23, nothing on the FDLR.
The Security Council wouldn't get applause in Kinshasa for that part of the report. So should they not have reported it?
Voice of America's last tweets are not even about news - they are about the UN Correspondents Association, through which VOA tried to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, citing its coverage of Sri Lanka and, yes, France and the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, with his own troubling history in the Great Lakes region, here.
Could that be why they were hand picked by France for this trip, which some for that reason call France's Genocide Joyride. But report, at least.
Inner City Press has asked the UN if there will be any meetings with opposition in the DRC, and to name the civil society groups to be met with in Goma. The UN won't respond - but Rwanda's foreign minister sent a response, about her countries hope for the trip.
But apparently some in the Council, and UN, measure the success of their trip by what applause they got. That is not the measure. Watch this site.
Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson Martin Nesirky on camera admitted that the decision on which media would be allowed to go on and cover the UNSC's Africa trip was made "in consultation" with the lead mission for the trip: France. Inner City Press YouTube channel video here:http://youtu.be/N_nn8lToeUU
This was sent to Inner City Press:
From: Jerome Bernard [at] un.org Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Security Council trip to Africa To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress [dot] com Cc: Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info
Hi Matthew,
I am sorry but because of the very limited number of seats in the UN plane it won't be possible for you to travel with the Security Council for this trip to the Great Lakes Region of Africa.
I am sure there will be other opportunities for travel in the future.
Best regards,
Jerome Bernard Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General
Inner City Press was told that Bernard would be providing information from the trip. Then not. Watch this site.
Given the mass killing of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and events since, this line was quickly seen, including by diplomats from UN Missions including that of the United States, but only not for attribution, as hate speech or worse.
Inner City Press went to the UN's July 26 noon briefing and put the question to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's outgoing spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey:
Inner City Press: Yesterday, possibly even while this briefing was taking place, the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in his prepared remarks that he read in the Security Council, said that rebellions in the Great Lakes region all bear a similar genetic signature. And many people have seen this as a problematic statement given the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and its ethnic basis. And so what I wanted to know is, the Secretariat, do they have any comment on the use of what some people see as hate speech inside the Great Lakes meeting of the UN Security Council?
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: No, we’re not going to comment on that, Matthew. If people find it offensive, it’s up to them to take it up with the Congolese authorities.
This hands-off approach stands in contrast to cases in which Ban Ki-moon has chosen to criticize comments, like those questioning who did Nine Eleven, about about the Boston bombing, by what Ban described as an independent special rapporteur. Given the resonance of genetic signature to genocide and the number of people killed, why take this approach here? Convenience?
Outside the US Mission to the UN on July 25, Inner City Press asked Secretary of State John Kerry about his Congolese counterpart's reference to "genetic signature." Kerry stopped and ask for clarification, then replied that he heard the Congolese minister's comment. He was chairing the meeting.
A similar question, including on the Intervention Brigade slated to be run by Frenchman Herve Ladsous in Eastern Congo, has gone entirely unresponded to by four French Mission spokespeople, including Frederic Jung.
The UK has told Inner City Press they are looking into the questions with their DRC expert. Still, delegates from other UN and Security Council members marvel at what was said, and the lack of response. "They want to pretend they're solving things there, so they just let it go," one said.
To be fair, Inner City Press asked a member of the Congolese delegation about the comment, expect to have its meaning spun as has to done to Inner City Press on Twitter. But the Congolese delegate told Inner City Press, No, that was exactly what we intended, we did not want to say it more directly. And even then -- would Ban, or Kerry, or the French or UK mission, have responded to any way? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, July 25 -- In the UN Security Council Thursday morning, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's foreign minister Raymond Tshibanda said that rebellions in the Great Lakes region for years have "all bear the same genetic signature" (la meme signature genetique).
Given the mass killing of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and events since, this line was quickly seen -- mostly by people outside of the UN -- as hate speech or worse.
Inner City Press wrote to the top three spokespeople of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who was present during the remarks, and asked if Ban (or his envoy Mary Robinson, also present) "have any comment on the DRC foreign minister having said in the Security Council that all Great Lakes rebellions 'bear the same genetic signature'? "
Inner City Press wrote to two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN, where John Kerry will meet with Syrian rebels later on Thursday, asking if Kerry or new US Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold or Acting Permanent Representative DiCarlo, all present in the Security Council Thursday, have any comment on the DRC foreign minister having said in the Security Council that all Great Lakes rebellions 'bear the same genetic signature'?"
Kerry made what some described as a slip of the tongue at Thursday's photo op with Ban Ki-moon, saying (as transcribed by the US Mission) that "both leaders in the region, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, have made a courageous decision to try to return to final status talks. And it's my hope that that will be able to happen as procedures are put in place by both countries in order to empower that."
Some were surprised Kerry referred to Palestine as a country (it is, we note, an Observer STATE at the UN.) But Kerry's remarks were off the cuff. Tshibanda's "genetic signature" statement was in a prepared speech, which Inner City Press is putting online here. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- How low will UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous go to sweep under the carpet the 126 rapes in Minova by its partners in the Congolese Army?
How far will media “partners” go in helping Ladsous claim he got assurances that he refuses to disclose, even to them?This far.
On March 28 Inner City Press asked at the noon briefing about the rapes. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky said a deadline for action of April 1 had been set, and had been reiterated by Ladsous to Congolese foreign minister Tshibanda on March 27.
After midnight Inner City Press wrote to Del Buey and to Nesirky, on European time in Andorra with Ban Ki-moon, asking what the assurances were, or what the UN would do.Neither sent any answer.
So at noon Inner City Press asked Del Buey again. He reiterated the previous day's comment, that assurances were given but he would not or could not say what they were.
