New Zealand UN Mission Twitter Q&A Replies on Boko Haram & Climate, Not on Burundi Not To Some From NZ

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- As he took over the Presidency of the UN Security Council for the month of July, New Zealand's Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard van Bohemen on July 2 held a Twitter Q&A. Many questions, some answers. A beginning.

  Inner City Press asked repeatedly, what happened with or to the Burundi draft Press Statement van Bohemen had referred to earlier on July 2, video here. That question was not answered.

 But another Inner City Press question, about whether the UN will support the fight of the regional Multi-National Joint Task Force against Boko Haram, was responded to by van Bohemen: "Good question. #BokoHaram will likely be discussed in consultations on @UN_UNOWA next week. SRSG Chambas to brief."

  While diplomatically calling that one a "good question," van Bohemen called it a "great question" for a UN staffer to ask what the wooden (Kiwi) bird in the Mission's photos was.

  Likewise, the UN Mission of Lithuania (on the Security Council with New Zealand) was answered, and first; Jordan (also on the Council) was re-tweeted.

  While @350nz's question was answered, some other questions from New Zealand went UNanswered, for example:

"How will NZ meet its commitments to UNSCR 1325 & use #NZprez to pursue active solutions to women, peace & security?"

"why does NZ still import from phosphate from Western Sahara given Corell's legal opinion of 2002?"

Ambassador van Bohemen earlier on July 2 took questions about his Program of Work for the month. Video here, more here.

  It begins for real on July 7 with Bosnia and Herzegovina, on which van Bohemen said he hopes the draft resolution on Srebrenica can be adopted. (There are, Inner City Press understands, two drafts and a wide gulf).

 Jumping to July 9, there will be a briefing and then closed door consultations on Burundi, where for now Pierre Nkurunziza is set to go for a controversial third term on July 15.

  Inner City Press asked van Bohemen if the "product" being worked on is a Presidential Statement (it's a Press Statement) and if it might address the third term and postponing the July 15 voting. Wait and see, van Bohemen said.

  Van Bohemen said that the UN's Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura will be in New York next week and he will meet the envoy, as President of the Security Council. Then de Mistura will return to New York and brief the full Council on July 28.

  On July 14 there's the mission in the DR Congo -- van Bohemen, it turns out, was his country's deputy ambassador at the UN during the Rwanda genocide, and negotiated the statute of the ICTR International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda on which we'll have more -- and on July 16 there's Cypus, Somalia and Eritrea.

  On July 22 there's Iraq and on July 23, the day long open debate on the Middle East (that is, Palestine.) New Zealand's big debate is about SIDS, small island developing states, on July 30 with its foreign minister. At the UN on July 1, the representative of Barbados proposed renaming SIDS as "LODS" -- large ocean developing states.

  New Zealand's many footnotes for the months, items that could be raised, include Ukraine, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan and reviews of peacebuilding and Peace Operations.

  Inner City Press asked van Bohemen if under his Presidency the Security Council will seek information about peacekeepers' sexual abuse, for example in the Central African Republic where Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has had to convene an "Independent" Panel incuding Hassan Jallow of the ICTR. On this, van Bohemen said there is interest in the Council.

 On June 30 van Bohemen spoke off the cuff about the problems he sees in the Council -- divisions on Syria and Yemen, for example -- and proposed that in July all 15 Permanent Representatives commit to actually talk about the resolutions and statements the Council issues. On that, he held a breakfast with Ambassadors to beginning the talking, on which we'll have more.

   Here is Inner City Pro's transcription of van Bohemen remarks at what's called the wrap-up session which ended Malaysia's Presidency for June of the Security Council:

My team was so keen that I should offer my personal reflections that they declined to give me [notes], so I'm going to see how we go. We did have some very good debates this month... I thought the discussion of peace-building was also very interesting and again exposes some of the areas we need to be prepared to go into, if we’re going to make the best use of the machinery that covers this area, beyond this Council.

We also had good results on MINUSMA and UNAMID, even though there were some quite deep seated differences amongst delegations about aspects of whether those mandates needed to be adjusted. I thought it was good that we managed to get over those differences and adopt them as a united Council. I do hope, as I said yesterday, that this new mandate for UNAMID provides an opportunity in particular for a better relationship between the government of Sudan and this Council.

But if we look behind the formal outcomes, what we achieved this month, and look at problems of the world, we have to acknowledge we haven’t done all that well. On Syria, Yemen, and Libya, we have got real problems. There are peace talks fitfully under way in Libya, perhaps underway in Yemen, and nothing at all in Syria. We have real problems in Burundi, which is demonstrating how difficult it is to get engaged in prevention, if the other party doesn’t want to talk to you, it’s very difficult to be an engaged participant. And that is a real difficulty. And we’ve just heard some graphically horrible statistics about what’s happening in South Sudan.

These are situations that reflect very badly on all of us and I don’t mean just the member of the Council, but I mean as an international community. There are things about the Council which I think we can properly take on our shoulders but we also have to admit that there are real limits as to what the Council can do. If you look in your quiver to see what arrows you can fire, there aren’t that many, particularly if other countries aren’t prepared to put their troops on the line, if people aren’t prepared to authorize more aggressive use of force. And even if they were, we know how difficult it is to actually achieve in these outcomes. So I don’t want to say it’s all about the Council’s problems. It isn’t.

But turning to what’s behind that, in particular if you look at Syria, we have a real problem, because the Council is divided. Similar divisions are playing out in Yemen. Because of those divisions, we are not able to really talk to each other, but instead score points. That’s not helpful. As to the way we go about our business, some comments have already been made to this, and I want to endorse entirely what the ambassador from the United Kingdom has said, about the need to engage more informally. After all, these are informal consultations in that room, and yet they’ve managed to build up a cadre of practice that is so self-denying that it’s unbelievable at times, as is what you can and can’t talk about it, or how you can talk about it.

I also agree with the delegation of Spain, that the business of pen holding and how resolutions are negotiated is an issue we need to think about. One option might be the co-pen-holder proposal, but at least I would ask the Permanent members to think if you are one of the Five how it looks when the resolution comes from one of the five, to the five, and then to the ten, and then that’s going to be put to the vote in a day or two. This isn’t the most useful way of engagement.

I also think we as ambassadors have a responsibility to engage more in the products we negotiate, which are negotiated and adopted. While of course we recognize the great work done by experts and political coordinators, we in the end are responsible for the products of this council. And how often do we really talk about them? How often do we actually have a conversation as ambassadors about what we are doing? I really believe we need to do that, to reach down and say, let’s bring this to the room and talk about it, as a group.

So, there’s a kind of sneak preview of the things I would like to explore next month when I’m the President. I don’t know how I’ll get on, but I do hope you’ll help me. Thank you.

   Inner City Press (and InnerCityPro.com) will be covering the Security Council closely. Watch them.

   

After Gambia Coup Bid, Taranga FM Radio's All Music by Jammeh's Decree, UN Hasn't Heard, FUNCA Asks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 – The Gambia coup attempt was discussed for a second time in the UN Security Council on January 8, but discrepancies emerged.

On December 31, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that he “encourages the establishment of a transparent investigation into the events of 30 December, in compliance with due process and respect for the rule of law.”

  The call for a transparent investigation was missing from the January 8 briefing by UN official Chambas, who told the Security Council  “I am planning to visit Banjul on 14-15 January and meet with President Jammeh. I will reiterate our firm condemnation of any attempt to seize power by unconstitutional means, and encourage the Gambian authorities to work with the support of international partners, to ensure the credibility of judicial procedures and the respect of human rights.”

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Chambas about the different, and on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access about radio station Taranga FM, shut down during the coup bid and now told to play only music.

   Chambas told Inner City Press he had not heard of the station -- Inner City Press in the hallway urged him to tune it in while he is in Bangui, to see if it is only music -- and spoke of trying to liberalize West Africa. We'll see.

  Before 10 am on December 31, Ban Ki-moon issued a 123 word statement calling for restraint and an investigation of the attempt in the The Gambia, albeit not mentioning the name of the target of the coup, Yahya Jammeh.

  After the Security Council's 45-minute meeting, Inner City Press asked the Council's president who is supposed to do the investigation Ban had called for before the meeting. He responded that UN official Chambas will go to Banjul; Inner City Press later learned and published that this will take place on January 2.

  Reuters however reported that "Following brief talks at the U.N. Security Council, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a transparent investigation into the events and also urged restraint."

 This is false. 

   Ban's statement was at 9:37 am; the Security Council meeting didn't start until 10 am, and didn't end until 10:45 am. (At that time, Inner City Press asked Ban's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman for more detail; he replied that since Ban had issued a statement, he had nothing to add -- all too common at the UN, as pointed out and opposed by the Free UN Coalition for Access.)

  Reuters was not present at the UN Security Council stakeout before, during or after the meeting on Gambia (Tweeted photo here), and apparently not in the UN building either. The crediting on the above quoted story is"Reporting by David Lewis and Diadie Ba in Dakar, Lesley Wroughton in Washington, Louis Charbonneau in New York; Writing by David Lewis and Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Giles Elgood."

  Six journalists listed; one outright falsehood. What does Reuters do in these cases? We've asked management including Stephen J. Adler before, amid censorship, withno real answer. #ReutersFail.

  Since then, African Union commission chief Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has expressed "preoccupation" and rurged deepening "democracy and the respect for human rights."

  By the time of Ban's 9:37 am December 31 statement, later misrepresented by Reuters, the US had already issueda statement: “The United States is aware of reports of a coup attempt on December 30 in The Gambia. We strongly condemn any attempt to seize power through extra-constitutional means. We regret the loss of life and call on all parties to refrain from further violence.”

    Thirteen hours later when Ban Ki-moon issued his statement, he went a bit further and cited calm and called for an investigation, apparently by Jammeh's government itself:

“The Secretary-General is following closely developments in The Gambia. He reiterates the United Nations principled condemnation of all attempts to seize power through unconstitutional means. Referring to reports that indicate that the situation in Banjul is calm, he calls for all parties to exercise restraint and to refrain from further violence. 

“Noting the seriousness of any attempt to overthrow governments by force, the Secretary-General encourages the establishment of a transparent investigation into the events of 30 December, in compliance with due process and respect for the rule of law. In that regard, he urges the Government of The Gambia, and its security and defense forces to act in full respect for human rights. The United Nations will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

  When the UN Security Council meeting on the topic began at 10:10 am on December 31, there were tumbleweeds at the stakeout in front. Some may denounce The Gambia, but at the UN or at least in its press corp, there is not apparently much interest.

  When the meeting ended, in less than 45 minutes, Inner City Press asked Feltman about it. He said since the SG had issued a statement, he had nothing to add. In 2015, theFree UN Coalition for Access will be pressing for all UN Under Secretaries General to answer questions. 

  Finally, the Security Council's president for December, from Chad, came and summarized the meeting, saying that UN official Chambas, previously the head of UNAMID in Darfur, will file a report. There have been problems with UNAMID's reporting. 

 (Again in terms of micro-news, Inner City Press is exclusively told by sources that Chambas will go to Gambia on Friday, January 2. Since the UNSC President was asked on camera when Chambas would go and only said "soon," call it a coup scooplet.)

  Inner City Press asked the outgoing Security Council president about the December 30 closed door meeting about Sudan throwing out two UN officials, Yvonne Helle and Ali Al-Za'tari. He said he couldn't speak, nothing had been agreed to. Which is why the UN Secretariat should have spoken and taken questions, as FUNCA requestedand will continue to request in 2015. Watch this site.

    

UN Confirms It Is Moving Chambas to Dakar Post, As Inner City Press Exclusively Reported on September 4, Darfur Cover-Up

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 12, more here -- 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, on September 12 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. We'll have more on this.

  Chambas was quoted last month that the UN “cannot stop Government forces from entering camps for the displaced,” despite a supposed protection of civilians mandate.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it on August 22 and he said “we will check with the Mission to verify the quotes and see what actually they have been doing.” But in the two weeks since, nothing.

   Now Inner City Press has exclusively learned from multiple sources that Chambas is set to be rewarded, or moved, to the Dakar, Senegal UN Office on West Africa post vacated by Said Djinnit.

   This would be classic UN: amid a scandal about UNAMID under Chambas covering up the murder and abuse of civilians, a promotion, in a game of musical chairs.

   On August 22, Inner City Press asked:

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.

  As recently as May 29, Ladsous refused Press questions,video here, compilation here.

   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?

   The former spokesperson of the UNAMID mission in Darfur quit, spoke out and finally leaked documents. Radio Dabanga as well as Foreign Policy began publishing them on April 7 (FP did not mention Dabanga, and called itsback to back  Ladsous-less pieces an exclusive investigation). 

  The last piece focused on the US role, all to the good, but not only doesn't mention that the UN's Ladsous met with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir in July, without providing any read-out, but also omits France's hosting of Darfur rebels, for example.

 Back on March 25, 2013, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson about 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.

  Now Radio Dabanga has published a memo by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, from April 10, 2013, still saying he didn't know how it happened. 

  What is Ladsous doing? Then, and apparently now, he refuses Press questions about topics ranging from Sudan -- why did he meet with International Criminal Court indictee Omar al Bashir in July 2013? -- to rapes in the DR Congo by UN Peacekeeping's partners in the Congolese Army.

  Dabanga to its credit says it is reporting the memos along with FP. The FP story, at least the first one, does not mention Dabanga, nor Ladsous' meeting with Bashir. Previously an explanation was provided for not reporting on Ladsous' extraordinary and public "non-answering," noted from the UK by the New Statesman, here.

  We'll be following this. Watch this site.

   

At UN, West Africa Envoy Said Djinnit Brags About Guinea, Dodges Press on Mali: Fakeout at the Stakeout

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 10 -- On West Africa, UN envoy Said Djinnit gave a surprisingly upbeat (some said, self-serving) briefing to the Security Council on Wednesday morning. The UN said, by e-mail then at the noon briefing, that Djinnit would take press questions at 12:30.

The noon briefing ended at 12:22, and Inner City Press and two other members of the Free UN Coalition for Access went immediately to the Council stakeout, ready to question Djinnit. But even after Council members streamed out of the chamber, he did not appear.

Trying to ensure that questions could be asked,@FUNCA_info asked both the UN Spokesperson's office and the Department of Political Affairs, which oversees Djinnit's Dakar-based operation, where Djinnit might be. Neither answered, but another staff member told Inner City Press Djinnit claimed he had come to the stakeout, “you guys weren't there,” so he left.

  If he went, it was before 12:30. Click here to view the day's noon briefing (the announcement that Djinnit would appear at approximately 12:30 is at Minute 2:40), and note that it began at noon and was 22 minutes long. The new Press Briefing Room is right next to the Security Council and stakeout: no eight minutes there.

  One wag mused, given Djinnit's excuse, what should we think of his report and statement to the Council?

Djinnit found a way to brag about now only Guinea but Guinea Bissau. The real question is, with three UN envoys in the mix - Djinnit, Bert Koenders of MINUSMA andRomano Prodi of, well, Bologna -- how could it be that it was Blaise Campaore of Burkina Faso who mediated and made the deal about Kidal?

And -- this is a question -- has that deal now been broken? MINUSMA engaged with attacker outside Kidal. Is MINUSMA covered by the International Criminal Court? Click here for that. These are questions Djinnit should have taken and answered, and should still answer. Watch this site.

   

On Belated Sahel Plan, Is Prodi's UN Gravy Train Leaving the Station?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 26 -- It took Romano Prodi more than eight months to complete the Sahel report he presented to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. 

   During that time, Inner City Press received complaints from within the UN's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that Prodi was charging $1200 for travel between Bologna and Rome. 

   Diplomats complained about his ideas for a fund, and about the UNOWA operations in Dakar, Senegal.

After Prodi's low key presentation and consultations, June's Security Council president Mark Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, saying among other things that Morocco will prepare a Presidential Statement on the topic.

Inner City Press asked why the report took so long, if Prodi will has a role, and what the role of UNOWA would be in the strategy.

Lyall Grant replied, as transcribed by the UK Mission to the UN:

Lyall Grant: It was explained that there have been very close cooperation between UNDP and DPA in producing this report that, Mr Prodi himself said that, his job was to inject some new thinking, present the report, ensure that implementation began, but then fade away. He was not looking to sustain his role in the longer term. His role was not completed yet, but once the train, I think the expression he used was, once the train had left the station on implementation then he was not looking to do his role, continue his role, and that the next stage would be taken forward by perhaps operating out of the UNOWA office in Dakar. Now there was a recognition that the mandate of UNOWA of course goes much wider than the Sahel countries, but that UNOWA mandate was also on the Security Council’s agenda later this year and there might be some adjustment of that to take account of this fact.

  The “train leaving the station” image brought to mind Prodi's travel and cost: seems he doesn't take the train. Another Council member told Inner City Press it was that Prodi said he wanted to see the train start moving. Would that be the gravy train? Watch this site.

  

On Syria, 45 Days Are Proposed Despite Araud's Denial, 11 & 3:30

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 -- After French Ambassador Gerard Araud told Inner City Press that "no," 45 days is not  the period, the UK circulated a draft resolution to "renew the mandate of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) for a period of 45 days." Inner City Pressis putting the draft online here.

  Other key paragraph are 13 and 14:

"13. Decides that, if the Syrian authorities have not fully complied with paragraph 5 above within ten days, then it shall impose immediately measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter

"14. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of this resolution within 10 days of its adoption and every 15 days thereafter;"

  Sources said that this "UK" draft will be discussed not only by experts at 11 in the morning on July 12, but also by Permanent Representatives that afternoon at 3:30 -- all this during an all-day Security Council debate featuring July's president Colombia's foreign minister Maria Angela Holguin.

  President Nestor Osorio left the Council session on West Africa on Wednesday afternoon to go pick up Holguin. The topic of the debate on Thursday, an an interactive (but closed door) session on Friday is "Peacebuilding." But as a seasoned non-Western diplomat told Inner City Press Wednesday afternoon, the Council is more and more irrelevant.

  Look at what the Council doesn't deal with, he said, mentioning North Korea and the Middle East. Even on Sudan, we try to step in front of Mbeki. All that the UK, France and US know how to do is ask for sanctions. But on Syria it would send the wrong message to the opposition. And so we will oppose it.

  Another non-Western Security Council members asked Inner City Press, rhetorically it seemed, "How do you sanction the opposition? Their right to self-defense has been recognized at the Friends of Syria meetings. And so it Assad does nothing and you sanction him, they will just grab territory, the country is majority Sunni."

  Meanwhile the head of the UN Office on West Africa Said Djinnit left the consultations without passing by the press stakeout. Some wonder if he can handle Mali, before more of Timbuktu is destroyed. Problems the UN Security Council could do something about, they don't. Watch this site.

On Mali, France & Morocco Disagree on Stand-Alone Envoy, Gambari Floated

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 6 -- In the wake of the ECOWAS visit to the UN Security Council this week, to get the first of they hope two resolutions about Mali, a rare split between France and Morocco has emerged.

  In closed door consultations, numerous sources tell Inner City Press, Morocco proposed that a special UN envoy for Mali be designated, like Jamal Benomar has been on Yemen.

  France on the other hand, to save money and to retain control, favors leaving the Mali situation in the hands of Senegal based UNOWA, headed by Said Djinnit.

  Some question Djinnit's response for example to the coup in Guinea Bissau, and think he's stretched too thin. But who could be stand-alone envoy to Mali?

  Inner City Press on July 5 floated a candidate, largely tongue in cheek: Ibrahim Gambari, covered most recently building a $600,000 "Hardshell on the Hill" mansion in the paecekeeping based in El Fasher. Before that, Inner City Press exposed him taking wedding photographs with Omar al Bashir and Janjaweed founder Musa Hilal.

  But, the thinking goes, Gambari might have the skill set or bravado to work on Timbuktu. Inner City Press joked he might build another $600,000 mansion. But as one Council member said, everyone has their foibles and $600,000 is not really that much, in the grand scope of UN things. And so it goes at the UN.

At UN, Facile on Burkina Faso, Ban's Djinnit Underplays a Coup or Mutiny

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 8 -- Months ago amid a soldiers' munity in Burkina Faso, Inner City Press asked the spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon what the UN thought and was doing about it.

First there was no comment, then Inner City Press was told that Said Djinnit of the UN Office for West Africa was “monitoring” the situation.

But the report filed in the run up to the Security Council's semi-annual meeting Friday about UNOWA did not mention Burkina Faso, despite having sections on Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Niger and the Cameroon - Nigeria Mixed Commission. Why not?

Djinnit was supposed to be the guest at the UN's noon briefing on Friday, and had finished his closed door briefing to the Council before noon. But he did not appear for the briefing, nor back at the Council stakeout.

Hours later in the UN's North Lawn building, Inner City Press spotted Djinnit by the Vienna Cafe, and asked him, “What about Burkino Faso? Why is it not in your report?”

Not everything goes in the report, he said cryptically.

Later still it was confirmed to Inner City Press that in Friday's closed door consultations, several delegations asked about Burkina Faso and Djinnit said he followed it closely and was in touch with President Blaise Campaore and “key stakeholders.”

Why not put it in the report, then? Burkina Faso is known to not want to be discussed in the Council. The country and its diplomats are used by the UN, and US and former colonial power France, on Darfur and Cote d'Ivoire.

Inner City Press is told that Djinnit routinely praises the long-serving Campoare. To openly discuss mutinies in the country is inconsistent with all this -- and so it is not in the UN report, and is confined to closed door consultations. And so it goes at the UN.