UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- Even the UN's audit unit finds that its joint peacekeeping mission in Darfur, UNAMID, is unsatisfactory. This was the rating in a UN Office of Internal Oversight Services audit that Inner City Press has uploaded on November 4, 2015 here.
Nor surprisingly, UNAMID's unsatisfactory performance resulted in loss of confidence in it by local populations, in the UN's parlance, and in IDPs taking to protecting themselves.
Now on February 18, the US has issued this:
"The United States is deeply concerned about the increased violence against civilians and the grave humanitarian situation in and around Jebel Marra, Darfur. Initial attacks by the Sudan Liberation Army-Abdul Wahid opposition group on Sudanese armed forces prompted a response by Sudan’s military that included aerial bombardments despite the UN Security Council demand that Sudan cease offensive military flights over Darfur. These attacks have forced 73,000 people to flee their homes, and thousands more are trapped in the conflict zone of Jebel Marra without access to aid.
The United States calls on both the Government of Sudan and the armed movements of the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) to re-commit to their cessation of hostilities declarations for Darfur and in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. We welcome the recent absence of major offensive action in South Kordofan and urge all parties to show the same restraint in Darfur and also in Blue Nile state, where government and opposition forces each carried out attacks last month.
There is no military solution to Sudan’s internal conflicts. We call on the Government of Sudan and the SRF to de-escalate the violence and work with the African Union and others to agree to a comprehensive cessation of hostilities agreement that will allow immediate and unfettered humanitarian access for Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile. We also urge the government to create an environment conducive to the participation of armed movements and other political opposition parties in a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue that addresses systemic governance issues in Sudan. "
Back on November 9, 2015, Inner City Press asked the UN about other reports of under-performance by UNAMID under Herve Ladsous. From the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: The Tabit [rape question] is very simple. You may have seen the Independent article.
Spokesman: I did, but I have nothing to add to what we've said on Tabit.
Question: And the underlying report they're reporting on by the NGO [non-governmental organization] in the U.K. makes various recommendations that UNAMID (United Nations-African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur) have community liaisons that they don't leave West Darfur. If there's… is there a DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) response?
Spokesman: I do not have one with me.
How surprising. Inner City Press is informed of belated discussions among Permanent Five members of the Security Council of Ladous being a liability, whether he can even stay to the end of Ban Ki-moon's term. Watch this site.
Back in late September during the UN General Assembly frenzy week in New York, in Darfur another UN Peacekeepers was killed and four wounded. Meanwhile Sudan said that its Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour will meet with the State Department on UNGA's margins.
That human rights abuses continue in Darfur with cover-ups by the Peacekeeping mission UNAMID should be shouted from the rooftops. Instead, Human Rights Watch on September 9 the issue behind closed doors with the UN's Censorship Alliance.
That was at 11 am. But at the UN noon briefing, no one from UNCA asked any questions about Darfur, or Sudan, to the UN. Inner City Press asked this:
Inner City Press: the press inside Sudan is carrying a lot of the coverage of President [Omar al] Bashir saying that he's going to end, you know, by force if necessary or by force certainly all rebellions within Sudan in 2016. This is viewed as a kind of a… an end of the discussion process and the beginning of a purely military process. Is… is the… the joint Special Representative aware of it? Is there any response by the UN to this statement by the President?
Deputy Spokesman: Well, we would take seriously any threats to continue or to exacerbate the conflicts on the ground in Sudan. You… you've seen the efforts we've made on the ground diplomatically and through our peacekeeping and humanitarian offices to deal with the situation, and we do not want to see any further deterioration of a conflict which, as you know, has been running for many, many years already. [Video here.]
What was the point of doing this briefing about Darfur, where the UNAMID mission is covering up, not in the UN briefing room - where on September 10 another NGO holds a briefing, sponsored by Canada -- but in the Censors' Club?
Neither organization has offered any criticism of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, as he sought to cover up rapes in the Central African Republic (and Darfur and DRC before), and openly refuses to answer Press questions about it.
As to Darfur, Ladsous met with Sudan's ICC-indicted Omar al Bashir, something HRW was notably silent about as on the cover up of the French troops' rapes in Central African Republic by Ladsous - as reflected in UN Dispute Tribunal rulings.
Wouldn't one want to ask the UN about its (in)action on Darfur? Otherwise, why do the press "in" the UN?
To hold a press conference in the UN's actual Press Briefing Room requires only the sponsorship of a single member state; then the event is on UN Webcast and journalists who decline to support the UN's Censorship Alliance participation. But this is HRW's choice, just as they refused to provide even a summary of the issues they raised when granted a meeting with Ban Ki-moon -- contrary to the approach of other human rights groups.
In terms of holding accessible press conferences in the UN, not going behind closed doors and off UN Webcast with the UN Censorship Alliance, consider in the same week, on September 10 at 10:30, a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room on the plight of children in the Central African Republic; we'll cover it.
The past and present head of UNCA, back after a long vacation, has yet to ask any questions of the UN. Previously, he sought to censor coverage of his renting one of his apartment to Sri Lanka's then Ambassador Palitha Kohona. (Running a letter he could write about when he rented the apartment, and its relations or not to UNCA's screening of the Sri Lankan government's war crimes denial film Lies Agreed To, was not enough: he demanded all coverage be removed from the Internet: censorship.) These are HRW's partners? We'll have more on this. This event, in any case, conflicts with a Security Council meeting about Syria. So it goes.
Background: In February 2015 with UN Peacekeeping underLadsous still providing few to no updates on its UNAMID mission's November 9 covering up of rapes in Darfur, just as Ladsous stonewalled about mass rapes in Minova in the DR Congo, here, some soft on the UN try to raise the issue without blaming those responsible for the cover-up.
The report put out by Human Rights Watch had 48 pages, but does not mention UN Peacekeeping boss Ladsous once, nor his similar cover up of rapes in Minova in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, video here. What kind of report is this?
Tellingly, in trying to "launch" this soft-on-Ladsous report inside the UN, Human Rights Watch instead of holding a regular press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room as other NGOs do has chosen to partner with the UN Censorship Alliance, a group whose board has tried to get investigative Press thrown out of the UN, including for its reporting on Ladsous.
On February 11, added to the UN's "Media Alert" is a meeting between Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and this Sudanese government official: "Ibrahim Ghandour, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chairman of the National Congress, Republic of Sudan."
So will Ban be demanded access -- second access, after Ladsous' initial cover up -- to Tabit?
While some claim that Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping is trying to get back to Tabit, on Feburary 10 a Sudanese diplomat told Inner City Press he had met with Ladsous on February 9 and "it was nice." How's that, for Ladsous' supposed commitment to get to the bottom of rapes and rights abuses?
Instead, in order to NOT move against the FDLR militia, Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping is now claiming to care too much for human rights to support the Congolese Army's supposed offensive against the FDLR -- which, the UN belatedly acknowledged to Inner City Press, has not even begun.
But on the Tabit rapes, that the Sudanese diplomat without irony described his February 9 meeting with Ladsous has "nice" is telling.
It is easy and appropriate, of course, to blame Sudan, as it was and is to blame the Congolese Army and government for the rapes in Minova. But there is a pattern, and until UN Peacekeeping's senior leadership's cover up of these incidents - and even silence on dead peacekeepers for more than a week -- nothing will improve.
"Between October 30 and November 1, 2014, Sudanese government forces entered Tabit, North Darfur, and carried out massive abuses against the town’s residents, including a mass rape of women and girls. Sudan responded by denying the abuses and has refused to allow international peacekeepers and other independent monitors to investigate the crimes."
This is misleading - Ladsous' UNAMID was in Tabit on November 9, and put out a press release whitewashing the rapes and saying the people there like the government's security forces. This was shameful.
More publicly, Inner City Press on January 26 asked Security Council ambassadors Mark Lyall Grant of the UK and Raimonda Murmokaite of Lithuania, "what happened with UNAMID going back for real investigation of rapes in Tabit?"
Lyall Grant replied, "We continue to press DPKO to encourage UNAMID to revert on the Tabit allegations."
Murmokaite added, "have been raising the issue at consultations, will continue."
And so Inner City Press at the January 26 UN noon briefing asked Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here:
Inner City Press: two of the Security Council ambassadors this morning said they continued to ask DPKO to ensure that the Tabit site of alleged mass rapes is revisited. I want to know has any action been taken on that? Has there been any move by UNAMID?
Spokesman Dujarric: The request to visit Tabit stands. There's nothing to report.
Nothing to report? Back on January 8 Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, video here:
Inner City Press: what has the UN system done in order to get access again to Thabit in Darfur, where there were allegedly 200 rapes, and then the Government didn’t allow any inspectors. What have you done since we last spoke on it?
SG Ban: As for the first part of the question, as you know, we tried to have a thorough investigation. This report might not have been sufficient because of the lack of full cooperation of the authorities on the ground. That has really hampered our authorities to go into the field and get a thorough investigation. It is important that we have to have a thorough investigation and as a matter of principle, there should be a clear accountability process and justice. I am firm about this matter. And we will, in the course of time, have better information on this matter.
While appreciated, it is widely recognized that the more time goes by, the more difficult a credible rape investigation becomes. So why did UNAMID issue a cover-up November 9 press release?
UNITED NATIONS, September 8 -- The UN Secretariat's bungling of Yemen mediation has become ever more clear, according to multiple sources and documents exclusively seen by Inner City Press, see below.
On September 5 as airstrikes on Sana'a picked up force, there was no comment from the UN or its envoy Ismail Ould Cheihk Ahmed. Nor on September 6. On September 7, the UN finally spoke -- not about the airstrikes but about a leak.
On September 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujrarric if he was denying the veracity of the UN email Inner City Press published, below. Dujarric did not deny it. Video here.
Now Inner City Press can exclusively report the following: on August 27-28 in Muscat, the US and UK, the EU Ambassador to the UN and Saudi intelligence, met with the Houthis -- without the UN and its envoy present, or even sources say aware of the meeting. These sources say that the UN's Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was on vacation in his native Mauritania, and was entirely out of the loop. It seems it was being exposed as such which caused this envoy to complain - and remain silent about the airstrikes.
Sources also note that the Saudi have "dissed" Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, relegating him only to meeting with Saudi intelligence, not diplomats as was previously the case with the UN. This too is embarrassing to the UN. Hence the Sunday evening statement:
"The Special Envoy for Yemen of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, is disturbed by press reports regarding the leak of internal United Nations correspondence. The content of these reports, especially in some Yemeni media outlets and Internet sites, constitute distortions and misinterpretations. These reports do not reflect the position of the Special Envoy or of the United Nations."
A well placed UN source told Inner City Press that the replacement envoy should never have commented on the leak, especially while remaining silent on the increased airstrikes and Qatar sending troops and Apache helicopters.
Perhaps the discomfort is with the reference to the US National Security Council's "Eric Polovski" (that is, Eric Pelofsky) being "on board." Another source exclusively told Inner City Press that in the Security Council's last meeting on Yemen, those raising the mounting humanitarian toll were Venezuela, Chile and New Zealand. Consider again this, to USg Jeff Feltman:
"Dear Jeff,
Before traveling to Jeddah I held two days of meetings with Ansar Allah and GPC in Muscat in which I tried to convince them to improve upon the 10 points which they had submitted to me earlier. This was necessary to respond to concerns in Riyadh that the commitments to the implementation of 2216 were still inadequate and failed to include recognition of the legitimacy of the government.
AA/GPC agreed to a new wording on UNSC resolution 2216 that states unequivocally that they are committed to the full implementation of 2216, (see document attached) with the exception of article which infringe on Yemeni sovereignty and those related to sanctions.
In addition, the new text includes acceptance of the return of the current government for a period of sixty days during which a new government of national unity shall be formed. They also accepted to remove references to counter-terrorism and the Saudi border to which the GoY had objected, as well as the mandatory support by the international community for reconstruction that was in the earlier version. The latter was particularly opposed by KSA and GCC who did not want it to be interpreted as a form of mandatory compensation. Both Ansar Allah and GPC seemed positive and showed considerable flexibility.
My meetings followed two days of meetings between the Ansar Allah and KSA intelligence officers which were also attended by the US, UK and Oman. The discussions focused on possible confidence building measures such as a pullback from border areas in exchanges for a cessation of airstrikes and agreements in which they would cease operations within Saudi Arabia. This was the first time that Ansar Allah have been open to discuss limited and geographically specific agreement. Although they repeated that the return of President Hadi would be unacceptable, they expressed their openness to the return of the government for a limited time. The US Ambassador, Matt Tueller has been keeping me regularly informed of these discussions, which has been most helpful. The confidence building paper proposed by the Houthis to KSA is attached for reference.
Although US officials were disappointed that Saudis had sent relatively junior representatives, they still felt the meetings were positive, largely friendly and a good way for KSA to sound out Ansar Allah’s intentions. Ansar Allah and KSA agreed that there should be further meetings with hopefully more senior representation although no dates were agreed. The meetings unfortunately shed very little new light on KSA’s strategy in the conflict or their willingness to support a negotiated settlement in the near future.
The meetings in Muscat were of course heavily influenced by the military developments in Yemen. The coalition has not been able to make rapid progress since their successes in Aden, Abyan and Shabwa in August. Taiz remains contested and there are reports that Ansar Allah has regained some territory which had been lost in the past week. The coalition’s difficulties moving northward suggest that an assault on Sanaa would likely be difficult and time-consuming than they had previously expected.
The instability and violence which have plagued Aden following its capture is likely also a source of concern. The mostly pro-independence Hiraak fighters are unwilling to cooperate fully with the GoY in attempts to expand northward. This leaves the coalition dependent on ground troops from Islah, Salafi and AQAP related groups, which UAE is reluctant to support.
Conclusion:
I believe, following my discussions in Muscat, that we now have a strong opportunity to obtain a peace deal, and avoid a violent confrontation in Sanaa, for the following three main reasons:
i) The revised paper (attached) is much stronger and contains serious concessions by the H/GPC. It will be difficult, at this stage, to push them towards further concessions.
ii) The recent slower advance of the GoY affiliated forces around Taez and Maarib could also offer another opportunity.
iii) The on-going insecurity and lawlessness in Aden, and the increased visibility of AQAP in Aden region in the aftermath of the liberation of the city by the GoY and Coalition forces, has started to raise serious concerns for UAE, and in some KSA circles.
In light of the above, I have reached the conclusion that we should now move towards a new round of direct talks, two and half months after our first round in Geneva. My recent shuttling has now reached a point whereby it is becoming somewhat transactional with the Special Envoy obtaining a paper from one side and seeking comments/acceptance by the other side. I do not think we can sustain this and I recommend we move to a more strategic phase. I recommend holding this next round of talks in Oman Sultanate as a first choice, which seems to be acceptable to the Omanis and all parties, especially KSA. My second proposed option would be Kuwait, however the Houthis are still hesitant about this potential venue. Ideally, we should aim at holding this meeting before Eid.
My discussions in Jeddah and Riyadh will be explicitly in favour of moving to peace talks phase as opposed to continuing this shuttling around papers/proposals. I have first indications that Abu Ali and Matt Tueller are supportive of this new approach. In this regard, it was important to time my visit to Jeddah before the meeting between King Salman and President Obama tomorrow. Eric Polovski – White House NSC – who was just recently in Muscat is also fully on board on this.
I am conscious that the implementation of this new proposal depends very much on the GoY's openness and the KSA genuine support (and not only on what I am hearing from Abu Ali). But this proposal is also the only way to keep the UN's efforts at the center of the mediation process and to avoid a fatigue among our various stakeholders, especially the H/GPC. This is why I once again need the support of the SG and the P5.
Best regards. Ismail
Muscat Principles for a Solution to the Political Crisis in Yemen Commitment by all parties to implement relevant UNSC resolutions including resolution 2216, according to an implementation mechanism to be agreed upon, and without infringing on national sovereignty, and with reservations regarding the sanctions against Yemeni citizens.
A permanent and comprehensive cease-fire by all parties with the withdrawal of all armed groups and militias from the cities, according to an agreed mechanism to avoid any security and administrative vacuum along with lifting of the land, sea and air blockade.
Agreement on neutral monitoring instrument in order to verify implementation of the mechanisms mentioned above that will be agreed upon, under the auspices of the United Nations.
To respect international humanitarian law, including the elements relating to the protection of civilians and the release of prisoners and detainees from all parties, including those mentioned in UNSC resolution, and to facilitate humanitarian relief and allow the entry of commercial goods, food, medical supplies, oil derivatives and other essential good without restriction. Kaled Bahah’s government, formed by consensus, returns and performs its tasks as a caretaker government for a period not extending 60 days, during which a government of national unity is formed, in a way that does not violate the constitution.
To resume and accelerate United Nations-brokered negotiations, according to the UNSC resolution.
All parties are obliged to hand over heavy weapons to the State in accordance with the outcomes of the Comprehensive National Dialogue."
Note: the "Eric Polovski" in the above would seem to be Eric Pelofsky. Just saying.
On September 1 the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights raised its estimate of civilians killed to 2,112 (from March 26 to August 27), with 4,519 civilians injured in that period in what OHCHR called a "conservative estimate."
OHCHR cited an airstrike on Taiz on August 20 which killed 53 civilians. OHCHR said "Fifty-three of these civilian deaths occurred on 20 August, reportedly as result of a series of airstrikes by Saudi-led coalition forces that hit 20 homes near Salah Palace in Taiz. According to local reports, active fighters in the Houthi popular committees were believed to be based in the Salah Palace at the time." Believed? Question to OHCHR in this case: what is international law?
Or this one: "attacks by coalition forces on Hodeidah port, which is a key entry point for humanitarian supplies and commercial imports into Yemen."
UN Relief Chief Stephen O'Brien on August 19 told the UN Security Council, "To date only 18 percent, some $282 million, of the $1.6 billion requested through the Yemen Humanitarian Response Plan has been received. UN agencies have still not received the funding from Saudi Arabia of $274 million pledged in April."
After O'Brien said that, Inner City Press asked Yemen's Permanent Representative at the UN, down the hall toward the Trusteeship Council Chamber, about it. He told Inner City Press, among other things, that explains the request for a UN "liaison" in Riyadh.
After the Security Council's triplet of meetings on Yemen, Syria and South Sudan ended on August 19, Inner City Press asked New Zealand's Permanent Representative Gerard van Bohemen "On Yemen. Mr O’Brien said that Saudi Arabia haven’t paid the pledge and that there was some dispute about the UN sending maybe somebody to be a liaison, what was said about actually getting aid unblocked?"
Ambassador van Bohemen replied, "I think you need to talk to him about it. What he explained was there’s been quite a complicated discussion going with the Saudi government about the terms on which the money will be made available, but he knows the detail about it, I don’t."
We still hope to have more on this.
On August 7 Inner City Press was informed that as Houthis and Saleh's GPC headed to Oman for consultations on August 8 and 9, the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was not even initially invited. He had to beg to get included, which after sweating has been allowed, in the run-up to his briefing on August 12 to the Security Council.
On August 12, Inner City Press asked Yemen Permanent Representative, outside the Council meeting, questions ranging from the destruction of schools and health care facilities in Sa'ada by Saudi airstrikes to when, according to him, the Houthis might be "driven" out of Sa'ana. Video here. He said in a few weeks - and added that the Oman talks were "not UN."
So how then might the parties negotiate? UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was headed back to Riyadh. That seems to be his base, where he works from - and for? Watch this site.
Oman has received murky thanks for France for facilitating the release of a hostage, who was working for the Social Development Fund there. Did Oman pay for France? Or will others be released, as France brought about in Mali?
Amid hoopla about reported travel of sanctioned Qasem Soleimani, what about the open travel and sojourn of sanctions Sheikh El Zindani in Saudi Arabia?
On August 7, US Ambassador Samantha Power said, "Qasem Soleimani is subject to the United Nations travel ban. And this travel ban requires all states to prohibit Qasem Soleimani from traveling to their nation. And the only exception to that is if the Iran sanctions committee grants an exemption. And to our knowledge, no such exemption was granted – and we would know."
So what ABOUT Sheikh El Zintani in Riyadh? We'll have more on this.
On July 28, Inner City Press asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative about Mokha or Mocha; he replied that previous allegations about Saudi airstrikes on Old City Sana'a and on a palace in Aden once used by Queen Elizabeth had been proven untrue. We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press asked Yemen's representative about the talks in Cairo involving the United Arab Emirates, allies of former president Saleh and, it's said, the US and UK. He replied that the Yemeni government - in exile - deals through formal channels, the GCC or UN.
He might have been asked, which foreign minister is he reporting to: the one named by Hadi, or the one - his predecesor - named by Bahah? We'll have more on this as well.
Inner City Press asked the president of the Security Council for July, Gerard von Bohemen of New Zealand:
Inner City Press: did any of the members, talk about discussions taking place in Cairo, between the UAE, US, UK and supporters of the former president Saleh? Did US or UK bring up any of these talks?
A: We were talking mostly about, only about the humanitarian situation.
On that, Inner City Press is informed that a Latin member of the Council asked for a breakdown of casualties between (Saudi) airstrikes and others' ground offensives and was told that data only distinguishes between civilians and non-civilians. Why?
The Saudis themselves announced a five day pause. UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed as exposed by Inner City Press has been on vacation, as has his deputy Gluck, so the UN is uninvolved in this pause. But, Inner City Press asked in a July 25 article, how long until UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issues a statement welcoming and implicitly taking some credit for the announcement?
More than 24 hours after that, Ban did in fact issue a statement, welcoming the Saudi announcement - already being violated - while referring only obliquely to "reports of civilian deaths in Mokha on Friday evening." But who might have caused those, more than 48 hours earlier? Here's Ban's statement:
"The Secretary-General welcomes the announcement by the Saudi-led Coalition of a unilateral five-day, renewable humanitarian pause set to commence on Sunday, 26 July, at 23:59 (GMT+3). He urges the Houthis, the General People’s Congress and all other parties will agree to and maintain the humanitarian pause for the sake of all the Yemeni people, and that all act in good faith throughout the pause. The growing number of civilian casualties, including the disturbing reports of civilian deaths in Mokha on Friday evening, in the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe make a pause and an eventual extension an imperative.
"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to the conflict to suspend military operations during the pause and refrain from exploiting the pause to move weapons or seize territory. He appeals to all parties to exercise maximum restraint in cases of isolated violations and to avoid escalation.
"The Secretary-General urges all parties to facilitate the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance to all parts of Yemen, as well as rapid, safe, and unhindered access for humanitarian actors to reach people in need of humanitarian assistance, including medical assistance.
"The Secretary-General calls on the parties to the conflict to comply fully with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and to urgently work with the United Nations and humanitarian aid organizations to bring assistance to millions in need throughout the country.
On the dozens killed in Mocha, Inner City Press linked here to this video -- Ban waited 48 hours to vaguely reference them, despite having in the past quickly condemned the killing of two Saudi police officers. The UN has become more and more irrelevant on Yemen, and subject to protest as "betrayers" in Sana'a.
While the party of former president Saleh meets with the United Arab Emirates and others, the UN's replacement envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after his failed humanitarian pause, is not involved. He had, as Inner City Press was exclusively told and report, gone on vacation.
Inner City Press: There have been a lot of reports and quotes about a process taking place between the party of former President [Ali Abdullah] Saleh and the [United Arab Emirates), [United States], [United Kingdom] and Cairo. I wanted to know: Is the UN aware of that? Is the UN in any way taking part in that? And how does it relate to Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's trip to Riyadh?
Associate Spokesperson Kaneko: I had the same question myself. My understanding is that we were not involved in those talks, but we've seen the same reports you have and we would welcome any type of dialogue that would bring the… that would bring the parties closer together towards discussions to resume dialogue on a democratic transition.
So, the UN's envoy was not involved, just as he was not involved in Oman other than to write them a desperate letter. To this has the UN fallen.
After publishing its multi-sourced story, Inner City Press on July 22 asked the UN's Associate Spokesperson about new APC and weapons in Aden, and if Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is on vacation. Video here. She replied that she would check - but did not revert with any response either way.
So on July 23, amid reports that without Cheikh Ahmed or any UN presence talks were occurring about Yemen in Cairo, Inner City Pressasked:
Inner City Press: on Yemen, yesterday you'd said you would check on Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed, whether, in fact, he is on vacation at this time. Did you?
Associate Spokesperson: No.
Inner City Press: You said leave is a good thing. In the transcript, you said, I'll check on his vacation. But yes, people do take leave, it is a good thing, although there are people in Yemen who say, given that the humanitarian pause failed, it seemed a strange time to do it. So I just wanted to know, factually, is it, in fact, the case?
Associate Spokesperson: Is it the fact…?
Inner City Press: That he's on vacation after the failure of the humanitarian pause.
Associate Spokesperson: I don't know specifically for the Special Envoy, but I can tell you that, you know, most people at that level at the UN, all people at that level at the UN continue to work on their portfolios wherever they are and whatever they're doing. These are portfolios that you can't just drop. And I'm sure that's the case also with the Special Envoy. As far as leave goes, you know, I'm not going to get into a “who's on leave when”, blah, blah, blah, with you. I just… I don't want to do that…
[cross talk]
Inner City Press: I'm just saying because yesterday, you said, "I'll check".
Associate Spokesperson: Because as you mentioned… as you mentioned yourself, you know, leave is part of working life.
Inner City Press: Okay. Was he also on leave when UN staff had to leave Libya and he was the deputy SRSG in Libya? Because that's what I'm told by the people…
Associate Spokesperson: He was also on leave when what…?
Inner City Press: On leave when the people were evacuated from Libya that were the staff members of the UNSMIL mission.
Associate Spokesperson: Well, I just said I'm not going to go and check his attendance sheet.
So much for checking.
Inner City Press asked the UN where Cheikh Ahmed is. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press that he has been "planning his travels," soon to Riyadh. Yeah, Inner City Press was told by another less constrained but at least as knowledgeable source: planning his future travels while already on vacation. Another source compared it to then UN envoy to Pakistan Jean-Maurice Ripert going on vacation amid national disasters in Pakisan and then losing his post.
The buzz in Sana'a, where Hadi has named a governor in exile described as an Islamist, is that Cheikh Ahmed may well have known of the plans to bring in APC and weapons to those fighting the Houthis in Aden, and so "misleadingly" urged a pause. Another compared this to the UN luring out surrendering rebel leaders in Sri Lanka - to their deaths.
And so from Aden, photographs of brand new light brown vehicles, American-made, brought in. Will they end up in the hands of Al Qaeda?
Inner City Press: I wanted to check first if you have anything on Yemen and the activities of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. What's he been doing in the last few days, amid reports of continued death and destruction in the country?
Deputy Spokesman: Yes, Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed has been planning his onward travels. The only one to confirm at this stage is that he does plan very shortly to travel to Riyadh, where he is to meet with Saudi authorities, authorities of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and with President [Abd Rabbuh Mansour] Hadi and Vice-President [Khaled] Bahah. And so, he is going to try to talk to them. He's continuing with his efforts to see what can be done to secure a humanitarian pause, even following the end of Ramadan and Eid. And so, he's going to continue with those efforts and travel more broadly in the region after that. We'll try and inform you of other stops as that progresses.
Inner City Press: There's some talk of, if not Mr. Hadi, other ministers trying to return to Aden. Is the UN aware of that? Do they have any comment on that?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: It's not for me to discuss what the Government of Yemen is trying to do. Regarding Aden, we have been concerned about the humanitarian situation on the ground. Our humanitarian colleagues have been continuing even in the absence of a humanitarian pause on the ground to try to provide supplies. I believe that, even though the pause did not go forward as we had wanted, about 60 per cent of the humanitarian activities that we had been planning did, in fact, take place. And so we were able to provide some aid, although not nearly enough. And, of course, we continue to be concerned about the fighting in Aden.
Back on July 9, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proudly announced a humanitarian pause to start on July 10 at midnight.
When the supposed pause failed, Inner City Press was told on July 14, it took Ban Ki-moon more than two days to speak with Saudi Arabia, through its foreign and defense ministers. Ban, it was said, was "in the air."
Inner City Press: Something on Yemen. Yesterday, you said the Secretary-General was very, very disappointed. So, I wanted to ask, if you can say, starting, I guess it would be, Saturday morning, right after midnight, it became pretty clear that there was no pause. Did he make any… did he make any actual, like, calls, meaning like telephone calls or in some… did he reach out? And can you confirm or deny that some within DPA [Department of Political Affairs] had suggested that he not put out that statement that seemed to imply that there was a pause agreed to as…?
Spokesman Dujarric: No, I… listen, I'm not… Secretary-General was in the air a large part of the weekend. He's also attending the Addis conference. People at various levels were having various contacts. The Secretary-General spoke to both the Defence Minister of Saudi Arabia and the Foreign Minister yesterday, in addition to other contacts that were had in the previous… you know, on Monday and over the weekend. As to the deliberation… the internal deliberations of different opinions expressed within the UN Secretariat, I'm not going to go into that. At the end of the day, it's the Secretary-General's call, and the statement he issued was clear.
The day before on July 13 at the UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric why the UN had made another "call" for a pause sound like a commitment to a pause, at least by the Saudi led coalition. Video here.
Dujarric answered that envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed had told the Suadis of his desire for a pause. But that's not what the UN said on July 9.
Dujarric, who has still to issue any written statement, said this at the July 13 briefing:
“Obviously the Secretary General is very, very much disappointed that the humanitarian pause did not take hold over the weekend in Yemen. We are continuing with contacts at various levels.
“Despite the continued airstrikes, despite the fighting our humanitarian partners were able to distribute some vital aid to the desperate people of Yemen where ever they can and how ever they an. Obviously the security situation makes it that much more difficult for critical human aid to be delivered.
“We continue to reiterate our call for unconditional humanitarian pause h p and the Secretary General reminds all parties to the conflict in Yemen, from both inside and outside the country of their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law.”
Even this wasn't issued as a statement or Note to Correspondents. Ban was in Addis Ababa for the Financing for Development conference; here are his UN's "messaging" points in the run-up to that conference (andhere an Inner City Press story about it; we'll have more). But isn't the UN responsible to say something after a humanitarian pause it announced doesn't happen, and people are killed?
It quickly became clear that some of key parties had not been spoken with or agreed; the pause's midnight beginning came and passed amid airstrikes.
Inner City Press is informed by sources that Ban Ki-moon was urged to not make the dubious pause announcement, including from within the UN's own Department of Political Affairs -- but Ban announced it anyway.
At best, it was rolling the dice. At worse, on the very day that UN is rightly criticizing itself for making false promises of protection in Srebrenica 20 years ago, in this case Yemenis were told there would be a pause, and some perhaps relied on it, to their detriment. And still the UN had said nothing.
After the July 9 announcement, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman if the Saudis had been spoken with. The answer was, Hadi told the Saudis his position. But did Hadi ever agree to the pause, or just to the conditions set forth in his letter to UN? What of Hadi's responsibilities to the Yemeni people?
Now Saudi Al Arabiya has said Saudi Arabia never received any communication from Hadi to stop airstrikes, here. Someone is lying.
Where is the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed? Headed to Ethiopia, Ban's spokesman said, to meet with Ban on the sidelines of the Financing for Development conference there. Does IOCA harbor ambitions for another UN system post, or back in his own country? What sort of a track record is this? Watch this site.
At the July 10 UN noon briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN had spoken with those in Yemen opposing the Houthis but not supporting or in contact with Hadi. Video here. From Dujarric's answer, it seems no such contact has been made.
So, Inner City Press asked, if such a group fires on the Houthis and they fire back, is the pause over, has it been violated? We'll see what happens.
Back on July 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:
Inner City Press: can you, one, characterize not the communications with Mr. Hadi, but with Saudi Arabia that's running the coalition, the Saudi-led coalition. And does this mean the Secretary-General's understanding is no airstrikes during this time period, and no further advances or use of heavy weapons by the Houthis? Does the pause mean no firing? What does it mean to each of those two sides?
Spokesman Dujarric: What it means is that, if you read the statement, the President… Secretary-General notes that the President, President Hadi, has communicated his acceptance of the pause to the coalition to ensure their support. A humanitarian pause means no fighting. It means no bombing. It means no shooting. It means no fighting. It means exactly that: a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've seen, to enable our humanitarian colleagues to get the aid to where it's needed, to preposition, and stockpile, and to reach the millions that need it.
Inner City Press: Right. But just for example, policing, who's doing policing in these various cities? Things happen.
Spokesman Dujarric: Obviously I think… [cross talk] In any area in the country, there is a… there is de facto control and, obviously, there is a need to ensure safety and security. What we're talking about is a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've been witnessing for weeks on end now.
Inner City Press: So just one last thing on this. So the commitment on airstrikes is through President Hadi to the UN?
Spokesman: You know, the… [cross talk] Obviously, President Hadi is a critical interlocutor with the coalition. And as I've said, we've taken note of the fact that he's conveyed to the coalition his acceptance. We expect everyone involved in this conflict to honor this humanitarian pause.
On July 7 the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights upped its estimate of civilians killed since March 27 to 1,528, adding that one million people have been displaced since the beginning of this round of the conflict. To the Saudi airstrike on UNDP in Khormaksar, Aden, OHCHR added that "IOM’s Migrant Response Centre in Basateen, also in Aden, was struck by a mortar and an airstrike damaged IOM’s office in Harad."
IOM, as Inner City Press reported, had earlier paused its evacuation by air of those seeking to flee Yemen due to some party, which it left unnamed, demanding information about those fleeing BEFORE the flights could leave. Inner City Press has asked others in the UN about this and has been told IOM should have done the screening after the people were able to flee. IOM refused a direct question about caused it to violate this best practice, then stopped sending the Press any information.
There are countries, normally vocal about civilian deaths, which are selling military equipment to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. Ban Ki-moon, now in Oslo, is relying entirely on Saudi-selected replacement envoy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who was unable to even get the parties in the same room in Geneva, much less reach an agreement. There remain, for now, OHCHR's body counts.
On June 24, Inner City Press asked the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed about the request by the Houthis and others to meet not with him but with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who did not meet with them in Geneva. Transcribed here.
On June 25 Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm receipt of the letter and if Ban will meet them. Haq said Cheikh Ahmed is the envoy, and Ban's headed to San Francisco. The UN Security Council issued a Press Statement, here.
Also on June 25, Inner City Press asked new UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien three questions about Yemen: cholera, the destruction of ambulances in Sa'ada and about international staff. Video here.
O'Brien replied that cholera is a risk; he had no information on WHO it was that destroyed the ambulances in Sa'ada (we can guess.) On international staff, which the UN evacuated earlier, he spoke of a rise from 17 to 70, with the goal of getting to 200. He would not say if they are anywhere in the country outside of Sana'a, citing security. But at least he spoke - the Free UN Coalition for Access thanked him.
Here's from the June 24 stakeout, as fast transcribed by Inner City Press:
Inner City Press: On the parties in Sanaa requesting to meet the Secretary General – what’s your response?
Cheikh Ahmed: "This question was raised during our discussion with the Houthis, the GPC and their allies. The Secretary General had delayed twice his travel in order to be there for the parties. We have sent twice a plane from Sanaa which the delegation from Sana'a could not take.. Therefore the Secretary General had a major engagement, which was the election of the new president of the General Assembly which takes place only once a year , and he had to attend it. But the Secretary General will continue being engaged on this."
The ceremonial elevation of the President of the GA who will take over in September was not an election at all - no vote was taken. At the top, Cheikh Ahmed said (again, as fast transcribed by Inner City Press)
"I just briefed the Security Council on the latest developments in Yemen, with a particular focus on the Geneva Consultation. I informed the Council that the Geneva intra-Yemeni Consultations are a milestone... Despite the raging battles and ongoing violence, and the dramatic humanitarian situation, Yemenis accepted the Secretary General’s invitation and participated in the consultations.
"The personal presence of the Secretary General was an indication of the primary importance attached by the United Nations and the international community, and in particular the Secretary General himself on the Yemeni situation. I deeply regret the deep division between the parties and the lack of compromise that prevented an agreement that was within reach. The holding of the Geneva consultation was itself a great achievement in light of the extreme violence unleashed in Yemen.
"While the government came to Geneva to seek the implementation of Security Council Resolution 2216, the government acted in a positive and constructive spirit. Both sides showed signs of constructive engagement. There is an emerging common ground upon which we can build to achieve a ceasefire coupled with a withdrawal.
"While we pursue a long term cessation of violence, I call on all relevant parties to agree without delay to the humanitarian truce, especially during Ramadan. We should not forget that Yemenis are living under dire conditions and it pains me to witness this ongoing suffering. I call on all stakeholders to spare no effort to help us achieve a temporary respite for the Yemeni people.
"I am aware that reviving the political process will not be easy. The Secretary General and I have been clear from the outset that this consultation was only a stepping stone towards the long inclusive political process. All the parties affirmed their commitment to remain engaged with the UN in search of a peaceful solution of the conflict. I have no doubt that it is possible to build upon this positive spirit in the forthcoming consultation.
"I strongly believe that the UN facilitated intra-Yemeni consultations offer the best chance for moving towards a de-escalation of the crisis and a return to the political process. I personally believe there is no military answer to this conflict. I therefore remain committed and will spare no effort to achieve a cease fire and the swift return to a peaceful, inclusive political process."
Before the meeting, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and told the press of the danger of famine in the country, and of his hope for a Yemen Press Statement from the UNSC, in which the UK is the "penholder" on Yemen. Periscope video here, replay including on desktop for 24 hours.
Inner City Press was digging into the letter from political parties IN Yemen, asking for a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, NOT with replacement envoy Cheikh Ahmed. These parties, including but not limited to the Houthis, were delayed in getting to Geneva so that they could not meet with Ban (who while there DID meet with a US-listed Al Qaeda terrorist).
While some are sure to argue that Ban now meeting with the parties would undercut Cheikh Ahmed, others point out the the underlying resolution speaks of the Secretary General's Good Offices INCLUDING his Envoy. The envoy is not the only game in town - nor, given his lack of disclosure, raised by Inner City Press, should he be. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, April 22-- The day after Saudi Arabia said it was ending its campaign of airstrikes on Yemen, the US issued a statement starting:
"The United States welcomes the decision by the Government of Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners to conclude Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen. With this announcement, we look forward toa shift from military operations to the rapid, unconditional resumption of all-party negotiations that allow Yemen to resume an inclusive political transition process as envisioned in the GCC Initiative, the National Dialogue outcomes, and relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We also welcome the United Nations continuing to play a vital role in facilitating the political talks and look forward to the United Nations announcing a location for the talks in the very near future."
So, after Saudi Arabia was allowed to oust UN mediator Jamal Benomar for being insufficiently supportive of its airstrikes, the UN is being promoted, again, as an honest broker. How so, when the UN is UNtransparently moving toward naming as a replacement mediator an individual who previously failed in Yemen, refusing to make public financial disclosure?
How weak and untransparent is today's UN? It it apparently considering appointing as replacement envoy to Yemen a partial individual whom one side has indicated it would not speak with.
On April 15 Inner City Press reported that despite UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's claims to stand behind the UN's envoy to Yemen Jamal Benomar, who refused to call Saudi airstrikes positive, Ban was planning to replace him.
After that Inner City Press report, the UN Spokesman sent out this a canned statement that Benomar "expressed an interest in moving on" and would be replaced in due course. But by whom?
On April 15, Inner City Press named the name which was floated by Saudi and UN sources, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and linked to its February 15, 2015 exclusive report on this individual's previous "incompetence" in Yemen, and side fishing business. There is yet more on both of these below.
On April 17, Inner City Press asked Ban's Office of the Spokesperson WHY there is no public financial disclosure for Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and to confirm or deny he has links with businesses -- fishing - with Gulf funders. The response was, We will check and get back to you. Video here and embedded below.
By April 22 there had been no answer. Meanwhile Hassan Zayd of the Al Haq party wrote on Facebook that Ban should not appoint Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, mentioning corruption and, yes, Inner City Press' reporting, going back to Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's stints in Libya and before that in Yemen.
So at the April 20 noon briefing Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric for his response. He said whomever Ban appoints, all sides should speak with. But would they? And with Ban meeting six GCC ambassadors on April 20 at 4 pm, what outreach is there to the other side? It is UNclear. Video here.
Inner City Press is informed that when the GCC ambassador came down from Ban's office, they spoke only in Arabic and not in much detail. Dujarric promised Inner City Press a read-out. Watch this site.
Inner City Press: on Yemen, in terms of trying to find a replacement for Mr. [Jamal] Benomar that can actually speak with both sides, I wanted to ask you, on Friday, I'd asked the spokesperson here about whether Mr. [Ismail Ould] Cheikh Ahmed, why he has filed no financial disclosure online… public financial disclosure… and whether he has a business that's funded by gulf interests and was told we will check and get back to you. So, I wanted to know, now that's Monday…
Spokesman Dujarric: It is, indeed, Monday. That is a fact. When I have something to share with you, I will do so.
Inner City Press: And I wanted to ask whether you're aware of Mr. Hassan Zaid of the Al-Haq party, which has been on and off affiliated with the Houthis has said online that Mr. Cheikh Ahmed is unacceptable and is viewed as being Saudi selected and will not be received by… I just wonder…
Spokesman: I…
Inner City Press: Are you going to consult with the Houthi side with someone…?
Spokesman Dujarric: We are… by answering your question, I am not confirming or denying the person you mentioned as an envoy. What is clear is that any envoy especially in dealing with very difficult political negotiations in what is an active conflict zone needs to be received by all the parties. And we expect that when our envoy is named that he or she will be received and engaged with… with all the parties.
Inner City Press: But I noticed that the Secretary-General was scheduled today at 4 p.m. to meet with the GCC ambassadors. I just wonder, what outreach are you doing to quote the other side that's in Yemen…?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think… contacts are being held at various levels. The meeting with the GCC ambassadors was at their request so we will have to see what message they come with and we will try to get you a readout.
We'll see.
On April 17, Inner City Press also asked if Ban was considering any female candidates and if Ban thought Saudi Arabia would or should have to accept one, if selected. We'll see.
On April 16, Inner City Press exclusively reported another candidate: Martin Kobler of Germany, currently the head of MONUSCO in the DR Congo. Kobler ran for head of the Office of Humanitarian Affairs, but that post "belongs" to the UK, in the person of Stephen O'Brien. Inner City Press' exclusive were credited in the Telegraph and Channel 4. (At least Andrew Lansley was avoided, as Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed should be here.)
Kobler speaks Arabic; as Inner City Press has exclusively reported, some six years ago he was in line to become UN Special Coordinator on the Middle East until a Permanent Five member blocked him (more on that soon), given the job to Robert Serry. Now Kobler is ready. But is Saudi Arabia?
Another name floated by UN sources (also reported exclusively by Inner City Press) is Lisa Buttenheim, currently at the UN mission in Cyprus. Like Kobler, she has more diplomatic experience than Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
She is a woman. For the UN, that should be a plus, given what Ban Ki-moon has said. But as a well placed sources put it to Inner City Press, if Ban gave in to Saudi Arabia and got Benomar out, will he stand up to an edict NOT to name a woman? Watch this site.
"UNSMIL's former deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed of Mauritania has been moved to head UNMEER, the UN's Ebola mission. Sources in Yemen say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was the UN's “designated security official” when a UNICEF staffer was taken hostage while traveling to the Sana'a airport without the required (and needed) security detail. Some say Ould Cheikh Ahmed was distracted, in Yemen and later in Libya, by side business interests.
Now on April 17 we can report: in Yemen UN personnel where to have escort to the airport, and armored vehicles. But designated official Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed allowed the guards he hired to do nothing, and left the armored vehicles in customs. The staffer was kidnapped by a criminal group affiliated with Al Qaeda and was traumatized.
"But a check of Ban Ki-moon's Public Disclosure website, where his officials are supposed to make rudimentary disclosure of the finances and outside business interests, does not even list Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed (while numerous other Deputy SRSGs are listed). His is not in the most recent database, for 2013 - and may escape any disclosure by become an Under Secretary General with a mere nine month stint at UNMEER. Then what? We'll stay on this."
So, no matter how much of a sycophant for the Saudi-led coalition he is, how can he get this post? How can the "P4" support this?
For now, Inner City Press asked this additional question: in Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's business(es), are there any Gulf investors?
Inner City Press: On Yemen, I’m, I would assume you have seen this report that the Saudi airstrikes killed 31 people in a dairy factory in Hudaydah. They make it pretty clear it may have been an errant missile, but it killed 31 civilians. And I’m wondering, what’s the, is there any comment from the Secretariat on that?
Spokesman Dujarric: Obviously, as we said here, that it is incumbent for all the parties in this conflict to fully respect international law which clearly includes the non-targeting of civilian infrastructure or civilian infrastructure, schools, facilities, civilian infrastructure in general. We have no way of knowing what exactly was the intended target. What we do know is that in many instances, since the fighting has started, civilians are the ones who are suffering, and I think that’s why the Secretary-General wants to see a halt to the violence, restart of the political process, and most urgently, the free flow of humanitarian aid going in. I think we’re seeing the food situation getting dire and dire every day. As our colleagues at the World Food Programme said, you know, when you’re a country that imports 90 per cent of its food is already vulnerable at any time and a time of conflict, that just increases that vulnerability very much so.
Inner City Press: And also on Yemen, I’m sure you’ve seen the reports — I don’t know if the UN is the source of them — floating Mr. Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed as a possible replacement. What I want to ask, I know you’re not going to say yes or no, but given he was so recently appointed to UNMEER, can you say that whoever’s working on Ebola will probably stay in that job? Or—
Spokesman: I think, you know, whenever there’s a senior vacancy at the United Nations, a lot of things float, a lot of names float around. When we’re ready to announce, we will announce. Obviously, the Ebola file is one of, it’s very important to the Secretary-General and to the United Nations, but when we’re ready to announce somebody, we will
