In Somalia As Prime Minister's Cabinet Re-Shuffle Banned by President, UN's Ban Ki-moon Calls for "Stability"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- Even with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the Horn of Africa, on October 27 his spokesman Stephane Dujarric had no comment on the Somali President versus prime minister spat when Inner City Press asked, video here.

 Now on October 29 Ban has said, flanked by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, that "Somalia needs continuity and stability at this critical time.”

  Take that, Prime Minister Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed. As Haitians found when Ban refused to even receive legal papers much less appear in court on the claims his UN brought cholera to the island, Ban is more focused on power than on the law. And Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is, for now, the man in Mogadishu.

  Also in the Horn in Eritrea, there is intrigue. On October 7 Inner City Press exclusively reported that a member of the UN's Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group Dinesh Mahtani used UN SEMG time and letterhead for unrelated advocacy regarding Eritrea. Mahtani's letter wasexclusively put online here by Inner City Press.

  The UN on October 27 specified that it was Mahtani's use of the UN letterhead that was not approved. Video here. Tellingly, Mahtani's resignation went unmentioned by wire service write-ups of the SEMG report he was involved in, which Reuters in particular is promoting(while censoring its own anti-Press submissions to the UN, click here for that.)

    The silence by Reuters, for which Mahtani used to work, and Agence France Presse continues even as the two UN Security Council Permanent Representatives, one on-camera, have spoken about Mahtani, and UN spokesman Dujarric has done so twice, both times on-camera. We'll have more on this.

  On October 15, the Somalia and Eritrea sanctions committee chairman Ambassador Oh Joon of South Korea, when Inner City Press asked of Mahtani, said no, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.” 

 Now on October 24, after the UN Security Council extended the mandate of the SEMG with two abstentions, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about Mahtani, and the level of proof at this point of Eritrean support to Al Shabaab. Video here.

  Lyall Grant said that Mahtani was disciplined and resigned, that he "exceeded his authority in issuing that particularly letter." But as set forth below, major Western wire services in reporting on the SEMG have yet to mention the "regime change" letter.

  Lyall Grant said this time there is "much less evidence" of Eritrean support for Al Shabaab, but that Eritrea should allow the SEMG to visit Asmara. Again, how is this different from "guilty until proven innocent"? The UK Mission transcribed the Q&A on this:

Inner City Press: I wanted to about the Eritrea Sanctions and also about the Monitoring Group.  On the sanctions, is there from your point of view evidence of Eritrea still supporting Al Shabaab because what they seem to say is if there is no evidence, why should they let them in? It’s kind of like guilty until proven innocent.  And the other thing I wanted to ask you about was the Monitoring Group.  There was a letter that emerged from one of the experts Dinesh Mahtani in which he basically sort of tried to pick a new leader for the country.  He basically said he’d be a good leader for the country.  He’s now resigned and I wonder what are the implications of that given that he worked on the report.  What have you learned in terms of training for experts in the future.  Is there any follow-up I guess on this resignation from what some people call a regime-change letter?

Ambasssador Lyall Grant: I don’t have any comment to make on this particular expert. As you say he has been disciplined by the UN system and he’s resigned his position.  He clearly exceeded his authority in issuing that particular letter.

On the wider point, there has been very clear evidence in successive Monitoring Group reports on support for Al Shabaab from Eritrea.  In the latest report there is much less evidence and that is encouraging but because the Monitoring Group has not been allowed to visit Asmara, they have said very clearly that they have not been able to investigate various strands of evidence that comes their way.  So if Eritrea is no longer supporting Al Shabaab then why do they not allow the Monitoring Group to visit and talk to whoever they want to talk to and then no doubt the Monitoring Group will report that there is no further evidence of Eritrea supporting Al Shabaab.  In that case, the United Kingdom would be one of the first countries to suggest that sanctions be lifted.  So I think the solution to this problem lies in the hands of the government of Eritrea.

  Since October 8 not only Reuters but also Agence France Presse have retyped copies of the SEMG report given to them -- with no mention of the SEMG scandal and resignation acknowledged right in the UN Press Briefing Room on October 8.

   Isn't this like "reporting" on a panel of judges' ruling without mentioning that one of the judges just resigned after being confronted with a letter he wrote about the subject matter of the case?

 On October 15, when the UN Security Council met behind closed doors about SEMG and the report, the bylined scribe of Reuters Mahtani-less story about the report stood briefly in front of the Council, then left.

  After an hour and a half when the meeting ended, Inner City Press asked the sanctions committee chairman Oh Joon if Mahtani and his resignation has been raised in the meeting. No, Oh Joon replied, “we didn’t have a discussion on him. It’s been taken care of, I think.”

  But some question what the chairman of the SEMG knew, and how the involvement of the now-resigned Mahtani in the report under review impacted it. We’ll have more on this.

On October 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Mahtani's letter and if it was appropriate behavior for a sanctions monitor.  No, Dujarric said, adding that the letter was “shown” to Dinesh Mahtani, who has resigned. Video here.

 On October 10, Reuters two UN correspondents dutifully regurgitatedthe SEMG's most recent report, even called it "exclusive" -- a basis on which Reuters pays -- with no mention that one of the SEMG's members had resigned after being exposed for pushing regime change.

  Key fact: Dinesh Mahtani used to work for Reuters, see c.v. here. 

   This puts Reuters' non-mention of SEMG member Mahtani's resignation is a different light.

  On October 13, AFP in English retyped its copy of the SEMG report, no mention of regime-change scandal. This too is how the UN works, ordoesn't.

 Sources had told Inner City Press that Mahtani, the finance expert on SEMG and previously on the DR Congo Sanctions group, was found requesting favors from a member state, to which the SEMG reports.Here is a document:

a letter from Dinesh Mahtani, ostensibly in his SEMG role, saying that former Eritrean official Ali Abdu "has great potential to play a stabilizing role in Eritrea with the country possibly headed to an uncertain period in its history." 

This is hardly the first controversy in the SEMG -- but usually the members wait until they are off or on their way off the Monitor Group to “let it all hang out,” as one source put it of previous SEMG chair Matt Bryden. 

  The current chair, Jarat Chopra, has faced complaints from Somalia, also exclusively reported by Inner City Press.

  Bryden's departure was telegraphed in remarks to, and a report by, Inner City Press on July 24, 2012 when Security Council members from three countries gave Inner City Press exclusive and negative reviews of Bryden's performance. 

  "He's leaving," one of them said dismissively and definitely of Bryden. There was snarky speculation Bryden may have been angling for a book deal, or a post with a group like HRW.

  With Bryden the questions were largely of leaking, and for example of micro-managing the Eritrean air force. Apparently that's disputed: but consider Paragraphs 60 to 75 of the 2012 report S/2012/545, down to the "flow of spare parts and lubricants." Those about Mahtani, the sources tell Inner City Press, are "bigger... regime change on UN letterhead." Now Mahtani has resigned. We'll have more on this.

UK Says AMISOM Complies With Rights, But Kenya Navy Not Part of AMISOM

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, September 18, updated -- As Kenya's navy has been shelling and "softening up" Kismayo in Somalia, and in the process killing at least three civilians, Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN what safeguards are in place.

  After pointing out that the Kenyan navy is not part of the UN-assisted AMISOM mission, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally pointed back to a three week old statement by the UN's humanitarian Mark Bowden.

  But given the UN's role in funding AMISOM, with which the Kenyan naval shelling is clearly coordinated, doesn't the UN have a greater role?

   On Tuesday morning Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant about the shelling, after he described the just-passed Security Council resolution and upcoming summit meeting at the UN.

   Lyall Grant said the Kenya's ground troops are part of AMISOM, but the "Kenyan navy assets" are not. He said he would not speak to the timetable for re-taking Kismayo from Al Shabab, which he called "a longstanding objective that will be pursued."

  Inner City Press asked, since the Kenyan navy is clearly coordinating with the Council authorized (and UN funded) AMISOM, what safeguards are in place?

  Lyall Grant said the issue goes beyond Somalia, whenever regional organizations are authorized by the Council in this way.

  He said while less direct than with UN blue helmets (or berets), AMISOM is still expected to comply with human rights, and he said "we have not reasons to believe that they are not doing so."

  But what about the Kenyan Navy and its shelling?

  There was previously a dispute in the Security Council about whether to fund the Kenyan naval component, or at least its maintenance. Did declining to provide that funding leave this de facto component outside any human rights safeguards?
Watch this site.

Here is the UK Mission transcript:

 
Inner City Press: you mentioned Al-Shabaab, and there’s been a lot of reports in recent days of the Kenyan Army and AMISOM closing in on Kismayo, and also some shelling from ships that are said to be in the Kenyan Navy. I’m wondering 1) what you can say about this kind of end game with Al-Shabaab, but a question arose, whether the Kenyan navy was part of AMISOM, was it ever approved by the Council, are you paying for the ships, and if, what safeguards are in place for this, essentially, shelling into Kismayo that some people say has killed at least three civilians?

Amb. Lyall Grant: “Well, it has always been a long term objective of both AMISOM and the Somali authorities to take back control of Kismayo from Al-Shabaab. I’m not going to comment on the timetable for that, or the plans for that. But that is clearly an objective and it’s an objective that will be pursued. In terms of the Kenyan naval assets, they are not formally part of AMISOM. The Kenyan troops since June, when the MoU was signed with the African Union, have become part of AMISOM and are being funded accordingly. But the Kenyan naval assets are funded by the Kenyans and are not part of AMISOM.”

Inner City Press: something I’ve been trying to figure out for a few days. Since it’s working obviously in coordination with AMISOM, and there are at least reports, Human Rights Watch put out a report that a pregnant woman and two children were killed by the shelling, how does the Council ensure that something that’s part of a mission that it authorised, that there’s human rights monitoring, and safeguards in place for the whole operation, and not only part of it.

Amb. Lyall Grant: “Well, that is a general challenge that goes beyond the case of Somalia. There are other examples of regional organisations that are authorised, mandated, by the Security Council to take action. Now obviously, when it is a full UN peacekeeping operation with blue berets, there is a more direct control on the part of the UN system and on the part of the Security Council on issues like human rights. With the case of AMISOM, it is a more distant, hands off relationship. But nonetheless, it is a UN authorised mission and we do expect AMISOM to abide by international standards of human rights and humanitarian law, and we have no reason to think that they are not doing so.”

At UN on Eritrea, Discordant NYT Note in Arming Shabab Narrative Ignored

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- After the Somalia / Eritrea Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council provided a closed door briefing on Wednesday, Inner City Press asked Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parham of the UK, this month's Council president, about it:

Inner City Press: There had been this controversy about a flight where Eritrea had been accused of bringing, flying in weapons to Al-Shabaab. There were media accounts that the report of the Committee cleared them of that, or said there was no evidence of that. Has this now finally, has this reached the Council, was this discussed at all?

Amb Parham: Yes. The role of Eritrea was discussed in the consultations we have had just now. The Monitoring Group say that they have established that Eritrea has been breaching the arms embargo. That’s clearly a serious issue and I think the Committee, chaired by Ambassador Puri, will take that forward, among other things, I think, in discussion with the Eritreans themselves.”

Inner City Press: There was a New York Times report saying actually that the Committee had found a particular flight that was used as a rationale for entering Somalia didn’t take place. Was the presentation uniformly --

Amb Parham: In the discussion just now we didn’t get into the specific flights, but what we did hear is that the Monitoring Group have established that there have been breaches by Eritrea and that is something which, I think, the Committee will take forward including, as I say, with the Eritreans themselves. Thanks.

Just on this issue, Reuters on January 16, 2012 reported and the New York Times of January 17, 2012 at Page A10 published as followed:

Eritrea: Panel Finds No Arms Were Sent to Somali Rebels

By REUTERS

Published: January 16, 2012

Eritrea did not airlift arms to Islamist militants in the Somali town of Baidoa late last year, a preliminary United Nations report has found. Kenya accused Eritrea in November of delivering weapons to the Shabab, a Qaeda-linked rebel group battling to overthrow Somalia’s Western-backed government. Eritrea repeatedly denied the accusation. The United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea said that its 'preliminary assessment is that these reports were incorrect and that the alleged deliveries to Baidoa probably did not take place.'

Was this Reuters and NYT report false? No correction was ever published. If not, how could the Committee not discuss it, but rather hear only that "the Monitoring Group say that they have established that Eritrea has been breaching the arms embargo"?

Perhaps relatedly, how can it be that after Ethiopia admitted attacked inside Eritrea, which wrote to the Council as first reported by Inner City Press, the Council has held no meeting or discussion, until the above summarized sanctions discussion?

One thought that UN and even Security Council was about hearing from those accused, and about dialogue. But perhaps not. Watch this site.

On Somalia, UN Opposes Fast Elections, At Ethiopia's Coming Out Party

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- Near the end of daylong Somalia debate in the UN Security Council, Kazakhstan for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation praised "the Ethiopian military offensive in central Somalia."

Then Ethiopia's Permanent Representative took the floor at the final speaker and said his country's troops were welcomed in Baidoa. It was, one Permanent Representative said, a sort of coming out party, the UK following up the London Conference.

UN envoy Augustine Mahiga criticized some "breakaway" Parliamentarians who want to move up the elections to April 30. To some it was strange: the UN elsewhere pushes for fast elections.

The Presidential Statement was read out at the beginning of the session, before the speeches. But Horn of Africa countries, at least some of them, were consulted in advance.

There was talk of a "Group of Friends of Somalia at the UN." A diplomat told Inner City Press that "everyone will be invited, except Eritrea and Israel." US Ambassador Susan Rice, meanwhile, was speaking at and tweeting from the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch.

Finland spoke, its Permanent Representative stopping to tell Inner City Press there are 20,000 Somalis in his country.

Earlier in the debate, piracy was the focus of most of the speakers. By contrast, South Africa and others wonder why there is not more focus on the land, and Somalis themselves.

Japan, it emerges, has something of an anti-piracy base in Djibouti. Its Permanent Representative Tsuneo Nishida said, "in June last year, Japan established its own facility in Djibouti to accommodate its personnel and equipment, towards more effective conduct of these operations."

Indian Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri said he hopes that next time, the Council votes UN funding for the upkeeping of the Kenyan ships, speaking of efforts to

"sanitize the Somali coastline and deprive Al Shabaab of revenues earned from port facilities and export of charcoal. We hope that the Council will agree to include naval assets for CoE reimbursement when it considers the extension of AMISOM mandate later this year."

As Inner City Press first reported, in closed door consultations there was resistance to the UN paying for the upkeep of four Kenya ships, with France described as the "main cheapskate." The US, for what it's worth, is said to have supported UN reimbursement for the upkeep of the Kenya ships.

Later, Inner City Press asked Italy's Permanent Representative about the ongoing dispute between his country and India after Indian fishermen were mistaken as pirates and shot. The Italians are, India says, in "judicial custody."

A UN official told Inner City Press, and Italy confirmed, that former UN official Staffan de Mistura is now in India working on it. One of these two sources said Mistura is offering compensation, trying to make the problem go away. Oh, pirates...