UNITED NATIONS, December 15 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution is voted on and fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.
On December 15, as Mansour left the UN Security Council he told Inner City Press he was on the way downstairs to speak before the ICC Assembly of State Parties. There, he said that Palestine should be encouraged to seek accountability through a peaceful process - that is, it seems, through the ICC.
The Security Council meeting was the monthly session on "the Middle East Including the Question of Palestine," with a briefing from Special Coordinator Robert Serry.
Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric why Serry had, on the Golan Heights, said “on December 7 UNDOF observed two aircraft from the Alpha side flying north-east over the area of separation and entering the area of limitation on the Bravo side" - why not say, it was an Israeli plane?
Dujarric said UNDOF, which we noted after the surrender to Al Nusra orderd by UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous has limited credibility, could only report what it knew. (Given Ladsous' performance in Darfur and DR Congo, that too is dubious.) Dujarric said that Serry would be taking questions at the Security Council stakeout after the noon briefing.
But while Inner City Press waited for an hour at the stakeout, Serry never came, and the door to the stakeout became locked. The Free UN Coalition for Accessasks, Why?
The Chadian Security Council president for December did speak, and Inner City Press asked about the status of the Palestine resolution(s). He said it hadn't come up in the Middle East consultations. That too is telling.
On December 11, Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state.Video here.
Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill had this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.
Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.
At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.
Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."
Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.
Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.
Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.
Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.
At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.
Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."
Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 9, more here -- With the International Criminal Court's Assembly of State Parties meeting in the UN, four non-governmental organizations held a press conference on December 9 and took questions.
Inner City Press asked then about one of the Court's biggest failures: the continued mass rape and impunity in Sudan long after President Omar al Bashir was indicted for genocide by the ICC.
Since UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous met with ICC indictee Bashir without ever explaining why, and has since played a role in the covering up of attacks in Darfur including some 200 rapes in Tabit, Inner City Press asked the four NGOs what they thought about this, and the rapes.
But it was only the rapes which drew an answer any of the panelists, and then only from one panelist, who said her NGO is conducting its own inquiry into the rapes in Tabit (Inner City Press asked to be kept informed.)
Amnesty and FIDH did not answer the Darfur or Ladsous questions. In fairness perhaps this is because these questions where lumped in with three other medias' questions -- because the NGOs, or the moderator from the Coalition for the ICC, set aside the first question for the old UN Correspondents Association, whose outgoing head proceeded to ask four questions, taking up half the question time (it is unclear if any story would come from those four questions).
And this is the UN: as of 10 pm, the 1:30 pm press conference video was not on the UN's website.
On Sudan: ten days after after the UN issued a statement on its internal investigation into charges it covered-up attacks in Darfur, its UNAMID mission there under Herve Ladsous on November 9 issued a statement that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area" and that no evidence of rape was found.
On December 4, Inner City Press asked Ladsous, Why did UNAMID not say on November 9 that it was surrounded by soldiers? Video here,and embedded below.
As is his habit, Ladsous did not answer on December 4, even with his UN Peacekeeping under fire for cover ups. It is a pattern with Ladsous. He refused Press questions for months about rapes in Eastern Congo in Minova by DRC Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports: video compilation here;Vine here.
On the morning of December 4 Ladsous claimed to the Security Council that UNAMID's findings were "inconclusive" due to army presence. But his UNAMID's press release whitewashed the situation in Tabit and did not mention the army presence. The covering-up continues, with no credibility, as Ladsous did on the Minova raped by DR Congo Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports.
On November 25, a wide range of groups in Darfur petitioned the UN Security Council about UNAMID's malfeasance. Inner City Press that morning obtained the letter (h/t) and put it online in full here, and below.
While UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked at noon, said he had not seen the letter, by 6 pm when Inner City Press asked November's Security Council president about the letter, he confirmed receipt.
Quinlan said he had circulated the letter to the other 14 Council members -- as of 3 pm, one of them had not yet received it -- and that he expects the issues to be considered when the Security Council takes up UNAMID "next week, under Chad's presidency."
(On November 26, the UK Mission to the UN"s Arran Skinner told Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly. In terms of contents, on alleged rape cases, the Security Council issued a press statement calling for a full investigation. The UK initiated the call for a press statement and so agree that this issue needs to be looked at." Another Security Council mission has yet to confirm receipt or comment, but it's expected.)
On Ban Ki-moon's report into UNAMID under-reporting attacks on civilians and even peacekeepers, Inner City Press asked and Quinlan repeated it should be taken up soon, the question is finding the right, credible (or disinterested) briefer. Watch this site for that. Here is the letter:
11/25/2014
Dear Gary Quinlan, Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations,President of the United Nations Security Council, November 2014
United Nations
New York, NY
c. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations United Nations
Dear Ambassador Quinlan,
As Darfuris in the diaspora, we have watched with great sorrow and growing anger the plight of our people in this ravaged region of Sudan. Darfur at one time commanded considerable attention in the United Nations, but no longer.
The international community in general has drifted into an acceptance that somehow the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) is an adequate means of protecting millions of vulnerable civilians. It is clearly not, and the recent mass sexual assault on women and girls in Tabit, North Darfur, makes this all too clear.
But the disgraceful "investigation" by UNAMID of events in Tabit should be the occasion for our remembering that this is, in fact, a UN-authorized mission; it has UN Chapter 7 authority; it is deployed with a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated by the UN and African Union (February 2008), even as the agreement is now simply a travesty, violated at will by the Khartoum regime. It is not, however, simply the failing of UNAMID and the African Union that must be reckoned with. It is the Security Council, the Secretariat, and UN Department of Peacekeeping Affairs (UN DPKO) that must accept responsibility for a failing mission; and it is UN DPKO that must do most to explain what it will do in light of this failure.
It is in this context that we demand that the following questions be addressed forthrightly and expeditiously:
[1] UNAMID, even if augmented and re-directed along the lines recently suggested by Secretary Ban Ki-moon, cannot provide adequate security for the people of Darfur. We demand that plans be made immediately for an UN force that can adequately take on the "responsibility to protect" civilians at risk, per the September 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document (§38, §39).
[2] We demand that the Security Council and UN DPKO confront the Khartoum regime over its countless flagrant violations of the SOFA.
[3] We demand that UN DPKO undertake a full review of UNAMID's performance to date. The context here should be the fact that more than 2 million Darfuris have been newly displaced since UNAMID took up its mandate in January 2008; we would remind you of how closely violence and displacement have correlated over the past decade of conflict. Moreover, insecurity has increased steadily for more than two years—this on top of the insecurity that prevailed so widely in earlie years.
[4] We demand that UN DPKO, in consultation with the Security Council and the Secretariat, formulate plans to provide adequate protection to the civilian population of Darfur. This must include contingency plans for a very rapid acceleration of what is already unacceptable insecurity for civilians and humanitarians.
[5] We demand in particular that UN DPKO ensure that UNAMID is prepared to provide adequate protection to the people of Tabit, especially girls and women, from retaliation by Khartoum for having had the misfortune of making clear to the world just how brutal this regime is.
[6] We further demand that UN DPKO instruct UNAMID to provide all necessary protection to humanitarian efforts to reach Tabit. Many residents have been badly traumatized and injured.
[7] We also demand accountability from those who are responsible for the failures that led to the brutal crimes at Tabit, and so many others over so many years. Accountability must extend to the leadership of UNAMID and the African Union Peace and Security Council, as well as to the UN DPKO. As part of this assigning of responsibility, there must be a full and competent investigation, authorized by the Security Council of how this atrocity crime was essentially white-washed by all parties, most notably UNAMID. But we must emphasize as well that we are deeply troubled by the silence of UN DPKO.
[8] We demand that UNAMID be guided by the "rules of engagement" for UNAMID in Darfur that have been previously negotiated. UN DPKO must ensure that these "rules of engagement" are widely understood and dictate the actions taken by UNAMID personnel.
[9] We demand that UN DPKO assess the possibility that insecurity is now so great that there will be an exodus of international NGOs providing critical relief aid to Darfuris. Many INGOs have expressed their deep concern for the safety of their workers in Darfur, more than 95 percent of whom are Sudanese nationals. The safety of these workers must not be discounted because they are African and Khartoum permits no news coverage of Darfur and no human rights reporting presence.
Would relief workers similarly threatened in other parts of the world be regarded in the same light as Sudanese relief workers?
[10] We demand that UN DPKO communicate with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in order to ascertain when a continued humanitarian presence by the UN might become impossible for security reasons.
[11] We demand that UN DPKO assess the implications for future UN peacekeeping missions if
UNAMID is allowed to continue to fail so conspicuously. The events at Tabit and the performance of UNAMID investigators bring this question into high relief.
[12] Most generally, we demand that UN DPKO speak forthrightly about its understanding of the limitations and weaknesses of present peacekeeping in Darfur and the provision of civilian security.
We remain troubled by the comments of the Under-Secretary General for DPKO when in spring 2012 he declared that security "conditions on the ground" had improved sufficiently that UNAMID could begin to draw down its forces (a figure of 4,000 personnel was promulgated at the time). This ghastly error in judgment was never acknowledged, even as by July of 2012 we saw a tremendous upsurge in violence, especially in North Darfur. How can we trust statements from UN DPKO when egregious errors are not acknowledged?
[13] We demand that the United Nations collectively develop an effective response to the gross deficiencies of UNAMID in protecting civilians and humanitarians. UN DPKO in particular must develop benchmarks for assessing UNAMID's performance and formulate emergency contingency plans in the event of a massive and precipitous withdrawal of humanitarian personnel.
These are matters of the deepest concern to us; to date, there are far too few answers from UN about why the Darfur genocide continues more than a decade after it began. We demand clear evidence that the people of Darfur will not be further abandoned.
Sincerely,
Darfur People's Association of New York
Darfur People's Association of Maryland
Fur Cultural Revival
Darfur People's Association of Houston
Darfur People's Association of Dallas
Darfur People's Association of Illinois
Darfur Human Rights - USA
Massalit Sons' Association - USA
Darfur Rehabilitation Project
Sudanese Revolutionary Front
Sudanese Opposition Forces- USA
Broad National Front
Justice & Equality Movement - Sudan
Sudan Liberation Movement - MM
Sudan Liberation Movement - Wahid
SPLM-N
Umma Party
Girifna
Sudanese Marginalized Forum - USA
Sudanese National Democratic Forum - California
National Sudanese Alliance - Philadelphia
Peace & Democracy Center - New Jersey
Democratic Alliance, USA
Federal Democratic Alliance
Sudanese Front for Change
Kush Liberation Movement
Democratic Unionist Party
Activists without Borders
Sudanese Congress Party
Darfur People's Association of Boston
Darfur People's Association of Indiana
Darfur People's Association of Utah
Darfur People's Association of Nebraska
Darfur People's Association of Seattle
Darfur Son's Union of Greater Washington DC
Darfur People's Association of Iowa
Darfur People's Association of Arizona
Darfur Women Action Group
Darfur Association of the United States
Darfur Self-reliance Organization - San Francisco, California
Inner City Press on November 21 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to explain UNAMID's November 9 press release in the context of the internal memorandum, put online here, that UNAMID knew Sudanese security was filming the interviews, had even put together a "committee" of Thabit residents to speak to UNAMID. Video here.
Inner City Press on November 19 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what the UN would do in the wake of its (cover up) November 9 press release, and about bombing in North Darfur three days earlier.
On November 20, UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci was in charge of the UN noon briefing, and read out a statement that UNAMID is trying to verify the reports of bombing on November 16. One has to wonder, are they mishandling this like the rape reports in Thabit?
So Inner City Press asked, what is actually being done to get into Thabit, after the cover-up press release? Inner City Press asked about UNAMID's acting head Abiodun Bashua's reference to "rumors" of rape in Thabit - is that the UN's position? And why hasn't UNAMID accessed the site(s) of the November 16 bombings, four full days later?
On November 21, Dujarric returned with an answer, that UNAMID had in this case done out and had found "craters." But apparently UNAMID drew no conclusions from that.
Inner City Press at the November 17 UN noon briefing asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Sudanese forces having filmed UNAMID's interviews and to confirm the new blockage.
Haq did not comment on UNAMID letting its interviews about rape be filmed by Sudanese authorities; he confirmed the blockage and said to expect a comment from Ban.
And two hours later it came:
"The Secretary-General is deeply troubled about persistent allegations of mass rape in Thabit, North Darfur. The African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) visited Thabit on 9 November. However, the heavy presence of military and police in Thabit made a conclusive investigation difficult. UNAMID has since then attempted to gain further access to shed light on what happened.
"The Secretary-General is concerned that after intense consultations with the Government in Khartoum and with local authorities in Darfur, UNAMID was yesterday denied access to Thabit. Only a full investigation by UNAMID will help shed light over these serious allegations. The Secretary-General therefore urges the Government of Sudan to grant UNAMID unfettered access, without further delay, to Thabit and its population so that these reports can be verified."
Ban does not mention that his and Herve Ladsous' mission had this to say, on November 9: "Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area. None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Thabit on the day of that media report. The team neither found any evidence nor received any information regarding the media allegations during the period in question.”
Who is going to take action, on whom, about that? Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access are asking.
On November 13, Inner City Press again asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq what had been done in the last 48 hours.Video here.
Haq was unable to describe any investigation done without Sudanese military presence; instead, he said that the Force Commander of UNAMID, already charged with cover-ups, spoke with Herve Ladsous, who refused to answer Press questions about 130 rapes by the DR Army in Minova. Video here.
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask again about the allegations of rape in North Darfur. Radio Dabanga there has not only questioned, you know, the UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] press statement but has interviewed both victims and has quoted a local community leader in Tabit, basically threatening people that if they spoke on the rapes to UNAMID, they would face the consequences. So I wanted to know, now at this remove… yesterday the President of the Council spoke about it, at this remove, what is UNAMID going to do to get to the bottom of it? And also, the reporting to Ms. Aicha Elbasry’s allegations, who would brief the Security Council on that? He said yesterday, the President of the Council, that they are looking to take it up and are looking for the right briefers. Does the Secretariat have in mind either the author of the report or who would be the appropriate briefer? Thanks.
Deputy Spokesman: As the Council President informed you, they'll be looking at briefers, so we'll work that out with them. Regarding your initial question, yes, we've been in touch with the UN-African Union Mission, UNAMID, who have informed us that security personnel were in fact present during UNAMID's mission to Tabit. The African Union-UN Mission in Darfur will continue to look into the rape allegations in the area of Tabit, North Darfur. As reported to the Security Council yesterday, the findings of the UNAMID team, which was granted access to Tabit on 9 November, are inconclusive and need further investigation. UNAMID remains committed to this and it will revert with any additional findings that might shed light on these allegations.
Inner City Press: [Inaudible] I just wanted to ask you again if there's been any reflection again on that line where it says residents… and I'm going to paraphrase it, residents said that they get along fine with the military. Just seemed the line was such a clunker, basically, it was totally inconsistent with other reports…
Deputy Spokesman: I'm not going to second-guess how my colleagues write press releases. Different press releases are written by different people at different times.
Inner City Press: Who wrote this one?
Deputy Spokesman: Someone from the Mission. The point is: you're writing, trying to get all the information out as best you can in the circumstances you have. What I have been able to say right now is that we are aware that security personnel was present during UNAMID's mission there.
We'll have more on this. Later on November 11 Inner City Press asked International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda if she had seen the whole UN report on allegations of cover-ups by UNAMID, or only a summary. She said only the summary, and only the day before. We'll have more on this too.
On November 10, Inner City Press asked UN Security Council president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia about the UNAMID press release, and if and when the Security Council will act on the "cover-up" report, including requesting the full report from the Secretariat, which to date has provided only a summary. Video here. From the Australian transcript:
Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. I wanted to ask on Darfur. Thanks for what you said about what Ms Bangura said. There’s a press release put out by UNAMID that has this line in it: “Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they co-exist peacefully with local military authorities in the area.” The press release doesn’t mention at all the military presence. So I wanted to ask you, one, if you could comment, what do you make of this press release by UNAMID? And two, does the report by the Secretary-General on allegations of covers up by UNAMID of attacks on civilians and on peacekeepers, where does it stand? He said that the, the Spokesperson said that an executive summary of the report went to the Council. Is the Council going to have a meeting on it? Are you going to have a full report? And are you satisfied with UNAMID’s press release on these allegations of rape?
AMBASSADOR QUINLAN: Matthew, on the second part of the question. Members of the Council are very concerned on this whole question of UNAMID and UNAMID reporting, but also what UNAMID is doing. And one of the big issues there is the denial of access and restrictions that are imposed largely by the Government of Sudan, with whom UNAMID has a formal arrangement on access. But also, of course, by armed opposition groups and that is inherently more difficult sometimes to get the access that’s needed.
That report has not yet been discussed by the Council. I expect that it will be over the next couple of weeks. A number of members of the Council are extremely interested in it. We want to be sure that we’ve lined up the briefers from the Secretariat to have a proper discussion of that report.
Secondly, in relation to the UNAMID press release, I think the key is that they’ve indicated that they had access but it was the first time since November 4, when they’d been seeking access. And they had proactively been seeking access to be able to undertake investigations. That’s a long period to have access denied, by the way, in a circumstance like rape. You really do need, as Ms Bangura reminded us, to have access straight away, for obvious reasons. So that’s one point I’d make. The second point is UNAMID has made it extremely clear in its press release that it will conduct further follow-up actions, including possible further investigations and patrols and that they will do that in cooperation with the Government of Sudan and other parties. We have confidence that that will happen. SRSG Bangura is making this a top priority for her and so is the Secretariat itself and we were reassured about that this morning by ASG Mulet. So I think that’s basically it.
We'll continue to follow this -- but how can a peacekeeping mission already accused of covering up for the Sudanese government say, today, that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area"? To some, this is shocking - and indicative of problems in today's UN Peacekeeping.
Inner City Press on November 7 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the challenges to the UN's statement it couldn't and didn't access the site of mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur. Video here; transcript:
Inner City Press: there are witnesses in Darfur who actually say that the UNAMID investigators, rather than being stopped outside Tabit went inside and interviewed four people and after that they were spoken to by Sudanese military intelligence. And so these are credible people that have been reporting on Darfur for some time and see the reports being issued by UNAMID although as a reaction to the quote “cover up report” as not being accurate. And I wanted to know, can you check with them to be sure that the UNAMID investigators didn't in fact enter Tabit Tuesday at 5 am and whether they were spoken to by Sudanese intelligence and decided to say that they hadn't been able to enter the town?
Spokesman Dujarric: I'm not going to judge the credibility or lack of credibility of people who have been reporting on Darfur. I mean, they report. What I can tell you is the Mission clearly stands by its reporting. They've sent us a bit more detail, said the verification patrol comprising of military police and civilian personnel on Tuesday, 4 November, that it was sent on Tuesday, 4 November, from Shangil Tobaya to Tabit to 14:50 hours, I assume local time. The patrol was denied access at the outskirts of the town at a Sudanese military checkpoint. Attempts to negotiate access to Tabit were unfruitful and the team returned to the base in Shangil Tobaya. We've repeated… the Mission's leadership has repeated its call to the Government to grant the UN, to grant UNAMID unfettered access to the whole of Darfur and obviously especially in areas where we're trying to investigate horrendous reports of mass rape. So that's a longer, a long way of saying that the Mission stands by its reporting.
But if UNAMID and UN Peacekeeping was just outed for under-reporting attacks, how it is now automatically credible? On November 6, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about similar cover-ups in Central African Republic, exposed by an Amnesty International report about that country.
Inner City Press: I'm sure the Secretary-General has seen the Amnesty International's report today about the peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic. They basically, I mean, they say a number of things. Maybe you have some kind of response to it. But, I wanted to especially ask you about the reporting aspect of it they describe a number of killings and attacks that have taken place in Dekoa, Bambari and elsewhere in [the Central African Republic] about, which, at least being here every day, I've heard nothing from this podium. So, I wanted to know both substantively what's the response of UN peacekeeping to not protecting civilians and in terms of communications and transparency the response to what appears to be an underreporting similar to that analogous to that in Darfur?
Spokesman Dujarric: Sure. Obviously, a big part of the Missions' mandate is the protection of civilians. The Mission, its peacekeeping forces, its formed police units, are doing that to the best of their ability. Obviously, it's a very challenging situation. It's a challenging terrain in which they work. And there is, obviously… one could always use more troops and more police. I'm not sure they're up to their mandated force as of yet. As far as reporting goes, you know we report from here whatever we receive from the Mission.
Inner City Press: Because of the Darfur thing, I wanted to ask: Their report is very detailed. The report, it says names of places, number of people killed. Maybe, first of all, does the Mission send it to [the Department of Peacekeeping Operations] in New York and they're supposed to give it to your office? At what point has this information in the Amnesty report, has it reached New York before or is it a surprise to UN?
Spokesman: I can only speak to what I receive from the Mission
Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked if the full Darfur report will be released, at least to the Security Council, and about under-reporting of attacks in the Central African Republic. Video here.
Dujarric said that even before the summary was given to the Security Council members -- so that is apparently all that has been given to them -- UN missions were told to be sure to report attacks. He said he reads out what the missions sent him.
So has the UN mission in CAR, MINUSCA, simply not send in reports about killings in Bambari and elsewhere? We'll see.
Despite a request from Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access the UN will not release the report. Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked, given that even the sanitized statement says information on attacks was withheld from the media and UN Headquarters - at its request? - who is responsible? Video here.
Back on September 12, 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, 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.
UNITED NATIONS, November 12 -- After the Security Council met Tuesday on the African Union's draft resolution for the UN Security Council to defer the International Criminal Court's Kenya proceedings for a year, Rwanda's Ambassador Gasana said the resolution will be put to the vote "this week."
Another Security Council member told Inner City Press it would be Friday, rejecting the argument that the issue could instead be referred to the ICC's Assembly of State Parties -- "we're not members!"
They're in a tough spot, the argument continued, having to disrespect Africa while "using" it.
Inner City Press put this question to November's Council president Liu Jieyi, who replied that China is not a member of the ICC and is only considering this in terms of the draft Security Council resolution.
Western Ambassadors leaving didn't speak. US Ambassador Power left at 5:14 pm, saying goodbye but offering no comment.
The mood going in was more jocular. French Ambassador Araud bantered with a scribe who name-dropped about Iran, then disappeared. During most of the meeting, the stakeout consisted of media from South Africa and Benin, then Al Jazeera. Western wires and one "TV" belatedly showed up -- then tried to ask all the questions.
An hour and a half, the spin that emerged that was "one member" inside had suggested not putting the draft resolution to a vote, to not "humiliate" the African Union ministers who came, offering instead "a paper" which would refer to the Assembly of State Parties meeting.
But earlier one of the African sponsors of the draft said this was the last chance, they were going to put it to the vote later this week. They knew the vote count. So what could this offer, called condescending, change?
Inner City Press on Monday asked Kenya's Permanent Representative Macharia Kamau about the timing. Thursday or Friday, he replied. "It's sad," he told Inner City Press exclusively, "it's a very simple issue, the Security Council would lose nothing. They'd grant the request of forty nine [heads of state or] the whole of Africa, and be back here in twelve months." He said there might be headlines for one day after such a deferral, calling it "knee jerk."
He contrasted it, "if we'd come here asking for war, or to send a 'war lord' to The Hague, there'd be consensus."
Macharia Kamau paused and said, "The Security Council is not a destination for solutions." He said others would realize that too, whenever they had an issue before the Council.
So the Council will meet in consultations this afternoon; there may a vote later in the week. Watch this site.
The Security Council,
PP1: Recalling the Statements of its President dated 6 February 2008 (S/PRST/2008/4)and 13 May 2013 (S/PRST/2013/5),
PP2: Reaffirming its strong commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security and recalling the need to fight impunity and to hold accountable all perpetrators of the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya,
PP3: Acknowledging the reforms undertaken by the Government of Kenya, in accordance with the 2008 National Accord and Reconciliation Process and the Constitution of Kenya of 2010, particularly in the administration of justice, security and governance, fighting impunity, as well as the measures taken by the Government towards resettling of the internally displaced persons, providing reparations to the victims who suffered losses in the post-election violence, investigation and prosecution of post-election violence crimes, operationalization of the Witness Protection Agency, promotion and restoration of justice, peace, stability, national cohestion and national reconciliation and reintegration in Kenya,
PP4: Considering the decision of 21 March 2010 of the International Criminal Court (“the Court”) authorising the Prosecutor to commence investigations propio motu into the situation in the Republic of Kenya, in relation to the post-election violence of 2007-2008 and under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the Court, to which Kenya is a State party,
PP5: Noting with appreciation the cooperation that the Government of Kenya and all the indictees have extended to the Court for the past five years,
PP6: Further noting thatMr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mr William Samoei Ruto were, in March 2013, democratically elected President and Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya, respectively,
PP7: Taking into consideration that the Court commenced the trial in the case against the latter on 10 September 2013, while the trial in the case against the former is scheduled to commence on 12 November 2013,
PP8: Stressing that the proceedings initiated against the President and the Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya is distracting and preventing them from fully discharging their responsibilities and extensive duties, as elaborated upon in the relevant provisions of the Kenyan Constitution.
PP9:Reiteratingitsdeep concern that the increasing violence perpetrated by armed groups, the number of which is growing in several regions and sub-regions of Africa, continues to pose a serious threat to international peace and security, andrecalling that terrorist violence negatively impact the efforts by African States to promote social and economic development, and undermines global stability and prosperity in Africa,
PP10: Commending the Government of Kenya for its contribution to the restoration of peace and security in the Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, including Somalia, and for the action it has taken to fight against terrorism at national, regional and international levels,
PP11: Expressing deep concern over the current terrorist threat against Kenya and other countries of the Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, and reiterating its determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations,
PP12: Recalling its press statement of 21 September 2013 condemning the terrorist attack at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi and expressing its solidarity with the people and Government of Kenya at this difficult time,
PP13: Acknowledging that the ordinary extensive duties of Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mr William Samoei Ruto, as President and Deputy President of Kenya, are compounded by both the recent terrorist attacks and the persisting threat to the national security, and considering the decisive role of Kenya, under their leadership, as frontline state in the fight against terrorism.
PP14: Considering article 16 of the Rome Statute of the Court under which no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect;
PP15: Taking note of the letter dated 21 October 2013 from the Government of Kenya to the United Nations to the President of the Security Council, requesting the deferral of the investigation and prosecution against the President and Deputy President of Kenya, in accordance with article 16 of the Rome Statute of the Court and pursuant to Decision Ext/Assembly/AU/Dec.1(Oct.2013) dated 12 October 2013 of the Extraordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union,
PP16: Mindful of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations,
PP17: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
Requests the International Criminal Court to defer the investigation and prosecution against President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Deputy President William Samoei Ruto for a period of 12 months, in accordance with article 16 of the Rome Statute of the Court,
Invites the Secretary General and the Court to report to the Security Council, within two months of the adoption of this resolution, on action taken on its implementation,
Decides that Member States shall take no action inconsistent with paragraph 1 and with their international obligations,
