By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 5, updated with US, below -- French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly sexually abused children, as exposed in a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report leaked to the French government by longtime OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass.
On June 3, at least 14 UN member states met about it, as Inner City Press exclusively reports, and some will meet with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on June 5.
Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric why this meeting was not listed on Ban's public schedule, while a similar meeting the day previous about a topic less problematic for the UN WAS listed. Dujarric said he'd look into it and into providing the Press requested read-out, and would try to provide answers to these questions, posed by Inner City Press, h/t GAP:
Under the protocols in place for documenting and reporting sex abuse among soldiers deployed under a resolution of the UN Security Council, when reports involve the armed forces of a member state and information has been provided to two different UN entities:
What would the proper reporting channels be?
What would the proper reporting channels be?
What information could be transmitted?
What approvals would have to be secured?
How much time would elapse before permission was secured to transmit all available evidence to a law enforcement arm with jurisdiction to address the allegations?
Inner City Press asked what UN staff should do, while the still UNnamed Panel does its work. Report through proper channels, he said. But look at what Zeid and Ladsous, it seems, did.
The documents also implicate a number of other UN officials, and French government inaction, see below. After Press questioning turned to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, what he knew and when he knew it, Ban on June 3 announced an intention to set up an "independent" Panel. Inner City Press asked if it will report only to Ban -- yes. This is a problem. Video here.
Also on June 5, Inner City Press asked the UK Mission for
"for a UK Mission comment on Ban Ki-moon's June 3 announcement he will name an panel to looking into the UN's inaction on evidence of child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic by French peacekeepers in the Sangaris force, particularly that a group of more than a dozen UN member states working on this, set to meet Ban on today, does not seem to include the UK.
Given the UK's / Hague's statements about sexual violence in conflict, why is the UK not involved in this reform attempt? What is the UK itself doing on this issue?
What does the UK think the terms of reference of this Panel should be? To whom should it report?
Also, what is the UK's comment on the USG of DPKO being listed in the UNDT ruling as having asked for the resignation of “whistleblower” Kompass, see Para 9 of this.
Want to include a UK mission comment / response, thanks."
In response - for which we're grateful - this is what arrived, from a UK Mission spokesperson:
"We welcome the Secretary-General’s announcement of an External Independent Review to look into the handling of these allegations. These are serious allegations and it is important that there is a clear account of how the UN responded to information of this kind. We look forward to further details of the review in due course."
Inner City Press questions remain pending at another UN Mission. And past 6 pm on Friday June 5, this statement:
"Statement by Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the Secretary General’s Announcement of an External Independent Review of Allegations of Sexual Abuse in the Central African Republic, June 5, 2015
Since horrific allegations came to light that international soldiers may have abused children in the Central African Republic, the United States has been calling for a full and impartial investigation into these disturbing reports as well as into the manner in which they were handled. We thus welcome the Secretary General’s recent announcement of the establishment of an External Independent Review to examine the UN system’s response to the allegations.
The Secretary General’s establishment of this review is an opportunity for the UN to learn how it and member states can best safeguard the dignity and welfare of vulnerable people; ensure swift action to make certain potential abuses are investigated and halted; protect those who expose abuses; and provide appropriate privacy and other protection for witnesses who come forward with allegations of abuse. There are many questions that need to be answered, and we view this as an important opportunity for member states – and the people of the Central African Republic – to learn what went wrong at every point in this process.
Alongside this independent review, it is essential that all countries whose soldiers are alleged to have been involved in such abuses fully, urgently, and transparently investigate all claims to ensure that justice is served. Any individual found to have committed such heinous abuses must be held accountable.
The United States looks forward to reviewing the outcome of the Panel’s findings in a timely manner and working with all parties to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse. "
Good. But doesn't the retaliation and lack of whistleblower protections trigger US funding cuts? We'll have more on this.
On June 4, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the Panel, and the 14 (or 15) nations, video here
transcript here:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about this Central African Republic sexual abuse allegations panel. One, I understand that a group of some 14 or now 15 States is asking to meet with the Secretary-General, I guess, before he leaves about the panel, about to whom the panel will report. Is he going to do it?
Spokesman Dujarric: I believe the Secretary-General will very likely… either the Secretary-General or the Deputy Secretary-General will meet them, and we will hear what they have to say.
Inner City Press: Okay. And the second question is, I wanted to ask you why the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation of Mr. [Anders] Kompass for having released the report on the alleged sexual abuse will continue. And some people are saying the… and that this panel will have… apparently, in what you read yesterday, there was no discussion of investigating whether this constituted retaliation against him, et cetera. And since the Ethics Office would be in charge of making a determination, but the document shows that the Ethics Office was involved at a much earlier stage in looking at Mr. Kompass. What's the relation between the two and how does the OIOS… what's the purpose now of the OIOS investigation?
Spokesman: I think that the OIOS investigation will continue its course. The administrative tribunal has also been involved. That will continue its regular course. The exact scope and terms of reference of the independent external review we announced yesterday is still being determined. And as soon as I can share that with you, I will. If there [is] any information, you know, unearthed by the OIOS work that is relevant to the panel, it will be shared with the external review.
Inner City Press: And if you can, the… in terms… you say… the terms of reference and the membership of the panel is still being determined. I mean this with all due respect, but since the documents… questions are raised, not about… questions are raised about actions of the Chief of Staff, Susana Malcorra, Ethics Office, OIOS. Do these individuals have an involvement in writing the terms of reference or choosing the panel?
Spokesman: It is… ultimately, it's the Secretary-General's decision.
On June 3 a meeting was convened to seek answers and improvement on the UN's response, by Guatemala and Norway, with attendees from all UN Regional Groups, see below. Inner City Press has spoken with several members; Norway will be requesting a meeting late this wek for the group with Ban Ki-moon, on topics ranging from to whom the Panel will report to its Terms of Reference to the actions of OIOS and the Ethics Office.
From the Western European and other Group, WEOG, beyond Norway those involved are Australia, Canada,Denmark, Finland and Switzerland. To many it is surprising that a UN member state organizing campaign about actually opposing sexual abuse by peacekeepers does not include the United States. Is it stand-offishness? Or a desire not to publicly criticize the UN? This is about child rape...
As Inner City Press analyzed below, there is a history of UN panels being used to cover up.
Now Code Blue has these three recommendations:
"First, this must be a truly external and independent inquiry. No member of existing UN staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat.
"Second, it must be understood that top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff will have to be subject to investigation. This must go right up to the level of Under-Secretaries General. No one can be excluded, whether the Director of the Ethics Office or the USG of the Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Secretary-General’s own Chef de Cabinet. It would appear that all of them and more acted inappropriately in response to the dreadful events in CAR.
"Third, the reference in the Secretary-General’s announcement of a review to ‘the broad range of systemic issues’ is crucial to the inquiry. What happened in the Central African Republic was an atrocity, but the fact that the UN stood silent for nearly a year after its own discovery of widespread peacekeeper sexual abuse (even if by non-UN troops) is itself a bitter commentary on the Secretary-General’s declared policy of ‘zero tolerance’."
Inner City Press would add, past UN staff and offiicals as well. Consider these past panels, as put together and at the end analyzed by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:
The "Ahtissari Panel" (2003) --
On 22 September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, to chair an Independent Panel on the Safety and Security of UN Personnel in Iraq.
The "Walzer Panel" (2004)
Panel finds senior officials lax in ensuring UN’s safe return to Iraq
The Volcker Panel (2004)
The priority of the Independent Panel’s investigation of the “oil-for-food” programme was to “get after” allegations of corruption and misconduct within the United Nations itself and, more broadly, the question of the maladministration of the “oil-for-food” programme, stated Paul A. Volcker, Chairman of the Independent Panel, in a press conference at UNHQ.
The Munoz Panel (2009)
The UN Commission of Inquiry, appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the request of the Pakistani Government, reached no conclusion as to the organizers and sponsors behind the attack in which a 15-year-old suicide bomber blew up Ms. Bhutto’s vehicle in the city of Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. The three-member panel, which was headed by Chilean Ambassador to UN Heraldo Muñoz and included Marzuki Darusman, former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran official of the Irish National Police, urged the Government to undertake police reform in view of its “deeply flawed performance and conduct.”
The Palmer Panel (2011)
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010. The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel.
The Marzuki Panel (2011)
On 22 June 2010, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the implementation of the joint commitment included in the statement issued by the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary-General at the conclusion of the Secretary-General's visit to Sri Lanka on 23 March 2009.
What exactly has the UN done about Sri Lanka?
And here is the UN's June 3 announcement, and Inner City Press' immediate questions, here.
Meanwhile UN staff advocates have written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, his chief of staff and Ladsous, among others, demanding resignations. On June 2 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who Banned any Inner City Press question to Ladsous on May 29, what Ban Ki-moon DID, once he learned in March about the rapes.Video here and embedded below.
Dujarric said he had nothing to add to his previous answers. Huh?
Inner City Press asked Dujarric, in light of OHCHR Zeid using a private email address for UN business, what the UN's record retention policy is. Dujarric said the policy must be available somewhere. To this has the UN descended.
Dujarric said the investigation by Lapointe's OIOS, discredited in the leaked emails, will "lead where it will lead." But Lapointe has told OIOS invstigators to not go beyond what they are asked to look at -- in this case, only the whistleblower. This is called a cover up.
Many are asking why UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid, while emailing with the UN Ethics Office and OIOS, was using a private Gmail address, and not his work account.
When Hillary Clinton used the UN Security Council stakeout to belatedly answer questions about her own use of private email while US Secretary of State, it was described as an accident of scheduling, or attempt to use the UNSC backdrop to convey gravitas. But the echo now with Prince Zeid also using private email for presumably public business raises similar questions.
But will the questions be asked, much less answered? Reuters, typically, ran a piece on May 30 repeating Zeid's press release, withlittle analysis of his role, or use of private email, or Herve Ladsous, who has now been emailed staff advocates' call for resignations.
Anders Kompass was asked to send his side of the story -- to a private email address, but wisely declined.
Beyond the treatment of Kompass himself, the documents show pressure brought to bear on lower-level staff to make and thereby launder the high officials' desire for an investigation of Kompass.
Most directly, it is asked, what UN staff member will now report fraud or misconduct, knowing that OIOS and the Ethics Office will then discuss the accusations with their boss? This is a question Inner City Press on May 29 asked UN Spokesman Staphen Dujarric, who BannedInner City Press from putting a single question to Ladsous - the question has yet to be answered.
UN staff advocates have written directly to Ban Ki-moon and his deputy, Ladsous and Atul Khare and others, demanding resignations. They are offended by the exposure of lack of independence at the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services and UN Ethics Office, and question whether the US should cut off funding under the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriation Act, section 7048(a)(1)(B). After reading those leaked documents, how exactly can the U.S. Secretary of State (or anybody else) certify that the UN's whistle-blower policy fulfils the Act's requirements? Is there any "independent adjudicative body" in this chain? Evidently the Ethics Office and OIOS are not."
The staff notice Ban's appearance at another softball soccer game, among those who are supposed to hold him and the UN accountable. The call for Ladsous to resign out be fired has spread from the African Group to Latin America and GRULAC.
On May 30, OHCHR for Prince Zeid issued a statement beginning, "In the wake of the revelations of alleged serious sexual abuse of children."
But Zeid was told of the allegations long before their "revelation" via leaks. And tellingly, he continued to mistakenly think and say the rapes were in Mali and not CAR.
Likewise, both UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous -- listed as urging the whistleblower to resign, which he denies while refusing to take questions on -- and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon both knew of the alleged child rapes by "the Spring," but did nothing.
This requires an investigation, and not by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services, shown to not be independent, told to meet Zeid and the UN Ethics Office by Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra.
Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions. Video here.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So Inner City Press objected, on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access (the old UNCA has become part of the problem) and asked questions, video here, transcript here.
The documents also call into serious question the claims of "independence" from the office of Ban Ki-moon of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the UN Ethics Office.
Consider this: OIOS head Carman Lapointe, writing to James Finness (still in charge of the "investigation" spokesman Stephane Dujarric continues to use as an excuse to not answer question), noted that at the UN staff retreat in March "I received an urgent email from the CdC [Ban's Chef de Cabinet Susana Malcorra] to meet with Zeid, Flavia and Joan."
So OIOS is not independent - it can to told, by Ban's chief of staff, to meet with collaborate with the Ethics Office as well as OHCHR's Zeid and Pansieri.
Inner City Press previously reported on and asked Dujarric about OIOS' flawed process and a high profile recusal, see below.
Embarrassingly, Lapointe says for fully 20 minutes they were told the rapes occurred in Mali, not CAR -- the same mistake Zeid made. How can a mere OIOS investigation be accepted? We'll have more on this.
As noted, Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So why did Nesirky allow Press questions to Ladsous, and Dujarric didn't?
Dujarric set the first question aside for "UNCA" -- but called on an individual who was not elected to their board, who lost the election; her question was a vague softball offering Ladsous a chance to comment on Central African Republic. He said, it was one nation, not under blue helmet.
But Ladsous' MINUSCA mission knew of the sexual abuse since at latest August 5, 2014. Inner City Press said, "Follow up on CAR?" Dujarric called on Reuters, which previously wrote to him trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN (then filed to get his leaked complaint blocked or Banned from Google's Search, here.) Reuters did not even aske about the CAR sexual abuse.
What emerged is that both Ladsous -- and, troublingly, Ban Ki-moon -- were formally informed of the sexual abuse of children in CAR "in the spring." What date? And what did they do?
Dujarric said, "last question;" as Ladsous left the room Inner City Press asked Ladsous about him speaking about the whistleblower Kompass with OHCHR's Zeid, also a subject of the new documents -- no answer.
Inner City Press objected to Dujarric, who has fielded or dodged a dozen Inner City Press questions about the CAR rapes and Ladsous' role, not even being allowed to ask a question. Dujarric said, "Noted."Video here.
And what? Again, Dujarric's predecessor Nesirky, and his deputy Del Buey, allowed Inner City Press to put questions to Ladsous. What if the difference? We'll have more on this.
On July 30, 2014, Ambassador Nicolas Niemtchinow, Permanent Representative of France to the UN in Geneva wrote to
Kompass that action was being taken. But then, nothing.
On August 5, 2014 the Human Rights Officer in CAR of OHCHR wrote to Renner Onana of the already-then UN mission MINUSCA; DPKO's SRSG Babacar Gaye was referenced.
So when did Gaye or MINUSCA tell DPKO chief Ladsous?
Tellingly, even the UN's cover up was delayed by High Commissioner Prince Zeid thinking he heard of French troops' sexual abuse in MINUSMA (Mali) and not MINUSCA (CAR).
Zeid asked his predecessor Navi Pillay if she met with French representatives about rapes in Mali -- the answer was no -- then much later asked her if she'd met with the French about CAR (the answer was yes.)
It was Zeid's Deputy Flavia Pansieri who conveyed Ladsous' directive to Kompass to resign. Zeid in his statement makes much of Pansieri meeting with a Swedish diplomat in the street, in casual clothes, after Sweden raised l'affaire Kompass at a dinner in honor of Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Jan Eliasson. THe UN's move now seems to be to try to lay all blame on Pansieri, whose term was expiring anyway. We'll have more on this.
From Kompass' March 29, 2015 narrative, here:
"On 12 March 2015 meeting with the Deputy High Commissioner I was informed that the High Commissioner requested my resignation for the way I dealt with the reports of paedophilia in the Central African Republic. I was told that the High Commissioner had been asked for my resignation by Mr. Ladsous, Under Secretary-General for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York, during a visit of the High Commissioner to New York."
Ladsous curtly denied this to Inner City Press, video here, then again refused to answer questions -- as he has outright refused to answer Press questions on rapes in the DR Congo and Darfur.
On May 27, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, here.
Follow up stories in the New York Times and on AP managed to not mention Ladsous, despite Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal reinstatement order..
Inner City Press, which reported exclusively on that meeting, on May 22 asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the probe, video here
Absent from the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee's May 18 meeting was not only embattled Peacekeeping chief Ladsous,, but also OIOS' Carman Lapointe.
In her stead for OIOS was Michael Stefanovic, who told the Fifth Committee that he has recused himself from the investigation and has written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as to why.
This is highly irregular. If the recusal was made on a personal connection between Stefanovic and the whistleblower Anders Kompass, Stefanovic would have recused himself from the earlier investigation - but he didn't. If it were such a recusal, he would have written to Lapointe, and not to the S-G.
For now we add this -- if OIOS Director Stefanovic has a conflict of interest, how can the UN be asking others to rely on an OIOS investigation? Inner City Press has asked a Permanent Member of the Security Council -- not France -- if an OIOS investigation would be sufficient, and has been told "No."
Now we have this, from the Fifth Committee's May 20 meeting:
Lapointe, summoned to the meeting via her Byun-kun Min, was asked
-When did OIOS/ID start the investigation into Anders Kompass?
-Why did Mr. Stefanovic recuse himself from the Kompass investigation?
-In view of Mr. Stefanovic recusing himself, did Ms. Lapointe see any impediments for the scope of the investigation, especially as it appeared to implicate an ASG or USG in misconduct?
Note - this is a reference to UN Peacekeeping USG Ladsous.
Multiple sources tell Inner City Press Lapointe replied that Stefanovic told only the Secretary General, not her, that he recused himself, and that the Deputy Director of OIOS in Vienna is now "overseeing" the investigation.
So those now on the case are James Finniss, Kanja and Margaret Gichanga -- who has been asking to interview WIPO whistleblower Miranda Brown, who worked alongside Kompass for a time. We'll have more on this. It is a new low for the UN.
Back on May 18, Inner City Press, staking out the Budget Committee meeting, spoke with Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra when she left the meeting. Here is a transcript, followed by an exclusive summary of what happened inside the closed meeting.
Inner City Press: How did it go in there? Are their questions answered?
CdC Malcorra: Well I hope, yes. Some of them still have questions that will be answered by my colleague. I think I’ve made a point of what it is that we’re discussing here. This investigation is a UN investigation. It was led by the UN in the field when they had allegations handed to them. It was the human rights cell in the mission that led this investigation. It looks like we were absent, but it was us...
And this investigation could, at least prima facie, there were places clear enough to further investigate by the member state. And as such, the information was provided to a member state. On a separate front, is how the information is provided. And we cannot accept the irresponsibility of the names of the victims, the witnesses and the investigators shared with the member states ... it’s inacceptable. It may look like a bureaucratic approach. It’s not a bureaucratic approach...
Inner City Press: What about not telling Central African Republic authorities?
CdC Malcora: They are discussing that now.
After the meeting ended, and Inner City Press spoke with numerous attendees - a common refrain was that the UN leadership is "in denial" - we have pieced together this summary of the meeting, and the totally insufficient answer on UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' role, a lack of recognition of his UNAMID mission's previous cover up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, which the US and UK and other say they care about, and lack of follow up on whistleblowers.
Attendees' summary of Ban Ki-moon chief of staff Malcorra:
"Malcorra said she had no idea the session would go into the specifics of CAR, she thought it was to touch upon general Sexual Abuse and Exploitation policy (several attendees were dubious and angry about this approach.)
Malcorra said that in the case of misconduct by UN staff the procedures were in place. In this case, even when it was not UN peacekeepers the human rights cell in Bangui was there and they were the ones that initiated the investigation. It is thanks to the UN that allegations were substantiated and it was enough to decide to proceed with a further investigation.
The wrongdoing of the UN staffer Anders Kompass was to have shared the information without it being redacted putting the victims, witnesses and investigators lives in danger. She repeated many times this was a serious breach and that she disagreed with anyone that didn’t view this conduct wrong.
According to Malcorra the UN investigation lasted three months which allowed them to substantiate the allegations. When that finding was final it went to the two lines of command: The head of mission in CAR and the OHCHR. But, several asked, why didn't either of these tell the CAR authorities?
Malcorra said she would have preferred this case hadn't surfaced in the media and that it is regrettable member states have had to learn matters from the press. But that, Malcorra said, member states have to be aware that the press manipulates everything. Several states talked about the UN image and credibility to which Malcorra said she was very sad with those comments because if not for the UN these troops could have gotten away with these disturbing acts. She also said this was a clear case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. But what about the cover up? What about Ladsous?
Malcorra said that “no other element had been taken into account” for Kompass' firing. But member states were aware of Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. As noted, one Permanent Representatives (and several other diplomats) told Inner City Press that Ladsous should resign.
Tellingly, the sources say, Malcorra claimed didn’t recall any UNAMID coverup allegations. Tabit?
Malcorra didn’t even address the Otis report on whistleblowers - which Inner City Press has been asking Ban's spokesman about, repeatedly -- but assured member states that due protections are in place and that an adequate policy exists.
Malcorra said she looks forward to working further on the UN convention in paragraph 57 of the SG report on SEA and agrees that there are systemic flaws, and therefore there will be a review of all the processes.
According to sources in the meeting -- Inner City Press asked and was told to inquiry with member states -- the Legal Counsel and head of OLA qualified as excellent the cooperation with the French Authorities and that the lifting of immunity so far hasn’t been necessary because at this stage its very general requests of information that the UN promptly has given to the French authorities. For the sake of efficiency hasn’t gone through the lifting of immunity process but if a trial or judge becomes involved they will do it quickly at a later stage. Several member states were dubious. The EU, Inner City ress is informed, said “accountability starts at the top.”
Malcorra left unanswered why the host state, the CAR, was not involved. She is said to have ignored the specific question on the status of the OIOS investigation. She ignored the complaints about under-reporting saying that the trend of decrease was very clear and that the USG of DFS would go into details (what he did, genially, was repeat the Secretary General's report).
An impartial investigation was called for, from both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. There was a refrain afterward: Ladsous should resign."
A well-placed African Permanent Representative before the meeting told Inner City Press before the meeting that Ladsous should resign. But with him conveniently absent, would others be left holding the bag, trying to explain why he, Ladsous, appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling as urging that the whistleblower resign?
Back on May 8, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Samantha Power about both issues - the UN's failure to tell the CAR authorities, and Ladsous' "surprising" role, as High Commissioner Zeid put it earlier in the day. Video here and embedded below. Then Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, about the contradiction; for the first time, he gave a timeline.
Here is the video of Inner City Press questions to US Ambassador Power:
It is an answer that may move things forward. Ladsous, it should be noted, just this week snubbed a Joe Biden-linked Hemispheric peacekeeping conference in Uruguay, wasting an $8,000 first class plane ticket and angering many troop contributing countries. He refuses to answer Press question, for example on rapes in Minova, DRC and Tabit in Darfur.
As noted, on May 8, High Commissioner Zeid held a press conference, and twice refused to comment on why Ladsous was said to have pressured to fire or suspend the whistleblower.
Inner City Press has covered Ladsous' role from the beginning, and highlighted his appearance in Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. On May 7, Ladsous told Inner City Press, "I deny that" - then refused to take questions.
Zeid was asked, and first time said he should first give his view of the pressure to the investigator, not the media.
The second time, he said he was surprised to read it -- his Office did not contest that part of the ruling, effectively admitting it -- and that the head of UN Peacekeeping should not have been intervening about a non-UN force. Video here.
Neither he nor the questioners in the room in Geneva said the obvious: Ladsous is a longtime French diplomat; it is not rocket science to read Paragraph 9 as him (inappropriately) still working for "his" country.
Zeid said other things we'll report later; he alluded to the need for a Commission of Inquiry. Some ask, will Ladsous quit before then? Or after?
For more than nine months, no action was taken -- no interviews of victims or alleged perpetrators were done -- other than the UN suspending Kompass for the leak, on which the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling recites that UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous requested Kompass' resignation. (See Paragraph 9, here.) Ladsous told Inner City Press he denies it - then refused questions.
Early on May 8, UN system staff complained to Inner City Press that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan, in a closed staff meeting on May 8, tried to downplay the scandal, going so far as to blame imams in Bangui for not playing their role.
But it was OHCHR which didn't even give the report of the rape of CAR children to CAR authorities, only to the French.
In places, Zeid appeared to try to use his record ten years ago on sexual abuse to shift the blame to imams. Inner City Press has shown a failure by his Office to act on past leaking, to Morocco. We'll have more on this.
On May 7, Inner City Press asked more questions about this - including to Herve Ladsous himself.
After a long closed-door consultation meeting of the Security Council, Ladsous emerged. Inner City Press asked him, based on Paragraph 9 of the UNDT ruling, Why did you ask Kompass to resign?"
Ladsous stopped and said, "I deny that." Inner City Press put the handheld video online, here.
