Book Review: On "The Procedure of the UN Security Council," A Big Tome That May Need Another Chapter, Or Shadow

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 12 -- Since 1975 there has been an imposing tome called “Procedure of the UN Security Council.” Its fourth edition was published in late 2014 with Loraine Sievers, formerly of UN Security Council Affairs, as lead writer, along with Oxford professor Sam Daws.

  The book is, literally, encyclopedic. While the below as is Inner City Press' wont focuses on things either NOT in the book, or covered too scantily for our tastes, or voiceless groups rendered further voiceless, we cannot think of a better reference book about the Security Council.

   That said, and perhaps understandably, the book veers on the side of portraying positively the Security Council's work and not its omissions. Since this review, such as it is, is being published on the fifth anniversary of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, we'll note that in the book or at least its index there is no mention of the cholera the UN brought to the island, killing more than 8700 people so far.

   In positive news, the book does recount how the Security Council moved to removed sanctions on Haiti in 1994 soon after Jean-Bertrand Aristide was returned. Page 524. These days, sanctions are rarely removed.

   A recent development in which a member of the Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group had to resign after being exposed writing a letter, on SMEG letterhead, portraying an Eritrean dissident as a possible future leader of the country -- what Inner City Press dubbed as part of its exclusive the “regime change” letter -- is not mentioned in the book, or so far in its online updates. 

  The incident raises a larger point: what training is given, and what rules apply, to the UN's sanctions experts?

   The acknowledgement for the book include several people are are in turn written about, such as Libya's Ibrahim Dabbashi and, of course, Diega Arria, he of the Arria formulat meetings.

   The book's section on that includes a “Somavia formula,” named for a former Ambassador of Chile, which holds this month's Council presidency. Plus ca change.

   On Arria formula meetings, there is an account of the Darfur meeting at which George Clooney participated; in other non-state news, Kosovo slipping into the General Assembly and clapping for new Security Council members elected in 2009 is described.

   The index does not list the FDLR, and the book does not seem to address a major problem in the UN and its Security Council, that the DPKO and DPA and even OCHA Under Secretaries General who address the Council are top heavy with, and apparently controlled and position owed by, the Western P3. 

  (Forget any mention of current DPKO chief Herve Ladsous' history -- while on the Council in 1994 -- in helping genocidaires escape from Rwanda into Eastern Congo, and now being in charge of the delayed “neutralization” of their progeny, the FDLR).

   Sri Lanka and the 2009 bloodbath on the beach does make an appearance late in the book, in a single paragraph on page 626, but without the to us obvious conclusion being drawn: how could the Council never have a real meeting as tens of thousands of civilians were killed? The book says, "although the matter was never placed officially on the agenda of the Security Council, from 26 March to 5 June [2009] the Council held four informal interactive discussions." 

  Did the Western P3 even even try to get such a formal meeting? 

  There is an interesting story how South Sudanese, before statehood, were able to participate in a meeting in the Security Council's temporary location in the UN basement due to the lay out. But, seemingly, the question on the Polisario Front not being allowed to speak at the Security Council stakeout is not addressed. 

  This is a larger issue: the role of the media, including social media, in today's Security Council is not address. Perhaps in a fifth edition - or in a different book. Watch this site.

Footnotes: we note because we want to the involvement, per the acknowledgments, of Vinay Kumar, Monica Bolanos,David Quarrey (previously UK political coordinator), Colin Keating, and Ionnis Vrailas. Generally, the book veers to the West. It's easier that way. Compare for example to this recent (December 2014) example. But perhaps there is another book, or chapter, to be written.

    

UN's Genocide Resolution Cites FDLR, Ladsous Won't Answer, Nor Will Araud, Keating on Turquoise "Mistake"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 16 -- Before the UN Security Council adopted its Rwanda-drafted genocide resolution on April 16, New Zealand's Colin Keating gave some history of the Council's "mistakes" in 1994.

  Among these he referred to the "mistaken decision of the Council to authorize Operation Turquoise." Speech here, at Page 4. It was on precisely this issue that France snubbed the April 7, 2014 commemoration in Kigali. 

  The resolution also refers to the Hutu FDLR militia. Back on April 7, Inner City Press asked Herve Ladsous, now the head of UN Peacekeeping but in 1994 France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, when his Department will belatedly neutralize the FDLR.

  "Mister, I never answer your questions," Ladsous said, and you know why.  Video here. The Why, if there is one, is that Ladsous does not want to and will not answer questions about his acts in 1994. Click here for a Ladsous 1994 cable.

   This not-answering has been adopted by current but outgoing French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud, who on April 15 did not take any question from Inner City Press but told the lone critical questioner called on, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." Video here. This is France: in denial.

  The resolution refers to the genocide against the Tutsi in which moderate Hutu were also killed. There has been controversy even about this formulation. We'll have more on this, and on other genocide commemoration events scheduled at the UN for April 16. Watch this site.

   Back on April 5, French foreign ministry spokesperson Romain Nadal said he is "surprised" at the linking of France to the 1994 Rwanda genocide. He shouldn't be. Beyond the documentary evidence, earlier this year at the UN memorial of the genocide with Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon present France was named as guilty, see below.

  Nevertheless, now France said that its Justice Minister Christiane Taubira will no longer attend the April 7 memorial in Kigali. Ban Ki-moon was there -- and some wonder if his (or France's) head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous will go. 

  Rwanda is a major UN troop contributing country, most recently in Central African Republic. But Ladsous, who in 1994 was France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, has his own history. Sample memo here. Ladsous argued for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo -- where "his" UN Peacekeeping, even now, went after the M23, then the ADF while still not the Hutu militia FDLR.

  When Inner City Press asked Ladsous about his history, in the form of a question, Ladsous responded by refusing to answer any Inner City Press questions, even about precautions against spreading cholera as UN Peacekeeping did in Haiti. Video compilation here, UK coverage here, yet
more here, on what to call the 1994 genocide.

   At the Kwibuka 20 ceremony at the UN on February 27, from the podium France was twice blamed for working with genocidaires and helping them escape into the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  On the podium Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has praised French troops even his UN human rights counterpart Navi Pillay noted they'd left Muslim communities vulnerable to attack, looked uncomfortable. 

  Ban mentioned his "Rights Up Front" program, without mentioning its roots in the 2009 failure of his UN in Sri Lanka, as tens of thousands were killed. 

   Following Rwanda's Permanent Representative Gasana, genocide survivor Immaculee Ilibagiza spoke movingly of barely escaping slaughter, but then speaking of forgiveness.  Gerald Caplan said he would be less forgiving, and was. 

   He twice blamed France, specifically for Operation Turquoise which current UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous defended and promoted in the Security Council in 1994 as France's deputy permanent representative, click here for a memo.

   Caplan also mentioned Bill Clinton, for example -- but Clinton has apologized, unlike Ladsous. Instead, Ladsous simply refuses to answer this and other critical questions at the UN, and the UN accepts it, even tried to dictate how Ladsous can be covered.

  Forgiveness is one thing, and censorship is another. The February 27 ceremony was nothing but class. But day to day at the UN, with scribes braying about only the M23 and not the FDLR, it's another story.

  Even earlier on February 27, when Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky when UN Peacekeeping will go after the Hutu FDLR militia, he responded he would not speak to operational activities that "have not yet started and that might not start." Click here for that.

   In late January after the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council, 15-0, Rwanda's Permanent Representative Gasana emerged from the Council chamber. Inner City Press asked him about his DRC counterpart's comment that Gasana was educated in the Congo. Video here and embedded below.

  Gasana laughed and said he was born in Burundi. He mused that the Congolese might want to adopt him. Then he turned to go.

  Wire services Reuters and Agence France-Presse pursued him to the esclator, where Reuters UN bureau chief asked Gasana about Rwanda being accused of supporting the M23. Gasana replied that the DRC has other problems, for example in Katanga. He said Rwanda is a scapegoat for the DRC's wider problems.

  Reuters insisted that the Group of Experts report had been welcomed by the Security Council resolution.  "Because they need that," Gasana replied. "This is the raison d'etre of the Security Council." 

  Nothing was asked there about the fight in the Council on how to described the 1994 genocide and the compromise language in the resolution. AFP's outgoing scribe was there, but asked nothing. Nor when the DRC Permanent Representative spoke minutes later at the UNTV stakeout, in French. This is how the UN works.

  An hour later at the UN's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the UN's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for an update on any accountability for the mass rapes in Minova by units of the Congolese Army the UN supports, and if UN Peacekeeping, led by Herve Ladsous, is investigating links between the Congolese Army and the FDLR militia. On this, Haq said to look at the Council's resolutions. Video here.

  In the January 30 resolution, the language compromised on is "the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed."

  Sources exclusively told Inner City Press that the United States resisted calling it a genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda, even saying that there is a US policy against referring to it in this way.

   Inner City Press has asked the US Mission to the UN for an explanation. It was said one might be forthcoming after the vote.

  Where would such a US policy be written down? It seemed strange, particularly during a time of Holocaust events at the UN, from one aboutHungary to another about Albania.

   On January 29, Inner City Press asked a US Council diplomat, who said spokespeople would be asked. Inner City Press was told to wait for the language to be final, then, for the vote.

  In the Council's January 29 debate, the representative of the DRC spoke about Rwanda and the M23 rebels. Rwanda's Deputy Permanent Representative replied with a series of questions: was it Rwanda who killed Lumumba? Was Rwanda responsible for Mobutu? Who hosted and failed to separate the genocidaires from Rwanda in 1994?

  This continued on January 30 after the vote.  Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said UN Peacekeeping should investigate links between the DRC Army and the FDLR.

  The DRC representative asked to be given specifics about links between his country's army the FARDC and the FDLR militia. The resolution voted on provides:

"Noting with deep concern reports indicating FARDC collaboration with the FDLR at a local level, recalling that the FDLR is a group under United Nations sanctions whose leaders and members inchide perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed, and have continued to promote and commit ethnically based and other killings in Rwanda and in the DRC, and stressing the importance of permanently addressing this threat"

   As Inner City Press exclusively put online last June, some of these links were even specified in the UN Group of Experts report, for example:

"107. The Group interviewed 10 FARDC soldiers in Tongo, in North Kivu, who reported that FARDC and FDLR regularly meet and exchange operational information. These same sources stated that FARDC soldiers supplied ammunition to the FDLR. Col. Faida Fidel Kamulete, the commander of FARDC 2nd battalion of 601st Regiment based at Tongo, denied such collaboration, but declared to the Group that FARDC and FDLR do not fight each other."

  Going further back, it is impossible not to note, particularly given the lack of explanation or transparency, that US Permanent RepresentativeSamantha Power began her 2001 article "Bystanders to Genocide" in the Atlantic with this sentence: "In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority."

  Given that, why would the US Mission be saying it had a policy of describing the genocide as being against the Tutsi minority? Inner City Press asked again: Since I'm told that the US has said that there is a government position not to say the 1994 genocide was against the Tutsis, can you say what that policy is? Why does it exist? Does it apply to other genocides or atrocities?

 As noted, Inner City Press also has pending with the US State Department a number of requests, including a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Administration's Atrocities Prevention Board.

  A Rwandan diplomat told Inner City Press these were Hutu killed not because of their ethnicity but because they opposed the genocide against the Tutsi. "This is a precedent," the diplomat said. Watch this site.

   

As UN Spins Genocide, Its 1999 Rwanda Review Omitted Herve Ladsous, His July 15, 1994 Memo Here

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 15 -- After two days of Rwanda genocide revisionism at the UN, on the afternoon of January 15 the UN emailed to the Press a copy of its"Independent Inquiry 1999 Report on UN Actions in Rwanda."

  In that review, listed interviewees included survivor and current Rwanda foreign minister Louise Mushikiwabo and the former Permanent Representatives of New Zealand (Colin Keating) and Nigeria (Ibrahim Gambari). 

  But for France, neither the former Permanent Representative Jean-Bernard Merimee nor the Deputy Permanant Representative Herve Ladsous -- now the head of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

  Ladsous should have been interviewed -- click here for an internal memo reflecting his activity in the Security Council on Rwanda.

  Now that current French Permanent Representative GerardAraud is shouting criticism of the Press publishing documents (after his Mission refused to comment on them, only said that their publication would be a "hostile act"), what of this one? 

   At Tuesday's UN press conference ostensibly about the Rwanda genocide of 1994, no questions were taken around what actually happened then. France's Operation Turquoise, which helped the genocidaires escape into Eastern Congo, was not addressed.

  Nor was the shorter but even more telling Operation Amaryllis, conducted by France in Rwanda during the crucial six days between April 8 and April 14, 1994. 

  French troops swept in from Gabon and Bangui -- ironic, that -- and evacuated not only French nationals but also the close associates of the genocidaires, such as the wife of genocide leading president Habyarimana.

  The French troops used UN vehicles of the UNAMIR mission, echoed just last Friday to some by the participation of UN vehicles for the MONUSCO mission in demonstrations in Eastern Congo celebrating the false rumor of the death of Rwanda's president.

  French Colonel Jean Balch's assessment -- which in fairness we note the French parliamentary report claimed was strictly personal -- was that "there was nothing to hint at a RPF victory at that moment, the FAR [government, pro-genocide] resisted quite reasonable the thrust of the Inkotanyi [RFP]." Assemble Nationale, Enquete Tome 1, Pg. 263.

  This, some say, found an echo as recently as June 12, 2013, when France's current Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud told the Assemble Nationale, "Cette région est le théâtre de jeux géopolitiques complexes propres à l’Afrique et dont souffrent surtout les populations civiles. Le Rwanda – qui est un peu la Prusse de la région – poursuit son avancée face à une RDC totalement incapable et inepte" -- that is, calling Rwanda "the Prussia of the region." Click here for that.

  Despite talk of "lessons learned," with quotes such as this and the current leadership of UN peacekeeping, it is unclear what the UN has learned, no matter how many events on genocides it holds and tightly controls.

  On January 14, the first question was given automatically to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a group whose leadership reported little for example during the slaughter in Sri Lanka in 2009. Then UNCA screened a Sri Lanka government film denying war crimes, and tried to censor critical Press coverage of it. (Under the questioner, Pam Falk of CBS, UNCA has reformed nothing, not even pledging not to try to get journalists thrown out of the UN and to function, in essence, as the UN's Censorship Alliance.)

  In the mere three UN-wide questions before Dallaire's remarks -- Gulf media, AFP and finally Inner City Press -- the question about France once again taking sides, in December 2013 in Central African Republic was deferred until next Monday.

  It can be rightly be concluded, including in light of Ban Ki-moon's post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" plan, that little has been learned at or about the UN. The censors' circle of self-congratulations continue. For now. Watch this site.