As Sudan Talks Fail, Inner City Press Asks UN Why Not Call for Cross Border Aid, Wan Ban

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 17 -- After the Sudan talks failed in Addis Ababa, Inner City Press asked the UN about them on August 17 but there was no comment, nor explanation of why the UN called for cross-border aid in Syria but not Sudan's Nuba Mountains. Vine here. From the UN Transcript: 

Inner City Press: about Sudan, some people are saying the talks have actually fallen apart in Addis on this issue of humanitarian aid, on the delivery of aid into the Nuba Mountain areas, whether from Sudan or from cross-border from South Sudan.  And the Government of Sudan has said that it's not going to accept any cross-border aid into those areas.  And so I know that, in other instances, OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] has called for cross-border aid, for example, in Syria.  What is the position currently of OCHA on the delivery of aid to these hard-struck areas from… across the border from South Sudan?  Do they believe it should be done?

Deputy Spokesman:  The basic point is we want to make sure that we are able to have access to all the people who need aid.  That's what we call for across the board and that's what we expect here.  Whether that needs to be done through cross-border or through a different type of system is something that's still under discussion.

ICP Question:  But, does the UN have any role… and these talks were taking place in Addis over five days.  Did the UN, whether OCHA or the various envoys or Mr. [Nicholas] Haysom, have a role in these talks?

Deputy Spokesman:  I'll have to check whether anyone's been in attendance.  They're not our talks, but I'll see whether there was someone there.

  This spokesman never got back to Inner City Press; Ban put out a canned statement hours later. Ban is on leave, while expressing concern about bombing of Yemen he let Saudi Arabia off the hook for, and inaction by UN "peacekeepers" as aid workers were raped nearby in South Sudan. This is Ban's UN.

Just as the World Humanitarian Summit began in Turkey on May 22, Sudande facto expelled the Head of Office of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Ivo Freijsen. Now five days later, the US, Norway and UK have issued this on May 27: "The members of the Troika (Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States) are appalled by the Sudanese government’s aerial bombardment of civilians in Kauda and the Heiban area of South Kordofan, including the bombing of St Vincent Elementary School on 25 May. The Sudanese government has a responsibility to protect all its citizens. We urge all parties to end the violence and allow immediate humanitarian access to those in need. We believe that the Roadmap presented by the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel represents the way forward.

"The Troika countries are also deeply concerned by the Government of Sudan’s de facto expulsion of Ivo Freijsen, the Head of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Sudan. The Government of Sudan’s action contributes to the increasingly difficult environment to address humanitarian needs in Sudan. The humanitarian situation remains critical, with over 5.4 million people in need of humanitarian aid. We fully support OCHA’s mandate in Sudan and call on the Government to review this latest decision, and lift restrictions on the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to all Sudanese affected by crisis and conflict." 

Inner City Press on May 26 asked International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda if she thought the UN should be inviting Omar al-Bashir; she told Inner City Press to ask the UN. 

 On May 27, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson if the UN's letters to Sudan note that its President has been indicted for genocide and that the UN says he should be arrested. Apparently not. 

Back on June 1 of 2015 when South Sudan expelled then-UN aid coordinator Toby Lanzer, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon sent out a mixed message. He deplored the expulsion, or declaration of persona non grata (PNG), but said he had already appointed a replacement of Lanzer. 

  At least that time Ban deplored a PNG. In Sudan, while he spoke about the ouster of Ali Za'tari, he quietly replaced him later. 

  In Sudan, this followed the ouster - or press release against - UNFPA representative Pam Delargy a year ago. On June 1 Inner City Press asked the head of UNFPA about Delargy's case, and he said on camera that she was NOT PNG-ed, that she had been about to leave anyway.

  Inner City Press read him UNFPA's answer from April 2014, that Sudan issued a press release that she should go. The reply was that other agency representatives were also asked to leave. 

This is today's UN, a race to the bottom. UNFPA's head attended Buhari's inauguration in his native Nigeria, it is not clear in what capacity or at what cost. After Inner City Press asked such questions, USG of DPI Gallach ousted then evicted it - to give its office to Egyptian state media.

Back in late 2014, after Inner City Press received a leaked copy of Sudan UN Development Program Country Director Yvonne Helle's December 24 e-mail saying she had been ordered to leave the country, it reported it and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it at the UN's noon briefing on December 24. Story here, video from UN noon briefing here.

  On December 30, after a UN Security Council consultations from which nothing came, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN:

"This is a request that Deputy SG Eliasson or someone else from the Secretariat hold a press availability on Sudan's decision to expel Yvonne Helle (which I asked about at the December 24 noon briefing) and Ali Al-Za'tari... I understood the DSG to say he would not be speaking afterward since it was consultations. But a media availability by the Secretariat, ideally the DSG but another if necessary, later this afternoon is being requested, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access."

   UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq replied in the negative:

"Regarding your request for a press availability, yes, the Deputy Secretary-General said that he would not speak at the stakeout, given that the Security Council had held consultations. The views he expressed were in keeping with what we have been saying on Sudan, including in the 25 December SG statement: 

'The Secretary-General condemns the Government of Sudan's decision to expel the United Nations Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator and the Country Director of the United Nations Development Programme. The sanctioning of United Nations personnel sent to Sudan to carry out their duties in accordance with the United Nations Charter is unacceptable. The Secretary-General calls on the Government of Sudan to reverse its decision immediately and urges it to cooperate fully with all United Nations entities present in Sudan.'"

 Later on December 30, minutes before the UN Security Council was to vote on the draft Palestine resolution, the UN put this out:

Note to Correspondents – in response to questions on Sudan

The Secretary-General’s strongly critical position on the expulsion from Sudan of the Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) and UNDP Country Director is clear.

Departure of these key senior United Nations officials would constitute a serious loss for the humanitarian and development community in Sudan at a time when humanitarian needs are growing and the country faces significant development challenges.

The United Nations has been engaging the Government of Sudan at several levels to obtain a reversal of its decision.  It is essential that the United Nations can continue to carry out its crucial duties in the country. The Government has agreed to extend the deadline for the RC/HC's departure from 2 January until the end of the month. Discussions on this issue continue.

The United Nations remains committed to a productive and fruitful working relationship with the Government of Sudan for the benefit of its people, on the basis of respect of sovereignty. The United Nations counts on the full cooperation of the Government of Sudan in enabling all UN entities and their leadership to carry out their important work. 

"  Inner City Press has asked, why was nothing said when Sudan expelled the Country Director of the UN Population Fund UNFPA in April? When Sudan this Fall chased a UN aid official out of Darfur? There have been no public explanation, but Inner City Press is compiling a picture -- call it "Profiles in Cowardice" -- from multiple sources; watch this site.

   (Inner City Press is told by sources that Sudan's Permanent Representative exchanged words with a Security Council members PR on December 30, we hope to have more on this.)

  For now we add this: when UNHCR the UN's refugee agency held a  staff planning mtg in Khartoum, Sudan's security agency NISS then refused to let the Darfur-based international staff return to their posts. 

 For months they sat in Khartoum waiting, incidentally spending large amounts from UNHCR's public budget. Ultimately many of the international staff were simply moved, quietly, to other countries. 

 And why didn't the UN system, the UN Security Council and its members speak at that time, and in April when UNFPA's Country Director was thrown out?

  In April 2014, Inner City Press asked UNFPA to "Please confirm or deny that in Sudan UNFPA Representative Pam Delargy was told to leave the country on April 7 and, separately, that she did leave. And anything else. Please also provide an update on Mr. Siddhart Chatterjee as UNFPA Representative in Kenya: date of commencement, what work has been done."

  UNFPA replied to Inner City Press on April 9, "The United Nations Resident Coordinator in Khartoum, Sudan was notified by the Government of Sudan that the UNFPA Representative had been requested to leave the country at a short notice. A press release by the Sudanese Government has been issued to this effect. We regret this decision and are in communication with the United Nations Country Team in Sudan to seek further clarification on this matter. We hope that we would very soon be able to continue and re-establish normal relationships with the Government of Sudan."

  Inner City Press asked this week about the UN system's silence and UNFPA replied, "UNFPA now has a new representative in Sudan, who has assumed her responsibilities three months ago. I will follow up with our Khartoum office regarding your second question."

  We'll have more on this. 

On Syria, US Official Says Intensive for Cross Border, Two Draft UN Security Council Resolutions Contrasted: Rancho Mirage

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 15 -- After US President Barack Obama met with Jordan's King Abdullah II in Rancho Mirage, California, a self-described US Senior Administration Official said "Jordan and the United States are both working together in the Security Council at present and there is an ongoing, pretty intensive negotiation over a potential humanitarian resolution in the Security Council aimed at not only condemning the atrocities, but trying to create a legal predicate for cross-border operations and cross-line operations."

  In terms of creating a "legal predicate," the Western draft resolution 

"demands that the Syrian authorities promptly facilitate rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and across borders from neighboring countries, and lift all restrictions on cross-border humanitarian access, in particular, via Turkey and Iraq, and stresses, in this regard, the particularly urgent need for the Syrian authorities to reopen the Yariba border crossing with Iraq."

  But as described below, the Russian counter-draft

"urges all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, to promptly facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need, through the most effective ways, including across conflict lines and, where appropriate, across borders from neighboring countries, in accordance with the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance."

  Could the US and its allies objec to "the UN guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance"? 

  In terms of the negotiations process in New York being "intensive," Inner City Press covered the February 14 session, it was at the "experts" level and the Lithuanian presidency did not provide a summary much less question and answer stakeout afterward, as the Free UN Coalition for Access requested at the beginning of the month. (China, by contrast, held nine Q&A stakeouts during its recent Security Council presidency; for Lithuania as of February 15 the number is zero.)

   The UN Spokesperson's office did not announce in advance mediator Lakhdar Brahimi's down-beat February 15 press conference in Geneva, at which no date was set for any more talks; the UN in New York is closed until February 18. Intensive?

   Russia had counter-proposed a Syria humanitarian resolution, and has also proposed a counter-terrorism Presidential Statement, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press on February 13.

   Churkin said after Russia heard US statements about the rise of terrorism in Syria, the idea of the Presidential Statement arose. He said Russia's counter-draft resolution on humanitarian access also has terrorism language.

   Inside the Security Council in an otherwise nearly empty UN, humanitarian chief Valerie Amos' briefing and closed door consultations continued. Earlier on February 13, Inner City Press exclusively reported on a four page letter the Syrian mission submitted to the Security Council president, naming towns which the armed opposition -- "terrorists" -- were blockading. Click here for that.

  At the February 13 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky to confirm these blockades. He replied that the UN has never denied that there are blockages from the opposition side. But if Valerie Amos won't name the opposition groups, the UN's or her critique appears to be one-sided.

  On February 10 in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.

  Churkin said on February 10 that Rome meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." On February 13 he criticized it again, contrasting it to what he called Russia's practical approach. He said the Russian embassy in Damascus was involved in the deal(s) to get aid into Homs. 

   US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf on February 13 insisted that the US supports the Australian - Luxembourg - Jordan draft. But what about the Russian submission, now on counter-terrorism? 

  From Geneva, France 24 reported wanly on the Brahimi talks; in New York, it asked Churkin if a vote should be expect before the Olympics are over. He said, there is no connection.

  Neither France 24, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Press first published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.

   

In South Sudan UN's Kang Admits OCHA Speaks with Rebels, So Why Won't Amos Admit on Syria as to ISIS and Al Nusra?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 4 -- When UN deputy humanitarian chief Kyung-wha Kang took questions Wednesday after her trip to South Sudan, Inner City Press asked if the UN speaks with the David Yau Yau rebels, and about cross border aid into Southern Kordofan.

  Kang quickly acknowledged that yes, for humanitarian access the UN speak with the Yau Yau rebels. This stands in contrast to UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos twicedeclining to answer Inner City Press' question whether the UN speaks for access in Syria with the Al Nusra Front or ISIS.

  Amos said she would not speak about contacts with "specific groups." Kang did on Wednesday, correctly, about South Sudan. So why is Syria different? What is the UN's policy?

  Since Amos has called for cross border aid into Syria from Turkey, Inner City Press asked Kang why the UN has not similarly called for cross border aid from South Sudan into Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan.

  Kang did not answer this question except to say, twice, that even the promised polio vaccination campaign has yet to happen. The UN's last report in New York, through John Ging, was that the SPLM-North rebels had demanded a meeting which even the UN did not think was necessary.

Footnote: speaking of unnecessary, the first question to Kang was given to UNCA president Pamela Falk of CBS, who apparently did not have any humanitarian question to ask: she asked about child soldiers. Kang said that issue did not come up (understandably) on her trip.

  This was followed by another UNCA "leader" calling Kang the successor to Children and Armed Conflict envoy Coomaraswamy and asking about child soldiers in Afghanistan. Do these questions for question's sake by UNCA "leaders" get written up or broadcast anywhere? Or is to just to try to keep their positions as censors? Watch this site.