UNITED NATIONS, January 20 -- Amid generally self-congratulatory talk at the UN on January 20 Ameerah Haq, perhaps freed to speak by leaving her UN position, acknowledged that the UN “can't demonstrate” its stated zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse.
So upon hearing Ameerah Haq's candor, Inner City Press ran down for the question and answer session. The event was in Conference Room 5, sponsored by the Netherlands, whose foreign minster (and former UN envoy to Cote d'Ivoire and Mali) Bert Koenders was on the panel, next to Ameerah Haq.
When question time came, however, only the Permanent Representatives of countries were allowed to ask - or mostly just say - things. The United Arab Emirates noted how the UAE's foreign minister signed on for the UN's He4She campaign, for example; Koenders chimed in to call his colleague a leader.
The context was that the Netherlands is running for a Security Council seat for 2017-2018. Koenders raised this earlier on January 20, speaking across First Avenue from the UN, noting his country's contribution to peacekeeping. (They carried out air strikes in Northern Mali, it seems, that very day.)
As the already-beginning US electoral race to culminate in November 2016 shows, it is never to early to start campaigning. But we'd suggest that Koenders and the Netherlands, and other candidates, make sure to take a wider range of question than just from other Permanent Representatives going forward.
Beyond running an accessible race, the only way the UN will improve on issues like sexual abuse is by moving beyond self congratulation and addressing its weaknesses and lack of accountability.
And on Ameerah Haq's candor, and how this issue might be addressed in the ongoing review of UN Peace Operations, heading from Dhaka to Rio but hopefully hearing from elsewhere including Haiti, we'll have more. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, November 17 -- Does UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous do telephone eavesdropping? Inner City Press asked on November 17 including, under what authority? The answer was UNclear. Video here.
The last time UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous himself was scheduled to take questions from the press, instead he lunged forward and blocked the Press' camera, then canceled his Q&A stakeout on Mali. Vine here.
Since then more peacekeepers have been killed and injured but Ladsous, unlike his also-French predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean-Marie Guehenno, has not done a stakeout to speak up for those put under his command.
Instead, Ladsous now tried to do softball interviews with hand-picked correspondents. Even that works out badly -- perhaps very badly.
In a recent “interview,” in which for example UN Peacekeeping bringing cholera to Haiti is vaguely mentioned but not followed up on, it slips out that Ladsous is expanding “signal intelligence, using high-tech surveillance of communications such as telephone eavesdropping.”
How can it be that at the same time that the UN General Assembly is considering a Brazilian and German drafted resolution on Privacy in the Digital Age, Ladsous is expanding eavesdropping and wire-tapping? On whose authority?
So at the November 17 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, per the UN's transcript (video here) --
Inner City Press: On peacekeeping, Under-Secretary-General [Hervé] Ladsous was interviewed earlier this month, and the resulting story says that "Mr. Ladsous seeks to expand signal intelligence using high tech communications such as telephone eavesdropping," unquote. And I wanted to know: Is it the case that UN peacekeeping uses eavesdropping? And if so, under what authority or mandate? And how is it consistent with the General Assembly pending resolution on privacy in the digital age?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: We're trying to expand our abilities to deal with the sort of threats that the UN faces, including in its peacekeeping. As you know, we're also doing a peacekeeping review, which hopefully will address some of these issues. I don't have anything at this stage to report on signals intelligence, though.
Inner City Press: I guess what I'm saying, since this is a published report and you said last week that unlike the World Health Organisation that blacklists media, that you simply seek corrections. Is this the case? This is reporting that it's currently eavesdropping on telephones. I want to know under what legal authority?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: I think that's a characterization of something that is not precisely what he said. That's your characterization of it.
Inner City Press: Okay, I'll be clear. Does MINUSMA in Mali use surveillance and intercepted… communications intercepted by the Dutch Intelligence Service that serves the mission? And if so, under what legal authority?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: I believe MINUSMA is working… I believe one of your colleagues asked about a fusion cell there. I believe the fusion cell does try to get enhanced information, including from collaboration with Member States.
Inner City Press: But can the UN intercept or use intercepted communications; and if so, under what legal authority?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: We're not talking about the UN doing any such intercept.
Inner City Press: Using. If the Dutch intercepts…?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Different Member States share information with the United Nations related to our peacekeeping objectives.
Inner City Press: Are there any limitations on what the UN accepts and uses?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: That's a theoretical question. At this stage, what I can say is different Member States can sometimes try to help with UN peacekeeping by providing additional information to us, and we use that as needed.
More recently, Ladsous was asked not only about UN Peacekeeping bringing cholera to Haiti -- Ladsous insisted that it hasn't been proved -- but also about proceeding with drones without C-34 member states' approval, and about the expanding rape scandals. On these, Ladsous claimed he is setting up reviews.
But Ladsous for months refused Press questions about, and covered up, the 130 rapes by the DR Congo Army in Minova. Video compilation here.
UNITED NATIONS, April 23 -- Ten weeks ago in Mali the UN Security Council, through trip leader Gerard Araud of France, put a positive spin on dialogue in Mali. On April 23 at the UN, Inner City Press asked new Malian foreign minister Abdoulaye Diop for an update on dialogue in Kidal, and on the stated investigation of the shooting of civilian demonstrators there.
Diop relied that he is too new in the position to answer on the probe. He said there is a new chief negotiator for the armed groups and what he called, in a Nixonian phrase, the "silent majority." Where did the last ten weeks go?
Inner City Press asked if the new Dutch contingent in the UN's MINUSMA mission will share information and intelligence with the government in Bamako. Diop said he wasn't sure, but that the Dutch are giving five helicopters to MINUSMA.
The French-led half-tour of Mali by the UN Security Council ended on February 4, carefully scripted and edited, declared a success. In the Mopti meeting of the Council, Kidal in the north was not represented, and questions about killings there were not addressed.
Likewise, despite claims by many Council members and the Council as a whole to have a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse or exploitation by UN peacekeepers, the charges of gang rape against UN peacekeepers from Chad serving in Mali were not addressed.
At trip's end, the UN mission MINUSMA uploaded a 7 1/2 minute YouTube video. The Council members speaking in it, as edited in the final cut, were France's Gerard Araud and Samantha Power of the US, along with UN envoy Bert Koenders. Inner City Press asked MINUSMA, and the UN in New York, that the concluding press conference be live streamed, or made available on a phone line, or at least shown afterwards. From theFebruary 3 UNHQ transcript:
Inner City Press: I’m wondering if the press conference of the Security Council in Bamako at the headquarters of MINUSMA, is there some way… they seem to say it couldn’t be live-streamed due to slow Internet. Either via telephone or in some other way, is there a way? It seems like you communicate with MINUSMA, there must be some connection possible.
Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I hope my colleagues in [the Department of Peacekeeping Operations] are listening to this and can dial the line right now. It is certainly true that the Internet speed leaves something to be desired as I recall from my own recent visit there — through nobody’s fault, of course. Even if it’s not possible for you to listen through by telephone, I’m sure that there will be an audio recording that we could make available. Okay?
But DPKO under Herve Ladsous never provided anything. The MINUSMA mission put up the 7/12 minute video, the last minute and a half of which appear to be the press conference. But only Araud and Koenders speak in this final cut of the press conference.
Clearly, MINUSMA filmed the whole press conference, to then choose these clips. Why not make the whole video available, as the UN does at headquarters, and as MONUSCO does in the Congo? Is MINUSMA's Mali the UN's new Hollywood - or Cannes?
Again: before the press conference, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked at the UN's noon briefing about access to the event, where questions about Kidal and alleged gang rapes by peacekeepers could and should be asked. Video here, from Minute 19:05.
UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky said Internet speeds are slow but he hoped his colleagues in UN Peacekeeping were listening and could dial. This did not happen; the MINUSMA mission made Inner City Press aware of bullet points to open the press conference and a photo with Araud in the middle, other Ambassadors sitting behind. Inner City Press has asked for the Q&A.
Meanwhile it emerges that King Mohammed VI of French ally Morocco is meeting with the MNLA, giving more credence to pre-existing doubts. It's all a French connection: are the Council and most of the UN, other than French-run UN Peacekeeping, just along with the ride?
During the Council's Mali trip, MINUSMA produced and uploaded a series of YouTube videos, heavy on the positions of French Ambassador Gerard Araud.
Inner City Press noted that the "interview" uploaded from Mopti, where the Council did not meet representatives from Kidal in the North, omitted all of the questions asked. Inner City Press asked why, and on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked that the Council's 7 pm press conference be live-streamed or otherwise made accessible in real time.
We note that from Mail the UN's MINUSMA, despite the statement about Internet speed, has continued to put online Araud (and envoy Bert Koenders) videos on YouTube, for example here and here. Koenders claimed that with president IBK, "all the aspects" were discussed -- but still nothing has been said pubicly about the failure to meet with those from Kidal, and about the alleged gang rapes by UN peacekeepers.
So will these questions be asked, allowed and answered at "the Security Council's" 7 pm press conference? The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked.
That the Malian Presidency proudly links to a Radio France Internationale story praising the French ambassador as "at once very nuance and very clear" is one thing.
Now the UN Peacekeeping mission in Mali MINUSMA has edited and posted a video of Ambassador Araud, with all questions edited out. Click here. Thus Araud is able to speak about "inspecting" the UN force, without anything about oversight of the French Serval force the UN belated authorized.
(Will the 7 p.m. press conference at MINUSMA headquarters in Bamako be live-streamed? One would think with the money spent that the UN could do it. But will they?)
Likewise, Araud speaks of meeting with the armed groups of the north without saying anything about Kidal.
It's one thing that the Security Council members did not visit the north due to safety concerns. But given the centrality of Kidal to the split in the country, how could their meeting in Mopti with "civil society" from the north not include Kidal?
It is confirmed, by French-selected scribes: the Council met with it "civil society from Timbuktu, Gao and Mopti" - and NOT from Kidal. But the scribes, typically, did not question the omission, much less disparities in description of killings in Kidal or the lack of transparency by the UN about gang rapes by its peacekeepers, despite claims of "zero tolerance."
It and the below are important issues, but are not addressed in the tweetsand facebook-ed statements of the Council members on the trip, much less in MINUSMA's upbeat photos of Bert Koenders and France's Gerard Araud inspecting the troops.
Did the Security Council, led by France and Chad, meet with leaders from Kidal or not? Especially given the dipute, below, about killings in Kidal?
If the UN's and Security Council's stated policies on sexual violence and conflict and "Zero Tolerance" mean anything, the issue will have to be addressed, and publicly, during the two day trip.
Back on January 16 the UN Spokesperson's Office sent Inner City Press this response, which does not answer the question of accountability. But here it is, in full:
Subject: Your question on Mali From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:23 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
In response to your question about the follow-up to the allegations of sexual assault by United Nations peacekeepers in MINUSMA in September 2013, we have received the following information:
The Department of Peacekeeping Operations officially notified the Government of Chad of these allegations in late September. The Government of Chad officially responded, saying that it would take responsibility for the investigations. The Government of Chad has further advised the Department of Peacekeeping Operations that it has completed the national investigation, and the United Nations awaits advice on the outcome of the investigations and follow-up accountability measures as appropriate.
The UN is waiting for "advice" -- but will it ever make it public? How else can the UN's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy be assessed?
On January 17, Inner City Press asked UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about it. From the UN's transcript, video here and embedded below:
Inner City Press: On Mali, I wanted to thank you for this written answer you gave yesterday afternoon that Mali has said that its completed its investigation of the alleged rape in Mali by the Chadian troops. And it said that the UN awaits advice on the outcome of the investigation. And what I wanted to know is whether… what part of that is going to be made public, given both the human rights due diligence policy, etcetera? I appreciate you saying that the investigation is finished, but, has… did they clear the soldiers? Were the soldiers found guilty? Where does it stand?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: As we emailed to you, the Mission does await advice on the outcome of the proceedings. We know that there have been proceedings regarding the case. You know this is a case regarding sexual assault and so, we await further information from that. We’ll try to make public what we can of the information that we receive.
Inner City Press: So, they literally just told you that it’s complete, but…no indication on what was done? I guess I wonder when --
Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The information I have in the email that was sent to you is the information we have. If we have any further updates, we’ll share it with you at that point.
Two weeks later, nothing. So what will members of the Security Council ask, find and make public?
One of the UN's other too-few criticisms of military action in north Mail, the shooting into a crowd of protesters in Kidal on November 28, was disputed in the Security Council on January 16.
In a statement prepared like a defense attorney, trying raise reasonable doubt, Mali's Permanent Representative Sekou Kasse said that the UN Mission MINUSMA elements closest to the shooting were 400 meters away, precluding them from "objective" testimony.
The argument made was one must wait for the ballistic analysis ordered by the Malian government itself. Will that be credible? Shouldn't the Council, or less "invested" Council members, inquire into this during the two day visit?
Again, similarly, can statements by the French Mission to the UN, about military action in its former colony Mali and related topics, be believed? If so, does that require disbelieving the UN itself, whose reports are different?
In the run-up to the UN Security Council's January 16 meeting on Mali, both France and the UN Mission MINUSMA filed reports. It's worth comparing their accounts of the same incidents, for example on October 23, 2013 in Tessalit.
"On 23 October 2013, in response to an attack on a Chadian post in Tessalit by a commando made up of three armed terrorist groups using a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, the Operation Serval Liaison and Support Detachment assigned to the Chadian battalion assisted MINUSMA by conducting a patrol with a Mirage 2000D jet and sending a CASA 'Nurse' medical evacuation aircraft. The end result was that six wounded Chadians were evacuated and the remaining explosives were neutralized."
"On 23 October, four individuals drove and detonated a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device into a MINUSMA checkpoint in Tessalit. Seven people were killed, including four adult civilians, a six-year-old boy and two MINUSMA peacekeepers."
This type of disparities in reporting - misleading - would and should be delved into into during the two day Council trip. How and where will these disparities be explained?
While continuing to pursue that, particularly given developments in the Khobragade case, delving into the French report, and the roles of UN Peacekeeping, MINUSMA and their respective leadership(s), should be done - including by the Council during their two days "on the ground." Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 26 -- Earlier this month, the UN was calling on Bangladesh' Sheikh Hasina to show flexibility. On December 11, the UN announced that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had expressed to Sheikh Hasina concern about
"the widespread violence that has left dozens of people dead since last month. The Secretary-General urged the Prime Minister to resolve differences over the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for January through dialogue."
Now two weeks later UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has contacted Sheikh Hasina asking to transfer 1000 Bangledeshi soldiers to South Sudan, and she has nearly immediately said yes, and bragged about it -- as nearly all leaders and countries do -- witness Norway bragging it's giving $50 million to South Sudan where its Hilde Johnson is UN envoy, or the Netherlands bragging about spying in Mali where its Bert Koenders is envoy.
But it's worth considering the relation between the UN's pressure on Sheikh Hasina before this South Sudan crisis erupted, and after Ban's request and Sheikh Hasina's quick approval.
So to the case of President Kenyatta of Kenya. In November, either Security Council members abstained on the African Union's request that the Council suspended the International Criminal Court's proceedings against Kenyatta for one year.
Now, along with Ethiopia's prime minister, Kenyatta is going to South Sudan to mediate. What do the abstainers say now? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, December 1 -- UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has arrived Sunday in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, just as the drone he pushed for at the UN in New York is set to launch as a spy-eye in the sky over the borders of Eastern Congo.
Friday afternoon in New York, Ladsous was asked by the Press about his peacekeepers role in Kidal, Mali urging the dispersal of protesters who then were shot by the Malian army. Ladsous refused to answer, as has been his pattern.Video here,UK coverage here.
Nor in the 48 hours since has any information been forthcoming from the UN, beyond a MINUSMA mission press release that even Reuters said was UNclear.
Ladsous role in the Great Lakes region, back to 1994 when he was France's Deputy Permanent Representative arguing for the escape of genocidaires from Rwanda into Eastern Congo is documented, there there are attempts to bury it.Click here.
While UN Peacekeeping's new spying, not only in DRC but also now with the Dutch in Mali, is celebrated by some. But given Ladsous' history, it is important to ask and to determine: who exactly will get the information from the drones and "signal intelligence" and surveillance in Mali?
Inner City Press went to the UN on Friday, November 29, a UN workday, and posed this question in writing since there was no in-person noon briefing:
"In Mali, after protesters in Kidal were subjected to live fire, please describe the role of the MINUSMA peacekeepers in the events, including in reportedly telling the protesters to leave the airport. Is that true? Is so, why did the UN tell protesters to leave, given the UN's stated commitment to the right to protest?"
In-person, Inner City Press asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous about Kidal, but he said nothing. Here is the UN's written response to Inner City Press, citing an UNclear MINUSMA press release:
Subject: Your questions for Friday From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding the questions you asked by email, the Spokesperson has the following to say:
Regarding your questions on Mali, the UN Mission, MINUSMA, has provided the following information in a press release today:
Bamako, 29 November 2013 - MINUSMA strongly condemns the violence that took place yesterday in Kidal prior to the scheduled arrival of the Prime Minister and a Government delegation.
The Mission deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place.
MINUSMA, in close cooperation with Serval, assisted the evacuation of three of the injured for medical care in Gao.
MINUSMA calls for restraint and a return to the negotiating table to continue discussions toward a solution in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2100 (2013) and the commitments made, including on security and investigation arrangements, in the Ouagadougou Preliminary Agreement.
If as reported the Malian Army shot protesters, leaving two women in critical condition, what does it mean to say the UN "deplores the fact that, despite a security plan coordinated by the Malian Government on Wednesday in cooperation with MINUSMA and supported by Serval, incidents of a serious nature took place"?
Is the UN deploring the protesters? Or the Malian Army shooting at them?
As noted, even Reuters found the MINUSMA press release to "not shed much light on what actually happened in Kidal yesterday."
We say "even" because Ladsous has several times usedReuters at the UN as a pass-through for misleading or self-serving answering, for example as he covered up for monthsthe 135 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army.
Reuters at the UN coordinated with AFP at attempt to get Inner City Press thrown out; AFP led with the way Inner City Press asked Ladsous a question about the Minova mass rapes. Now, after the two were linked by MediaBistro with troll counterfeit Inner City Press twitter accounts, onNovember 27 the troll social media campaign began again.
Ladsous is who he is -- but Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople, even just to keep UN Peacekeeping here from making the whole UN look bad, need to provide more and better answers, as well as to question their "exclusive" partnership with an association of big media "mean girls" who have descended into anonymous trolling. Two more questions Inner City Press asked on Friday weren't even acknowledged. Another DPKO question:
"With regard to Lebanon and UNIFIL, please state the UN's knowledge of Israel's "spying" stations and whether these spy on UNIFIL's communications as alleged by the Lebanese government and its Committee on Assessing the Dangers of the Israeli Telecomm Towers in Lebanese Territory."
To this, Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople replied to Inner City Press:
"Regarding your questions on Lebanon, the UN Interim Force, UNIFIL, says it has no information on this."
Well, beyond the UK coverage of Ladsous, here's coverage of the issue in Lebanon, on which Ladsous' UNIFIL said "it has no information." Again, in the past 48 hours, no UN Peacekeeping or wider UN answer to this and at least four other questions posed on Friday. Watch this site.
