Amid Guinea Bissau Stand-Off, “Orchestra” in UNSC with Angola, Nigeria Ambassador Joy Ogwu Tells Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- The list of problems the UN can't solve or even impact grows ever longer, fromSyria down to Burundi. But what about Guinea-Bissau, now that both Nigeria (that is, ECOWAS) and Angola, key to the Portuguese-speaking alliance CPLP, are on the Security Council?

  Inner City Press put the question to the Council's president for August, Nigeria's Joy Ogwu. She called it a good question, and said that now it is like an “orchestra” in the Security Council on Guinea Bissau. In the past, on the Council was Portugal - which is now threatening to cut aid to Guinea Bissau; still in the mix is Brazil, as chair of the UN Peacebuilding Configuration for Guinea-Bissau.

  Previous UN envoy Jose Ramos Horta has moved on, to head a panel on increasingly discredited UN Peacekeeping-- he still says he's “alarmed” by development in Guinea Bissau, adding there is no reason to dissolve the government, threatened by President José Mário Vaz over the objection of Prime Minister Domingos Simões Pereira among others.

  From the orchestra, that is, from the Security Council, here was the Press Statement Ambassador Joy Ogwu read out at the Council stakeout on August 12:

The members of the Security Council were briefed on 10 August 2015 by Tayé-Brook Zerihoun, Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, on the situation in Guinea-Bissau.

The members of the Security Council took note of the ongoing tension between (the President and the Prime Minister, which threatens to undermine the progress made in Guinea-Bissau since the restoration of constitutional order following elections in 2014. They further underscored that the Bissau-Guinean people deserve stable, inclusive and co-operative institutions that act in the best interests of all Bissau-Guineans.

The members of the Security Council call on all of Guinea-Bissau’s political leadership, including the President and Prime Minister, to resume dialogue in order to work together in the governance of Guinea-Bissau as it emerges from previous periods of instability.

The members of the Security Council re-emphasized the importance of political stakeholders to engage in continuous and constructive dialogue within the established constitutional parameters.

The members of the Security Council recalled resolution 2203 (2015), and stressed the importance of national reconciliation, inclusive dialogue and good governance, and continued civilian control of government as essential for the attainment of lasting peace in Guinea-Bissau. They further stressed that the consolidation of peace and stability in Guinea-Bissau can only result from a consensual, inclusive and nationally owned process and respect for constitutional order that places the Bissau-Guinean people first.

The members of the Security Council welcomed ongoing efforts of regional and international actors, including, ECOWAS, the AU, the UN and its Guinea Bissau peace building Commission, the CPLP, and the EU to encourage dialogue among Guinea-Bissau’s political leadership. They particularly welcomed the efforts of Senegalese President Sall, Guinean President Conde, and Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of UNIOGBIS Trovoada in this regard.

The members of the Security Council recalled the Council’s commitment to support the authorities of Guinea-Bissau and noted that the pledges made at the March 2015, Brussels International Donor Conference require a stable political environment in order to most effectively materialize.
The members of the Security Council commended the peaceful way Guinea Bissau's population, including, civil society and the military, are following the political situation in the country.
   

Exclusive: For UN General Assembly, Guinea-Bissau to Send Interim Prez, Ramos-Horta Tells Inner City Press; "Not Legit," a CPLP-er Says

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 5 -- With the UN General Debate less than three weeks ago, the question of who will represent Guinea-Bissau became Inner City Press' focus on Thursday morning (alongside, of course, Syria).

  Before a closed-door consultation of the UN Security Council on Guinea-Bissau, Inner City Press asked UN envoy (and Nobel Prize winner) Jose Ramos-Horta who would be coming to New York for the debate.

  "The interim president," Ramos-Horta said. It was quiet outside the Security Council, with no other journalists present. It is considered more professional, apparently, to watch the G20 on television.

  Inner City Press asked Cote d'Ivoire Permanent Representative Bamba about Guinea Bissau. He said hopefully that an interim minister might be allowed to address the Security Council, or its members.

  It was suggested it is now a "more inclusive" government. But a representative of the Portuguese speaking group Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP) exclusively told Inner City Press, "Not yet a legitimate one."

If a government is viewed as not legitimate by a sub-regional group, a credentials fight may follow.

  Earlier this week the Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info put online the new speakers' list, and DGACM's cover letter. Qatar now has a spot in the first morning along with Barack Obama -- what will have happened in Syria by then? DR Congo's Joseph Kabila now has a spot on the second morning. 

  But it appears that now the Department of Public Information has finalized the elimination of media seats on the General Assembly floor -- a new low. Every constituency or "stakeholder" has to have more limited space. But now this UN tries to cut the media to NOTHING, and its Alliance says nothing. Access? Watch this site.

   

For Guinea Bissau, a Push to Re-open UN Drugs Agency UNODC: It's Only One "Lonely" Consultant

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 10 -- With all the talk about Guinea Bissau being a narco state run by drug kingpins, it was surprising on May 9 to hear Brazil's Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro 

Viotti says that the UN Office of Drugs and Crimes had closed its program in the country.

Spain said the same on May 10, and UN envoy Jose Ramos-Horta got more specific. He said he was reaching out for funding from the European Union and the UN's Peacebuilding Fund in order to re-start the UNODC program.

But then the bomb shell: the UNODC program, such as it was, consisted of a single "lonely' consultant.

In essence, the reinstatement of this consultant has become the litmus test of the international community's commitment to Guinea Bissau.

Meanwhile, Ramos-Horta explained that he speaks of army "modernization," not "reform" since "in some of our cultures," reform means "putting you on the shelf."

Likewise he told member states that Guinea Bissau is "not the typical case of a coup d'etat" in that those in power now are not Generals. But by whom were they put there?

Given Ramos-Horta's roots in Timor L'este and thus the Portuguese speaking CLPL grouping, it was surprising that Ramos-Horta heaped praise instead on the West African group ECOWAS.

The outgoing chair of the Guinea Bissau peacebuilding "configuration," Brazil's Viotti, is now leaving (as Inner City Press first reported, to become Brazil's Ambassador to Germany). She has fought hard for the CPLP's positions. But now is ECOWAS coming to the fore? Watch this site.

As Mulet Heads to Mali, UN Silent on Detention of Journalist for Reporting on Sanogo Salary

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 8 -- That Mali is the UN's new focus, or cash cow, was proved again on Friday morning. Department of Peacekeeping Operations deputy Edmond Mulet met with ECOWAS at the African Union, preparing to travel to Bamako. (This information is not from DPKO, which under Herve Ladsous is neither helpful nor trustworthy.)

   But there in Mali as noted, Ban Ki-moon's UN cannot speak up for media harassed by security services for reporting on corruption. It is any surprise?

At the March 7 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's chief spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: In Mali, a journalist has been detained by the security agents, his name is Boukary Daou, and his paper published an open letter about the financial package given to Captain Sanogo, the coup leader. Now he has been essentially arrested and taken in for questioning. So I am wondering, particularly given the UN… I am not sure of the status of the UN presence, I know that they are there. Are they aware of this arrest of a journalist for what seems to be a pretty much free-speech activity and do they have any comment on it? Have they spoken to the Government about it? What do they think of it?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, I think you are aware that we do have a UN office in Mali. It is a multidisciplinary team that also includes a human rights component. So I will check to see what they have to say about that, okay? It is obvious that journalists should be allowed to carry out their work, and particularly of an investigative nature. They should be allowed to carry out that work. Let me see what the mission has to say on that.

   There is still no answer, 29 hours later and counting. 

   Things are now worse: the underlying publication was that Sanogo is getting fully $8,000 a month. It's nice to be a coup leader, where the UN too wants to come in.

  The UN's Mali juggernaut is set to be run by Mulet's boss Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping (Profile; Short Film #LADSOUS2013). 

  Ladsous has refused to answer Inner City Press questions about 126 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army. Finally on March 7 his DPKO spoonfed vague answers to friendly journalists.  The answers were incomplete, as it turns out.

   This is how the media is dealt with in this UN: the "friendly" ones are used, servile on Serval;  those who report on corruption? See above, and see false complaints to Inner City Press by UN Media Accreditation boss Stephane Dujarric. Watch this site.

On Casualties in Mali, France Points at Resolution 2085 It Says It's Not Under, Applauding Ban Ki-moon to Deploy?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- After the Mali meetings of the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about civilian casualties, about French bombings halting humanitarian aid in Gao, Konna and Mopti, and about executions by France's allies in the Malian Army, which includes coup leader Amadou Sanogo.

  Araud's response was that France negotiated Security Council resolution 2085, which includes some human rights language. But on his way into the Council in the morning, when Inner City Press asked when this resolution would be implemented, 

Araud replied that France is not operating under Resolution 2085.

  After quoting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon "applauding" France's intervention (while only "encouraging" ECOWAS and the African Union), Araud said France is urging Ban to quickly deploy monitors in Mali.

  But what of those already executed by the Malian Army?

  During the Security Council meeting, after a number of former French colonies praised Operation Serval, it was said that 6000 troops might become part of AFISMA. Chad's Ambassador told Inner City Press his country's 2000 would not necessarily all be part of AFISMA. So how many are?

  Inner City Press asked Araud about the critiques of France's intervention leveled by Egypt and Turkey, among others. Araud replied only on the first, saying that President Morsi is coming to Paris. Well, Gaddafi went to Paris before him, and we see how that worked out. Watch this site.

On Mali, Araud Tells ICP Feltman Briefs UNSC Tuesday, Chad Not with Serval?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 21, updated -- The morning after France reported bombed Timbuktu in northern Mali --first video here -- Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud when the UN Security Council will be updated about France's military intervention.

  Araud told Inner City Press, tomorrow (January 22) in an open meeting. Inner City Press asked Araud who would be briefing.

  Probably Jeffery Feltman, Araud answered, referring to the American chief of the UN Department of Political Affairs.

  Earlier, Chad's Ambassador to the UN told Inner City Press while his country is sending troops to Mali, they will not be with the French Operation Serval. We are sending more troops that other countries, he told Inner City Press, in order to have autonomy.

  When Inner City Press asked Araud about Chad, Araud said yes they will participate, the legislature [in Chad] has already agreed. But with Serval? Watch this site.

Update of 2 pm -- Inner City Press is informed that, along with Feltman, speakers Tuesday afternoon will include the Permanent Representatives of Cote d'Ivoire (as ECOWAS Chair), Chad, Senegal and Burkina Faso.

Footnote: A "serval" is a hissing cat; some have jokingly called France's intervention "Operation Hissyfit," though no one in Timbuktu is laughing.

In Mali France Evaded "Algerian Element" in SCR 2085, Hostage Taking Followed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- When the UN Security Council's Resolution 2085 on Mali was negotiated last month, safeguards were proposed and agreed too, steps that had to be taken BEFORE military action began.

  As Inner City Press reported at the time, Operative Paragraph 11 was called "the Algerian element" by one of its African sources on the Council -- an acknowledgment that a military offensive in Mali without following such steps could destabilize neighboring Algeria.

  But when France began bombing Konna in Mali on January 11, none of the safeguards had been followed. Instead, what followed was a large scale and now deadly hostage taking in Algeria.

  We have waited to write and ask this until, as French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has now announced, there are no more French hostages in the In Amenas natural gas compound in Algeria.

  But simultaneously at the ECOWAS summit, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has again claimed that France's military intervention is "in the framework of international legality." It wasn't and isn't.

  The "Algerian element" in UNSC Resolution 2085, agreed to be France, wasn't followed, and death there is what happened. Who is to blame?

   Consider Operative Paragraph 11 of Resolution 2085, particularly its final clause:

"11. Emphasizes that the military planning will need to be further refined before the commencement of the offensive operation and requests that the Secretary-General, in close coordination with Mali, ECOWAS, the African Union, the neighbouring countries of Mali, other countries in the region and all other interested bilateral partners and international organizations, continue to support the planning and the preparations for the deployment of AFISMA, regularly inform the Council of the progress of the process, and requests that the Secretary-General also confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."

  Starting on January 12, Inner City Press asked the UN: did France get Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to "confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation" -- the details of which it seems Ban wasn't informed of?

  Were those steps and safeguards only applicable to AFRICAN intervenors?

  At the Security Council on January 14, French Permanent Representative Araud erroneously told Inner City Press that there was no French letter to the UN, only a Malian letter.

  But there WAS a French letter, and it did not mention UN Charter Article 51, which later became France's after the fact fig leaf for the bombing.

  On January 18, French mission spokesman Brieuc Pont did not permit Inner City Press to ask Araud a single question, unlike on January 14 and unlike the other speakers on January 18, from Valerie Amos through Navi Pillay to Security Council president Masood Khan, who told Inner City Press that France had not updated the Council on Mali since January 14.

  Claiming that the request of the Malian authorities is also dubious, since as Araud himself admitted to Inner City Press, coup leader Amadou Sanogo has an official role in the Malian military.

  Again: the safeguards in UNSC Resolution 2085, agreed to be France, weren't followed, and death is what has followed. Who is to blame? Watch this site.

Exclusive: On Mali, Churkin Tells ICP Araud "Went Too Far," Chad Doubts ECOWAS, UN Does Not Count the Dead

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 15 -- As French bombing of Mali expands, Inner City Press on Tuesday asked the UN if it has any plans to track and report on the killing of civilians, as they do in other conflicts.

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky said he'll see if any UN "formal mechanism." He would not or could not confirm the figure of 11 civilians killed so far, nor the difficulty in evacuating the injured in Douentza reported by Rosa Crestani of Medecins Sans Frontieres.

  Earlier, Inner City Press asked the head of Ban's Department of Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman about the requirement in Security Council Resolution 2085 that Ban "confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction" with the planned military action.

  Feltman said that "satisfaction" would be conveyed in one of the Secretary General's reports, which are public.

  But they are public only on a delay. Meanwhile, in terms of satisfaction, Inner City Press was approach Tuesday outside the Security Council by an African diplomat who was critical of a wire service headline that "yesterday the Security Council approved France's bombing."

 Inner City Press then asked Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin if that was an accurate account. No, he said, there was no outcome of the meeting.

What about what French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud said at the stakeout, that all members of the Security Council supported France's action?

  "He went too far," Churkin said of Araud.

  Another African diplomat, of a member of the West African group ECOWAS / CEDAO, predicted to Inner City Press that France would just "do its thing like in Chad, and then leave."

  The Permanent Representative of Chad, Ahmad Allam-mi, exclusively told Inner City Press that he county would be ready to send troops, with the correct "format and mandate."

  He said it shouldn't "just be a CEDAO force," questioning in particular the naming of a Nigerian general as force commander, chosen entirely by the CEDAO.

   Meanwhile ECOWAS chair Cote d'Ivoire may have sent its army chief of staff Bakayoko to Bamako, but Ivorian Permanent Representative Bamba told Inner City Press his country will not be contributing troops, as they are "still in SSR" (security sector reform). And so it goes. Watch this site.

On Mali, Araud Tells ICP Sanogo Has Role, Shift to SCR 2085 Came Up in SC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- After French Ambassador Gerard Araud addressed the UN Security Council Monday about his country's military intervention in Mali, Inner City Press asked him two questions, about the legality and whether coup leader Amadou Sanogo is involved.

  While Ambassador Bamba of Cote d'Ivoire, which is now heading ECOWAS, told Inner City Press that France was acting under Security Council Resolution 2085, it seems the French realized that argument would not work.

  But Inner City Press asked Araud, when will the military action shift back to Resolution 2085, and how will we know? Will it be announced? Video here, from Minute 11:50.

  Araud said the issue had come up in the closed door consultations, whether "we need a formal transition," and he even cited the provision of the resolution Inner City Press has been asking and writing about for days.

   Araud said, "we are in the context of resolution 2085. Secondly, we want to implant it as soon as possible. So there will be the question of determining if we need a formal transition or not. As it is in resolution 2085, there were questions before, there are the benchmarks, the OP11 “expressions of the satisfaction of the Security Council”… So there is a process and we will follow the process. But we are in the very first steps. First we need to have the African contingents in Bamako. They have not arrived yet."

   Araud's partial quotation was to the requirement, in Operative Paragraph 11, that Ban Ki-moon as Secretary-General "confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."

  Inner City Press on January 12 and January14 asked Ban's spokespeople if and when he had issued the required "confirmation." The question has not been answered.

  And so instead, France is stressing that it was requested to act by the Malian authorities.

 But do these authorities include those involved in the coup d'etat in 2012? 

  Inner City Press asked Araud if coup leader Amadou Sanogo is involved. Araud replied, "Captain Sanogo has an official role in the Malian army so I guess he is involved but I do not have precise information about it."

   So this is the Malian force France is supporting?

  When Inner City Press at Friday's noon briefing asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey when and if Ban had "confirmed in advance the satisfaction of the Council" with France's military action, Del Buey had no answer.

  Instead, Del Buey referred to the 3 pm Monday Security Council consultation with the head of Ban's Department of Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman -- which couldn't cure the "confirm in advance" requirement -- and to Ban's telephone calls with French foreign minister Fabius and Cote d'Ivoire president Ouattara.

   A spokesperson as Monday's meeting began indicated with Feltman would not take press questions afterward. True to form, when Feltman left he said, "Someone's coming." That someone was Araud.

Endnote: What no one directly asked Araud was, "How is this different than George W. Bush and Iraq"? Why couldn't Bush just cite Article 51, claiming self-defense? If the claim here is that the Malian authorities invited France, it is important to note the involvement of those involved in the 2012 coup. What precedent is being set here? Watch this site.

From the French Mission's transcription:

Inner City Press: Just now Ambassador Bamba of Côte d’Ivoire seems to think that you are operating under resolution 2085, how will we know when you are? It says that the Secretary-General was supposed to confirm in advance with the satisfaction of the Council, will you tell us when you are? And also is Captain Sanogo in any way involved in the Malian military defence of Bamako, and what do you think of that?

PR Araud: Captain Sanogo has an official role in the Malian army so I guess he is involved but I do not have precise information about it.

There is a real question raised by one of the members about how we are going to shift from what is a French emergency operation to the implementation of resolution 2085. First, we are in the context of resolution 2085. Secondly, we want to implant it as soon as possible. So there will be the question of determining if we need a formal transition or not. As it is in resolution 2085, there were questions before, there are the benchmarks, the OP11 “expressions of the satisfaction of the Security Council”… So there is a process and we will follow the process. But we are in the very first steps. First we need to have the African contingents in Bamako. They have not arrived yet.

Araud Says "There Is Only Malian Letter," French Letter Exists, w/o Article 51; Bamba Cites SCR 2085

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- As on Mali the UN Security Security began a closed door meeting on the afternoon of January 14 with UN official Jeffrey Feltman, Inner City Press asked French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud, "Your letter, did it cite Article 51?"

   Araud replied, "No, there was only one letter for the moment, and that's the letter of the Malians saying that they have requested the support of France, that's the letter that has been circulated to the Security Council on Friday."

   But moments later it was re-confirmed to Inner City Press that there WAS a letter from France on January 11, and that it did not cite Article 51 of the UN Charter.

 Article 51, which France did not cite, provides that

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

  The question concerns the basis of France's claim that its bombing of Mali begun on Friday "resides within the framework of international law." 

  Especially since France's letter did not cite Article 51, most understood this as France's claim to "reside" within the framework of the Security Council's Resolution on Mali, Resolution 2085.

  In fact, on Monday afternoon Ambassador Bamba of Cote d'Ivoire, which now heads ECOWAS, told Inner City Press that France was acting directly under Resolution 2085. 

In December, the UN Security Council's member spent multiple session negotiating Resolution 2085, which specified steps to be taken before military action began.

Among these was a requirement, in Operative Paragraph 11, that Ban Ki-moon as "Secretary-General also confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation."But France began bombing Konna on January 11, then Gao and elsewhere since, without any such "confirmation in advance" by Ban Ki-moon.On January 12 and against at the noon briefing on January 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's top three spokespeople to "please state, both as of the beginning of France's military operation and as of your response, what the Secretary General did to 'confirm in advance the Council's satisfaction with the planned military offensive operation,' specifying both what the Secretary General knew about the plans and operation, and what he knew of the Council's position on those plans and operation(s)."

Forty two hours later, at noon on Monday, the UN Secretariat had provided no answer at all. Instead, French Mission to the UN spokesman Brieuc Pont e-mailed to the Press a tweet about a Security Council meeting on January 14, then was quoted by Agence France-Presse that the purpose is to "proceed with an exchange of views between members of the council and with the UN secretariat."

And so Inner City Press asked at Monday's noon briefing. Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo del Buey, even 42 hours after getting the question in writing, had no answer.

He referred to an upcoming 3 pm Monday Security Council consultation with the head of Ban's Department of Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman -- which can't cure the "confirm in advance" requirement -- and to Ban's telephone calls with French foreign minister Fabius and Cote d'Ivoire president Ouattara.

A spokesperson as Monday's meeting began indicated with Feltman would not take press questions afterwards.

While the main concern is about France's claim that its bombing "resides within the framework of international law," there is the related question of why Araud said there was only a Malian letter, when there WAS and IS a French letter.

Previously, Araud told Inner City Press on UNTV that the European Union is not a candidate to chair the Central African Republic Peacebuilding configuration -- which several EU sources immediately disputed to Inner City Press. These issues are complex, but clarity is important, and is not being provided. Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked Del Buey about the reported takeover of Diabaly; this question was not answered. What IS the UN's role in and knowledge of the conflict in Mali? We'll see.