UNITED NATIONS, January 20, more here -- This week in the Central African Republic, a French aid worker was taken hostage, then a UN Peacekeeping mission staff member was detained. Given the refusal of UN Peacekeeping chief to answer even basic Press questions, see here and below, Inner City Press wrote for the second time to the mission in Bangui. But nothing.
So at the January 20 noon briefing at UN headquarters, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the staff members -- he said she was detained but then released -- and about the French aid worker. On the latter, Dujarric said he had no information.
Previously, Inner City Press has asked Dujarric why Ladsous' mission, MINUSCA, does not report on the more pervasive killings of Central African Republic residents. And the question remains.
On the MINUSCA mission's website, only one press contact is listed. But it did not answer the Press, eight days ago nor today. Some UN Missions under Ladsous don't even have any contact information. He is taking UN Peacekeeping -- Ladsousifying it, as the phrase has it.
With UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic guarding prisons, Ladsous on December 9 refused to answer a simple Press question about the practice. Video here, and embedded below.
Ladsous had told the Security Council that "inmates inside the Bangui central prison seized weapons and shot and threw hand grenades at UN peacekeepers providing static guard duty outside the prison. Three UN troops and one UN police officer were injured in the incident."
But should UN peacekeepers be functioning as prison guards? When Ladsous left the Security Council -- unlike his predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean-Marie Guehenno Ladsous does not to question and answer stakeouts on UNTV -- Inner City Press asked him, Does the UN guard prisons in the Central African Republic?
Ladsous indicated, as he has before, I do not answer your questions, Mister, and walked to the elevator. But he is paid both to run DPKO and to explain it to the public, including answering questions.
How many attacks on civilians in CAR is his MINUSCA not reporting? This is what Ladsous' mission in Darfur is accused of: covering up attacks on civilians and even peacekeepers. (But scribes like Voice of America, here, merely retype the speech Ladsous reads, with no mention of jails or Ladsous' lack of any question and answer stakeouts.)
Ladsous on December 9 scarcely mentioned the impact of his country, France, on the CAR, including a recent incident in which Gazelle helicopters it pulled out of CAR were stopped in Nigeria, under suspicion, on their way to Chad.
Back on December 2, Inner City Press asked Chad's Permanent Representative to the UN Mahamat Zene Cherif about the rights of refugees from the Central African Republic.
Mahamat Zene Cherif said there are 100,000 in Chad and more in Cameroon. In his national capacity, he said they should be allowed to vote and participate in CAR, that will be a gauge of the process. He mentioned mobile voting places and a role for the UN.
On December 9, the Council heard about Cameroon: "The National Electoral Authority has also conducted a mission to Cameroun to assess the voter registration modalities for refugees there. Further missions in the sub-region are also planned to ensure the participation of this important constituency in the elections.” Here's hoping.
Back on December 2 before the first questions of the press conference, Inner City Press for FUNCA Free UN Coalition for Acce thankedMahamat Zene Cherif for the briefing. It has been absurdly argued that there is some rule or precedent that the old UNCA, become the UN's Censorship Alliance, gets a set-aside first question. From today, that is no longer the case. (Earlier on December 2, FUNCA asked the UN about censorship in Libya, here.)
Mahamat Zene Cherif fielded questions on North Korea (that was UNCA's, as second), Libya, Security Council reform, Syria, Ebola and others. He announced that only that morning five soldiers from Chad were injured in Mali by a mine: news, when a Troop Contributing Country holds the Security Council presidency.
During the month, the Sahel, the African Union, the delayed Kosovo debate and Afghanistan, among others, will be considered, and covered on this site.
Amid calls for UN Security Council reform of the powers of the permanent five members, there are also slights among the elected ten members.
With Chad set to take over Presidency of the Security Council on December 1, on November 13 it bristled when this month's President, Australia, circulated a “Program of Work” for December, Chad's month.
Chad's protest, which multiple sources exclusively provided to Inner City Press and which it is publishing here in redacted form, tells the Australian Mission's Political Coordinator Michael Bliss that
“Chad is surprised by your email circulating the December POW. The procedure is that the mission assuming the presidency of that month is the one authorized to do so. We think it is a profound lack of responsibility by the Australian Mission. I hope that we will continue to respect ourselves as non permanent members of the Security Council.”
That is, Chad not only challenged the violation of procedures, but noted that it was one non-permanent member doing it to another.
The email of Michael Bliss of the Australian Mission angered those who provided it to Inner City Press. In a reference to Bob Geldof's “Do They Even Know It's Christmas,” Bliss wrote that
“in respect to that question asked long ago by Bob Geldof, and friends of some other Africans, the Chadian mission do know that it is Christmas time in the week of 22/12 but, I am told, has resisted SCAD's strenuous attempts to arrange the program so that scheduled work concludes by 19/12.”
SCAD is the UN Department of Political Affairs' Security Council Affairs Division. On the one hand this seems to be a problem between member states, elected members of the Security Council from different continents, of different religions and different cultures. Inner City Press reached out to the Australian mission and understands that the joking reference was to wanting a quiet Christmas, and is now to their credit acknowledged as ill-considered.
But on the other hand, Inner City Press is informed, others up to the level of Permanent Representative wonder who gave Chad's Program of Work to Australia - whose Bliss said it came from "off the back of a truck." Which truck? We'll have more on all this.
UNITED NATIONS, April 26, more here -- For governments not to pay for the release of hostages was publicly debated and unanimously agreed to in the UN Security Council in January 2014, in Resolution 2133. Now, France stands accused of paying $18 million to jihadists in Syria for the release of hostages.
German magazine Focus reports that French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian brought the payment to Ankara, citing NATO sources in Brussels. A French defense ministry spokesperson has denied it, citing Laurent Fabius.
This comes against a backdrop of France's Ambassador at the UN Gerard Araud, who tweeted the hostage release photos, having been quoted by Spanish actor Javier Barden as on Western Sahara calling Morocco France's "mistress." Araud denied that and talked of suing Barden, which he has not done.
The hostages released here were reporters -- Pierre Torres, Edouard Elias, Nicolas Henin and Didier Francois -- and we are glad that they are free. But note that while France talks about protection of journalists earlier this month in a UN press conference Araud told the reporter who posed the sole critical question he took, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and the French Mission, prospectively to Araud's replacement Jacques Audibert, the stated UN position that correspondents should be treated with respected. But Dujarric has not. The attacked correspondent tells the Free UN Coalition for Access that "UNCA is dragging it feet" in even deciding to take a position on Araud's attack -- it did take a position and issue a letter to another Permanent Five ambassador.
In the untransparent annual UN cat and mouse process around Western Sahara, French Ambassador Gerard Araud has repeatedly been asked by usual-friend Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth (and not HRW's UN Director) but continues denying any French role, this year or before, in blocking a human rights monitoring mechanism in the MINURSO mission.
Araud spin now is to say he doesn't know what France's position on a human rights mechanism would be until, after a non-transparent process, a draft emerges from the Group of Friends on Western Sahara, which has no African members.
Araud has said, "I'll wait to see a real proposal before saying what we think of it. That's what is commonly called 'foreign policy'.... No country in the world takes a stance before knowing the specifics of a proposal. Is it common sense and not dodging. Real world!"
But get real: on Apri 25, 2013 when Inner City Press asked, Araud on camera said, "how to improve human rights in Western Sahara? We have always said the best way is through bilateral dialogue with Morocco."Video here.
Note the word "always" -- this is France's position, no human rights monitoring mechanism, just "bilateral dialogue with Morocco." So why does Araud pretend now he doesn't know what France's position is, months before he leaves the UN in July?
Araud has claimed, "there is not, there has not been, this year or last year or previous years, any French veto threat! It is a fact." He added, "my 'word' is simply that, contrary to your assertions, France never threatened to veto any proposal. Nothing more, nothing less."
This stands in contrast below to 2010, when Uganda, Mexico and as now Nigeria were serving on the Council along with Araud, who is now slated to leave in July -- and to April 2011, also touched on below.
On April 17, 2012, Inner City Press directly asked Gerard Araud about human rights and MINURSO and the then still withheld (Africa-less) "Group of Friends of Western Sahara" draft resolution.
Araud replied, "There is still I guess one of the Friends that has problems. But I think we are close to an agreement."
Multiple sources told Inner City Press that France, represented at that stage on the Group of Friends by its expert Mariam Diallo, had been opposing the resolution trying to ensure the MINURSO mission's "effectiveness" and, as before, human rights monitoring of the type other UN peacekeeping missions have. In terms of Araud's assessment that only "one of the Friends.. has problems," Inner City Press was told that there at least two.
A Security Council member excluded from the Group of Friends, South Africa, said that the Friends have promised to circulate a draft "later today," whether it's agreed to by all the Friends of not. South African Permanent Representative Baso Sangqu told Inner City Press, "Our issue was that the earlier we all get involved,the better for everybody." And this year?
An aside on Human Rights Watch: while Ken Roth has tw-asked, HRW's representative at the UN, former of state-owned France 24, has been notably silent on the issue. His last two tweets some from April 17, one passing on a story quoting his boss Ken Roth about North Korea, then other quoting Araud -- on North Korea. (On this topic, the HRW lobbyist purported to be inside or "at" in the closed-door Arria meeting, engaged in trademark selective distribution of information.) How can HRW question UN Ambassador Araud and HRW's "UN Director" stays entirely out of it. Why?
Back on April 18, 2011, multiple sources told Inner City Press that France opposed any MINURSO human rights monitoring mechanism, counter-proposing only cooperation with the special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council.
On April 27, 2011, Inner City Press aske Araud about the High Commissioner for Human Rights' recommendation that a right monitoring mechanism be included in MINURSO. Araud replies that "Ban Ki-moon's" final report, into which the French chief of UN Peacekeeping had input, hadn't adopted the OHCHR's recommend. That is where the lobbying is -- and it is attributable to France, with refusals to answer questions playing their role.
Araud opposed a human rights monitoring mechanism in 2010 as well:
On April 30, 2010, six hours into Western Sahara negotiations in the Security Council, the threat to call the vote was made. There would be three abstentions against the resolution drafted by the so-called Group of Friends: Uganda, Nigeria and Mexico.
A compromise that was apparently acceptable to all 15 members, but was opposed by Morocco, would refer to UN "mechanisms" as a euphemism for human rights.
Frente Polisario says it could live with this language, and is angry that Morocco has become on this issue the one in "P-5 Plus One." Others wondered if France only agreed to put this language to Morocco because it knew Morocco would shoot it down.
Inside the consultations, Inner City Press was informed, Austria's Ambassador wondered out loud how France, so important in forming the concept of human rights, could be so vehemently opposing the inclusion of the term in the Western Sahara resolution.
French Ambassador Araud responded angrily that no one can teach human rights lessons to France.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- surtout avec Araud.
Back on on April 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm, Araud noted he should have left for Greentree for the Council's annual retreat with the Secretary General 10 minutes before. This year in 2014, the retreat is earlier in April, before the MINURSO vote. So there will be no excuses. We'll have more on this.
This year in a multiple French farce, a wire service reporter usually of use to France, Reuters' Louis Charbonneau, has now purported to cover as news his being accused of misinformation by his often-source France. Trying to serve two of the P3 Conuncil members on this issue - and some others -- doesn't work.
The threat of a French veto was cited by Charbonneau as the reason for the "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" draft resolution not including a human rights monitoring mechanism.
Based on that, Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth did what he rarely does: criticize France.
Then French Ambassador Gerard Araud did what he rarely does: actually respond to a critique. He tweeted, "Ken Roth your message is wrong! France has not threatened to veto anything! The negotiation has not even started... How can we veto something which is not proposed by the pen holder (which in not France)? You rely on rumors and disinformation."
The "rumors and disinformation" are those repeated by Reuters' Lou Charbonneau, on whom the French mission often relies to get out its message. Inner City Press asked, and asks: so who is not telling the truth?
Meanwhile from Paris the French foreign services "social media" team issues a blog by Anne Chounet-Cambas singing its own praises, citing Williamsburg, Brooklyn and hard rock. If they are the ones staffing Araud's twitter feed, is this what they had in mind?
Obscured is all this is why "Ban Ki-moon's" report's recommendation was changed to drop the word "mechanism." UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat during the Rwanda genocide who is the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping. This has not been mentioned by Reuters.
Another irony is that on April 17 after a French, US and Australia sponsored Arria formula meeting with Michael Kirby, chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, Kirby said threats of veto should not be allowed to bury human rights proposals. He said a formal meeting (and vote) should be called on referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court.
But this logic apparently doesn't apply to Western Sahara, or to France as the veto-wielder. None of this is noted, of course, in pass-through account by Reuters' Charbonneau, demonstrably engaged in censorship, here. Reuters' Charbonneau, who last time quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud denying any role, this time didn't mention him at all.
Araud's anti-press moves on April 15 were of course not reported by this wire -- nor on Western Sahara was the African Union position with which Nigeria's Joy Ogwu answered Inner City Press --rights mechanism needed,video here and embedded below -- in the wire's story.
Africa is not represented in the Council's "Group of Friends on Western Sahara." Changing that is not a reform you'll hear France talking about, including prospectively at the Council's retreat with Ban Ki-moon on which we'll have more. Nor is Africa represented or even recognized, it is increasingly clear, on this servile wire. This is how the UN works, or doesn't.
On April 17, the day of the Security Council first formal consultation on Western Sahara, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Dujarric about a reported crack down on peaceful demonstrators in El Aaiun, then asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, Council president for April, about the consultations.
Dujarric said he had no information about the demonstration or crackdown or any letter received; when Inner City Press asked if envoy Christopher Ross would hold a question and answer stakeout, he said probably not. (None happened.) Video here.
But Inner City Press asked the Security Council's president for April, Nigeria's Joy Ogwu, if human rights monitoring came up. She said in her national capacity she raised it, saying that a human rights monitoring mechanism should be (belatedly) put in the MINURSO mission's mandate, as it is in the mandate of other UN peacekeeping missions. Video here.
Before the consultations, French Ambassador Gerard Araud engaged in a long discussion with Morocco's new Ambassador to the UN Omar Hilale. Inner City Press, at the stakeout, took and tweeted a few photographs -- Morocco supporters replied with Araud's anti-press phrase of April 15, that anyone they disagree with is "not a journalist;" one even called photographing from the UN stakeout "spying."
(That Araud was quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" was in the air. Araud talked about suing Bardem, but has not.)
The Security Council is scheduled to vote on the MINURSO mandate on April 23, but it could go until the end of the month, when the old mandate with no right monitoring mandate expires. Watch this site.
Back on April 16 Dujarric refused to explain, when Inner City Press asked, why Ban dropped a rights "mechanism" from the advance copy of his report. Dujarric refused to say with whom, other than Morocco's King, Ban spoke about the matter between April 10 and April 15, when a new draft without "mechanism" went on the UN's website. Video here.
Moments later, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, April's Security Council president and an African Union member, about the drop of the word "mechanism." She said it will be discussed in consultations on April 17. Video here.
On April 10, Inner City Press published what was called the advance copy of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on Western Sahara, saying that the goal is a human rights monitoring MECHANISM, see here at Paragraph 100.
(Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric on April 16 if this was appropriate. Video here. He said accredited correspondents should be treated with respect, but declined even when Inner City Press noted that French foreign minister Laurent Fabius did the same thing to say he will convey this "respect" position to the French Mission, or Araud's replacement Jacques Audibert, click here for that)
On April 15, Araud called on France 24 and a Reuters reporter who quoted Araud without mentioning that Javier Barden reported Araud as calling Morocco France's mistress. (Araud talked of suing, but never did.) Nor did Reuters mention that the head of UN Peacekeeping, atop the Western Sahara mission MINURSO, is Herve Ladsous, a long-time French diplomat including at the UN during the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
So a human rights monitoring mechanism is out, at least from Ban Ki-moon report.
Morocco's King, after in essence threatening to end the UN mission if human rights monitoring mechanism is included, is now reportedly slated to visit Dakhla, as early as tomorrow. Click here.
The new Ambassador will be Omar Hilale, most recently a hardliner on the human rights issue at the UN in Geneva. This comes as France is slated to replace its Ambassador Gerard Araud with Jacques Audibert in July. So for both Araud and Loulichki, this month is a last campaign against a rights monitoring mechanism.
Araud was slated to give a press conference on April 15, ironically on human rights, on topic on which he convened a closed door meeting at 10 am on April 15, from which even some UN member states were banned. Araud should have been expected to address these issues -- but he and his spokesman Frederic Jung did not take any question from Inner City Press, and Araud attacked the lone critical question he selected.
Tetouan - HM King Mohammed VI held on Saturday a phone conversation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, says a release of the Royal office.
The talks covered latest developments and the present timetable related to the Moroccan Sahara issue, says the release. On this occasion, HM the King reiterated Morocco's constant commitment and constructive cooperation to reach a final political settlement to this regional dispute, within Moroccan sovereignty.
HM The King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative need to preserve the negotiations parameters as they were defined by the Security Council, safeguard the presence framework and modalities of the UN involvement and avoid biased approaches and risky options, the statement goes on.
Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue. The conversation also covered HM the King's sustained actions and laudable initiatives for the stability and development of the African continent.
"The Moroccan government has issued its own read-out of their King's telephone call to the Secretary General, this is a request for a UN readout of the SG's call, in light of what Inner City Press asked at the April 11 noon briefing... There are other questions outstanding, as you know, and I have others, but asking this after the Moroccan government's readout, for the UN's read-out."
Without providing any UN read-out, Ban's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric replied, "I can confirm that the call took place."
Inner City Press and FUNCA asked Dujarric and his deputy Farhan Haq more pointedly:
"If not the still requested UN read-out, will you comment on Morocco's statement that the "King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative [to] risky options... Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue" -- since this seems to be a threat to try to terminate "UN involvement" in Western Sahara if an option such as a human rights monitoring mechanism were included in MINURSO, do you have any comment? And, can you state which side initiated the call, and if the advance copy of the Secretary General's report on Western Sahara which I asked about at Friday's noon briefing was discussed?"
Ban's spokesman Dujarric an hour later replied: "No further comment."
At noon on April 11, Inner City Press asked Dujarric who has input into Ban Ki-moon's reports, for example if not only the first but the final "Ban" report on Western Sahara will urge a human rights monitoring mechanism. Dujarric refused to explain the process, saying wait until it's over, it is not final until it is final -- not a good sign, some say. Who wrote the first report? Who is changing it? Who CAN change it? Inner City Press asked, without answer. Video here, and embedded below. UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about the Secretary-General’s position on Western Sahara. There’s an advanced copy of the report, the Secretary-General’s report that was circulated that would be ultimately a more formal document, but it seems to say the goal is a human rights monitoring mechanism, and now there are reports that that’s going be changed. The word mechanism will drop, can you describe what the process is on reports such as this that are ascribed to the Secretary-General. Who has input into them? Once they are sent around are they final, and if they are not, who has input in this case to change them?
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: All Secretary-General’s reports are ultimately signed off by the Secretary-General’s Office. Any relevant department or mission would have input into it but a report is a final report once it’s final. So I would ask you to wait a day or two until the report is issued, and then we can... you know nothing is final until it’s final.
Inner City Press: Because the consultations would be on the 17th, everything is moving, this is the month to do it. So I wanted to know, since there is a document that’s ascribed to the Secretary-General that says monitoring mechanisms, I just wanted to ask you, does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon favour human rights monitoring mechanisms?
Spokesman Dujarric: Again, once the report is out, and it’s final, it would be the Secretary-General’s report. Until the report is out, we are not going to comment on it. And once it’s out, it is the Secretary-General’s word, so there’s really nothing to add
That's called stonewalling in advance, that there will be nothing to add. On April 14, Dujarric not only refused Inner City Press' request for further information about Ban's call with the King: he would not explain why a UN read-out of Ban's call with the acting President of Ukraine was provided, but not with Morocco's King.
In Paragraph 100 on Page 20 Ban's (first) report says, or said, that the goal is "a sustained, independent and impartial human rights monitoring mechanism."
Amid changes, a Western wire -- which has engaged in censorship at the UN, here -- quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud that "France formally denies any interference with the UN Secretariat."
This servile wire did not even mention that it can be done within the UN Secretariat, where the Department of Peacekeeping which runs MINURSO is headed by Herve Ladsous, a long time French diplomat. Nor does it mention Araud being quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" - if only to run Araud's denial and litigation threat. We will be watching for that.
Even former UN envoy on Western Sahara Peter van Walson has written to French president Francois Hollande urging France to stop opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara.
Also new this year is the discomfort caused by Spanish actor Javier Bardem asserting that French Ambassador Gerard Araud told him that Morocco is like France's mistress.
So this will be Araud's last campaign opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. Earlier on April 10 Araud spoke at the Security Council stakeout about Central African Republic but when Inner City Press asked about the Chadian troops there, charged by the High Commissioner for Human Rights with killing 30 civilians, Araud told Inner City Press to Ask Chad's Ambassador.
US Ambassador Samantha Power moments later answered Inner City Press' question about the withdrawal of Chad's troops from CAR, video here.
The April 10 advance copy of the "Report of the Secretary General on the situation concerning Western Sahara" consists of 104 paragraphs and a map.
To begin with -- Inner City Press will have more than one report on this Report -- there is a recognition of "demostrations aimed at drawing attention to human rights concerns, socio-economic issues and political demands, including the right to self-determination. These were swiftly dispersed by Moroccan security forces. On most such occasions, there were credible reports of heavy-handedness on the part of security forces as well as violence, such as stone-throwing, on the part of the demonstrators."
The Report says "of particular note was a demonstration that took place in Laayoune on 5 May 2013... Protesters expressed dissatisfaction that Security Council resolution 2099 (2013) did not include provisions to include human rights monitoring in MINURSO's mandate."
UNITED NATIONS, August 13 -- When asked why the UN said nothing for more than a week about the taking of three of its catering contractors in Darfur as hostages, UN deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey told Inner City Press "when people are being held, we await the process of negotiation."Video here.
What's strange here, though, is that there was no policy of not disclosing the hostage taking -- it was just another of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations' games.
The downing of the helicopter and taking of the three individuals -- DPKO now stresses to Inner City Press they are NOT staff of the UN, but catering contractors -- would have been disclosed at the August 5 noon briefing if anyone had asked.
Thus, it's like playing the game of Twenty Questions with the DPKO -- except that 20 opportunities to ask a question are not given. Sometimes, only one.
When Inner City Press asked Herve Ladsous' four DPKO spokespeople, as well as Del Buey, about the hostage taking on the morning on August 13, Del Buey replied to all that
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM From: Eduardo Del Buey [at] un.org Subject: Re: Request for confirmation that a UNAMID helicopter has gone down in Darfur, and again re Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, pls confirm receipt, thank you To: Kieran Dwyer, Andre-Michel Essoungou, Josephine Guerrero, Farhan Haq Cc: FUNCA
Colleagues
I will reply using the if Asked of 05 August.
Cheers
Eduardo del Buey Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General
Moments later, the If-Asked that would have been read out, that is, disclosed on August 5 if the question had been asked arrived:
On 3 August 2013, the helicopter of a African Union/United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) contractor, tasked with delivering supplies to various UNAMID locations in South Darfur, made an emergency landing due to severe weather conditions.
Upon landing, 50 kilometers southeast of Nyala town, the crew members were detained by members of the Sudan Liberation Army - Mini Manawi (SLA/MM).
Communication is being maintained with all parties and negotiations are underway for the safe release of the crew, as well as the recovery of the helicopter.
This was belatedly released by UNAMID in Sudan on August 13 -- eight days after it would have been released if-asked. The UN has no policy of not disclosing such information - it just will only do so if-asked, while controlling how many questions can get asked. Something is wrong.
Inner City Press, since publishing a first story on this and asking at the noon briefing, has received from the UN a request to clarify that the hostages are catering contractors. Del Buey at the August 13 noon briefing said "UN people have been taken;" both stories have been updated to specify "catering contractors." Does a separate standard, of disclosure or anything else, apply to them?
Also, apparently "if-asked" (and it was, by Inner City Press), this update has arrived:
"in terms of an update, we have the following information: The catering company has been in negotiations with SLA-Minni Minawi over the release of the helicopter and crew, with UNAMID also calling on Minni Minawi to release the occupants unharmed."
So the catering company is left to negotiate for itself? Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, August 13 -- The UN has kept quiet for more than a week while three of its staff members have been held hostage by the SLA-Minnawi rebels in Darfur. On August 13, seeing a report of that date of a helicopter held by the SLM-M, Inner City Press wrote to UN spokespeople in New York for confirmation.
The response showed that rather than announce the hostage taking on August 5, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous told the UN Spokesperson's office to only disclose it "if asked." And thetranscript shows it wasn't asked.
DPKO was willing to say this back on August 5:
On 3 August 2013, the helicopter of a African Union/United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) contractor, tasked with delivering supplies to various UNAMID locations in South Darfur, made an emergency landing due to severe weather conditions.
Upon landing, 50 kilometers southeast of Nyala town, the crew members were detained by members of the Sudan Liberation Army - Mini Manawi (SLA/MM).
Communication is being maintained with all parties and negotiations are underway for the safe release of the crew, as well as the recovery of the helicopter.
But it didn't say it; the same phrase was belatedly used a week later by the spokesperson for the UNAMID mission. Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson again, what has happened with the staff members? This was the reply:
"Communication is being maintained with all parties and negotiations are underway for the safe release of the crew, as well as the recovery of the helicopter. There is nothing further to report at this stage."
