UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- The review of UN Peace Operations chaired by Jose Ramos Horta of Timor Leste kicked off with a press conference then an interactive dialogue with the Security Council on November 20.
Some of these members spoke with the Security Council later on November 20, and a smaller subset with Inner City Press after the meeting. From that and what some Council members said, it appears that the Security Council's vision of the panel's mandate is far narrower and more bureaucratic, on such issues of how mandates should be drafted.
That's all well and good for the pen-holding countries in the Security Council, some of which contribute few to no peacekeepers to UN missions. But what about the people ostensibly served by those mission? Those in Haiti, impacted by cholera? Those in Darfur, under-protected, now criticizing UNAMID and the ultimately the Department of Peacekeeping Operations run by Herve Ladsous?
One outgoing Security Council member, Rwanda, said it had raised the cases in which UN Peacekeeping does not live up to its mandate, like letting civilians be attacked and killed mere miles from its bases. Others pointed out that while many Troop Contributing Countries question the mandates now being given, those drafting the mandates come from countries without their own soldiers in the field.
Permanent Five countries are well represented on the panel, including former Ambassadors who served in the Security Council, former diplomats who then served the UN like B. Lynn Pascoe, long time UN-ers like Ian Martin (who, for the record, is interested in Sri Lanka but not working on it at the moment).
Norway's Hilde Johnson, after what some view as a controversial time at the helm of the mission in South Sudan, was present on November 20 but did not speak afterward. Others did, like Wang Xuexian of China, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, still the head of the Department of Field Support and Alexander Ilitchev of Russia. Radhika Coomaraswamy, named an “ex officio” member by Ramos Horta, did not appear to be present for this dialogue with the Security Council, at least not in the hallway afterward.
Ramos Horta has vowed to listen to all constituencies, including those impacted by UN Peacekeeping. This could result in needed reforms, or at least a report publicly calling for them. Watch this site.
While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by former Timor-Leste leader Jose Ramos-Horta.
In a run-on sentence, Ban listed the panel’s topics: “the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices and peace-building challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements, planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians, uniformed capabilities for peacekeeping operations and performance.”
Inner City Press asked Dujarric about a word NOT in the list: drones. Earlier on October 31 in the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, the representative of Ecuador said that UN Peacekeeping’s use of drones should be subject to review by the General Assembly’s C-34 Committee: that is, by member states. (Ladsous evaded the C-34, then deployed more drones than he’d mentioned to the Security Council, and won’t answer on the reasons behind the crashes; DRC envoy Martin Kobler told Inner City Press it was due to “wind.”)
Dujarric cut the question off, saying that it was “too granular” and that drones might fall — as one did in DRC — under “the changing nature of conflict.”
But the question is, should UN Peacekeeping and Ladsous be subject only to review by a panel picked by Ban Ki-moon, or by the member states? Dujarric said Ban’s panel’s report will go the the General Assembly.
It is called an “external” panel, but included not only a number of long-time insiders, but even the current Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, Ameerah Haq. This reporter asked Dujarric if this meant that Haq is leaving, and Dujarric said yes. The Free UN Coalition for Access opines: she is the wrong one to be leaving.
Strikingly, only TWO of Ban’s Panel’s 14 members are from Africa, where the vast majority of UN Peacekeepers are deployed. These members are from Ghana and Tunisia, not from countries with UN Missions like DRC, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Central African Republic if not to say Liberia, where Ladsous is said to be planning “emergency responses” with a government that has quarantined whole neighborhoods like West Point in Monrovia.
Recently during the Security Council proceeding to renew the mandate of the mission in Haiti, many ambassadors from Latin America said Troop Contributing Countries weren’t sufficiently consulted; Argentina said it would not participate in certain policing or repression activities. Will that be reviewed? We’ll have more on this.
Beyond Ramos-Horta, the Panel’s members include Jean Arnault of France — some wonder if he’s there to protect Ladsous — Abhijit Guha of India, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, Andrew Hughes of Australia, Wang Xuexian of China, Hilde Johnson of Norway after a troubled stint in South Sudan, Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu of Ghana, Floriano Peixoto Vieira Neto of Brazil, Bruce Jones of Canada, Youssef Mahmoud of Tunisia, B. Lynn Pascoe of the US, whom Inner City Press reported was in the mix to replace Alexander Downer as UN envoy to Cyprus but was said to be blocked from getting it, Alexander Ilitchev of Russia and Ian Martin of the UK, who returned to the UN to mull mediation after starting the ill-fated UN Mission in Libya. Martin’s previous Board of Inquiry report on bombing in Gaza in 2009, Ban Ki-moon undercut with a cover-letter. We’ll have more on this, too.
UNITED NATIONS, August 6, more here -- In the UN General Assembly meeting about Gaza on August 6, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said "attacks against UN premises, along with other suspected breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated."
But by whom? At the August 6 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if Ban would at least set up a Board of Inquiry as was done in 2009. (Inner City Press first published the cover-letter, here.)
Haq wouldn't say if a Board of Inquiry would be set up; he called the decision an internal one. Video here and embedded below. But Wikileaks released documents showing that Ban allowed himself to be lobbied about the 2009 Board of Inquiry report by Ian Martin, including on what should go in "his" cover letter. And this time?
Update: UN staff have written to Ban, the GA President and this month's Security Council president, Mark Lyall Grant of the UK, asking for accountability. The letter is here. We hope to have more on this.
In the August 6 UNGA meeting on Gaza, the UN's coordinator on the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry this process “may also need action by the Membership, including the Security Council, at the appropriate time.”
As the meeting began, a Permanent Representative who has previously complained of General Assembly inaction on Gaza now noted that no outcome was even proposed to the GA meeting, "just talk."
An hour before the belated General Assembly meeting began, a closed-door consultation was called on the Jordan-drafted proposed Security Council resolution, at the level (mostly) of Permanent Representative. The day before on August 5 it was said that this draft is already "in blue" -- strange, if it is still being negotiated.
But in front of the General Assembly on August 6, an African diplomat told Inner City Press that the resolution was put "in blue" precisely in order to block any General Assembly action. When the Security Council is seized of a matter, he said, the General Assembly cannot act.
So what is going on in this ping-pong between UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, while UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has still not corrected his August 1 statement that an Israeli Defense Forces solider was "captive" of Hamas, now that the IDF said he was killed in action? Watch this site.
At 10 pm on August 4 in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement on the Gaza ceasefire set to begin three hours later. But he had yet to correct his August 1 statement on the previous ceasefire. Here is the new statement:
"The Secretary-General welcomes the efforts leading to a new ceasefire as announced today. He commends the parties for committing to this ceasefire of 72 hours, to begin Tuesday, 5 August, at 8 a.m. local time, and calls on them to abide by it. Until the start of the ceasefire, the parties must exercise the utmost restraint.
"The Secretary-General urges the parties to commence, as soon as possible, talks in Cairo on a durable ceasefire and the underlying issues. In this regard, he welcomes the proactive engagement of the Palestinian delegation under the leadership of President Abbas. Such talks are the only way to sustainably stop the violence, which has cost far too many lives, and to change the untenable and tragic status quo in Gaza. The United Nations stands ready to lend its full support to these efforts."
On August 1 at noon in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesman said that an Israeli Defense Forces soldier had been taken captive and that this called "into question the credibility of Hamas' assurances to the United Nations. The Secretary-General demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."
Later on August 1, a range of UN officials described to Inner City Press the pressure put on Ban to rule that Hamas broke the ceasefire and held captive an IDF soldier. "How does he know?" one UN official demanded.
On August 2, the IDF said that the soldier, Hadar Goldin, "was killed in action."
So on August 4, with no correction issued by the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's associate spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if there would be any correction, since Ban's statement was used --
Maestracci cut off the question, "let me stop you right there," and said that the UN tried to get things right with fast moving events. Video here, and embedded below.
Fine - but when as here the UN was wrong, aren't they supposed to correct it? Maestracci's colleagues have repeatedly said that they correct the record when necessary. Is that the case? What about this case? Watch this site.
At 5:30 pm on July 31 the UN announced its spokesman Stephane Dujarric would read out a statement, "for the cameras," in its briefing room. Inner City Press ran there but arrived just as Dujarric finished reading the ceasefire statement.
But the first line said, "the UN Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza." With the ceasefire in shambles, that is dubious.
Now Haaretz has reported that Serry "spoke with Hamas leadership in Gaza."
So on August 1 Inner City Press put two questions to UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman. First, would he confirm that Serry spoke with Hamas in Gaza?
And second, as a former - and future? - US officials, does Feltman think the UN should at least disclose when Ban Ki-moon accepts "in kind" / gifts such as the Qatari-funded private jet he flew on to Doha, to mediate on Gaza.
Dujarric cut off this question to Feltman, saying that it was already answered. But there is no routine disclosure by the UN. And the impact on the UN's political role is obvious, for example considering that this was the ONLY question asked of Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem (the UN censored it), and it's been asked at the UN Security Council stakeout.
Dujarric did not answer when asked, shouldn't there be disclosure. He called it "in kind" - but is it subtracted from what Qatar owes or pays the UN in dues?
Then Feltman refused to say if Serry spoke with Hamas, saying that he wasn't with Serry. So Feltman doesn't know? Or won't say?
It's one thing for a diplomat from a country to say, that's secret. But since the UN ostensibly represents, works for and is accountable at least to all 193 states, if not to "we the peoples," on what logic are these things secret? We'll have more on this.
Earlier on July 31 outside the UN Security Council, Israel's Ambassador Ron Prosor and then the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour took questions from the Press.
Inner City Press asked Prosor about Krahenbuhl's call to end the blockade of Gaza. Prosor replied that Israel has no interest in being in Gaza -- what, is there oil there, he asked rhetorically -- but cited and showed charts of Hamas rocket fire, and tunnels (which he said are funded by Qatar).
Inner City Press asked Mansour about the US Department of Defense' confirmation of new ammunition transfers to Israel (see below).
Mansour said that more weapons are not needed; he said that the killing of entire families would make peace much more difficult to achieve but that it should be strived for, an independent state of Palestine.
In the UN Security Council, the Gaza issue has essentially been delegated to the US. In the UN Security Council on July 30, Nigeria criticized the Council's delay in issuing even a Presidential Statement; Chad called the Council "impotent."
At the end of Rwandan presidency reception later on July 30, Inner City Press was told by more than one Council member that it is all up to the US. But, one might ask, how can a party transferring ammunition be considering an honest broker?
Couldn't this transfer had been at least delayed? But that too would have been a story, bigger than this one, which Inner City Press was notified was broken by CNN, leading to this statement:
"The Department of Defense received a letter of request from the Israeli Ministry of Defense on July 20 for a normal Foreign Military Sales delivery of ammunition. The appropriate DoD activities processed the request through normal inter-agency processes, resulting in a signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance on July 23.
"Two of the requested munitions were available in the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel (WRSA-I), on the ground in Israel, and were therefore delivered to the Israeli Defense Force from this stockpile. Both munitions had been in WRSA-I stock for a few years, well before the current crisis. All stocks in WRSA-I, as required by law, are "in excess to U.S. requirements." Issuing munitions from the WRSA-I stockpile was strictly a sourcing decision and White House approval was not required.
"The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This defense sale is consistent with those objectives."
Thus spake the US Pentagon, or at least its spokesperson Kirby. But what will UN Security Council members say, at their July 31 session? Watch this site.
Back on July 27-28, the Security Council convened to adopted a Presidential Statement, below.
Afterward, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Deputy Permanent Representative why no vote had been called the draft resolution, if there was one or more vetoes or abstaining votes that would block it.
He said things haven't reached that stage; rather it was a matter of seeing when the members of the Council thought a resolution would be useful to support of ceasefire.
Some ask: so is that the UN Security Council's only function?
Palestine's Riyad Mansour cited as a precedent a 1994 Security Council resolution providing protecting in Hebron, by Norwegians in white shirts, he said. He said he wished the Presidential Statement had called for Israel to pull out of Gaza, and that he wished for a resolution. We will continue on this.
Inner City Press immediately inquired and was informed it was to adopt a Presidential Statement; the version below was provided. But why not a resolution? Why proceeding so cautiously, compared most recently with the July 21 resolution on MH17 in Ukraine?
Earlier, with even the “humanitarian pause” over in Gaza, the draft "framework" agreement rejected by the Israeli cabinet on July 25 was leaked from both sides.
But the versions leaked by each side were different.
On Al Jazeera a one-page document was waved around, which had Qatar in the first paragraph as one of the signatories making commitments, which provided for the opening of “border and non-border” crossings and specified fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles, and a $47 million commitment by the US.
In the “5 pm Confidential Draft” published by Ha'aretz, Qatar is the last paragraph (without Egypt), fishing rights and the $47 million from the US are not specified, nor are “non-border” crossing being opened.
At least, the two sides leaked different stages or versions of the draft. Or is there more to this, in the spin war that this stage of the Gaza war has become?
(The drafts are different; Al Jazeera is saying Ha'aretz stole its scoop. There may be more to this.)
Inner City Press covered that closed door meeting, and the next day asked the Council's then-presidency, China, about the status. The Chinese Ambassador replied that he had just signed the approval letter.
But earlier today alongside Inner City Press' exclusive report on layoffs in UN Security, none of the officials Inner City Press spoke with knew of the Libyan security mission or if it could be a place laid off UN Security staff could apply to serve.
So at today's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked about the new Libya mission, and afterward Ban's spokesperson's office sent Inner City Press this:
Subject: Press release from the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) on a guard team for its headquarters To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Clarification by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya On the Allocation of a Guard Team for its Headquarters in Tripoli
Tripoli, 28 November 2013-
The United Nations Security Council has given initial approval to the request of the United Nations Secretary General regarding the enhancement of the protection of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) through a dedicated guard team for its headquarters in Tripoli. This team should not exceed 235 elements, including a number of administrative and services staff. The functions of aforementioned team shall be limited to the protection of the office and accommodation premises occupied by UNSMIL staff members. The scope of its work shall not exceed the perimeters of UNSMIL headquarters.
The Mission had already informed the competent Libyan authorities that it is in the process of preparing for this measure, which was discussed by the Security Council. Once all needed measures are finalized, and as per the applicable international customs and principles, the United Nations shall send an official letter in which it will inform the Libyan authorities of those measure seeking necessary approval.
The Mission reiterates that the guard team will not be tasked with any role beyond the function for which it was established, and that the formation of such team is a common practice adopted by international organizations and embassies in a large number of countries for ensuring the safety of its staff and premises.
So perhaps UN Security doens't know about these posts because, despite Security Council approval, it has not yet been approved by the Libyan authorities. Earlier, when Inner City Press first published then UN official Ian Martin's plan for Libya including 200 armed staff, the Libyan authorities balked and it went nowhere.
But, Inner City Press has learned, that wasn't the end of it. Within DPKO planning continued, in the absence of any mandate from the Security Council. DPKO source have exclusively complained to Inner City Press that they were planned for two scenarios: either a negotiated transition, or a violent overthrown or assassination.
But US President Barack Obama's announced desire to fire missiles at Syria and "degrade" the Assad government's capability is NOT something the UN was preparing for, the sources complained.
The UN has in the past done such planning without mandate or consent. On Libya, Inner City Press exclusively put online a plan developed by then UN official Ian Martin providing for 200 of more UN peacekeepers. Once exposed, the new leadership in Libya opposed the plan.
On Syria, the UN's planning is accountable to no constituency at all, except perhaps Herve Ladsous' France, which he served as a diplomat for decades, including as Deputy Permanent Representative in the Security Council during the Rwanda genocide, arguing for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo, on which Ladsous now acts as head of UN DPKO.
Wouldn't or don't such armed opposition groups have leverage over the UN, holding UN staff as hostages? Why has the UN been so quiet about the eleven deaths and the uncounted hostages, when the UN is so quick to make threats to armed groups in say, Eastern Congo? Who's working for whom? Watch this site.
Footnotes: following US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power's speech Friday to the Center for American Progress, her predecessor Susan Rice will speak Monday to the New America Foundation.
UNITED
NATIONS,
May 10 -- As Libya
is said to
move toward
election, at
least
two highly
problematic
laws were
brought into
question at
the UN this
week. Law 38
would grant
immunity for
any "acts made
necessary
by the 17
February
revolution"
and for the
revolution's
"success
or
protection."
Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman on
May 8:
Inner
City
Press: there
is a report of
a proposed law
in Libya,
called law
38, which
would grant
amnesty for,
quote, 'acts
made necessary
by the
17 February
revolution,
and for the
revolution’s
success of
protection.'
Some people
are saying
this is
basically an
amnesty law
that whatever
harm may have
been created
in the course
of the
rebellion are
being
forgiven. Does
Ian Martin, or
does the UN’s
accountability
people, have
any view of
this law?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I’d have to
check with our
colleagues in
the Mission in
Tripoli. I
haven't seen
anything on
that. That
doesn’t mean
they
haven't been
working on
this topic,
but I haven't
seen anything
myself. So, I
will check,
Matthew.
Anything else?
Yeah?
Later
this teaser
was received:
Subject:
Your
question on
Libya
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at]
un.org
Date: Tue, May
8, 2012
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Ian
Martin
will speak to
the Security
Council this
Thursday, and
he
expects to
talk to
reporters at
the stakeout
afterward. He
will take
questions
about recent
developments
in Libya at
that time.
And
so when Martin
emerged late
Thursday to
take
questions,
Inner City
Press asked
him
this one, as
well as two
others.
Martin
said that
some amnesties
for fighters
are encouraged
by
humanitarian
law, but
this cannot
extend to war
crimes and
crimes against
humanity. Law
38,
however, does
not appear to
make that
distinction.
Martin said
the UN
is "seeking
clarification."
To
some, this
echoed the
UN's position
in Yemen when
Ali Saleh got
immunity.
Inner
City Press
asked Libya's
representative
Ibrahim
Dabbashi about
Law 38, and
also
Law 37 which
would impose
life sentences
to praising
Gaddafi.
Dabbashi
expressed some
discomfort
with these
laws, and
implied they
could and
would be
changed after
the upcoming
elections.
Martin
said he'd
seen this, and
that the
program to pay
former fights
had not been
well
administered,
leading for
example to the
recent
incidents at
the
Prime Minister
office. Does
corruption run
deeper? Is
Libya, as
alleged,
exporting
weapons to
fighters in
Syria? Martin
said this is
beyond
UNSMIL's
mandate.
Apparently it
is beyond the
mandate of
UNIFIL as
well. Watch
this site.
UNITED NATIONS, March 28 -- When the UN sent a mission to Libya under Ian Martin it claimed it would also work on human rights. But amid the killing in Sabha, the UN has had nothing to say, much less do. Wednesday at the UN Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey:
Inner City Press: there has been this reported fighting in Libya, Sabha, the death count is reported up to 50, some people have different numbers. And I wonder, since there is a UN Mission there, what does UNSMIL have to say about this fighting? Has it tried to play any role in bringing it to a close? What’s the death count and how does UNSMIL’s team and mandate relate to things like this taking place in the country? What does UNSMIL do?
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, UNSMIL is not a peacekeeping mission as such; there are no peacekeepers there. It is up to the Libyan Government to negotiate with the militias and to disarm them. UNSMIL is there to assist the Libyan authorities in developing its policies and strengthening its institutions. But it is up to the Libyan authorities to bring the militias to the table, integrate them into the mainstream of the security forces and disarm them.
Inner City Press: But doesn’t UNSMIL have some kind of a human rights component? I have heard Mr. Martin talk about the plight of detainees and arrestees; these are people being killed, so I am just wondering, does UNSMIL --
Deputy Spokesperson: Well, there is a human rights component, but again, the Libyan authorities are the authorities who are tasked with maintaining peace and security in the country.
Inner City Press: I understand that UNSMIL is not able to jump in with a gun and stop the fighting, but I just wonder, do they now send some team to find out how many people died?
Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll have to check; we’ll have to check on that and find out for you.
Eight hours later, there was no information. It is perhaps not surprising: when Ian Martin was last at the Security Council, Inner City Press asked him a simple question about the filmed abuse of Africans in cages in Libya. He refused to answer, claiming it was Keib's day -- ironic now, or worse.
Del Buey proceeded to proclaim that the UN supported the rebels in Libya because Gaddafi killed civilians: "we don’t talk about the intervention. This was a popular uprising by the Libyan people against a regime that was autocratic, dictatorial and did not have any fundamental respect for human or political rights. The people of Libya rose up against this regime, and they began looking for, and calling on the Government to give them the basic political and humanitarian and democratic rights they wanted."
So Inner City Press asked, not now about Sri Lanka but Sudan:
Inner City Press: in light of what you’ve just said, I wanted to sort of ask you, in a country like Sudan that people have risen up, that there are not only armed rebel groups but student groups and others that have said that there should be a democratization and a change in the country, but it doesn’t seem that the UN is saying they should continue going until they change the Government. In fact, if anything, the UN’s message to the rebels seems to be “disarm”, and to the people seems to be “don’t go for regime change”. So I am just wondering, how does the UN decide in which circumstances to declare dissatisfaction by the populace to be legitimate and to be encouraged or in another case, of Sudan currently to be discouraged and told to sort of get with the program. What’s the distinction?
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, the distinction is that what the Secretary-General has called for is for all Governments to listen to their people and to permit and respect their right to peaceful demonstrations. The people of Libya were demonstrating peacefully. The Government decided to attack them with armed force. In the Sudan, there is a peace process currently under way that the United Nations is working on. The objective is to have this peace process work, and it is not helpful for people to be carrying out violent acts when there is a mechanism there for achieving a dialogue between the parties.
