Showing posts with label iona thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iona thomas. Show all posts

Monday, August 25, 2014

North Korean Deputy Tells Inner City Press of US Tomahawks, Says UK Should Have Written, Speaks of Pre-emptive Strike


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, August 25 -- When North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference on August 25, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.
  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations. As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.
   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.
  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?
  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.
  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."
  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."
  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?
  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.
  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.
Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:
On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.
  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press hascommented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.
  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 
 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.
Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.
The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.

 
  

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

After Somalia and AMISOM Raid on Radio Shabelle, UK Is Concerned, Somaliland Questions by the Free UN Coalition for Access


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- Right after the UN Security Council visited Mogadishu, Somalia's Army and the UN-supported AMISOM force raided Radio Shabelle, jailing journalists.

   On August 19 Inner City Press asked the UK Mission to the UN about the raid and the at least three journalists still in detention: Abdimalik Yusuf Mohamud, Owner of Shabelle and SKY FM, Mohamud Mohamed Dahir a/k/a Mohamud Arab, Director of SKY FM and Ahmed Abdi Hassan, Shabelle deputy head of news.

  On August 20, the UK Mission's spokesperson Iona Thomas told Inner City Press that "the UK is concerned by reports of mistreatment of journalists in Somalia and we are urgently investigating the matter with the Somali authorities."  We hope to have more on this.
  Back on August 15 at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked if there is any UN response to this raid on independent media -- by UN supported forces.
  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq replied that there was no comment by the UN mission UNSOM under Nicholas Kay, and that Inner City Press should "check with AMISOM."
  But they're the ones who did it. Inner City Press asked again: no UN comment on the closing down of a radio station?
  Haq replied that he has no verification -- it is widely reported - and that he hasn't heard from UNSOM about it. Why not?
   Similarly, little has been heard at UN headquarters from UNSOM about envoy Nicholas Kay's recent visit to Somaliland, of which Kay has said, "Pleased to be in Hargeisa. Excellent talks with HE Mohammed Younis and his colleagues. Good to see our significant UN team in Somaliland."
   FUNCA member in Hargeisa Mohamoud Walaaleye, who has previously defended press freedom there, has made inquiries and provided more information to New York, to FUNCA and Inner City Press, than the UN Spokesperson's Office has conveyed from Kay. 
  What is Kay's response to criticism of his approach to Somaliland, for example herehere and here. (Somali Embassy US saying "UN Envoy Nick Kay actions & policies are threaten the peace, Security, stability, sovereignty & territorial integrity of Somalia)? On this too we hope to have more.
   Back on May 12 in an advance copy of the UN's report on Somalia, to be issued as S/2014/330, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says he is "concerned about the potential for confrontation between Puntland and 'Somaliland.' I call on both sides to avoid escalating tensions."
   Many note that Somaliland, without the quotation marks Ban puts around it, has been more peaceful than Mogadishu for some time - and that the UN system raised tensions by, for example, handing Somaliland's airspace to Mogadishu. 
  Ban's report also says he remains "concerned about the continued export of Somali charcoal" and encourages "the Security Council Committee on Somalia and Eritrea to list the responsible individuals and entities."
  These advance copies have been known to be changed before "final" release, in a process for which a description, and then proposals for reform, were provided here and thenhere.
 In this advance copy, Ban "strongly recommend[s] to the Council an extension of the mandate of UNSOM for one year to 3 June 2015."
When on April 23 UNSOM envoy Nicholas Kay along with AMISOM head Mahamat Saleh Annadif took questions at the UN, Inner City Press asked them about the new Ugandan guard unit, about the Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group and about Somaliland including its disputed airspace. Video herefrom Minute 14:23.
  Kay said, "at the moment we're absolutely clear obviously on the international legal position vis-a-vis Somaliland, it's not a recognized state by anyone. But they have a very strong sense of their own statehood and aspirations to independence."
  Kay referred to the Turkey-facilitated talks between Somaliland and the Somali government in Mogadishi, including about airspace. He said that UN funds and programs operate in Somaliland. But UNSOM does not: Somaliland points to the mandate it was given by the Security Council.
  On the Ugandan guard unit, Kay said they will protect the UN but work with AMISOM. But in March, AMISOM spokesperson Ali Aden Houmed was quoted by Voice of America that "we do not have the fact of what these forces are and they are not part of us... UN and Uganda had been conducting 'a secret negotiation.'" Neither Kay nor Mahamat Saleh Annadif addressed this.
  On sanctions, after Kay recounted improvements in reporting and "information" that are underway, Inner City Press asked if the Somali letter requesting the ouster of SEMG coordinator Chopra has been withdrawn. Kay said he has not seen the letter. Well here it is: Inner City Pressexclusively obtained, reported and published it. Has it been withdrawn?

 
  

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

On Gaza, UN Staff Unions Demand Accountability and Protection, UK Urges Cooperation


By Matthew Russell Lee

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?  Later on August 6, Inner City Press obtained and asked the UK Mission to the UN, which holds the UN Security Council presidency for August, about a letter from UN staff unions demanding accountability, putting it online here.

  The letter, to UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, Ban and John Ashe, the President of the General Assembly, urged all three to "take all measures necessary to ensure accountability for the actions committed by all parties to this conflict and to ensure that no further colleagues are killed."

  On the evening of August 6, two hours after the General Assembly meeting ended, the spokesperson of the UK Mission Iona Thomas confirmed that the letter was received, and told Inner City Press that the letter "raises some genuine concerns and it is important that we look at the evidence and all the parties cooperate with inquiries to establish exactly what happened around these terrible incidents."  We will stay on this.
   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. See here. 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?
  Inner City Press asked Israel's Ron Prosor about the different drafts leaked to Haaretz and Al Jazeera (which Inner City Press noted, here). Prosor went wider scope with his answer. A ceasefire did not sound closer.
  Prosor was also asked about Ban Ki-moon flying around in a Qatar-funded private jet - a question on which Inner City Press first reported eight days ago, and on which Ban himself should answer.
 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.)
  Meanwhile, silence at the UN with the draft Security Council resolution of Jordan and the Arab League not scheduled for a vote, and canned statements from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who after taking a Qatar-funded private jet from New York to Doha refused through his spokespeople to answer Inner City Press' follow-up questions on who paid for the rest of his travel. Watch this site.

 
  

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Burundi Cable on Arming CNDD Youth-Wing Called Alarming By US Samantha Power, Dodged by Gerard Araud of France, UNSC Pen-Holder


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 10, more here -- Twenty years after the "genocide fax" from Rwanda to the UN in New York was largely ignored, there's been little visible reaction in the last seven days to a strikingly similar cable from Burundi, about AK-47s being distributed to the youth-wing of the Hutu aligned CNDD party.
  Inner City Press on April 9 put the cable online, submitting questions about it to UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric and on April 10 online and at the Security Council stakeout to Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, pen-holder on Burundi in the Council. 
   But it was US Ambassador Samantha Power who took and answered the question, telling Inner City Press that it is very troubling, that there have been fast trials of 21 young opposition figures and a threat to change the constitution and now, these reports. (We will link to Power's full response when it goes online.)
    That the cable was in fact sent from the UN in Burundi to three top UN officials -- Jeffrey Feltman of the Department of Political Affairs, Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping and Great Lakes envoy Mary Robinson -- was reliably confirmed. Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Accessput this photo online here and here. Below, the full text of the cable is published.
  UK Mission to the UN spokesperson Iona Thomas replied to Inner City Press that "I can confirm that Feltman raised this issue in the Council discussion on Burundi yesterday and members of the Council expressed their concern at the reports."
  UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, in response to Inner City Press' request for confirmation that Ladsous, who wasFrance's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the 1994 Rwanda genocide against the Tutsis, had received the Burundi cable merely pointed to a read-out of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April 6 meeting with Burundi's First Vice-President of the Republic of Burundi Prosper Bazombanza.
  That UN read-out says that "the Secretary-General expressed strong concerns about reports concerning activities of Burundian youth groups and urged the relevant national authorities to investigate these reports." 
  But it is the government itself that is accused of distributing pistols, uniforms and AK-47s to the "youth groups," which the UN read-out leaves unnamed. Is this "Rights Up Front"?
  US Ambassador Samantha Power traveled from Rwanda to Burundi and issued a statement that the "United States will provide $7.5 million in assistance for the Burundian electoral process" and expressing concerns, here. It did not directly mention the alleged distribution of weapons to theImbonerukure or the cable.
  France, in the same week that it snubbed the Rwanda genocide commemoration and called any suggestion it was complicit in the 1994 killings "disgraceful," holds the pen on Burundi in the Security Council.
   That is to say, it was up to France after Feltman came and raised the memo to then pen and push for fast adoption some output: a resolution or Statement. But this did not happen.
  Instead, when at the end of a higher profile consultation with High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay including on Syria, where France is pushing a referral to the International Criminal Court, April's Council president Joy Ogwu of Nigeria emerged to speak to the press, there were only two journalists there including Inner City Press. She mentioned Feltman's briefing, but not the cable or its contents.
  Nine hours later, Australia's Ambassador to the UN Gary Quinlan tweeted, "#UNSC discussed deteriorating situation in #Burundi for 2nd time in 2 weeks - signs of political exclusion & oppression deeply concerning."
The French Mission to the UN -- the penholder on Burundi -- was even less specific: "Under Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman has briefed #UNSC on current political tensions in #Burundi."
  So is the main difference in 20 years since the Rwanda genocide the speed of leaks and of social media?
  Other questions are pending. Here is the full text of the April 3, 2014 cable:
CONFIDENTIAL
OUTGOING CODE CABLE
TO: FELTMAN, UNATIONS, NEW YORK
INFO: LADSOUS, UNATIONS, NEW YORK
ROBINSON, O-SESG-GL, NAIROBI
FROM: [for] ONANGA-ANYANGA, BNUB, BUJUMBURA
DATE: 3 April 2014
REFERENCE: CDN-037
SUBJECT: Reports of alleged distribution of weapons to the Imbonerakure
Summary: Informs on reports of alleged distribution of weapons [to] ruling CNDD-youth wing and actions taken by BNUB.
1. "This follows my cable CND-022 of 26 February in which I informed of allegations of distribution of weapons to the ruling CNDD-FCC youth wing the "Imbonerakure."
2. Yesterday UN Chief Security Adviser (CSA) in Burundi conveyed the following message from the DSS daily sitrep:
"After information gathered from key informants, there was distribution of weapons and outfits military and police during the months of January and February for youth affiliated to the CNDD - FDD (IMBONERAKURE) party and the demobilized ex-AIMP Rumonge. An ad-hoc meeting was held in a hotel call[ed] KUKANYAMUENZA belonging to a "General de Brigade" located Nduwumunsi in Rumonge. A night training for the handling of these weapons would be located on the side of the central prison of Rumonge (KUMUREMBWE) and the surrounding population would have heard gunfire. These same activities (distribution of weapons) would be considered to take place in the commune of Nyzana-Laca, Kibago and Mabanda in Makamba province. Another face which tends to confirm the news, these are the statements of people who participated in these meetings but refused to receive weapons.
Two generals originating in the province of BURURI ex-AIMP whose names follow: Bde General Nduwumunsi (currently Director General of former Combatants) and General - Major Niyungeko Jevenal aka KIROHO (currently head of the Office of military Cooperation) would be supervisors of these activities (distributions of weapons and military and police uniforms). In this meeting they emphasized especially, that the beneficiaries of these weapons must remain vigilant and that when there is a trigger that each take care of their opponents in their proximity / neighbourhood."
3. I have undertaken consultations with key embassies including United States, Belgium and the Netherlands, all involved in security sector support activities, to corroborate the information and plan to raise the matter with the relevant ministers. The ambassadors informed have confirmed the grave nature of the allegations which if confirmed may have implications for bi-lateral assistance programmes.
Observations
4. CSA in Burundi confirmed the reliability of the sources.
5. The Imbonerakure actions have been on the rise since the beginning of the year and are one of the major threats to peace in Burundi and to the credibility of the 2015 elections as they are responsible for most politically motivated violence against opposition. BNUB has documented 27 cases implicating the Imbonerakure so far in 2014, 23 of which have been politically motivated.
6. The Imbonerakure act in collusion with the local authorities and with total impunity. In the country side they have replaced the law enforcing agencies and act as a militia over and above the police, the army and the judiciary. Opposition parties have repeatedly complaint [sic] about the Imbonerakure violence.
7. One can only speculate about the purpose of the distribution of weapons and uniforms in Bururi which is a traditional stronghold of the UPRONA. However the last sentence of the message indicated a highly decentralized chain of command which is consistent with reliable information on Imbonerakure modus operandi on the ground.
8. In February BNUB had informed of the disappearance of 500 uniforms from military and police installations as well as the distribution of 9mm pistols. Although not confirmed there are indications that the weapons distributed this time can be AK-47 assault rifles. DSS has also informed in the past of radio messages for the population "to be ready."
9. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and keep you informed.
Now what? Watch this site.


 
  

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Burundi Cable on Arming Hutu Young-Wing Get Muted UN Reaction: 20 Years After Rwanda, Have Only Speed of Leaks and Social Media Changed?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- Twenty years after the "genocide fax" from Rwanda to the UN in New York was largely ignored, what's been the reaction in the last six days to a strikingly similar cable from Burundi, about AK-47s being distributed to the youth-wing of the Hutu aligned CNDD party which wants to stay in power?

  Earlier today Inner City Press posed questions about the cable to UN officials, UN spokespeople and missions. 
 That the cable was in fact sent from the UN in Burundi to three top UN officials -- Jeffrey Feltman of the Department of Political Affairs, Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping and Great Lakes envoy Mary Robinson -- was reliably confirmed. Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Accessput this photo online here and here. Below, the full text of the cable is published.
  UK Mission to the UN spokesperson Iona Thomas replied to Inner City Press that "I can confirm that Feltman raised this issue in the Council discussion on Burundi yesterday and members of the Council expressed their concern at the reports."
  UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, in response to Inner City Press' request for confirmation that Ladsous, who wasFrance's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the 1994 Rwanda genocide against the Tutsis, had received the Burundi cable merely pointed to a read-out of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April 6 meeting with Burundi's First Vice-President of the Republic of Burundi Prosper Bazombanza.
  That UN read-out says that "the Secretary-General expressed strong concerns about reports concerning activities of Burundian youth groups and urged the relevant national authorities to investigate these reports." 
  But it is the government itself that is accused of distributing pistols, uniforms and AK-47s to the "youth groups," which the UN read-out leaves unnamed. Is this "Rights Up Front"?
  US Ambassador Samantha Power traveled from Rwanda to Burundi and issued a statement that the "United States will provide $7.5 million in assistance for the Burundian electoral process" and expressing concerns, here. It did not directly mention the alleged distribution of weapons to theImbonerukure or the cable.
  France, in the same week that it snubbed the Rwanda genocide commemoration and called any suggestion it was complicit in the 1994 killings "disgraceful," holds the pen on Burundi in the Security Council.
   That is to say, it was up to France after Feltman came and raised the memo to then pen and push for fast adoption some output: a resolution or Statement. But this did not happen.
  Instead, when at the end of a higher profile consultation with High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay including on Syria, where France is pushing a referral to the International Criminal Court, April's Council president Joy Ogwu of Nigeria emerged to speak to the press, there were only two journalists there including Inner City Press. She mentioned Feltman's briefing, but not the cable or its contents.
  Nine hours later, Australia's Ambassador to the UN Gary Quinlan tweeted, "#UNSC discussed deteriorating situation in #Burundi for 2nd time in 2 weeks - signs of political exclusion & oppression deeply concerning."
The French Mission to the UN -- the penholder on Burundi -- was even less specific: "Under Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman has briefed #UNSC on current political tensions in #Burundi."
  So is the main difference in 20 years since the Rwanda genocide the speed of leaks and of social media?
  Other questions are pending. Here is the full text of the April 3, 2014 cable:
CONFIDENTIAL
OUTGOING CODE CABLE
TO: FELTMAN, UNATIONS, NEW YORK
INFO: LADSOUS, UNATIONS, NEW YORK
ROBINSON, O-SESG-GL, NAIROBI
FROM: [for] ONANGA-ANYANGA, BNUB, BUJUMBURA
DATE: 3 April 2014
REFERENCE: CDN-037
SUBJECT: Reports of alleged distribution of weapons to the Imbonerakure
Summary: Informs on reports of alleged distribution of weapons [to] ruling CNDD-youth wing and actions taken by BNUB.
1. "This follows my cable CND-022 of 26 February in which I informed of allegations of distribution of weapons to the ruling CNDD-FCC youth wing the "Imbonerakure."
2. Yesterday UN Chief Security Adviser (CSA) in Burundi conveyed the following message from the DSS daily sitrep:
"After information gathered from key informants, there was distribution of weapons and outfits military and police during the months of January and February for youth affiliated to the CNDD - FDD (IMBONERAKURE) party and the demobilized ex-AIMP Rumonge. An ad-hoc meeting was held in a hotel call[ed] KUKANYAMUENZA belonging to a "General de Brigade" located Nduwumunsi in Rumonge. A night training for the handling of these weapons would be located on the side of the central prison of Rumonge (KUMUREMBWE) and the surrounding population would have heard gunfire. These same activities (distribution of weapons) would be considered to take place in the commune of Nyzana-Laca, Kibago and Mabanda in Makamba province. Another face which tends to confirm the news, these are the statements of people who participated in these meetings but refused to receive weapons.
Two generals originating in the province of BURURI ex-AIMP whose names follow: Bde General Nduwumunsi (currently Director General of former Combatants) and General - Major Niyungeko Jevenal aka KIROHO (currently head of the Office of military Cooperation) would be supervisors of these activities (distributions of weapons and military and police uniforms). In this meeting they emphasized especially, that the beneficiaries of these weapons must remain vigilant and that when there is a trigger that each take care of their opponents in their proximity / neighbourhood."
3. I have undertaken consultations with key embassies including United States, Belgium and the Netherlands, all involved in security sector support activities, to corroborate the information and plan to raise the matter with the relevant ministers. The ambassadors informed have confirmed the grave nature of the allegations which if confirmed may have implications for bi-lateral assistance programmes.
Observations
4. CSA in Burundi confirmed the reliability of the sources.
5. The Imbonerakure actions have been on the rise since the beginning of the year and are one of the major threats to peace in Burundi and to the credibility of the 2015 elections as they are responsible for most politically motivated violence against opposition. BNUB has documented 27 cases implicating the Imbonerakure so far in 2014, 23 of which have been politically motivated.
6. The Imbonerakure act in collusion with the local authorities and with total impunity. In the country side they have replaced the law enforcing agencies and act as a militia over and above the police, the army and the judiciary. Opposition parties have repeatedly complaint [sic] about the Imbonerakure violence.
7. One can only speculate about the purpose of the distribution of weapons and uniforms in Bururi which is a traditional stronghold of the UPRONA. However the last sentence of the message indicated a highly decentralized chain of command which is consistent with reliable information on Imbonerakure modus operandi on the ground.
8. In February BNUB had informed of the disappearance of 500 uniforms from military and police installations as well as the distribution of 9mm pistols. Although not confirmed there are indications that the weapons distributed this time can be AK-47 assault rifles. DSS has also informed in the past of radio messages for the population "to be ready."
9. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and keep you informed.
Now what? Watch this site.