Yemen Sanctions Experts Nudged Not To Look at Saudi Acts, As Inner City Press Is Ousted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 24 -- The UN Secretariat's bungling of Yemen mediation has become ever more clear, according to multiple sources and documents exclusively seen by Inner City Press, see below. 

 In the UN Security Council on the Yemen sanctions resolution adopted on February 24, language was added to try to discourage the Panel of Experts from looking into the act of the Saudi-led Coalition. Concessions were made, of a kind not made for or about other countries under sanctions.

  (Inner City Press had to follow the process from outside the UN, literally, the park on 43rd Street across First Avenue, because only days after Inner City Press asked why the UN was so quiet about false claims of Iranian military equipment in a UN WFP aid ship, Inner City Press was summarily thrown out of the UN, and Banned, without due process.Petition here.)

 Inner City Press also touched on Yemen in its now daily Periscope broadcast, this time live from... across the the UN, here.

  On February 16, Inner City Press asked the President of the UN Security Council for February, Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela, about what OCHA said in the Council, that the Saudi-led coalition diverted a UN World Food Program ship, the MV Mainport Cedar, from Hodeidah to the Saudi port of Jizan.

  Ramirez said this had been discussed and that the UN's Stephen O'Brien is trying to clarify it.

  On February 17, before the Security Council heard from UN enovy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, Inner City Press asked Yemen's stated Permanent Representative to the UN Khaled Alyemany about the WFP ship. 

  Alyemany said that that ship had been found to have Iranian military equipment. Video here. Inner City Press asked OCHA and then three WFP spokespeople as well. The response from Gerald Bourke:

"We can confirm that on Thursday February 11 one of WFP’s charter vessels, the MV Mainport Cedar, carrying humanitarian relief supplies, travelling from Djibouti with a scheduled and approved stop in the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, was diverted by Coalition forces to the Saudi Arabian port of Jizan. WFP is in communication with the Coalition Forces regarding the circumstances of the ship’s diversion to Jizan Port. On behalf of the Yemen humanitarian community, the vessel was transporting commodities including canned tuna, medical supplies for delivery to Hodeidah Port and United Nations Emergency Telecommunications Cluster IT equipment for delivery to the Port of Aden. WFP has been asked by the Coalition Forces to resubmit the paperwork regarding the humanitarian IT equipment. We hope the vessel will depart shortly. WFP has been in touch with the owner and the crew of 13."

 And so on February 18, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: on the issue of Syria to ask WFP, but I wanted to ask you about Yemen and WFP.  Yesterday, in front of the Council, the Permanent Representative of Yemen, Mr. [Khaled Hussein] Alyemany, said that the WFP ship that was diverted to Saudi Arabia had within it, his quote, “Iranian military equipment”.  So I asked WFP, but they haven’t answered.  The envoy did say that this was false.  But what I’m wondering is, at what point was WFP or OCHA going to, not just sort of say that a ship had been diverted, but say that it was on false charges by a country that’s actually a maiden donor to the aid operation in Yemen…?  [inaudible]

Spokesman:  What I have from WFP, which I can hope answers the question raised, which said that WFP can confirm that, on 11 February, on Thursday, one of WFP’s charter vessels, the MV Mainport Cedar, carrying humanitarian relief supplies, travelling from Djibouti with a scheduled and approved stop in Hodeidah, was diverted by coalition forces to the Saudi Arabian port of Jizan.  WFP is in communication with the coalition forces regarding the circumstances of the ship’s diversion to the port in Saudi Arabia.  On behalf of the Yemen humanitarian community, the vessel was transporting commodities, including canned tuna, medical supplies for delivery to Hodeidah Port and United Nations Emergency Telecommunications Cluster IT (information technology) equipment for delivery to Aden.  WFP has been asked by the coalition forces to resubmit the paperwork regarding the humanitarian IT equipment.  The agency hopes the vessel will depart shortly.  And WFP has been in touch with the owner and the crew of 13.

Inner City Press:   I wish they’d sent that yesterday if they had it.  But my question really is, given that the Permanent Representative is saying publicly and on the record that this was somehow Iranian military equipment, it seems like maybe there’s more… in other circumstances, I think the UN pushes back against this kind of allegation, and I think… I guess I’m just asking, because Saudi Arabia has been allowed to be the main, or even only, donor to this… to this Yemen humanitarian operation…

Spokesman:  I don’t think this… [inaudible]

Inner City Press:  … does this constrain…

Spokesman:  I don’t think they’re the only donor.  And I think the Special Envoy for Yemen spoke about it yesterday, and I’ve spoken about it today.

 Things have gotten worse. Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, he of the failed talks and murky trips to Dubai, South Korea and Japan, has put at least a half dozen no-show jobs on the UN payroll, with the post holders getting paid up to $15,000 a month to stay in their homes, in London, Mecca, Sweden, Dubai, Cairo and Beirut and do... nothing.

  We'll start, as the first example, with the last of these. Salim Raad, previously a Ban Ki-moon designated Libya sanctions expert, was hired by Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed as his "military adviser" -- as the Saudi led coalition blasts away from the air.

  Inner City Press' sources tell it that Salim Raad is in Beirut, reportedly to his credit "depressed" at how little is being accomplished. But the paychecks are still clearing in Beirut -- as they are in London, Mecca, Sweden, Dubai and Cairo. Inner City Press has heard some from, and is open to hearing more from, each of these places. 

   In New York -- which Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed doesn't like to come to because he doesn't get UN "Daily Sustenance Allowance" travel pay in NYC since it is ostensibly his headquarters -- Inner City Press on February 9 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric why the envoy was in South Korea and Japan.

   Dujarric curtly confirmed the envoy was in South Korea, "for a conference." When Inner City Press asked how it related to his mandate, the failing talks and DSA, Dujarric simply pointed to another, less critical correspondent. Video here.

 On February 12, Inner City Press asked again about Japan, and was told by Dujarric he would provide more information after the briefing. He hasn't.

  As we are now filling in, Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed has the UN paying top dollar to people who are hardly working, chilling in London and in one case Mecca, an associate of Hadi. This is UN money, thus public money. The question is, what will the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services do? We'll have more on this.

 And now this - Inner City Press is informed that the Saudi-led Coalition hit with a missile the UN's own UNFPA compound. The UN should have complained and gone public, but didn't. Why not? Because the UN envoy IOCA has been told to stay away while Saudi Arabia bombs. How's that working out?

 We'll be at the Security Council, on February 17, covering Yemen. On January 29, the UN Spokesman threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room then on February 1 made this threat, here.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here.

 Back on January 19, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the day's Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, if the Council does enough to protect civilians in Yemen, including monitoring the effects of airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. Video here.

 Cancela diplomatically replied that he was not there to comment on specific countries -- inside the Council, there was much talk of Syria, a smattering on Burundi -- but turned the question toward not hitting schools and hospitals, both of which have happened in Yemen.

  On January 18, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: I wanted to on Yemen ask you, there's been this pretty extensively reported airstrike by the coalition in Sana’a on a police station that's apparently killed 25 people.  And also IRIN, previously a UN affiliate, has said that one of its journalists was killed in an airstrike.  And I wanted to know, does the UN… can they confirm particularly the death of the journalist Almigdad Mojalli and do they have any comment on it?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  We don't have the confirmation that we can provide, but certainly we would be concerned about the killing of any journalist.  We're aware of the media reports in this case.

  So, nothing on the airstrike on the police station, and non-acceptance, it seems, of even the statement by Voice of America, which has alsowritten to the UN against the Press. What's wrong with the UN?

Now that the Houthis and the GPC have both said they won't participate in any more talks facilitated by the UN's Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed -- who insists on retweeting praise about himself after skipping any public Q&A at the UN -- Inner City Press on December 28 asked the UN's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric: "On Yemen, what is Ban Ki-moon's or Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's response to Saleh saying GPC will only negotiate directly with Saudi Arabia, and seeming rejection of the UN-faciliated talks?"

 Dujarric replied at 2 pm on December 28 to another question, partial (on Burundi) then added: "On the other issues, if we have an update to share with you, we will."

 So on Yemen, as usual, there is no UN response.

In the talks in Switzerland, despite the happy-talk Note to Correspondents issued on December 20, UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was repeatedly accused of merely operating “for the Saudis,” while the Saudi-led coalition took more military action.

 Inner City Press intended to put the question directly to Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq at the December 22 noon briefing said he would be speaking at the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Security Council.

  But after the Council meeting, in which High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid al Hussein said that of harm to schools and hospitals, "a disproportionate amount appeared to be the result of airstrikes carried out by Coalition Forces" -- Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed did not as promised appear at the stakeout.

 Last time he was at UN Headquarters, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed took only three questions at the stakeout, then went upstairs to the clubhouse of UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association after selling seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6000 and did an interview with the same pro-Saudi / GCC media.

 So where did Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed go this time? Watch this site.

  Inner City Press on December 20 reported that the UN-facilitated talks have been such a failure that there is already a clamor to replace Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that among the names being mulled is Germany's Bettina Muscheidt, the European Union's Ambassador to Yemen.

  UN insiders point to Germany having lost a UN post when Kim Won-soo replaced Angela Kane as Under Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs. Achim Steiner was passed over for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees post, in favor of Italy's Grandi.  Germany already "got" Libya with Martin Kobler - why not Yemen too? 

Previously: Inner City Press obtained UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's documents for the delayed talks in Switzerland, and exclusively put them online here.

UN Yemen Talks Documents Leaked to Inner City Press, December 2015 by Matthew Russell Lee

Back on November 10, while Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was on the next to last day of his trip to Saudi Arabia to discussed among other things Yemen, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric to confirm that envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not even IN Saudi Arabia with Ban.

 Dujarric confirmed that he is not there, but would not confirm that he is in his native Mauritania, to which Inner City Press is informed he flew on the UN's dime, for a vacation, signed off on by the top of the Department of Political Affairs.

Inner City Press has reported from sources dates on which the UN's envoy went to Dubai, purpose UNknown. Given his follow UN enovy Bernardino Leon's deal with the UAE, this must now be explained and acted on by the UN.

Inner City Press previously reported on and published the Houthis' letterdenouncing UN envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed as little more than a Saudi tool. Now it's gotten worse: even Kenny Gluck who works for the envoy and went to Muscat trying to meet the Houthis was unable. He waited then returned to Riyadh. 

    The envoy, meanwhile, is said by those who know him to not only be “laughably” cheap -- putting in for reimbursement for an eight dollar taxi ride from the UN to a Mission on 67th Street, for example -- but also still involved in the same business for which Inner City Press previously dubbed him “the Fisherman” or the “Fishy Envoy.”  

  He has traveled on the UN's funds to Dubai, claiming he would meet the Houthis there. Not only will the Houthis not meet with him -- even if they would, they would not be found in Dubai, given that the UAE is part of the coalition. In any event, Abu Dhabi is the capital, not Dubai. There is something... fishy.

  Now we can report what UN sources say are dates of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's travel to Dubai: May 11; June 3 and June 5; August 1 and August 4; September 12-15; October 9-11; October 26; November 4; and prospectively November 10 and November 12.  

 What are Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's trips to Dubai for? Given the UAE's offer to UN Envoy Bernarndino Leon, while he was UN Envoy to Libya, this question must be answered.

  So on November 4, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric,video here, transcript here.

  On October 26 Inner City Press reported that its sources exclusively told it of a new low, that the UN brought into Sana'a what the Houthis call two members of US intelligence, with the cover identification that they work for the company running the former hotel now occupied by the UN. But, the sources say, security in Sana'a recognized the two and they are now detained. 

  On October 30, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, video here, transcript here and below. Dujarric acknowledged he knew about two "contractors."

 On November 2, amid wire reports derivative and worse, Inner City Press followed up, video here, UN transcript here.

 Meanwhile on November 2 the US Statement Department was referring questions to this UNresponsive UN: "We’re aware of those reports. Due to privacy considerations, I’m not going to comment on them...  I would direct your questions to the UN."

  After Inner City Press' October 26 report and October 30 noon briefing questions, on October 31 Reuters "reported" a piece citing an unnamed UN spokesperson about two "contractors," with no mention of the Houthis claim they work with US intelligence, which by now had also been reported, along with Inner City Press' October 30 Q&A with Dujarric, by Al-Akhbar.

  But it's worse. Reuters initially (mis) reported that "'Two contractors have been detained and the Deputy Secretary-General (Jan Eliasson) is looking into it,' a U.N. spokesman said without elaborating or confirming if the two were American citizens."

  Then a day after that, Reuters blamed the UN for its correction to "'Two contractors have been detained and DSS (Department of Safety and Security) is looking into it,' said a U.N. spokesman."

  It would seem the UN spokesman, left unnamed by Reuters, said "DSS" and Reuters mis-heard it as "DSG," didn't note it would be strange for the UN's second highest official to be on two contractors when lower official Herve Ladsous is the one who made a call for 13 contractors in South Sudan.

 But Reuters, including the Thomson Reuters Foundation Trust.org,running its correction, says "UN corrects source of information in second paragraph." So the UN made the mistake?

 This is the same Reuters which on Friday regurgitated a UN report which Inner City Press had reported and asked the UN about fully two weeks earlier, same Reuters which refused to make public its policies, and tries to censor its anti Press complaints to the UN, here. We'll have more on this. 

 We'll have more on this.

  Meanwhile the Houthis are denouncing UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad and his (mis) representation to the Security Council regarding what they agreed to. This has happened before and the goal seems to be delay to allow for more air strikes. There's work of mercenaries, in essence, including from Colombia in Aden, joining the troops from ICC-indicted Sudan.

 A new level of dysfunction was hit with the deployment in Aden of hundreds of troops from Sudan, putting ICC-indicted Omar al-Bashir on the same side as the US and UK. (Inner City Press is exclusively informed that "UN" envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is working on a similar Saudi deal with his native Mauritania, see below.)

  On September 10, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft if the UK had met with the Houthis and GPC in Muscat, without the UN Envoy present. Video here. 

  Meanwhile Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed says the same parties will now meet with him. Replay?

  On September 9, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here. 

  On August 7 Inner City Press was informed that as Houthis and Saleh's GPC headed to Oman for consultations on August 8 and 9, the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was not even initially invited. He had to beg to get included, which after sweating has been allowed, in the run-up to his briefing on August 12 to the Security Council.

 On August 12, Inner City Press asked Yemen Permanent Representative, outside the Council meeting, questions ranging from the destruction of schools and health care facilities in Sa'ada by Saudi airstrikes to when, according to him, the Houthis might be "driven" out of Sa'ana. Video here. He said in a few weeks - and added that the Oman talks were "not UN."

 So how then might the parties negotiate? UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was headed back to Riyadh. That seems to be his base, where he works from - and for? Watch this site.

   After publishing its multi-sourced story, Inner City Press on July 22 asked the UN's Associate Spokesperson about new APC and weapons in Aden, and if Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is on vacation. Video here. She replied that she would check - but did not revert with any response either way.

  So on July 23, amid reports that without Cheikh Ahmed or any UN presence talks were occurring about Yemen in Cairo, Inner City Pressasked, here.

  On June 25, Inner City Press asked new UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien three questions about Yemen: cholera, the destruction of ambulances in Sa'ada and about international staff. Video here.

  O'Brien replied that cholera is a risk; he had no information on WHO it was that destroyed the ambulances in Sa'ada (we can guess.) On international staff, which the UN evacuated earlier, he spoke of a rise from 17 to 70, with the goal of getting to 200. He would not say if they are anywhere in the country outside of Sana'a, citing security. But at least he spoke - the Free UN Coalition for Access thanked him.

On Burundi, Inner City Press Exclusively Publishes UN's DRC Report on 18 Burundian Combatants

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive publication

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on New Year's Eve issued a statement surreally praising the Burundi “talks” held in Entebbe, Uganda, multiple sources told Inner City Press these not really talks but rather a photo op. The January 6 session announced for Arusha did not happen.  Inner City Press requested to cover the UNSC's trip to Burundi, but was UNtransparentlyrejected.

Transparently, Inner City Press is today publishing the DR Congo Group of Experts Update Report including about 18 Burundian combatants, here and see below.

  Handpicked to go and memorialize the trip was Reuters, which barely reported what happened. There is a history, of Reuters UN bureau hereand here; on February 3, Reuters correspondent Michelle Nichols went so far as to cut off Inner City Press' questions to the UN, Vine here.

  On February 3 Reuters' UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau, a censor,  channeled a UN (DRC) report -- note not only the former Reuters official turned Eritrea sanctions “experts” exposed by Inner City Presshere, but also that this same now discredited Reuters / UN individual was previously ON the DR Congo panel. Typically, Reuters did not actually put the report online.

  Inner City Press in the spirit of transparency is publishing the (update) report, dated January 15, 2016, signed by Coordinator Gaston Gramajo, and its two paragraphs about 18 Burundian combatants, here. 

DR Congo "Group of Experts" Progress Report Including on Burundi by Matthew Russell Lee

Readers can draw their own conclusions, including about the mandate and motivation, and if these 18 is really the way it would go.

 At the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ban Ki-moon barely if at all pushed for peacekeepers for Burundi; his or France's head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous had largely undercut the idea with a memo than Inner City Press published in full.

(Inner City Press has reported the UN Peacebuilding Configuration will visit February 15-19, click here for that.)

Inner City Press on February 3 asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here.

On February 2, Inner City Press similarly asked the UN's Haq, transcript here.

  Meanwhile, on January 29, the UN Spokesman threw Inner City Press out of the UN Press Briefing Room then on February 1 made this threat, here. This was echoed on February 2.

On February 1 Ban's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, typically, had a canned statement from Ban when Inner City Press asked, as if Ban hadpushed. From the transcript:
Inner City Press: on Burundi, I saw the Secretary-General's comments at the summit, but does he have any specific comment on the decision not to deploy the peacekeeping force MAPROBU, and does he have any knowledge of the, what some say will be a high-level delegation sent to Burundi to try to still convince Pierre Nkurunziza to accept it?

Spokesman:  Sure, I mean, we're obviously aware of the delegation.  The Secretary-General has also taken note of the discussions just held at the AU summit on the preventive deployment to Burundi of MAPROBU, as well as the position of the government of Burundi on the matter.  He welcomes the decision of the AU leaders to dispatch a high-level delegation to Burundi for further consultations with President Nkurunziza and Burundian authorities and stresses that measures must be found to address the ongoing violence in the country.  It is critical to start an inclusive political process in Burundi, as we've been saying here for quite some time.  The African Union and the countries of the regions will play a crucial effort in that… crucial role in that effort, and the UN will continue to work with our partners to support dialogue and find ways to prevent a further deterioration of the situation through the Secretary-General's Special Adviser, Mr. Jamal Benomar.
 On January 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about a meeting held but not televised on January 27, at which it was urged that mass grave sites in Burundi be preserved as evidence,video here, transcript here.

On January 29, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again, transcript here. 

  So it's all on Zeid, nothing from Ban Ki-moon, who appears to be playing this like he did Sri Lanka...

 On January 27, Inner City Press put questions to the UN and US Ambassador Power about the UN's continued use of Burundian troops as “peacekeepers,” for which the UN's Herve Ladsous gave the country a waiver to continue to get paid for under-equipped troops in the Central African Republic, where they have been accused of rape.

  The UN Spokesperson answered

Inner City Press: On Burundi, given that the government has not responded to, or has blocked, the human rights experts from Geneva, and given the other things said on this podium, what sense does it make for UN peacekeeping to continue to use, and give waivers to Burundian peacekeepers in CAR? Is there a connection between a country’s compliance with the UN’s demands, requests, and in fact paying money, which some say doesn’t even go to the troops, for service in peacekeeping missions?

UN Spokesman Dujarric: Peacekeeping troops, units that serve in peacekeeping missions, undergo various vetting processes that involve the UN and the host country. ?? in cases we have not accepted certain individuals, we’ve also returned battalions in other cases. This will be continued to be looked at on a rolling basis.

Inner City press: Will you confirm that they have a waiver to serve in CAR until April, by Mr. Ladsous, granted on October 1?

UN Spokesman: No.

 At the UN Security Council stakeout, Inner City Press waited -- including through two North Korea questions, and softballs -- then asked if this UN use of Burundian troops makes sense. There has yet to be an answer, although there are indications one might be forthcoming. (More than 24 hours later, no).  Here for now is about the US training Burundian troops. Watch this site.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokespeople about the trip on January 20, 21 and 22 - including asking why the UN was not providing a video or at least audio stream of the January 22 press encounters, says it has a  "UN Information Center" in Bujumbura, which produced a smiling photo of the French deputy ambassador Alexis Lamek on the tarmac. The UN said it couldn't.

  Local media in Burundi put online a video in which Lamek spoke at length; afterward a pro-government Burundian media quoted Lamek that "we" take seriously the question of interference by Rwanda to destabilize Burundi and will be working on it.

  But the four scribes handpicked to accompany the Security Council trip, inlcuding Agence France Presse, it seems, for some reasons didn't cover it. Why? We'll have more on this. Instead, AFP, Reuters andVoice of America (which saw "Liberians" then cited auto-correct) filed near-identical stories with no quotes from opposition figures or attacked journalists. None of the three even tweeted on January 23, other than Reuters as a robot: talk about Old Media.

  How could "Agence France Presse," handpicked to publicize the UNSC trip co-led by France, not even cover the controversy?

  We note that the French Mission to the UN said that Lamek was being misrepresented (the same French Mission has tried to shield Lamek from critical Press questions, which here on Vine Lamek has refused to answer even when entirely audible). Later an AFP quote emerged of Lamek saying that any AU force, even the 100 human rights observers, should significantly focus on the Rwandan border.

  On the evening of January 23 the UN has put up select clips including a mere 16 seconds of French deputy ambassador Lamek, much less than the local Burundian media present at the same press encountered had.  If the UN filmed the press encounters, why did it so selectively edit them?

  More specifically, now, who decided on the edits?

Inner City Press, which is the media which on January 22 asked for the live-stream, has asked the UN, publicly on Twitter, here, and in more detail by e-mail to three top UN spokespeople:

"having just seen that your Office put online edited video from Burundi, must ask: why did UN edit the footage it has, with no Burundi government speaker, and only 16 seconds of France, penholder in the UNSC on Burundi? Please provide the full footage, in response to this request and, separately, online. Would also still like answers to questions below" on Burundi.

 And still no answers at all, the next day. Watch this site.

  The UN spokespeople refused to say, but beyond the pro-government "religious leaders" that they cited, the Council also met with at least some of the concerned members of civil society, and some journalists who inevitably raised the issue of attacks and censorship. This was not mentioned by the UN.

  We're told that Ambassador Albert Shingiro, who blocks the Press on Twitter, told the scribes that US Power said she would send “a strong message to the government of Rwanda." Again, Shingiro blocks the Press on Twitter: some diplomat.

  One of the four handpicked pass-throughs opined that "the fact that Council members presented Nkurunziza with a largely unified message on the different issues was seen as a positive sign that they had come closer to a common position." So they traveled to Burundi to work on their own issues? We'll have more on this - and on the Council's junket-ending meetings in Addis, if not on Oromo protests, than this we've asked about. Watch this site.

   On January 22, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq for the UN's response to Pierre Nkurunziza denying the existence of his party's youth militia, and why there was no video or even audio stream of the Security Council's - and Nkurunziza's -- press statements. Video here.

  Haq replied that "the facilities are difficult," that the UN Spokesperson's Office had reached out to the traveling party for information but hadn't gotten any. The Free UN Coalition for Accesscalls this a failure.

 On January 21 Inner City Press in New York learned both of Pierre Nkurunziza plans to parade "community work" for the Security Council members on January 22 and has been provided with a letter promoting same, here.

  On January 22, even after the Council's meeting with Nkurunziza was over, when Inner City Press asked the UN for a read-out there was none, nor any good explanation of why the UN with its country team could not arrange at least an audio stream of the Council's (and Nkurunziza's) press statements.

  Inner City Press asked the head of the Campaign Against the Third Term (“Halte au troisième mandat”) Vital Nshimirimana about the UNSC visit, and why the AU human rights observers are not yet in place. His answers to Inner City Press:

"As for the deployment of the AU Human rights observers, I would recall that the same was decided back in June following the June 13, 2015 Johannesburg Summit on Burundi. Initially, the number was to be about 70 observers but the government refused and allowed a narrow team.

"My thought over the issue is that Nkurunziza has chosen to humiliate everybody in as much as he does not care about any principle or value. So, the AU and other bodies as well choose to deal with him very carefully for he is a man (and a regime) "irrational," likely to commit whatever crime, insult whomever.....

"With regard to the UNSC visit, I hope this is the very last warning towards a kind of regime likely to commit genocide. They are expected to dually and objectively assess the situation and especially the strength and presence of Imbonerakure, the CNDD-FDD militia.... And this was shown through a huge anti- peacekeeping mission mission to Burundi, MAPROBU rhetoric.
Burundians expect the UNSC support the deployment of such a mission in line with the responsibility to protect (Pillar III) since Burundi is no longer able and is unwilling to protect citizens from crimes against humanity (ongoing from April 2015) and genocide (of which dozens of signs suggest that it is likely to happen and some acts are already undertaken).

Lastly, the UNSC is expected to talk with Nkurunziza and the AU as well regarding peace talks. They should assess Museveni's performance, after what conclude that he should be assigned AU and UN teams (to enhance his capacity) or change him.... I commend your endeavors to keep the world informed about the Burundi crisis."

 We'll have more on this -- including in light the UN Deputy Spokesperson's response to Inner City Press that transcripts may be provided.

  Here are parts of an Inner City Press interview with a journalist attacked by the Nkurunziza government and for that reason anonymous:

In English: "It would be better if the Security Council met for example UPRONA leader Nditije Charles, with the non-governmental branch of the UPRONA party) or his Spokesman Thacien Sibomana. The Council should try to meet civil society but  there is almost no one left to really speak with now in Bujumbura. All those still in Bujumbura, they can't say anything about the abuses of authorithies. If it was possible, they should ask to meet the young men in prison. They should see themselves how the government abuses those young men, with tortures... Tell them visit to the prisoners in Gitega (those who are accused to attempting a coup d'etat) UN has the right to visit prisoners."

  Inner City Press note: another source says "the government moved several detainees from the SNR jails. I highly doubt they'd allow a visit to detainees."

 Tellingly, IWACU reports that bike taxi and motorcycle taxi drivers offered money to protest in favor of Nkurunziza weren't, after the fact, paid: here.
    At the January 21 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the "community works" and meeting(s). Video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you this just because I'm trying to cover it, and I know that you'd said yesterday that the Special Adviser, Jamal Benomar, is in Burundi in part of the trip.  So what I wanted to ask you is, I've seen documents that show that the… the… the… tomorrow, the meeting with the President, [Pierre] Nkurunziza, will involve a demonstration of “community work”, i.e., people have been asked to go and I don't know if it's to show how happy they are — Gitega and Karuzi.  Does the Special Adviser… not the Security Council, does the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General believe that this type of… of… of show is the right one and will they be meeting with UPRONA and other opposition groups or prisoners currently in jail?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, we'll be able to provide details of the meetings once they've taken place.  As you know, the expectation is for the members of the Council to meet with President Nkurunziza.  That hasn't happened so far, but once that's happened, we'll see what the circumstances are and what the views of Mr. Benomar are.



 This is reminiscent of the type of dog-and-pony show Sri Lanka's then President Mahinda Rajapaksa put on for visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and that Inner City Press accompanied and covered(apparently not to the UN's and its allies' liking - it has been Banned from trips since.) But will the UNSC, unlike Ban, have the fortitude or leverage to reject a dog and pony show? Watch this site.

On January 19 at the UN, Inner City Press asked Uruguay's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Jose Luis Cancela, chairing the Security Council debate on Protection of Civilians, about Burundi and the Council's trip. Video here.

  On January 21, Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accessasked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about his stop-over on Addis Ababa, "will you as UK meet with AU before heading to Burundi? About AU's proposed deployment?"

   Rycroft replied, "Yes! Looking forward to meeting @AU_Chergui today. Will also return to Addis with whole UNSC after Burundi."

  In Addis, Chergui had filed the Concept of Operation for the MAPROBU peacekeeping mission. We'll have more on this.

  Burundian civil society has written to Ban seeking the repatriation of the country's peacekeepers. Inner City Press has put the letter from Vital Nshimirimana to Ban online here, and will be asking the UN about it. Watch this site.

  On December 30 Nkurunziza threatened to have his forces attack peacekeepers proposed for the country.


Obtained by Inner City Press

Ladsous' lack of vetting was criticized in the recently released report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic. Earlier, Inner City Press exclusive reported on Ladsous in his October 1, 2015 meeting with Burundi's vice president saying that he is "pragmatic" on human rights.

 On December 16 Inner City Press was banned from questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but learned from the mission MINUSCA that Baratuza was already in Entebbe. Inner City Press asked several Security Council members, then Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December17.

Dujarric told Inner City Press Baratuza's deployment is suspended and he is being repatriated: "based on the information we've received regarding the Lieutenant Colonel, his deployment has been suspended, and he will be repatriated back to Burundi." Video here. Dujarric told Inner City Press this shows the UN system working - on a day when a report on rapes was issued showing UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous not sufficiently vetting for human rights. We'll have more on this.



 Amid the escalating killings in Burundi, last weekend's summary executions in neighborhoods opposed to Pierre Nkurunziza's third term stand out. But Burundi Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza was quoted on December 12 blaming all of the deaths on attempts to steal weapons to free prisoners.

   Inner City Press had heard that Mr. Baratuza was already in the process of being deployed to the UN Peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) even when he was giving these quotes, issuing statements and speaking to state-owned radio, and so asked MINUSCA's acting spokesperson, “Is Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA job?”

  On December 16, hours before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a rare press conference, MINUSCA's acting spokesperson sent this to Inner City Press:

"To: Matthew.Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
From: Vladimir MONTEIRO [at] UN.org
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2015
Subject: ICP question: Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA-related post?
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

"No decision related to Lt Col Baratuza's deployment can be taken before we finish looking into the matter. We can confirm that Lt Col Baratuza is in Entebbe but he has not yet deployed to MINUSCA.  Regards. VNM"

There are some questions about Baratuza, a Colonel in Burundi's Army, being listed by the UN as “Lt. Col.”

  Despite multiple follow-up questions by Inner City Press, Mr. Monteiro - previously a spokesperson for the UN electoral mission in Burundi - replied that “This is what we can say about this issue.”

   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Pressexclusively reported on an October 1, 2015 meeting in which Ladsous told Burundi's Vice President Joseph Butare that he is “pragmatic” on human rights.



 Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman declined to take Inner City Press' questions on December 16, as they did on December 14. Vine here.  Watch this site.

As UN Releases Sri Lanka Report, Ban Says He Can't Investigate w/o Consent or Vote

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 25, updated with link -- After close of business on April 25, the UN belatedly released -- and immediately undermined the recommendations of -- its Panel of Experts report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, eleven days after the UN told Sri Lankan Deputy Permanent Representative Shavendra Silva it would be released in 36 hours.

The Report was released along with a page and a half cover letter by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, which in pertinent part states that

“In regard to the recommendation that he establish an international investigation mechanism, the Secretary-General is advised that this will require host country consent or a decision from Member States through an appropriate intergovernmental forum.”

Ban "is advised" by whom? This is a huge letdown, and some say abdication. We will have more on this.

Click here to view UN-released report.

Inner City Press, which obtained and quickly up online Monday morning a leaked copy of the report, asked Silva about the report and its delayed release late Monday afternoon in front of the UN Security Council, which Silva visited for more than a half hour.

Silva said he'd seen the publication on Inner City Press, as well as the day's UN noon briefing, at which questions about the involvement of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar were left unanswered.

Silva is quoted in the Panel's report, as well as his role in the 58th Battalion, which moved in on the so-called No Fire Zones. He was polite but non committal.

Ban's undermining of the Report's recommendation must make him, and the Rajapaksa and certain others, relieved.

Ban's spokesperson's office has refused to answer questions about Nambiar, not only in the briefing but also in writing. On Monday before the release of the Report by the UN, Inner City Press asked some factual questions, militating for a press conference by the Panel members and Mr. Nambiar:

Paragraph 171 states that “Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted... following a particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa.”

Factual questions: since Gotabaya Rajapaksa was and is the Defense Secretary, is this just a typo?

Who is the Panel saying indicated the route: Basil or Gotabya Rajapaksa?

And when specifically did the OSSG know about the Feb 22 meeting between Mohan Peiris and the Panel, as set forth in Annex 2 of the Report?

Also please state the role of Mr. Nambiar in reviewing the report, please disclose how much was spent by the UN in preparing the report, please state whether the Panel or any member traveled to Sri Lanka and if not, why not, and please deny or confirm and describe any meeting by any Sri Lanka government official since the Panel's work began.

None of these questions have been answered. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, UN Denies “Secret” Meeting, Won't Say If Report Public

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 7 -- The UN's evasiveness on the meetings, travel and report of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel on Sri Lanka continued on March 7, with Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky telling Inner City Press that it is up to the Panel to speak for itself, even to decide if its report should be public.

Nesirky called “shaky” reporting that has suggested a secret February 23 meeting, telling Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking pictures, that was not the case.”

Inner City Press asked, were the members of Ban's panel in town, in New York? Even this Nesirky would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say. But where is the Panel?

Then Nesirky said that deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be public?

That will be up to the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General.

Inner City Press covered a surprise meeting on February 23 between Ban and Sri Lankan officials including the Attorney General and ex-general Shavendra Silva, responsible for what UN officials called the “bloodbath on the beach” in May 2009.

At the time, Inner City Press repeatedly asked Nesirky what relation that meeting had with the work of Ban's panel and Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission. Nesirky would not relate them in any way.

On March 6, the Sri Lanka Sunday Times reported that the Sri Lankan delegation on February 23, after the meeting exclusively reported by Inner City Press, met with Ban's panel, and that the panel's deadline was extended two or three weeks. Immediately upon seeing the article, Inner City Press sent questions by e-mail to Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq on the morning of March 6:

A UN source is quoted in the Sri Lanka Sunday Times that after the meeting between Messrs. Ban, Nambiar, Haysum, et al and Sri Lanka's Attorney General and External Affairs minister on February 23 which you have told me was about reconstruction and rehabilitation,

1) the two Sri Lanka official met with Mr. Ban's Panel -- true or false? If true, why kept secret, and does this replace the trip to Sri Lanka Ban has repeatedly said is allowed by Mahinda Rajapaksa's flexibility?

2) the deadline for the Panel, set for March 1, has been extended “two to three weeks” - true or false? If true, why was this not announced, and extended for what purpose?

Yes or no: will the report be made public?

Please provide a complete list of attendees of the Ban meeting, and of the reported meeting afterward with Mr. Ban's Panel.

Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq never answered or even confirmed receipt of these questions. More than 24 hours after submitting the questions, at the March 7 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to answer them, to respond to the Sunday Leader story, and to state if Ban's Panel will travel to Sri Lanka (as Ban has repeatedly claimed).

Nesirky called the Sunday Leader's reporting “shaky” in suggesting a secret meeting, emphasizing to Inner City Press “you know, you were there taking pictures, that was not the case.”

Inner City Press asked, were the members of Ban's panel in New York? Even this Nesirky would not answer, saying it is up to the Panel to say. But where is the Panel?

Nesirky said that deadline is “this month.” Inner City Press asked, will it be public?

That will be up to the panel, Nesirky said, in consultation with the Secretary General. We'll see.

Meanwhile, former Sri Lanka UN ambassador HMGS Palihakkara, a member of Mahinda Rajapaksa's LLRC, was in New York at the same time, sources say, as part of Ban's advisory group on disarmament. So an LLRC member was in New York at the time -- were the members of Ban's panel? Watch this site.

With UN Panel Blocked from Sri Lanka, Ban Says “There Was An Agreement"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- On Sri Lanka, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday insisted to Inner City Press that “there was an agreement” and that his “Panel will visit Sri Lanka.”

But not only have seven weeks gone by since Ban praised President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his “flexibility” and announced his Panel on Accountability would go -- since then, a range of UN officials have acknowledged that Sri Lanka has now refused to let the UN Panel go and speak with Rajapaksa's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission.

Inner City Press has it from both sides that the UN is now offering a mere video conference call or even answers to written questions.

So much for the agreement.

Left unanswered, still, is with whom the stated agreement was.

From the UN's transcript of Q&A with Mr. Ban on Tuesday:

Inner City Press: Sri Lanka – I need to ask you this. In both of your two last monthly press conferences, you said that your Panel was going to travel to the country, you praised President Rajapaksa’s flexibility. It now appears, and I’ve now heard from people on both sides that the Panel is probably not going to go, that they’ve offered a video conference. I just wondered what happened. Who did you speak with before you said that they could go and how do you read this now, with their failure to go, as the deadline approaches?

SG Ban: I can tell you that there was an agreement and that my Panel will visit Sri Lanka and they are still discussing about the format and their role in Sri Lanka. And whenever it is decided, I will let you know.

{Inner City Press: If they don't go, their work is not finished?}

SG Ban: I didn’t say that they [wouldn’t] go.

{Inner City Press: They will go?}

SG Ban: They will try to go anyway.

Watch this site.

Blocked from Sri Lanka, UN Panel Offers Video Conference or Written Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- Seven weeks after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press that his Panel on Accountability could travel to Sri Lanka due to President Mahinda Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” the UN has sunk so low as to propose a conference call by video, or even just written questions and answer, instead of any visit, Inner City Press has learned.

In interviews with different sides, Inner City Press has learned that a series of options has now been proposed, starting with a visit to New York by Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission.

Rajapaksa's LLRC has said it will only speak with the Executive Office of the Secretary General, not Ban's panel -- the Panel would “sit in” on the talks, was the Sri Lankan proposal.

The UN has also proposed a video conference call, or answers to a series of written questions about accountability. All in all, strikingly different than what Ban claimed on December 17 -- that his panel could go to Sri Lanka -- and that Ban repeated to Inner City Press on January 14.

After that, and after Ban's Spokesperson's Office refused repeatedly to answer questions about Ban's statement and who he'd spoken with before making them, while on his current ongoing trip Ban gave a speech at Oxford, after which he replied to a question by saying that his Panel “has not yet been able to complete its mission. They are still negotiating with the Sri Lankan Government.”

On February 4, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office in writing and in person to explain this statement (as well as Ban's statement that he had been in Sri Lanka twice since May 2009).

The UN did not answer the written questions -- and still hasn't -- so at the February 4 noon briefing Inner City Press asked how Ban's statement squares with the previous statement that travel to Sri Lanka, which has been blocked by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa is “not essential.”

Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq answered that Ban's Panel “has been discussing the proper arrangements to see if they can have such arrangements made.”

Haq said that of the Panel that “they do believe it is desirable to travel to Sri Lanka, but not essential.”

Now it seems that the UN would settle for a mere video conference call, or even written answers to questions. How could that constitute “completing the mission”?

From the UN's February 4, 2011 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask on Sri Lanka; there was some quotes given out of Ban Ki-moon’s responses at his Oxford speech afterward. He was asked a question about Sri Lanka, and he said that his panel, quote, “has not been able to complete their initial stage”. I just wanted to know if that’s actually what he said and if that, how that squares with the idea that it’s not essential to go to Sri Lanka.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq: In terms of what he actually said, it’s available in our — if you go to the off-the-cuff part of our website, the questions and answers that he had at Oxford are posted there. So, you could see it that way.

Inner City Press: How does that square with the idea that travelling to Sri Lanka is not essential? Why have they not been able to complete their work, if that’s not the thing missing?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: As you are aware, the panel has been discussing proper arrangements, to see whether it can have such arrangements made. The panel has made it clear that they do believe that it is desirable to travel to Sri Lanka, but not essential. And that has been their consistent position.

Is it consistent to now be offering video conference or written questions? Watch this site