On Syria, UNSC Cites Barrel Bombs, Not Government Helicopters, Syria's Version

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 5 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura came to the UN Security Council stakeout on April 24, Inner City Press asked him about criticism of how he has run his office to date. De Mistura declined to respond. But see below.

 On May 30, the UN Spokesperson's Office issued a statement for de Mistura, condemning "the death of at least 70 civilians in Syria's northern Aleppo province by barrel bombs dropped from government helicopters."  The statement, full text here, said that "all evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of the civilian victims in the Syrian conflict have been caused by the use of such indiscriminate aerial weapons." Some were sure to wonder, what about ISIS?

  On June 5, the day after a briefing by UN OCHA's John Ging, the Security Council issued a press statement mentioning barrel bombs but NOT "government helicopters," as Mistura put it. The full Security Council statement is below.

  Inner City Press has also seen Syria's June 4 letter to the Council, which said "the Syrian Arab Army targeted a location in the neighborhood of 'Al-bab' in Aleppo, where the terrorist groups were holding a meeting to plan an attack on the city of Aleppo. The information available confirms the death of 81 terrorists. The incident that happened in the 'Al-Sha'ar' neighborhood in Aleppo was an explosion of weapons warehouse used by terrorists during their activities in the city of Aleppo. The incident resulted in the death of a number of terrorists and civilians."

Here, Roshomon-like, is the UNSC Press Statement of June 5:

The members of the Security Council were briefed by Mr. John Ging, Operations Director of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs regarding the recent upsurge of violence in Aleppo.

The members of the Security Council expressed their deep concern at the continued high level of violence in Syria and condemned all violence directed against civilians and civilian infrastructure, including medical facilities. They expressed outrage at all attacks against civilians, as well as indiscriminate attacks, including those involving shelling and aerial bombardment, such as the use of barrel bombs, which have reportedly been extensively used in recent days in Aleppo Governorate and other areas throughout Syria, leaving many dead and injured civilians, including children.  

The members of the Security Council recalled that all obligations under international humanitarian law must be respected in all circumstances by all parties. They recalled, in particular, the obligation to distinguish between civilian populations and combatants, and the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, and attacks against civilians and civilian objects. The members of the Security Council reiterated their call on all parties to immediately implement in full the provisions of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2013),  2165 (2014) and 2191 (2014) and of the Presidential Statement of 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15).

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the primary responsibility of the Syrian Authorities to protect the population in Syria and reiterated that parties to the armed conflict bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians.

The members of the Security Council condemned increased terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and called on all parties to commit to putting an end to terrorist acts perpetrated by such organisations and individuals and reminded that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, international refugee and international humanitarian law.

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

The members of the Security Council reiterated that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process with a view to full implementation of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. In this respect, they expressed their full support for the role and efforts of the Special Envoy, of the Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura.

  But as de Mistura holds a new round on consultations in Geneva, with all press coverage Banned, he is belatedly replacing his principal political affairs officer with one Stephanie Koury, Inner City Press is informed, who in Iraq headed the UN's Kirkuk office, as well as a stint in another of the UN's failed (or turned-over) mediation missions, in Yemen, see below.

 Previously, Inner City Press reported on how de Mistura ingratiated himself to Ban Ki-moon by hiring and promoting Ban's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee while serving as envoy in Iraq. (Some of that reported wascensored, but not on Inner City Press.) This led to push-back from the UN, which continues to the day - something that the new Free UN Coalition for Access opposes.

  Last week the UN said of de Mistura's upcoming five to six weeks of talks on Syria in Geneva that there will be no interviews or stakeouts, nor even any photo-sprays, during all that time. FUNCA opposes this closing-down of the UN as well.

  A picture has emerged of de Mistura's running of the UN's Syria office, in which "cronies" from his time in Iraq and after that Afghanistan have been favored in jobs, with very little to show for it.

  De Mistura's functional political affairs chief, for example, has been Elpida Rouka, who was de Mistura's "Special Assistant" in Iraq. Her i-Phone composed political memos have been exclusively mocked to Inner City Press by close associates of de Mistura, but de Mistura declared her the only authorized channel of "substantive" information to UN Headquarters in New York.

 At a key moment in de Mistura's doomed push for a "freeze" in Aleppo, Inner City Presss is exclusively informed that de Mistura went with, over ceasefire expert Julian Hottinger, one Matt Waldman, listed as an adviser not only of de Mistura on Syria but also of the European Institute for Peace, which as Inner City Press has reported de Mistura remains president of the Board of Governors.

 (Back in September 2014, Inner City Press asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson, "please confirm or deny that Mr. de Mistura will be (allowed to be) based in Brussels, and separate state his contract status: When Actually Employed? Paid at USG level? Is he being allowed to continue working with / for any non-UN organization, if so which, and what review of possible conflicts of interest was made, and by whom?")

  One might think that the UN's Syria envoy position is or should be a full time job, without outside second positions like continuing as president of the board of a group like the European Institute for Peace. But this is the UN, where the special representative on Cyprus Alexander Downer was allowed to work full time at an investment bank or consultancy Bespoke Approach, Tony Blair as Middle East Quartet representative and businessman, and now a similar UNdisclosed arrangement in Yemen.

(Inner City Press has four times asked simple public financial disclosure questions about Ban's new Yemen envoy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed, without answer.)

  All of the above said, de Mistura is a pleasant man; while in Afghanistan he pledged to get to the bottom of the murder of UN staffer Louis Maxwell there although he never did (nor did others in today's UN).  But Inner City Press - and FUNCA - are committed to a closely-covered and open UN, and the trend, from the top down, is in quite the opposite direction. Here was the UN's "Note to Correspondents" -

The Geneva Consultations on Syria will begin next week Monday, 4 May, at the Palais des Nations and last for an initial period of five to six weeks.

The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura has invited as many of the parties as possible, primarily the Syrian parties (government, opposition and civil society), as well as the regional and international stakeholders, to discuss with the Special Envoy, the dire situation in Syria today and to provide their candid views on where we stand vis-a-vis implementation of the Geneva Communiqué almost three years since it was adopted.

The Special Envoy and the Deputy Special Envoy, Ramzy Ezzeldine Ramzy, will conduct closed and separate consultations with each party.

There will be no photo opportunities, no stakeouts, and no interviews while the consultations are being conducted at the Palais. However, periodic photo and video feeds will be provided by UN Photo and UN Television.

The UNOG Spokesman and Director, a.i., of the UN Information Service in Geneva, and the Office of the Special Envoy's Public Information Officer, will provide periodic updates to the Geneva Press Corps and others, as and when appropriate and necessary.

No major public announcements are expected during, or at the conclusion of, these Consultations. The Special Envoy will assess the progress of his stock-taking at the end of the process and report to the Secretary-General with his findings and recommendations.

Thank you for understanding.  

  Thank you indeed.

 Back on April 24, Inner City Press asked de Mistura if the Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen changed any of the dynamics on Syria. 

  In reply, de Mistura told Inner City Press that "everything in the region these days is connected." He added that he is focused on Syria.

 Inner City Press also asked de Mistura about criticism made by his former adviser Mouin Rabbani on Qatar's Al Jazeera TV, that Mistura is out of his depth and not up for the task.

 De Mistura replied, I will not respond, you would do the same, if one of your ex-colleagues...

  Inner City Press asked the question because it hadn't been asked, tellingly. 

 Dina Kawar said Mistura “mentioned what he will do next month in Geneva, holding separate meetings with the Syrian parties, representatives of the civil society and regional and international actors. He will provide his assessment to the Secretary General and keep the Security Council informed,” Kawar said, taking no questions.

  Staffan de Mistura emerged, saying he would take two or three questions. He said, “the only way is to test, a stress test,” a phrase like his previous “freeze.” He said, “by end of June we should be in the position to reassess whether any convergence on substance and report to the Secretary General.”

  De Mistura said, “This is not Geneva Three, this is a series of consultation, one to one. We can convene and ask everyone to come and not exclude anyone.. Iran is a member country of the UN, it is a major play in the region, it has influence in Syria. The UN has the right, and will be inviting everyone.”

  Unlike Montreux, it was observed by... one wag.

  Back on April 16, that the Syrian chemical weapons victim and doctor who briefed the UN Security Council did so behind closed doors, with no UN Television coverage, was a product of the Council's rules.

  It was an “Arria formula” meeting, which was not be listed in the UN Journal or even on the blue electronic signs outside it. (The sign said the meeting was about "nutrition.")

  Afterward chemical weapons victim Qusai Zakarya took some questions in the hall, before again going behind closed doors of the UN Censorship Alliance, see below.

  Inner City Press in this public space asked Qusai Zakarya what he thought of UN envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura.

Qusai Zakarya said replied to Inner City Press, "I think Staffan de Mistura is a hypocrite. I think his very disgusting attempt to shine up the image of the regime is exposed to the Syrian people and to a nlot of members of the international community. His offer on freezes was a joke. If he really cared about saving lives he would have convinced the regime to stop using its fire power. We have a lot of outrage against his attempts, the deal he was trying to offer, it's just another false attempt to shine up the image of the regime."

   Inner City Press asked him if he would meet with any UN official. “I can't answer that questio right now,” he said. Then the convoy went to the clubhouse of the UN Censorship Alliance, which had sent notice only to those who pay it money: "They will have just presented their accounts in front of the UN Security Council at an Arria-formula meeting on Syria Chemical Weapons."

     But why would the doctors, in holding a supposed press conference afterward, not do so in the UN Press Briefing Room on UNTV, as can be done by any NGO or individual as long as sponsored by a member state? 

    Instead, the sequel  show was also behind closed door, in the UN Censorship Alliance (UNCA), not on UNTV. This is the same UNCA which hosted former Syrian Coalition head Ahmad al Jarba, allowing him to claim he had a “UN press briefing.”  It is a scam.

  And so on April 24 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Dujarric if Jarba's successor, after Hadi al Bahra, Khaled Khoja will hold a Q&A session in the open UN Press Briefing Room. We'll see.

    UNCA and its board members have, for example, sought to get other journalists thrown out of the UN, for reporting on the financial relationship of UNCA's then and now president Giampaolo Pioli with an alleged war criminal, accepting rent money from him and later agree to screen his war crimes denial film inside the UN, under the UNCA banner.  If one has a case to make, this is not the place to make it.

  Even since its outright censorship bid, the way UNCA is run gives less and less confidence. On April 10, the UN Spokesperson's Office announced over its public address system that "in a few short moments in the UNCA room there will be a press conference by a State Department official."

   But as Inner City Press immediately reported, it wasn't any "press conference" -- it was off the record spin, typical of this UNCA now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance (the invitation they send to those who pay UNCA money is below.)

  Just before 5 pm, the UN Spokesperson's Office made a second public address system announcement: it was NOT a press conference, but rather an off the record presentation by the US State Department.

  All this in the big room the UN gives to UNCA, its Censorship Alliance. Why is the UN involved in this in any way at all?

  The announcement by UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli, sent only to those who pay UNCA money (then forwarded to Inner City Press along with messages of shock and disgust) said

"For correspondents interested in an informal off-the-record meeting with [the] Deputy Director, Media Hub of the Americas, U.S. Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs, please join us in the UNCA Meeting Room, Friday, April 10th at 3:30pm.

"The meeting will be to explain the work of the State Department Public Affairs bureau that works with international media, to provide assistance in gaining better access to State Department officials and information, in addition to presenting the work done in the Media Hub of the Americas where the Director is the State Department spokesperson in Spanish and Portuguese for regional media and Spain and Portugal.

Thank you,

Giampaolo Pioli
UNCA President"
  
 Pioli's invite linked to a self-description of this US Bureau of Public Affairs, that “PA/IME works in close collaboration with State Department and interagency colleagues to create and manage tools to ensure accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy by major international media.”

    UNCA represents only part of the UN press corps. This writer, for example, quit the group after 2012.  UNCA is said by UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to receive the first question in the UN Press Briefing Room “by tradition,” even after UNCA's Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for itsreporting about Sri Lanka, UN Peacekeeping and colonialism (Herve Ladsous) among other topics.

 UNCA did nothing when Ladsous adopted the policy of refusing to answer any questions from the investigative Press, and having his spokespeople physically grab the UNTV microphone to try to avoid the questions being heard.

  Now UNCA wants to facilitate “accurate coverage of U.S. foreign policy.” Does it perform this service for other countries?

    Inner City Press, like the new Free UN Coalition for Access which it co-founded after quitting UNCA, is not against "accurate coverage of US foreign policy." Last month, Inner City Press asked the US State Department about Yemen (including the decision not to evacuate Yemeni Americans from the country), Cuba (the US restrictions on its diplomats at the UN), the Maldives,Middle East and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each case, Inner City Press reported the answers in full, where possible with video.

  But why provide this platform for one country and not others? Earlier on April 10 UNCA will have a presentation by a former US CIA employee who served in Saipan, Korea, Vietnam and "Burma," as the UNCA notice puts it.

  What has happened to this UNCA under Pioli and presumably current Executive Committee members fromReuters, the US Broadcast Board of Governors and ANSA? And how now can the UN continue to “partner” with UNCA, exclusively, using this partial group as a proxy for the wider press corps? 

 Earlier on April 9, when the UN with little notice canceled its question and answer noon briefing in deference to a"press encounter" with Ban Ki-moon at which Dujarric handpicked the questioners and Ban notably did not call for a halt or even pause in airstrikes on Yemen, UNCA said nothing. (They will, however, have a "Prosecco toast" with Ban later in the month.)

 The Free UN Coalition spoke up in criticism, as here. We'll have more on and of this.

   

On South Sudan, UNSC Statement Threatens Sanctions, Cites Bentiu But Not UNMISS or Ladsous Issues, CAR Rapes to GA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- Three days after the UN's envoy to South Sudan Ellen Loj spoke to the Security Council and to the Press at the Council stakeout on May 14, on Sunday evening the UN Security Council issued a rambling Press Statement of more than 600 words condemning both sides and again threatening sanctions, see below.

  The Council's statement mentions for example the UNMISS camp at Bentiu, but none of the issues raised to and by Loj at her May 14 stakeout and May 15 press conference. Video here.

   Inner City Press on May 15 asked Loj more specifically about the UN Mission in South Sudan base in Bentiu, and more generally about proposals to lift UN immunity, called Code Blue, in the wake of the alleged rape of children in Central African Republic by French "peacekeepers" in the Sangaris force, allegedly covered up by French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous.

  (While the Security Council, on which France has one of five permanent veto-wielding seats, has taken no action on this issue, the General Assembly's Fifth (Budget) Committee has summoned Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff to a close door meeting, as Inner City Press first reported.)

  Loj acknowledged that the new Bentiu camp she had referred to the day prior was not yet ready, and that SPLA intelligence are sometimes in front of the existing camp. She again noted camp residents, not only in Bentiu but also in Juba, cutting the wires of the fence. Afterward, her and one of Ladsous' spokespeople said that journalists are free to visit the Bentui camp (although Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have heard differently; we hope to have more on this.)

  Here is the Security Council's May 17 press statement:

The following Security Council press statement was issued today by Council President Raimonda Murmokaité (Lithuania):

On 14 May, the members of the Security Council were briefed by Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ellen Margrethe Løj on the situation in South Sudan.

The members of the Security Council expressed condemnation at the renewed and ongoing large-scale violence in Unity State caused by the recent Government of South Sudan offensive and resulting in the displacement of more than 100,000 civilians and the suspension of nearly all activity and delivery of aid to populations in the affected areas, over 300,000 civilians, by humanitarian agencies and organizations.  The members of the Security Council further expressed their condemnation of the large-scale attack initiated on 15 May by the SPLM/A (in Opposition) on the town of Malakal, in Upper Nile State. 

The members of the Security Council underlined their grave concern that as a result of violence and increased insecurity since the beginning of the conflict, more than 50,000 internally displaced persons have sought shelter and assistance at the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) camp in Bentiu, and an additional nearly 25,000 at the UNMISS camp in Malakal, only further magnifying a dire humanitarian crisis.

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the repeated violations of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement accepted and signed by the Republic of South Sudan and the SPLM/A (in Opposition) on 23 January 2014, and underscored that there is no military solution to this conflict that has now lasted more than 17 months.  

The members of the Security Council called upon all parties to engage meaningfully in the peace process so as to bring about a political solution to the crisis and an end to the conflict.  They acknowledged the IGAD-led peace process and urged renewed regional and international efforts to swiftly implement a common plan and to table a reasonable and comprehensive solution to end the crisis in South Sudan.  In this context, they reiterated their willingness to impose sanctions against those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan as established in resolution 2206 (2015), and noted the 24 March 2015 African Union Peace and Security Council Communiqué on South Sudan and the 12 May 2015 African Union Commission Chairperson’s Statement on South Sudan in this regard.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for UNMISS peacekeepers and for the vital mandate they are performing under very difficult conditions, including to protect civilians in South Sudan.  They demanded that all parties end intimidation and harassment against UNMISS and humanitarian personnel, cease ongoing restrictions on freedom of movement, and allow UNMISS to fully implement its mandate.  They further demanded full adherence to the Status of Forces Agreement and permission for the deployment of essential assets and enablers currently being blocked by the Government of South Sudan.  The members of the Security Council underscored the importance of close cooperation and communication between UNMISS and the Government in addressing these issues.

The members of the Security Council condemned, and reiterated their demand for an immediate end to, all human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.  They reiterated that those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights must be held accountable and that the Government of South Sudan bears the primary responsibility to protect civilians within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, including from potential crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Security Council renewed its calls for the parties to the conflict to allow and facilitate the full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel, equipment and supplies to all those in need and timely delivery of humanitarian assistance in accordance with relevant provisions of international law and United Nations guiding principles of humanitarian assistance.

 Loj said that as a former diplomat she did not favor any blanket lifting of immunity. She said she has taken sexual abuse seriously, then said she is strict about curfew. One was left wondering how the UN will reform itself, if it ever will.  Let's see how you write this up, Loj genially said. Well here it is.

May 14 Video here.

 Loosely transcribed by Inner City Press (video here), Loj replied on May 14

"Let me say what UNMIS has undertaken in collaboration with IOM [the International Organization for Migration]. Primarily the project is primarily financed by the Dutch government. It’s actually a new site for the camp, on higher ground and with better drainage, because the Bentiu camp was totally flooded during the last rainy season. That work is being undertaken as of this week. We are hoping to get it finished…

As far as the fence, the problem with the fence is not that UNMIS is not putting up the fence. It’s that even if the fence were there, the problem with the fence is that the IDPs themselves cross the fence  in order to sneak out...

Yes, we have had troubles with the SPLA,  right outside the gates, and we have tried to solve it...We are doing our utmost to ensure that nobody enters the camp with weapons. We are doing regular searches in all camps … for alcohol and illegal substances…"

  She then said that UNMISS installed lights, but people break them. There was more to ask, including from great reporters on the bround. Inner City Press asked for another question but was told no, to ask on May 15. Watch this site.

After the May 14 stakeout, Loj told a story about UN staff in Liberia telling her all about Inner City Press, which after time she associated with her time on the UN Security Council. She has seen the UN from that position and now two countries.

Day After ICP Asks UN of Sudan Ouster, Reuters Runs Answer With No Credit

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 25, more here -- Amid charges that the UN in Sudan, including Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping in Darfur, has colluded with the authorities in Khartoum to cover up rapes and killing, now the UN's Resident Coordinator Ali Al Za'tari has been ordered to leave Sudan by January 2, Inner City Press first reportedearlier today.

  On December 24, Inner City Press similarly exclusively reported and then asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about UNDP Country Director Yvonne Helle being ordered out of Sudan, citing her and Al-Za'tari's e-mails. Video here.

  A full day after that, Reuters reported on Helle's ouster -- typically, for Reuters, with no credit to the Press' prior exclusive story. (Reuters' UN bureau chief has said he has a policy of not crediting Inner City Press' exclusive, and has gone to far as to censor, Sudan-style, his "for the record" anti-Press complains to the UN, click here for that, via EFF's ChillingEffect.org).

 Now, after UN Spokesman Dujarric issued two statements on the afternoon and evening of December 25 responsive to the question Inner City Press asked at the December 24 noon briefing, Reuters has run a piece with no fewer than eight journalists listed, and of course no credit. This is policy, untransparenty (when Inner City Press asked top Reuters brass including Stephen J. Adler for Reuters policy on crediting, none was provided.)
 But eight journalists?

  The above-referenced Reuters UN bureau chief, it must be noted, under his own byline sought to exonerate Ladsous, reporting without context complaints made to Ladsous about another UN staff member, without mentioning Ladsous' own role in covering up rapes in the DR Congo and now Darfur. Reuters has not reported the complaints against Ladsous, even as a Permanent Three mission on the Security Council has confirmed to Inner City Press its receipt of the letter.

   On December 24, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Sudan having just similarly "PNG-ed" or declared persona non-grata the Sudan Country Director of the UN Development Program Yvonne Helle, with Za'tari barely pushing back against the government.

  Dujarric said that host countries' ordered to PNG a UN staff member are treated seriously and should be sent to, and considered and acted on by, Ban's Secretariat in New York. But Dujarric in the 18 hours after Inner City Press asked about Helle has not returned with any information or answer. Then Reuters published its story, with no credit.

   

On Mali, French PR Delattre Refused Question on Press Elements, Video Here, Then MINUSMA Calls It Press Statement

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- The UN Security Council speaks in at least four different ways: resolutions, Presidential Statements, Press Statements and the weakest form of action, "Elements to the Press."

  When French Ambassador Francois Delattre came to the UN Security Council stakeout on March 4 as Council president he read out "Elements to the Press about Mali. 

  Inner City Press twice asked, Question on Mali? But Delattre for the second time in two days said, "I have to run" and declined to answer.Video here and embedded below.

   Now the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, MINUSMA, has publicly mis-characterized the Elements to the Press that Delattre read out as a Press Statement or "Declaration a la Presse," including in a tweet at-naming the French Mission to the UN, which offered no correction. It was also e-mailed out (which should be similarly corrected) and put here on the MINUSMA Facebook page.

   Perhaps France, and ultimate MINUSMA boss Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping, would have preferred the stronger form, Press Statement, to Elements to the Press. But the are different, and it is the job of a Security Council president to make sure the two are not mistaken or mis-represented, particularly not by a UN mission.

  Maybe if Delattre has deigned to take the question(s) about Mali, alongside the three hand-picked questions he did take about Libya, it would have been more difficult to mis-describe the Elements to the Press he read out as a formal Press Statement.

  So will this be fixed? Or will the running continue? Watch this site.

  Here is what Delattre read, and questions he refused to answer.

"We heard a briefing by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Mali, Mr Mongi Hamdi, who gave us an update on the Algiers peace talks and the Agreement on Peace and Security in Mali initialed on 1 March 2015... We encourage the armed groups of the coordination to initial the agreement."

  Inner City Press asked, what about the MNLA not signing? But Delattre said, for the second time in two days, "I have to run" -- then proceeded to stand to the side of the stakeout, decidedly NOT running. 

Update: French mission spokesperson Thierry Caboche has replied that the "Press Elements agreed by UNSC on Mali encourage Coordination groups, including MNLA, to initial Algiers agreement."

 It's appreciated, and added here in full - but since the Elements to the Press in the first paragraph cites that "Agreement on Peace and Security in Mali initialed on 1 March 2015 by representatives of the Malian Government, one of the coalition of armed groups Platform' and all members of the international mediation team" then never names the MNLA, the Mali question should have been taken and answered, alongside fully three questions on Libya.

    Inner City Press also asked about the UN's "independent" report into UN Peacekeepers shooting at protesters (who were angry about the UN using attack helicopters, but that's another story).

  Delattre did not answer about this report, which one would think like the report on the Tabit rapes in Darfur also covered by UN Peacekeeping through its UNAMID mission, would go to the Security Council.

  On February 26, two days before Delattre took over as Security Council President, the UN announced that "the high-level team mandated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into the violent protests that took place in Gao, Mali, on 27 January is concluding an eight-day visit to Mali.

    “During this visit, the team met with the Malian national authorities, the authorities of the region of Gao, the national police and the civil protection service in Gao, representatives of MINUSMA, local leaders from the Cadre de Concertation des Notables de Gao, the associations who organized the protests on 27 January, authorities from the hospitals that received the victims, opposition parties, and several other interlocutors who could help shed light on the events. The team also spoke to the protestors who were injured during these events, and visited the bereaved families, to whom they expressed condolences.

  The team was "composed of three independent experts with extensive international experience: Bacre Waly Ndiaye (Senegal), Mark Kroeker (US) and Ralph Zacklin (UK)."

     Back on January 29, the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon  “deplores the incidents that took place on 27 January during a demonstration in front of the MINUSMA base in Gao town in the north of Mali. He is saddened by the violence that surrounded the demonstration and the reported death of at least 3 protesters and the injury of several others.”

   “The inquiry team will now travel to New York to present its preliminary report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It will present its final report by the end of March 2015,” the UN on Thursday said.

  What is the Security Council's role? Shouldn't the Security Council president for March, M. Delattre of France, answer this question?

   Back on January 6 when the UN Security Council met about Mali, Inner City Press waited and then asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous what he has been doing to protect the peacekeepers he is responsible for.  As is his pattern -- actually, his stated policy -- he refused to answer.

    It was Malian Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop, and not Ladsous, who on January 6 distributed his speech and came to take Press questions.

  Inner City Press asked Diop about the Mali talks in Algiers, and about the impact of Libya. On the latter, Diop said that “in 2012 the Mali crisis started when the war started in Libya and many Malian elements who were part of the Libyan army decided to come back home with the arms and ammunition. This started the destabilization of Mali.”

   Diop added, "In the southern part of Libya there is a group that has declared allegiance to the Islamic State.” (When asked to name the group he could not or would not.)

   The Libya talks have been indefinitely postponed. A Greek ship near Derna was bombed -- Inner City Press on January 5 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric by whom; he said the UN does not know.  The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN Peacekeepingwhy the speeches of Ladsous, unlike other UN officials, are not made available.

  Jump-cut forward to March 4, when after Elements to the Press on Mali and a read out on Libya, all three of the French Mission or #FrPrez handpicked questions -- France 24, Agence France Presse then Voice of America -- were about Libya. Inner City Press said twice, "Question on Mali?"

  Delattre smiled and said, I have to run, I know it is the second time.

  On March 3 Delattre used the same "I have to run" line to not answer a question about Burundi, where France is set to lead a Council trip on March 13, the draft Terms of Reference for which (which Inner City Press published here) do no mention the Cibitoke massacre nor opine if a third Presidential term would violate the Arusha agreement, which is cited.

 Later, the French mission put up the Mali "Elements to the Press," with no mention that a question about them had been asked, on microphone, and that Delattre had again said, "I have to run."

  We are compelled to note that UN Peacekeeping, run by France four times in a row most recently by Ladsous who also does not answer Press questions, needs to answer when its personnel shoot at demonstrators, as recently happened in Haiti too. 

  But there are no answers. Nor on the sale of UN posts in the DR Congo and Haiti by Deputy Permanent Representative Ouattara of Cote d'Ivoire, here. We'll have more on this.

   

As In Baghdad UN Convoy Attacked, Staff Safe, UN Security Council / Ban Ki-moon Statements to Come, UNlike for Leon in Libya?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 16, more here -- After a UN convoy in Baghdad was attacked, UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov there issued a statement on the UN mission's website, and a tweet.

  Inner City Press asked Mladenov if a statement from the UN in New York - from the Security Council or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon -- would help.

 

 Mladenov replied that he had put out a statement, which is good.

  But when does the UN Security Council, and Ban, issue statements? A week ago the UN (formerly EU) envoy to Libya Bernardino Leon was targeted by a car bomb. No Security Council press statement - although one was issued later in the week when the empty embassies of Egypt and the UAE in Libya were bombed. (Now a hotel in Benghazi is being hit with air strikes, but that's another story.)

   Was there no statement about the attack on Leon at Leon's request? Was there a desire not to recognize or publicize this attack on the UN? And what of the attack now in Baghdad, where the UN suffered the Canal Hotel bombing in the past? We've asked, and we'll see.

  Back on November 9, hours after a bombing in Libya near UN envoy Bernardino Leon, which came after Libya Dawn in Tripoli called him not impartial and persona non grata, still the UN in New York had not put out any statement at all.

  Instead, UN Department of Political Affairs' new spokesman merely selectively emailed to some Western media. No statement; nothing on the UNSMIL mission's web site. To new Free UN Coalition for Access, this is a new low in UN (non) communications.

 Back on November 4 when the UN Security Council met about Libya behind closed doors, the Press outside at the stakeout was repeatedly told that Leon would come and take questions at the stakeout.

 This is what the replaced Tarek Mitri did, each time he briefed the Security Council. With Leon being criticized inside Libya it would seem he'd have all the more reason to speak.

  But he did not. When he came out he barely broke stride -- Inner City Press took a photograph, blurred -- while saying the new Security Council Gary Quinlan of Australia would speak later. When Quinlan did, it was a bland "Press Elements."

  Still the scribes churned it. At 8:15 pm Agence France Presse bragged that it had "obtained" a French-drafted request to put Ansar al-Sharia, Benghazi and Derna, on the Al Qaeda sanctions list. 

"A copy of the French-led request to the Al-Qaeda sanctions committee was obtained by AFP." Wonder how...

   Reuters issued a breathless report with unnamed diplomats at 8:19 pm. Both have tried to get smaller investigative Press thrown out of the UN - see documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, here andhere - and this request by Reuters to censor one of its complaints to the UN from Google's Search.

  Back on August 27 amid airstrikes in Libya, when outgoing UN envoy Tarek Mitri briefed the UN Security Council, the airstrikes weren't even mentioned in his more than six page prepared text distributed by the UN.

  Inside the Council chamber, improvising but only a little bit, Mitri mentioned the strikes, but not who did them. Back on August 19 and once again since, Inner City Press asked the UN if it knew anything about who was behind them:

Inner City Press: Who did the air strikes?  General Haftar?  What's the UN, either Mr. León or Mr. Mitri or whoever is currently in charge, what's their sense of who's doing air strikes in Tripoli?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't… I think we reported back with the Mission yesterday, if there's anything more I'll share it with you.

  But in the days since, the UN has said nothing. Now the Libyan Dawn group  has taken over the Tripoli airport despite the airstrikes and alleged that the strikes have the involvement of Haftar's (or Hiftar's) supporters, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. What does the UN -- or now Bernardino Leon -- know and say about that? Watch this site.

On Leon: To try to counter Libya's lawless power struggle, the UN engaged in one of its own. 

  And unlike most of the member states that make up the UN, and most other inter-governmental organizations, this UN does not answer questions, at least not directly.

  After Inner City Press repeated asked about it, including at the UN's noon briefings on August 11 and 13, on August 14 the UN said Bernardino Leon will take over as its Libya envoy on September 1.

  When Inner City Press asked if that is really Leon's starting day, given that he's said he'll go to Tripoli as early as next week representing the UN, Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said Leon is merely "familiarizing" himself with the work he will be, and Mitri remains in place until September 1. Really?

  Ignoring the previous questions and the power-play, wire services like Reuters merely retyped ("reported") the UN's August 14 announcement that Leon will start September 1. And now?

 Back on August 1, Inner City Press exclusively reportedthat UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri was being "pushed out" of the post, including by UK envoy to Libya Jonathan Powell, and cited his brother Lord Powell's extensive business in Libya through Magna Holdings.

  The UK mission, usually responsive, did not provide comment on written Press questions on this; at UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant's August 4 press conference Inner City Press asked about Powell's and Mitri's relationship, without direct answer, see here.

  Then the UK's Ambassador to Libya Michael Aron hasannounced, on Twitter no less,  that Mitri is out and Ban Ki-moon has installed a new UN envoy, former Zapatero diplomat Bernardino Leon Gross.

  The UN, at least at its August 8 noon briefing and in emails since, has not announce anything about replacing Mitri, much less by whom.

  Ban Ki-moon's office said that for August 9 and 10, "Spokesperson on call:  Mr. Farhan Haq." So Inner City Press wrote to Farhan Haq, as well as to lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Hello. Now that the UK Ambassador to Libya, and others, have announced that Ban Ki-moon has appointed Bernardino Leon to replace Tarek Mitri as Ban's representative to Libya, head of UNSMIL, this is a request on deadline - today - that your Office confirm that this appointment or nomination has been made.

Has the letter been sent to the Security Council?

Is Leon already confirmed?

If not, how it is appropriate that P5 countries are saying he already has the job? On deadline, today.

Given many of the ongoing Afghanistan leaks are about UN DSS and UNAMA, not UNDP, there will be further questions. But the above is on deadline for today. Thank you in advance.

  But more than four hours later, by "close of business" in New York, the "spokesperson on duty" had not answered, had not even acknowledged receipt of the question.

  What does it mean to be the UN's "spokesperson on duty"?

   Isn't it for Ban Ki-moon to make this announcement? In fact, in 2011 when France had already gotten its Jerome Bonnafont in place to replace its Alain Le Roy atop UN Peacekeeping, Bonnafont's bragging about it in India, where he was French Ambassador, led to Ban rescinding the "offer."

  France countered with three time loser Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press reported each step -- including Bonnafont in July 2011 being tapped for the post, and evencongratulation cards to Bonnafont, here, and threats from AFP then the UN Correspondents Association -- and the rest is, well, a type of history (coverage in UK New Statesman, here).

  Ladsous refuses all Inner City Press questions, video compilation here; Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq on August 8, alluding to Ladsous and now UNDP, said it is because of "people skills." Or reporting?

  So Ban has accepted or done nothing to stop this P3 power grab to oust Mitri. But can "his" successor be pre-announced and Ban accept that too? 

Footnote: Inner City Press is exclusively informed that UNSMIL deputy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed also has business, literally: fisshing business. Ban and those in control of this play accept that too? Watch this site.

Background: Inner City Press on August 1 asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric what UN envoy Tarek Mitri is doing; Dujarric said he was not aware but would check.

  Inner City Press had reported that Mitri, unlike the other UN international staff who relocated to Tunis, went back to his native Lebanon. Sources in the region exclusively told Inner City Press that Mitri had been hoping for a government post in Lebanon, describing him as less than committed to remaining with the UN.

   Now we can report more. These knowledgeable sources say that Mitri is being "pushed out," mostly they say by the UK's envoy to Libya, former Tony Blair aide Jonathan Powell.

  "Mitri was expected to take on a mostly support function," one source told Inner City Press. "He stood up and said no, headquarters didn't back him up and now he's being pushed out." We'll have more on this.

  It was nine days after Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz at the UN Security Council stakeout told the Press his country wanted international help to protect oil fields and ports, including airports, that the US announced it had relocated its Tripoli embassy staff out of the country to Tunisia.

  Inner City Press asked, where is UN envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri? He briefed the Security Council from Beirut -- sources tell Inner City Press he has been on vacation there, and this deputy, too, was out of the country.

  Back on July 17 when Libya's foreign minister Mohamed Abdel Aziz emerged from the UN Security Council to take questions from the media, Inner City Press asked him to be more specific about what type of “support” force he is asking for.

  Mohamed Abdel Aziz replied that the request is not for a “military” force -- but then went on to say say the force should protect oil fields and ports. If that's not military, what is it?

  Inner City Press also asked Mohamed Abdel Aziz for Libya's current position on the US arresting Abu Khatallah. Compared to the complaints of others, Mohamed Abdel Aziz said that even though under international law it is unacceptable, since Libya can't protect witnesses, maybe it is okay.

  Given the current state of affairs, what is “Libya's” position? Watch this site.