UNITED NATIONS, January 7 – When UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres took five media questions on August 16 after a two week vacation, Inner City Press tried to ask him about the UN bribery verdict against Ng Lap Seng rendered by a jury in lower Manhattan just before he left. Guterres heard the question, but did not answer. Video here.
Instead, his deputy spokesman Farhan Haq handpicked five questioners, two on U.S. President Donald Trump and the first on Venezuela, in response to which Guterres read from notes. Reuters was called on second, asked two questions then later began a third. The UN Correspondents Association president invited Guterres to distinguish himself from Trump, which Guterres coyly did and didn't do.
Then when Inner City Press asked about the Ng Lap Seng guilty verdict, Guterres swept the question away with his and and left with Maher Nasser the acting chief of his Department of Public Information, which without due process evicted and still restricts Inner City Press for pursuing the Ng Lap Seng bribery scandal in the UN Press Briefing Room.
Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed have both received a petition with over 2,000 signatures to end the restrictions on the Press, particularly after the Ng Lap Seng UN bribery guilty verdicts.
But there is silence, invisibility, then pre-screened questions. Even among those, nothing on Syria, Yemen, or Libya where Guterres' envoy has praised the Italian Navy's cooperation with the Libyan coast guard, or Kenya where a recent UN official has been banned from travel in connection with electoral irregularities, much less Burundian refugees and abuses by Cameroon. On Western Sahara, moments after Guterres' stakeout, Horst Kohler was belatedly named to the long empty envoy position. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, March 24 -- After Inner City Press was summarily ejected from the UN, which it has covered for 10 years, on February 19 (audio here), the ostensibly deciding official Cristina Gallach told Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos Horta, who contacted her to oppose her arbitrary decision, that Inner City Press would still be able to cover the UN.
That has proved to be false. Simply as examples, on March 21 Inner City Press arrived to to stakeout the Western Sahara meeting of UN Security Council Permanent Representative, but was unable to. Its downgraded “non resident correspondent” pass does not open the turnstiles; the glass door to the Security Council was locked. Video here.
Still Gallach claimed that Inner City Press had access, the same access as before. This is false - and in a sinister way. On March 24, still on Western Sahara, UN Security arrived and locked the glass doors to the Security Council even as it was said Council President Gaspar Martins of Angola would come and speak.
Inner City Press asked UN Security not to lock the door - rejected - and took a photograph, in response to which UN Security said, No photos. UN Correspondents Association president Giampaolo Pioli, in a rare appearance at the stakeout, did not advocate for media access. He repeatedly called Inner City Press “an asshole,” and said, “Quote me.” Audio here.
It gets worse. After Gaspar Martins spoke -- Inner City Press streamed it live on Periscope, and converted that into a YouTube video -- quickly the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit told UNTV to shut down, and asked Inner City Press to leave the stakeout.
But diplomats were still present. In fact, an UNCA board members was interviewing one about the Western Sahara meeting, in the second floor hallway. Inner City Press told MALU it has the same right to cover the meeting, and that it should be able to conduct an interview.
This, it turned out, even speaking off the record with diplomatic sources, could now only be done by Inner City Press with a MALU “escort” -- a minder. What diplomat speaking off the record about the closed meeting would do so in front of UN Secretariat staff? This is absurd - it must all be reversed.
Inner City Press used the booth on January 29 in order to not disrupt or participate in the event by the UN Correspondents Association, a group Inner City Press quit in 2012, finding it to be corrupt.
Also, there are few electrical outlets in the UN Press Briefing Room, only in the front, where Inner City Press did not want to be - there would be, as there was, heckling. But Inner City Press said it has a right to be in the UN Press Briefing Room, until it is formally closed. And it was not.
Since then it has been argued that there is a rule against being in the interpreters booth. This is not in the UN Media Guideline. But even if the rule were to exist somewhere - on March 23 it was openly broken, in front of the same Deputy Spokesman who used it to oust Inner City Press while insult it, then and since.
On March 24, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesprson Farhan Haq about it - he ended the exchange, as he walked out, saying "Liar." TO this has the UN and its "case" descended. From the UN transcript, sans liar:
Inner City Press: Yesterday, as you held your briefing, there were two individuals in the booth right there, the interpreter's booth, the other interpreter's booth. And I wanted to know, since it's been explained to me that there's some clear rule, it's been said that the Under-Secretary-General of Department of Public Information says that there's an extremely clear rule that only interpreters can be in these booths, and if anyone other than interpreters are in the booth, they face summary ouster from the United Nations. What was the use of this… please explain, because he's been asked for the rule and didn't provide the rule.
Deputy Spokesman: Yes, there was, in fact, a violation of the room, which we… which we have taken up…
Inner City Press: A violation of what rule? Can you provide the rule? Because she's been asked for the rule.
Deputy Spokesman: This is by our fellow DPI staff who were unaware of this, but they have been told they cannot use that room, that they cannot and must not.
Inner City Press: Who were they? And did you know yesterday when you did nothing during your presence there?
Deputy Spokesman: I did not know, because, as when you were hiding there, it's difficult for me to tell that there are people there.
Inner City Press: There's no hiding. They're totally visible. So, you're saying you didn't know and you did nothing, yet it's an extremely strong rule.
Deputy Spokesman: No, I didn't say I did nothing. In fact, we were apprised of this, and they cannot use that room. Thanks.
Since Haq admits not knowing who those in the interpreters booth were, and did nothing, there is no rule. It was all a pretext to retaliating and censor. We'll have more on this.
Now Gallach, even having been informed that Inner City Press can no longer for example go to the second floor of the UN Conference Building and speak with diplomats entering and exiting meetings like March 21when it was Banned from covering the Western Sahara meeting of the Security Council, like March 9 on UN Security Council reform, and March 10 on Counter-Terrorism including in Sri Lanka, repeats the same position to others - as does Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, under Stepane Dujarric, who on March 14 essentially said, We do whatever we want.
On March 22 Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq went further, claiming that Inner City Press attempts to ask questions are "bullying" and saying he stands behind what he said during Inner City Press' first ouster from the Press Briefing Room, that Inner City Press "lies a lot." From the March 22 transcript, Video here:
Inner City Press: So the questions are as follows: There was a meeting today down the second floor about revitalization of the General Assembly. It was described as being about the selection process for the next SG. Given that non-resident correspondents cannot enter that area and given the claim of Cristina Gallach of the DPI that the amount of access is identical, that there is no difference, how is it that those with non-resident passes? You said that you had one before, and you had full access. Well, that was before the glass turnstiles were installed down where you go to the stairs and the ramp to go down, and these passes don't work there. So how is a non-resident correspondent interested in covering the process for selecting the next Secretary-General supposed to, as others can, stake out that meeting? And the second question is a much more specific question. These focus booths that were promised when the press corps moved back to the Secretariat, there were supposed to be four of them. They were supposed to have UN phones where you could call missions. There are no phones, and it seems like we're down to one focus booth. And a UNCA (United Nations Correspondents Association)-affiliated troll Twitter account has today announced that these booths are not even for reporters at all. And in fact, in using them, I've been repeatedly asked to leave them. So I wanted to know, what happened to the provision that… that non-resident correspondents can have a space to make a confidential phone call in? And is it true, as UNCA appears to believe, that these focus booths are not, in fact, for reporters at all, but only for UN staff?
Deputy Spokesman: Those are good questions for you to be asking our colleagues in the Department of Public Information… [cross talk]
Inner City Press: They don't speak to me. They didn't speak to me before throwing me out, so I'm asking you here. They're simple questions.
Deputy Spokesman: You have objectively not been thrown out. I'm looking at you right now.
Inner City Press: You're looking at me now. I was physically thrown onto First Avenue, and my laptop was thrown on the street, and there's audio of it. So you can say what you will. If you're comfortable with it, it's fine… [cross talk]
Deputy Spokesman Haq: It is clearly not the case that you've been thrown out of the building because you're in the building.
Deputy Spokesman: This room is part of the United Nations, and you’re here right now. [cross talk]
Inner City Press: I was thrown out. Apparently, you don't understand the words that I'm saying. I was thrown out. It's a past tense. I was told from the Security Council stakeout that I had to march down the escalator and go onto First Avenue, or I would be turned over to NYPD (New York Police Department). This is what I was told. It's all on audio. You can listen to it or not. But I dispute your statement. But here's my question. Maybe you don't want to talk about the focus booth, because this was a huge…
Deputy Spokesman: Your volume is rising. Take it down a notch.
Inner City Press: Okay. My question is this. Given that this event may still be going on and given it's about the important topic of next SG selection, how is it that people either that currently have or who have been downgraded without due process to non-resident correspondents status, how are they supposed to stake out and cover this meeting?
Deputy Spokesman: That's a good question to ask our colleagues in media accreditation. Please do so.
Inner City Press: I'm asking you. I don't want a minder. I want to stand as I could before 19 February in front of the room… [cross talk]
Deputy Spokesman: I'm not the in-house representative for you. You can deal with media accreditation. [cross talk]
On March 14, Inner City Press arrived early at the UN to cover the UN's continuing cover up of its rape scandal, the swearing in a adviser on the topic of Jane Holl Lute, who did the same thing ten years ago.
Inner City Press has covered many such swearing-in photo ops at the UN, without incident. But now it is all different. Up on the 38th floor, before UN officials including the evicter Cristina Gallach, the justifier Stephane Dujarric, the non-responding head of the UN Office of Legal Affairs, the American Jeffrey Feltman, UNresponsive on Sri Lanka, the entirely UNresponsive Herve Ladsous and Ban Ki-moon himself arrived, a UN Security guard called Inner City Press aside.
“They told me you were cleared to do this,” the UN guard said. Audio here. Actually, even those with non-resident correspondent accreditation like Inner City Press was without due process cut to, are “cleared” without question. The UN guard told Inner City Press, “Do it in a nice way.” Did this mean, write a nice article?
Because the hiring of a single individual will not fix the UN's problems with rape (Ladsous, in attendance, has publicly linked the rapes to R&R). And the inability / unwillingness of those officials present, aware of the ouster and censorship of Inner City Press speaks volumes. It is current an organization that cannot fix itself.
Later, after a second photo op seemingly designed for Ban to campaign for president of South Korea, Inner City Press asked Dujarric,UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: I noticed today, having attended now two photo ops, that there's a… clearly either an interview or some kind of a documentary or something larger from Phoenix TV with the Secretary-General. And I wanted to know, seemed to be that, in some of these incidents, the… the crew that's following Ban Ki-moon's every movement today is given rights greater than journalists that are just photographing.
Spokesman Dujarric: Yes.
Inner City Press: Okay. What… so who decides that? What exactly…?
Spokesman: Matthew, I'm not…
Inner City Press: I'm asking.
Spokesman: You know, there is… I think most journalists would expect someone in my position not to share what projects or interviews they're doing on. It is our decision to decide what interviews to grant, what documentary filmmakers to work with, one way or another. That's it. It's our decision. I mean, I don't… it's not something for discussion. We don't share…
Inner City Press: My question's what's the right of normal… of regular non-resident correspondent journalists to go to photo ops? Because I went to a photo op today and I was told by security to be nice, and I think it's inappropriate. Isn't that inappropriate?
Spokesman: I think it's always nice to be nice…
Inner City Press: Yeah, but why am I told not to be nice and these guys are in the residence?
Spokesman: I'm done. Yes.
Correspondent: Thank you, Steph.
Spokesman: I'm always told to be nice.
But you're not, Inner City Press said. But the UN did not transcribe it. They do whatever they want -- including on March 14 selling jewelry in the same lobby they threw the Press out of. More to follow.
But Inner City Press had been told that while the pass would not allow it to enter the UN after 7 pm, if it was already inside working, it could finish.
On March 10 at 8 pm, as Inner City Press sat in the UN Lobby cafe area editing a video of the day's noon briefing, see below, UN Security officers approached and told it to leave. Immediately. Video here.
Inner City Press asked if this rule applied to all non-resident correspondents, many of whom stayed much later than 8 pm, or only to it.
"I"m just doing what I'm told," UN DSS Officer Clyde said, telling Inner City Press to take it up with his supervisor Chief (Michael or Mick) Brown.
This is harassment; it flows from the February 19 no due process order of Under Secretary General of DPI Cristina Gallach but has been enabled by inaction by the highest UN officials and some diplomats.
On March 11, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about having been ousted from the UN again, video here, UN transcript here:
The March 10 session on Counter-Terrorism, including Sri Lanka Supreme Court Justice Chandra Ekanayake, was held in the ECOSOC Chamber - Inner City Press was not able to stake it out and talk to diplomats, as it had before.
In fact, it was Dujarric who used the UN Press Briefing Room he threw Inner City Press out of to "discuss" Inner City Press' accreditation on February 22 - only, with a board member of UNCA, the UN Corruption Association / UN Censorship Alliance.
Cristina Gallach has written, "Mr Lee has a Press accreditation that allows him to cover all events in the UN, as the rest of accredited journalists." She even referred to "total access."
This is false.
For example, today's General Assembly meeting on Security Council reform is "closed." But those with Resident Correspondent accreditation, which Gallach stripped from Inner City Press without any due process and only two hours notice on February 19, can use their pass to swipe through the turnstile on the second floor and stakeout outside the meeting, speaking with diplomats.
Inner City Press cannot - its new restricted pass does not open the second floor turnstile. It has been Banned from this type of coverage.
It was precisely by staking out outside "Closed" meetings that Inner City Press got and covered such stories as Sri Lankan alleged war criminal Shavendra Silva being one of Ban Ki-moon's Senior Advisers on Peacekeeping. Staking out closed meetings of the Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping, Inner City Press quoted even South Asian ambassadors on what an outrage it was.
Now Inner City Press is Banned from such coverage, and the UN Department of Public "Information" is misleading those who contact it.
At the March 9 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about what Gallach had said,full YouTube here, Vine here and here, from the UN transcript:
Inner City Press: Beyond the letter from the Northern Provincial Council to Secretary-General Ban, Cristina Gallach of DPI [Department of Public Information] has received a letter from a group called the Tamil Sangam, of diaspora Tamils. And the reason I'm asking you is the following: They've sent me her response to them. They raised a number of issues about Sri Lanka coverage, UN's performance in Sri Lanka, and she wrote back and said: "I want to firmly clarify that Mr. Lee has total access at the UN." And since that's actually not the case, since I can't go through the turnstile on the second…
Deputy Spokesman Haq: That is the case.
Inner City Press: No, it's not. I can't cover ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council]. I can't cover Trusteeship. I'm telling you…
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Matthew, you have access. We're standing in a briefing room in the United Nations right now. You’re asking…
Inner City Press: She said "total access", "total access", So let me ask you…
Deputy Spokesman: You can go anywhere that the other reporters [can].
Inner City Press: No, I can't. What about the 2nd Floor of the conference building? This pass doesn't work, and I'm told by Security I cannot go there. So, I'm asking you, what did she mean by "total access"?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: You can go to the Security Council stakeout or any other public area.
Inner City Press: This is not the case. Come with me…
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Matthew, I used to have a non-resident pass many, many, many years ago, and I used to go all the areas.
Inner City Press: They didn't used to have a glass turnstile there. And I'm also told to leave the building at 7 pm, that if I leave the building after 7 pm, I can't come back into it no matter what work I'm doing. Is that the case?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Matthew, as far as I'm aware, you have the time to go about the work that you need to do. Joe?
Inner City Press: I'm totally contesting it, totally.
Again, Inner City Press is as of March 8 not allowed to cover anything on the second floor of the UN conference building (ECOSOC, Trusteeship Council), cannot effectively edit videos of UN Q&A, and must leave the building by 7 pm. These are restrictions.
But USG Gallach continues to repeat the mantra that reducing the Press' ability to do journalism at the UN by 60% is fine. A group wrote to her that
"it is paramount importance that journalists of Mr. Lee's caliber continue to monitor the UN system and we firmly stand behind him. We urge you to resolve the dispute with him and restore to Mr. Lee his Resident Correspondent accreditation and ICP's long-time office which he uses to do his journalistic work. We do not find the punishment in your February 19 letter to be proportionate even to what it's claimed he did: seek to cover an even in the UN's own Press Briefing Room. Why was that meeting in that UN Press Briefing Room anyway, if it was 'private'?"
"I can firmly clarify to you that Mr Lee has a press pass that allows him total access to press conferences, media stake outs and press conferences in the UN building. I am convinced that the coverage about the issues you care most [sic] is totally will be not at all affected."
That is FALSE. Inner City Press is now restricted from the entire second floor of the UN conference building, must leave the building by 7 pm, cannot conduct interviews or edit videos in its long time shared office - for trying to cover a meeting, in the Press Briefing Room, of an entity also connected by South South to the UN bribery scandal?Petition here.
USG Gallach's response was cc-ed to Ban's spokesman Dujarric, who cannot claim to not know the restrictions on the pass Inner City Press has been, without due process, confined to. On March 8 he said, we will not characterize it, "People are free to demonstrate." (Vine here.)
"journalists face growing efforts to silence their voices – through harassment, censorship and attacks. Journalists are not criminals. But they are often mistreated."
Note: on February 19, Inner City Press was physically ousted from the UN Security Council stakeout where it was writing up the evening's Syria meeting and was told "you are a trespasser" in the UN and that it would be handed over to NYPD. Audio here.
"During the past nine years as Secretary-General, I have been working hard to defend the press."
Well, the above happened on February 19, and restrictions remain in place with no right to appeal, and no due process. Ban and his senior advisers have been informed of it.
On February 26 the Government Accountability Project, which defends whistleblowers, wrote to the US Mission to the UN, Ambassador of Management and Reform Isobel Coleman, to ask the US to ensure Inner City Press gets back its office and Resident Correspondent's pass. GAP letter here.
GAP's Beatrice Edwards cited the UN's lack of due process and of rules, and the seeming retaliation against Inner City Press for its reporting. (There's also the physical ouster of Inner City Press, audio here.) Other missions have openly taken action: what will the US Mission do?
On February 29, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric another question about UN - this time DPI - seeming corruption, and about GAP's letter, Video here, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: I'd asked you previously about South-South News, which is pretty much in… is in this indictment of Mr. [Francis] Lorenzo and Mr. Ng Lap Seng as a conduit for funds for the alleged bribery at the UN, why its… its footage and a number of its pieces are included in UNTV in an archive, and I checked today. They're still there.
I wanted to know, since there's no other med… non-UN media that I can find that has its material inside that archive, why is that, and why does it remain to be the case, given the fact that it's named as a vehicle for bribery?
Spokesman Dujarric: Obviously, I think that's a question you can address to my colleagues in DPI.
Inner City Press: Okay. They're not communicating too well.
Spokesman: [Calls on another.]
Inner City Press: Again, I'll keep it very short, but I wanted to ask you, the Government Accountability Project, which you know, which represented Mr. [Anders] Kompass and other UN whistle-blowers, has issued a letter on Friday in which they say… they call for… I guess I'll put it in personal terms… for my resident correspondent pass to be returned and my office. And they say the action was retaliatory in response to independent critical journalism. I'd like to know what your response to this respected group reaching that conclusion is.
Spokesman: My simple response would be no, and I'm sure they will get a response from whoever they addressed the letter to.
We'll see.
Meanwhile in defense of Ban and Gallach, anonymous troll account has taken to tweeting, now at Spanish journalists, that Gallach is fine and didn't throw Inner City Press out of the UN on two hours notice without once speaking to it. But those are the fact. Among the new troll account's followers are Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric and four UNCA board members, plus Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has a history with this, see here.
Because as a working journalist it needed access to cover the February 25 UN Security Council meeting about North Korea, and only in connection with filing a lawyer's letter telling Gallach and the UN not to touch Inner City Press' office or files, Inner City Press late morning entered the UN with a so-called "Green P" non-resident correspondents pass.
At the day's noon briefing, after asking of Burundi, Western Sahara, Darfur and the UN corruption scandals, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric two simple question, to which he said #AskGallach. UN transcript.
Wait - so the UN has no protocols on the use of force? Or DPI's Gallach is in charge of the use of force, and ordered it? How can the UN and USG Gallach be so contemptuous to the most basic forms of due process?
Inner City Press is opposing all this.
And so now are a range of people from around the world, who have signed a petition to immediately restore Inner City Press to the UN Resident Correspondent accreditation it had for nine years until, without any due process, the UN pass was physically torn from its chest as UN Security throw its laptop onto the sidewalk in front of the UN (also owned by the UN and immunity from US law including the First Amendment).
UN cover-up artists are taking advantage of the dying months of Ban Ki-moon's tenure to remove a thorn in their side, because they are worried the new SG won't want to start out with a fight. -James Bone, Shelter Island Heights, NY
ICP has been the only voice for the oppressed in #Burundi, #Haiti & #Yemen at #UN. -Eloge Tinya, Lagos, Nigeria
ICP asked questions that will bring clarity on the agreement the Prime Minister of Dominica signed in Macau on August 25, 2015 together with Ng Lap Seng and a UN official. -Hon. Hector John, Salisbury, Dominica
I am signing for UN to restore Matthew Lee Inner City Press right to access to the UN as a Resident Correspondent to question authorities because it is the fundamental of free speech as the UN preaches to other countries it must first practice itself to set example. -Smret Kibrom, San Gallo, Switzerland
Freedom of press. -Prem Kumar, India
innercitypress defends the human rights of Burundians and help to avoid genocide, please free innercitypress! - MICHAEL Tim, London, United Kingdom
I'm signing because the barring of access to Mr. Lee appears to be at worst motivated by a reluctance to engage with and continue to receive the probing questions he asks, and at best the result of a petty personal vendetta based on unprofessional antipathy towards Mr. Lee by the 'respectable' wing of the United Nations press corps. -Marlon Ettinger, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY
I am signing this petition for Matthew Russell Lee and Inner City Press be restored to the shared UN office and Resident Correspondent accreditation they have had for eight years prior to this pretextual incident. It also requests, as does the Free UN Coalition for Access that Matthew co-founded, that an investigation be launched into how all of this occurred. Moreover to call for aggressive investigative journalism at the UN and to tell the leaders of the UN that the UN, too, must live up to the principles of due process and freedom of the press. -Martha Fassil, New York, NY
Han er en journalist som forteller sannheten til verden. Mussie Tesfay, Oslo, Norway
UN should walk the talk. Practice what you preach - rule of law, democracy, freedom of expression, of press. Reinstate ICP Mathew Russell Lee to full resident reporter. -Seble Ephrem, London, United Kingdom
Incredible. This banning is the exact opposite of the transparency and accountability that the UN should be defending for all institutions. This must be reversed. Denis Rancourt, Ottawa, Canada
ICP is the most reliable source of information at the UN. The other corporate media are controlled by the special interest groups. Thus their journalistic integrity is always suspect. ICP is voice of the voiceless - of course unlike the UN and its sponsors and financiers. -tsehaie mahary, edmonton, Canada
I express my solidarity with Mathew, God bless you friend Mohamed MAYARA, El Aaiun, Western Sahara
Matthew Lee has been a lone voice asking the difficult questions in the UN press gallery. -Martin Field, Geneva, Switzerland
I have seen Matthew only defending the truth. He is a journalist with a genuine journalist ethics. He is also the one of the most intelligent and courageous journalist. He is a model how other journalist should be. He should be given a noble prize for what he does not get banned from the UN. -Yacob Woldehiwot, London, United Kingdom
The UN cannot be dismissive of new media as people get their news from new media.The UN cannot pick and choose media persons according to their whims and fancies. -soraya patel, India
Shame on UN. -ibrahim alhaifi, Sanaa, Yemen
I believe this is censorship of the press. Shameful. -Douglas Smith, New York, NY
For Truth & Transparency, there must always be those who Question more. -Auet Melache, Bolton, United Kingdom
I am signing because UN is being unfair and need to take some responsibility. -Lynda Charles, Boynton Beach, FL
He's credible and follows the ethics of journalism to the fullest. -Amanuel Tseggai, Stone Mountain, GA
We need the alternative,independent and investigative media to be present everywhere. -Marja Konttila, Solna, Sweden
I demand the U.N. unconditionally and ASAP to restore access to Inner City Press`Matthew Russell Lee to the U.N. as a Resident Correspondent. -johannes abraham, Germany
InnerCity Press has been very professional and a life saver. His reports on different issues around the world helped uncover certain hidden truths. If Ban was in #Burundi 2 days ago, I can say it is mainly because of his persistence of bringing Burundi to light from the repression of de facto president Manirambona Juma, Kirundo, Burundi
Matthew Russell Lee, founder of the Inner City Press, is a veteran investigative journalist I have relied upon on UN news for the past six years. He is truthful, and pursues truth in reporting tenaciously and with integrity. We need more journalists like him at the UN to keep us informed. He and his Inner City Press must be reinstated as a fully accredited resident journalist to the UN. -Elias Amare, San Rafael, CA
Does the UN have something to hide? The UN is also obligated by the same principles and norms it preaches. I demand the UN to reinstate Matthew Russell Lee to his desk so he can do what he does best- pure journalism. He is the only honest journalist at the UN compound and being the voice of the voiceless. -Daniel Berhe, Seattle, WA
I respectively ask UNSG and Mr Ban ki-moon to return Matt to his post as a dedicated reporter in the UN. I have a huge respect for the guy. It would be a travesty of justice if a reporter like matt is out the office of the biggest office in the world when we need a reporter of such kind. -Kibrom tekeste, berkeley, CA
The UN repeatedly acts like human rights protections apply to everyone but themselves. -Betsey Chance, Cambridge, MA
Matthew is the only bona fide journalist reporting on UN. He alone is rectifying the defects created by system of diplomatic immunity. Why makes his job harder? Do you have something to hide from him? He makes UN a more acceptable organization and indeed, by genuinely reporting he makes this world a better place. -T Chan, London, United Kingdom
I am signing for UN to restore Matthew Lee Inner City Press right to access to the UN as a Resident Correspondent to question authorities because it is the fundamental of free speech as the UN preaches to other countries it must first practice itself to set example. Sara Haile, Alexandria, VA
Matthew Lee is, far and away, the hardest-working and most dogged of any journalist at the United Nations. His arbitrary expulsion is both outrageous and a reflection of the fact that things are not as they should be at the United Nations, and certainly not what YOU would expect. - alberto martin, New York, NY
I'm signing because I believe in the freedom of the press. I often reads Matthew Lee's work which reports on difficult topics and events that need covering and exposure. He should be reinstated at your earliest convenience. Rebecca Myles, New York, NY
I'm signing because I'm an advocate for real, independent journalism and condemn the UN's decision to remove Inner City Press's access based on a nonsensical pretext! -Hermon Gebrai, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
I appreciate Inner City Press' persistent and prepared journalism at the United Nations. -Brian Concannon Jr., Marshfield, MA
Freedom of the press. -Luiz Rampelotto, New York, NY
The UN needs to be held to standards of openess, transparency and freedom of the press. -Samuel Horton, Silsden, United Kingdom
Lee should not have been expelled, it's a disgrace to the UN. -Richard Johnson, Potomac, MD
It's unfair to throw someone out like that with out hearing from his side of history. -Hermon Tsegay, Slough, United Kingdom
Such a crck down on media in an organization promoting freedom of speech and information is really awkward and clearly disgraceful and unacceptable. -Florent Nduwayo, Kibungo, Rwanda
This is another in a long line of incidents conclusively evidencing the UN's complete and utter disrespect for the laws of its HOST country, the US, in particular the 1st amendment!! UN IMMUNITY = IMPUNITY--END IT NOW!! Journalists are the ultimate whistleblowers, and I am well aware of how UN whistleblowers like Mr Lee are persecuted and suffer grievous harm at the hands of rogue UN officials. The treatment of Mr. Lee is an outrage.
How ironic this has happened just as the US House Committe on Foreign Relations is today, on 24 Feb, holding a hearing about the gross mistreatment of whistleblowers at the UN and WIPO. Congress must act now to cut off 15% of US appropriations to the UN this year on account of its failure to protect and encourage UN whistleblowers like Mr Lee, as provided for in US law, as it already did to WIPO!! -ted beacher, Geneva, Switzerland
ICP is doing a great job. UN should support,respect and promote free speech. -Kalu Thapa, Kathmandu, Nepal
There are more...
But the UN Correspondents Association, at least its 15 Executive Committee members, issued a February 22 statement in context fully supporting the throwing of Inner City Press into the street, the seizure of passport, the Banning, all of it. We wonder if these scribes' employers know about this.
For now we reiterate the obvious: the UN Press Briefing Room is presumptively open to all press. If Spokesman Dujarric, or DPI's Gallach, wants to lend it to their friends, at least provide a notice so journalists hungry for news don't get excluded and get nothing.
UNITED NATIONS, February 18 -- Amid a litany of rape charges against UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, Inner City Press exclusively obtained and on February 12 published UN emails showing another round of sexual abuse of minors in Ouaka prefecture in the Central African Republic by UN Peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here to view.
While the story continues, we note that Reuters UN bureau first triest to undermine the story, then stole it without credit - and on February 18 tried to undermine Inner City Press live-streaming Periscope video from the UN Security Council stakeout. Welcome to the UN Censorship Alliance.
After Inner City Press on February 15 asked about the email its had published - and Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, notably,tried to dismiss and then stole the story - on February 16 UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq in the noon briefing read out a statement confirming nearly all of the email Inner City Press had published: that there were four new victims, minors, troops from DR Congo.
But Haq did not say that two of the victims had children from the statutory rape. So Inner City Press asked Haq to confirm that, and asked who would pay: the UN or the DRC soldiers? Haq said there are meetings in Ban's office to respond to just such issues, after December's Deschamps report. Video here.
And then Reuters, even while its editor Dan Grebler said the first theft was being looked into, just retyped and stole it again, this time by its UN correspondent Michelle Nichols, here.
It was this same Nichols who, at the UN Security Council stakeout on February 18 while Inner City Press was live-streaming after asking about a draft statement on Palestine, cut in loudly with "I see you Periscoping!" And? So what? UN missions and the UN itself are broadcasting inside the UN on Periscope. Why would one media try to censor others?
So Inner City Press raised the issue of theft of exclusives (and lack of objectivity, at least at the UN) to Reuters itself. For now, we've received this, cc-ed also not only to the (repeat) offender but also to Reuters' genial seeming Brian Moss and Clive McKeef:
"Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. The appropriate Reuters staff will look into it and get back to you as soon as feasible.
Regards, Dan Grebler Desk Editor, Americas Desk"
But but February 18, still no response. It's not that complicated. Or was the Reuters correspondent's "intervention" the response? We'll have more on this too.
The underlying emails, dated February 11, 2016, describe at least four underage victims, two of whom were impregnated by the rapist UN peacekeepers -- "in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture."
On February 15, after emailing questions for two days to UN spokespeople in CAR and New York, Inner City Press at the UN's noon briefing asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the rapes, and the email it published on February 12. Haq answered, dodging on part of the email but not denying it. Video here.
Then Associated Press asked, what about these new allegations? Video here. Haq answered - and from that, AP wrote its own derivative and belated story -- without credit, and without any mention of the critique of the UN in the emails. This is how it works, or doesn't.
This too - Reuters UN "bureau chief" on Monday evening first reflexively came to the UN's defense saying that "Alleged Central African Republic rapes UN spox talked about today are same ones UN CAR said Feb 4 it was probing," citing (what else) a Reuters story of February 4 -- about a Human Rights Watch report about rapes in Bambari. But read the February 11 emails Inner City Press exclusively published, here:
“Herewith sharing with you a report I have just received from UNICEF indicating four minor girls aged between 16 and 17 years were victims of sexual exploitation and abuse allegedly committed by members of the DRC battalion in the locality Ngakobo in the Ouaka prefecture.”
Up the email chain, Mercedes Gervilla in UN headquarters writes that “it would seem that many among the troops concerned, including Commanding officers were well aware of the abuse to which these children were being subjected. I also regret to inform you that in addition to these new 4 cases, there will likely be two more...”. [We'll have more on this.]
And there is a history: this same Reuters UN Bureau Chief Lou Charbonneau, when challenged, wrote to Stephane Dujarric, UN Spokesman, trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, here.
When this was exposed, Charbonneau cited Reuters to get his email to the UN taken out of Google's search, saying he never meant for it to be public and it was somehow copyrighted. (See his filing here, made public by EFF's ChillingEffects.org). That's censorship... by Reuters.
This this case, after being shown this reflexive defense of the UN was wrong, Reuters simply re-wrote the story and stole it, with no credit.
And now we must go back: Charbonneau announced a policy of not crediting Inner City Press, see here.
This was raised at the time to Reuters, including to Stephen J. Adler. What kind of company is this?
(Inner City Press previously asked the decaying UN Correspondents Association, while it tried to censor Press coverage of its boss, to promulgate a best practice for media at the UN to credit others' exclusives; it never happened. AP at the UN speaks for this UNCA, and apparently it for AP.)
In the email chain Inner City Press exclusively published, middle management at the UN noted that the majority of sexual abuse in CAR has been committed by the battalions from the DRC and the Republic of Congo. And so Inner City Press posed these questions to UN spokespeople in both New York and the CAR:
"This is a request for your comment on, and any update on, the sexual abuse and exploitation cases in the Feb 11, 2016 emails now here
Also, what will be done with the Republic of Congo and DR Congo contingents? We are interested in if the UN and DPKO can, as currently be configured, be reformed.What is the status of the sexual abuse and exploitation cases that have been listed, including in the UN Press Briefing Room?"
The response received by Inner City Press on Saturday afternoon in New York was from Bangui-based MINUSCA spokesman Vladimir Monteiro:
"Regarding your questions on DRC and Congo, here is Minusca's position:
"On DRC contingent, a decision to repatriate them has already been taken. It will be completed without delay by the end of the month. It is just a matter of planning it properly.
"On the 120 troops from Congo, they have been cantoned in Berberati to permit investigations by national investigators before their repatriation to their country which will occur on 20 February 2016. For further details on this matter please contact HQ."
But of course Inner City Press has already contacted "HQ" or UN Headquarters, including for example Ismini Palla of Ladsous' DPKO, who gave Agence France Presse the response to questions Inner City Press has publicly posed to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, to the DPKO spokesman Nick Birnback, also cc-ed.
So where ARE the updates on the cases the UN's Diane Corner listed in the UN Briefing Room? Why was it reported in early January that the DRC contingent had "been dismissed" when, in mid February, they are still in place? What is the status of the Burundian contingent in CAR? Follow up questions have been submitted to UN officials and spokespeople in CAR and headquarters in New York.
Well placed sources tell Inner City Press these two countries' soldiers have been in the UN MINUSCA mission nearly entirely due to Ladsous and, more outrageously, the / his French government due to its political relations with the Republic of Congo and DRC.
Ladsous, as Inner City Press has reported, told Burundi's Vice President that he is "pragmatic" about human rights; even on camera, Ladsous linked the rapes to "R&R," click here for video.
While Ladsous' DPKO and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson announced that the DRC contingent would be pulled out of Bambari and CAR in late Janaury, Inner City Press is informed this never happened: they are still there.
Ladsous' DPKO, and now the UN Spokesperson's Office, are engaged in misleading the press and public, and doling out what information they provide to only the friendliest media.
For recent example, Inner City Press for week has reported on and asked about the repatriation from CAR of Burundian troops charged with abuse during the crackdown on opponents of Pierre Nkurunziza's third term. Even after Inner City Press obtained and published on February 9 proof of three repatriations, all UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press is that he would seek an update.
Simarily, Ladsous' lead spokesman Nick Birnback told Inner City Press DPKO would have something to say about the particular Burundian officers in CAR Inner City Press asked him about.
Then Ladsous' spokespeople including Ismini Palla gave their limited confirmations to Reuters and Agence France Presse, who published it without credit or context. (Neither media reported on Ladsous linking rape to R&R - nor did AP.)
In a February email by UN official Anthony Banbury, soon to leave the UN after some heartfelt tears of outrage at peacekeepers' rapes, it is said:
"We have a pack of predatory criminals and rapists, preying on young girls, under the banner of the United Nations. How can we stand by? In my view that battalion should be ordered to cease operations today, same with the RoC battalion, and be confined to camp and guarded full time so they cannot continue to abuse children. While we would pay a short-term price in terms of operations, we would gain so much in terms of the integrity and reputation of the UN, in the CAR and internationally, and we would almost certainly prevent more rapes of minor girls. We simply cannot sustain the argument that the benefit these troops are bringing to the UN and PoC is greater than the harm they are doing."
What will the UN do? What will France, with new foreign minister Jean Marc Ayrault, do? How long can Ladsous - and the Congolese contingents - remain in place?
Having been told by sources of more rapes by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, Inner City Press on January 26 reported them and on January 27 asked the UN's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric to confirm them - but he wouldn't. UN transcript here. Video here.
So what is the protocol of UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, who linked the rapes to "R&R," here? How many more do they know about?
The UN report on rapes in the Central African Republic, released on December 17, found that UN Peacekeeping's Under Secretary General Herve Ladsous “illustrate[s] the UN's failure to respond to allegations of serious human rights violations in the meaningful way.”
Ladsous has yet to take any questions about the report...
When the Panel's three members held their December press conference, Inner City Press asked about Ladsous' failure to vet and his linking of rapes to “R&R.” Video here. Marie Deschamps said pointedly she wouldn't comment on Ladsous' remarks; Yasmin Sooka said these are crimes for punishment, not recreation.
As the last question, Inner City Press asked what it had wanted to ask Ban, and tried to ask Dujarric: what does this say about Ban's management? Video of Q&A here. Didn't Ban's chief of staff Malcorra, criticized in the report, do it for Ban? Didn't the “senior official” who ostensibly let the rape information die on the vine in the 38th floor work in an atmosphere created by Ban's nine years? We will pursue this.
In December 2015, Ban allowed those who cover him, at least the UN Correspondents Association, to sell seats with him for $6,000. And it is these same who have airbrushed out Ladsous and others. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, January 26 -- When Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon came to the UN Security Council stakeout on January 25, Inner City Press asked if he would be using a prop -- a tripod or easel like on October 23 -- for his press encounter. There will be a surprise, Inner City Press was told.
As Danon gave his opening statement, correspondents at the stakeout asked to hold a prop, and some did. As Danon began to say how “hate toys” make Palestinian children hate Israelis, he referred to two dolls being held up at the stakeout as props, video here -- one, it turned out, by the UN correspondent of the Reuters wire service.
What are Reuters' policies in this regard? Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have in the past asked Reuters executives, in writing, to state their policies -- without receiving the requested information, rather only a threat to sue revealed by Inner City Press' Freedom of Information Act request to US-government Voice of America, here. Will Reuters' policies on this be made known?
On this theme of transparency, Inner City Press asked Danon if he and the Israeli government think that a letter UNESCO's Irina Bokova has reportedly sent to Iran should be made public. We'll have more on this.
Back on October 16, 2015 before the emergency Palestine meeting of the UN Security Council began on October 16, Danon came to address the press at the stakeout, with a tripod easel like his predecessor Ron Prosor.
Inner City Press broadcast the easel via Periscope, and asked Danon about what's said in the Security Council about an expanded Quartet helping the situation. Danon replied that the solution is direct negotiations, with no preconditions.
Before Inner City Press' question, another reporter posed his, complete with counter-prop, a photo on an i-Pad. (Inner City Press broadcast this too on Periscope.) The Israeli Mission, unlike some others, didn't try to insist that the question had to go to the journalist they'd chosen: the Free UN Coalition for Access favors this allowing of some openness in stakeout, unlike the censoring control asserted by, for example, UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous and some missions.
Danon, it emerges, did not speak inside the Security Council; he has yet to hand his credentials to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (who is, once again, traveling, this time in Italy); he said he will do so on Wednesday of next week.
Outside the Security Council at the stakeout Danon said, “Whoever avoids direct negotiations is looking for an escape hatch, and Abbas’s favorite kind of escape, is to spread slanderous lies about the situation on the Temple Mount, especially about the status quo. However, only 2 weeks ago Prime Minister Netanyahu stood here at the UN and repeated his commitment once again to maintaining the status quo. Let me make it clear. Israel will not agree to any international presence on the Temple Mount. Any such intervention would violate the decades long status quo.”
After the speeches in the Council Chamber, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour about an international protection presence. He replied that back in 1994 in UNSC Resolution 904, some 37 Scandinavian observers were deployed and remain in Hebron, so why not now? Why not indeed.
Jordan's Dina Kawar seemed to say that such an international force is not envisioned at this point. Oman's representative, as head of the Arab Group, said work would continue. One wanted to ask her also about Oman's work on the conflict in Yemen, but it was not the time.
Using the easel that he brought, Danon said, “On Monday, a Palestinian boy attacked an Israeli boy who was riding his bike, stabbing him no less than 15 times. Let me repeat: 15 times! The victim is still hospitalized in critical condition. Ask yourselves, why would a 13-year-old boy decide to go on a stabbing spree and try to take another boy’s life? The answer is that such acts of terror do not occur in a vacuum. When a Palestinian child turns on a TV, he doesn’t see Barney or Donald Duck, he sees murderers portrayed as heroes. When he opens a textbook, he doesn’t learn about math and science, he’s being taught to hate.”
Then Danon unveiled a picture or cartoon, knives at a body, widely photographed.
“This picture you see here is an example of the kind of messages that Palestinian children are being exposed to day in and day out. The picture gives children elaborate instructions on how to stab a Jew. We talk about a lot about incitement- here you see what Palestinian incitement looks like. This picture is what is being taught in middle schools! Instead of educating about peace and tolerance, the Palestinian leadership is brainwashing children with incitement and hate,” Danon continued.
The UN itself denounced social media, and got asked about its own, or UNRWA staff's, use of social media; UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN reviews even its staff's retweets. Really? We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- 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.
On January 25, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric why when the UN belatedly put online video of press encounters during the Security Council's mission to Burundi, it trimmed a longer stakeout by French Deputy Alexis Lamek, which gave rise to controversy, down to a mere 16 seconds.
Dujarric replied this was how the video were received from "our colleagues in Bujumbura." Video here. Which colleagues? Who decided to selectively cut the video and why? And to omit an encountered between US Power and Bururndian security that even the US Special Envoy on the Great Lakes found significant? From the UN's transcript:
Inner City Press: on Burundi, just now at the stakeout UK [United Kingdom] Ambassador [Matthew] Rycroft said we didn't get a huge amount out of the trip. And I'm wondering, does the Secretariat or Mr. Benomar have any comment on what was or wasn't achieved? And just more nitty-gritty, I wanted to ask you, I did notice that your office or the UN put up three parts of stakeouts that took place in Bujumbura. I guess I wanted to know, they seem to cut off… there seems… like, I know that Pierre Nkurunziza spoke. I know that there was a much longer statement by the French ambassador that was put online. Who decided to put 16 seconds online rather than the full stakeout?
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: I think that's the video we received from our colleagues in Bujumbura. It's not up to us to put up video of the President or anyone else who is not involved who is not directly part of the UN mission. We're there to cover the UN mission. As far as the other ambassadors, we put up what we received.
Inner City Press: But, I've seen video of Ambassador Lamek speaking at great length, and you have 16 seconds. Is that…?
Spokesman: Perhaps it was a different…
Inner City Press: Who decides…?
Spokesman: …perhaps there was a different… perhaps there was a different stakeout or so on.
Inner City Press: Okay. Is there any comment more substantively on--
Spokesman: Obviously, on the trip, we will let the ambassadors report back when they report back officially to the Security Council. I think the trip by the Security Council delegation underscores the critical situation in Burundi and underscores the international community's commitment to ensure and to do whatever it can to restart the political process and ensure calm in the country.
We'll have more on this.
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 -- at 4:32 pm in New York, four minutes before Inner City Press then published it -- the UN has issued this Note to Correspondents:
"Security Council members just departed Bujumbura less than an hour ago. The delegation is headed to Addis to meet with the Peace and Security Council of the African Union tomorrow.
"Council members met with a range of stakeholders during their visit to Burundi, including the President, First Vice President, Foreign Minister and representatives from political parties, the media, and civil society organizations. The Council also met with religious leaders.
Special Adviser Jamal Benomar is in Burundi. The core group of his team called for in Resolution 2248 deployed to Bujumbura and will be engaged with all stakeholders to support dialogue and address security concerns."
How?
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.
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.
UNITED NATIONS, December 22 -- 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.
Things have gotten so bad that in the talks in Bern, 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? And what, they ask, has Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed accomplished, with all his business trips to Dubai? Why will or would January 14 be any different?
On December 21, Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: I heard in the discussions in Switzerland, but also online, since the Houthi side has said they believe Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is essentially operating for the Saudi coalition, attempting to waste time as military operations continue against them. Is there… what's the response to that view?
Deputy Spokesman: Well, that's utterly false. He's been negotiating to make sure that both sides, in fact all of the sides, because it doesn't really even just boil down simply to two, respect the cessation of hostilities, stop fighting and negotiate in good faith with each other. He's been trying very hard to make sure the negotiations are conducted in good faith, and he will continue with that. And like I said, he will brief the Security Council on this tomorrow.
Inner City Press: And is either he or the Secretariat here aware of airstrikes carried out on Sana’a during the talks?
Deputy Spokesman: We're aware of the various violations, and he has spoken out about that. He spoke to the press in Geneva about this yesterday.
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.
Envoy Ould Cheikh Ahmed proposed that each side have six delegates and six advisers; on December 7 the UN announced eight "negotiators" and four advisers on each side. Hadi announced a seven day ceasefire, December 15 to December 21, or at least that he'd "informed the leadership of the Coalition of our intention to cease-fire." That would be Saudi Arabia, where now Syria armed rebel groups are meeting. Hadi as teacher's pet.
The UN on December 7 said, "The UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed will convene Yemeni stakeholders in Switzerland on December 15 for a series of face to face consultations."
According to IOCA's ground rules published by Inner City Press, there will be no press access, other than photographs with the Special Envoy at the start. Delegates shall not use social media. Only the Special Adviser can speak publicly, and he is supposed to be seen has neutral. There are “Ground Rules,” also put online by Inner City Press here.
The ground rules include that the delegations should not speak with the media, or use social media. On December 4, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about these proposals: are they normal for the UN? Haq said he would not comment on leaks. Video here.
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.
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you something on Yemen. It seems like… I'd heard this, that, that the Houthis won't meet with Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed anymore. They've written a letter to him. They've published in their own newspaper something saying that he's Saudi aligned. This Kenny Gluck, who I guess works with this office, left without a meeting in Muscat. Can you say when was the last time that Ould Cheikh Ahmed spoke with the Houthis?
Spokesman: No. I think the discussions, as the Special Envoy said, are ongoing to try to get the parties back on track. I think in a period before these talks, there will be lots of back-and-forth about who is willing to speak to whom and who is not willing to speak to whom. There's a lot of, I think, gelling of the situation. Obviously, the discussions are ongoing, and we're not going to do a play-by-play of the results of these discussions until we are ready to announce something firmer.
Inner City Press: I'd also heard that he's traveled a number of times on UN dime to Dubai, stating that he's meeting the Houthis there. And since there are no Houthis there, I guess because… is that something that you could check? What's his travel…?
Spokesman: I don't know there are no Houthis there.
Inner City Press: Well, UAE [United Arab Emirates] is part of the policy… is part of the coalition…
Spokesman: The Special Envoy is doing the travelling that he needs to do, and I have no reason to question it.
The Saudis, asserting control, have told Ould Cheikh Ahmed to try to cut Oman out, sources tell Inner City Press, hence the idea the talks will be in Geneva. But what talks, if the Houthis won't talk to Ould Cheikh Ahmed or his Kenny Gluck.
Some in UN headquarters, looking past this failed envoy, are floating names for a replacement, including none other than Kevin Rudd, looking for a long-shot project to raise his profile. We'll have more on this.
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."
Inner City Press: I understand you're making this distinction that the people flown, you know, worked for a contractor that maintains the building. Obviously, you're… I mean, the allegation by those detaining them is they were previously with US intelligence. So, I'm wondering, is it… given that the building used to be occupied by the US Embassy, what is the company? What is the name of the company that maintains the building?
Spokesman: It's called DTF… no. You know what? I don't have the name of the… I don't have the name of the company.
Inner City Press: Seems like you probably… can you…?
Spokesman: No, I don't know about it.
Inner City Press: You're flying them.
Spokesman: I'm not flying them. I'll see what I can do.
Inner City Press: I read somewhere that… that the UN is trying to get… seeking the release through the DSG [Deputy Secretary-General]. Is that the case?
Spokesman: You know, the… whichever channels we use are UN channels. I'm not going to go into any of the details.
Inner City Press: Right, but there have been… okay. Here's a more sort of generic one on this day of protection of journalists. There was this Manama conference in… to which the envoy apparently attended, because he did some speaking there. And it turns out that the acting Foreign Minister of Yemen, Mr. Yassin, had two, “respected Yemeni analysts” asked to leave, calling them Houthis, which they, in fact, aren't. It seems, to many people who follow Yemen, this is kind of an embarrassment that people were ejected from a conference, and it showed a lack… and I wanted to know, did the envoy… maybe he didn't say anything that I'm aware of. But, can you check with the envoy whether he had any view of whether it is positive for the process to have people ejected from this conference?
Spokesman: "I don't have any facts about this conference. If I have facts, I will share them with you."
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."
Inner City Press: maybe you can confirm or deny that two individuals flew in to Sana’a on a UN plane have been detained by the Houthis who accuse them of being US intelligence individuals. What was the protocol for getting on a UN plane to Sana’a? Does the UN have a position of not flying in intelligent members of a UN member state?
Spokesman: I'm aware of two people who I believe are UN contractors and their situation. I don't have an update on it. The protocol for flying on UN planes and on UN humanitarian flights is pretty clear. I can give you the details. We do not, we do not knowingly fly in or out combatants.
Inner City Press: I just wondered, could you maybe say what kind of contractors they are? I heard and reported they were making a building that the UN works in. Is that true?
Spokesman: That's my understanding.
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.)
Now Inner City Press is reliably and exclusively informed of a letter, drafted by Saudi Arabia and conveyed to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, which has Ban thanking Hadi and stating that the Houthis have agreed without reservation to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2216. They have not - this is just another misleading move by the envoy, not a third strike but a fourth.
But more fundamentally, why would Ban Ki-moon even consider signing a letter that was drafted by Saudi Arabia? Ban's Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, arguably undermining the envoy, recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and then Iran.
Inner City Press is reliably and exclusively informed that the Saudis snubbed Eliasson, denying several of his meeting requests and finally providing him only with the Foreign Minister, just before he left. In Iran, complaints against envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed were lodged, that he does not have the trust of the Houthis. What kind of envoy is this? What kind of UN?
After the UN Security Council's praise of talks ostensibly committed to UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was not updated after Hadi canceled participation in the talks, then the Saudi led coalition bombed Oman's Ambassador's house in Sana'a.
The Saudi Mission to the UN, doling out information selectively as always, tweeted a photo of a meeting between its Ambassador and the deputy ambassadors of Security Council members the UK and US, of the EU - and UN humanitarian deputy Kyung-hwa Kang. What did Kyung-hwa Kang, if not the Ambassadors, say about the airstrikes?
The UN's envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after complaining about his leaked email showing his marginalization from Yemen talks, that Hadi had committed to come to talks. The Security Council praised him in a Press statement.
Then Hadi canceled. It is similar to the UN's ceasefire-that-wasn't, and the failed "talks" in Geneva in which the UN never gave the Houthis passes to get into the UN building, after allowing them to be delayed along the way so that Ban never met them (while meeting with an individual on the US Al Qaeda sanctions list.)
In many contexts it's "three strikes and you're out," in this case faux ceasefire and two talks that never happened. But the Security Council has not updated its Press Statement of praise; some members apparently simply work around the UN envoy. We'll have more on this.
On September 5 as airstrikes on Sana'a picked up force, there was no comment from the UN or its envoy Ismail Ould Cheihk Ahmed. Nor on September 6. On September 7, the UN finally spoke -- not about the airstrikes but about a leak.
On September 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujrarric if he was denying the veracity of the UN email Inner City Press published, below. Dujarric did not deny it. Video here. Inner City Press on September 9 asked Dujarric's deputy, below, on September 9 about Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
Inner City Press exclusively reported the following: on August 27-28 in Muscat, the US and UK, the EU Ambassador to the UN and Saudi intelligence, met with the Houthis -- without the UN and its envoy present, or even sources say aware of the meeting. These sources say that the UN's Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was on vacation in his native Mauritania, and was entirely out of the loop.
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.
The September 10 briefing by this envoy to the UNSC was requested by the UK - which, it seems, met with the Houthis without Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.
Sources also note to Inner City Press that the Saudi have "dissed" Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, relegating him only to meeting with Saudi intelligence, not diplomats as was previously the case with the UN. This too is embarrassing to the UN.
Perhaps the discomfort is with the reference to the US National Security Council's "Eric Polovski" (that is, Eric Pelofsky) being "on board." Another source exclusively told Inner City Press that in the Security Council's last meeting on Yemen, those raising the mounting humanitarian toll were Venezuela, Chile and New Zealand. Consider again this, to USg Jeff Feltman:
"Dear Jeff,
Before traveling to Jeddah I held two days of meetings with Ansar Allah and GPC in Muscat in which I tried to convince them to improve upon the 10 points which they had submitted to me earlier. This was necessary to respond to concerns in Riyadh that the commitments to the implementation of 2216 were still inadequate and failed to include recognition of the legitimacy of the government.
AA/GPC agreed to a new wording on UNSC resolution 2216 that states unequivocally that they are committed to the full implementation of 2216, (see document attached) with the exception of article which infringe on Yemeni sovereignty and those related to sanctions.
In addition, the new text includes acceptance of the return of the current government for a period of sixty days during which a new government of national unity shall be formed. They also accepted to remove references to counter-terrorism and the Saudi border to which the GoY had objected, as well as the mandatory support by the international community for reconstruction that was in the earlier version. The latter was particularly opposed by KSA and GCC who did not want it to be interpreted as a form of mandatory compensation. Both Ansar Allah and GPC seemed positive and showed considerable flexibility.
My meetings followed two days of meetings between the Ansar Allah and KSA intelligence officers which were also attended by the US, UK and Oman. The discussions focused on possible confidence building measures such as a pullback from border areas in exchanges for a cessation of airstrikes and agreements in which they would cease operations within Saudi Arabia. This was the first time that Ansar Allah have been open to discuss limited and geographically specific agreement. Although they repeated that the return of President Hadi would be unacceptable, they expressed their openness to the return of the government for a limited time. The US Ambassador, Matt Tueller has been keeping me regularly informed of these discussions, which has been most helpful. The confidence building paper proposed by the Houthis to KSA is attached for reference.
Although US officials were disappointed that Saudis had sent relatively junior representatives, they still felt the meetings were positive, largely friendly and a good way for KSA to sound out Ansar Allah’s intentions. Ansar Allah and KSA agreed that there should be further meetings with hopefully more senior representation although no dates were agreed. The meetings unfortunately shed very little new light on KSA’s strategy in the conflict or their willingness to support a negotiated settlement in the near future.
The meetings in Muscat were of course heavily influenced by the military developments in Yemen. The coalition has not been able to make rapid progress since their successes in Aden, Abyan and Shabwa in August. Taiz remains contested and there are reports that Ansar Allah has regained some territory which had been lost in the past week. The coalition’s difficulties moving northward suggest that an assault on Sanaa would likely be difficult and time-consuming than they had previously expected.
The instability and violence which have plagued Aden following its capture is likely also a source of concern. The mostly pro-independence Hiraak fighters are unwilling to cooperate fully with the GoY in attempts to expand northward. This leaves the coalition dependent on ground troops from Islah, Salafi and AQAP related groups, which UAE is reluctant to support.
Conclusion:
I believe, following my discussions in Muscat, that we now have a strong opportunity to obtain a peace deal, and avoid a violent confrontation in Sanaa, for the following three main reasons:
i) The revised paper (attached) is much stronger and contains serious concessions by the H/GPC. It will be difficult, at this stage, to push them towards further concessions.
ii) The recent slower advance of the GoY affiliated forces around Taez and Maarib could also offer another opportunity.
iii) The on-going insecurity and lawlessness in Aden, and the increased visibility of AQAP in Aden region in the aftermath of the liberation of the city by the GoY and Coalition forces, has started to raise serious concerns for UAE, and in some KSA circles.
In light of the above, I have reached the conclusion that we should now move towards a new round of direct talks, two and half months after our first round in Geneva. My recent shuttling has now reached a point whereby it is becoming somewhat transactional with the Special Envoy obtaining a paper from one side and seeking comments/acceptance by the other side. I do not think we can sustain this and I recommend we move to a more strategic phase. I recommend holding this next round of talks in Oman Sultanate as a first choice, which seems to be acceptable to the Omanis and all parties, especially KSA. My second proposed option would be Kuwait, however the Houthis are still hesitant about this potential venue. Ideally, we should aim at holding this meeting before Eid.
My discussions in Jeddah and Riyadh will be explicitly in favour of moving to peace talks phase as opposed to continuing this shuttling around papers/proposals. I have first indications that Abu Ali and Matt Tueller are supportive of this new approach. In this regard, it was important to time my visit to Jeddah before the meeting between King Salman and President Obama tomorrow. Eric Polovski – White House NSC – who was just recently in Muscat is also fully on board on this.
I am conscious that the implementation of this new proposal depends very much on the GoY's openness and the KSA genuine support (and not only on what I am hearing from Abu Ali). But this proposal is also the only way to keep the UN's efforts at the center of the mediation process and to avoid a fatigue among our various stakeholders, especially the H/GPC. This is why I once again need the support of the SG and the P5.
Best regards. Ismail
Muscat Principles for a Solution to the Political Crisis in Yemen Commitment by all parties to implement relevant UNSC resolutions including resolution 2216, according to an implementation mechanism to be agreed upon, and without infringing on national sovereignty, and with reservations regarding the sanctions against Yemeni citizens.
A permanent and comprehensive cease-fire by all parties with the withdrawal of all armed groups and militias from the cities, according to an agreed mechanism to avoid any security and administrative vacuum along with lifting of the land, sea and air blockade.
Agreement on neutral monitoring instrument in order to verify implementation of the mechanisms mentioned above that will be agreed upon, under the auspices of the United Nations.
To respect international humanitarian law, including the elements relating to the protection of civilians and the release of prisoners and detainees from all parties, including those mentioned in UNSC resolution, and to facilitate humanitarian relief and allow the entry of commercial goods, food, medical supplies, oil derivatives and other essential good without restriction. Kaled Bahah’s government, formed by consensus, returns and performs its tasks as a caretaker government for a period not extending 60 days, during which a government of national unity is formed, in a way that does not violate the constitution.
To resume and accelerate United Nations-brokered negotiations, according to the UNSC resolution.
All parties are obliged to hand over heavy weapons to the State in accordance with the outcomes of the Comprehensive National Dialogue."
Note: the "Eric Polovski" in the above would seem to be Eric Pelofsky. Just saying.
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.
Oman has received murky thanks for France for facilitating the release of a hostage, who was working for the Social Development Fund there. Did Oman pay for France? Or will others be released, as France brought about in Mali?
On July 28, Inner City Press asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative about Mokha or Mocha; he replied that previous allegations about Saudi airstrikes on Old City Sana'a and on a palace in Aden once used by Queen Elizabeth had been proven untrue. We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press asked Yemen's representative about the talks in Cairo involving the United Arab Emirates, allies of former president Saleh and, it's said, the US and UK. He replied that the Yemeni government - in exile - deals through formal channels, the GCC or UN.
He might have been asked, which foreign minister is he reporting to: the one named by Hadi, or the one - his predecesor - named by Bahah? We'll have more on this as well.
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.
Inner City Press asked the UN where Cheikh Ahmed is. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press that he has been "planning his travels," soon to Riyadh. Yeah, Inner City Press was told by another less constrained but at least as knowledgeable source: planning his future travels while already on vacation. Another source compared it to then UN envoy to Pakistan Jean-Maurice Ripert going on vacation amid national disasters in Pakisan and then losing his post.
The buzz in Sana'a, where Hadi has named a governor in exile described as an Islamist, is that Cheikh Ahmed may well have known of the plans to bring in APC and weapons to those fighting the Houthis in Aden, and so "misleadingly" urged a pause. Another compared this to the UN luring out surrendering rebel leaders in Sri Lanka - to their deaths.
And so from Aden, photographs of brand new light brown vehicles, American-made, brought in. Will they end up in the hands of Al Qaeda?
Back on July 9, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proudly announced a humanitarian pause to start on July 10 at midnight.
When the supposed pause failed, Inner City Press was told on July 14, it took Ban Ki-moon more than two days to speak with Saudi Arabia, through its foreign and defense ministers. Ban, it was said, was "in the air."
The day before on July 13 at the UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric why the UN had made another "call" for a pause sound like a commitment to a pause, at least by the Saudi led coalition. Video here.
Dujarric answered that envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed had told the Suadis of his desire for a pause. But that's not what the UN said on July 9.
It quickly became clear that some of key parties had not been spoken with or agreed; the pause's midnight beginning came and passed amid airstrikes.
Inner City Press is informed by sources that Ban Ki-moon was urged to not make the dubious pause announcement, including from within the UN's own Department of Political Affairs -- but Ban announced it anyway.
At best, it was rolling the dice. At worse, on the very day that UN is rightly criticizing itself for making false promises of protection in Srebrenica 20 years ago, in this case Yemenis were told there would be a pause, and some perhaps relied on it, to their detriment. And still the UN had said nothing.
After the July 9 announcement, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman if the Saudis had been spoken with. The answer was, Hadi told the Saudis his position. But did Hadi ever agree to the pause, or just to the conditions set forth in his letter to UN? What of Hadi's responsibilities to the Yemeni people?
Now Saudi Al Arabiya has said Saudi Arabia never received any communication from Hadi to stop airstrikes, here. Someone is lying.
Where is the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed? Headed to Ethiopia, Ban's spokesman said, to meet with Ban on the sidelines of the Financing for Development conference there. Does IOCA harbor ambitions for another UN system post, or back in his own country? What sort of a track record is this? Watch this site.
At the July 10 UN noon briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN had spoken with those in Yemen opposing the Houthis but not supporting or in contact with Hadi. Video here. From Dujarric's answer, it seems no such contact has been made.
So, Inner City Press asked, if such a group fires on the Houthis and they fire back, is the pause over, has it been violated? We'll see what happens.
Back on July 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:
Inner City Press: can you, one, characterize not the communications with Mr. Hadi, but with Saudi Arabia that's running the coalition, the Saudi-led coalition. And does this mean the Secretary-General's understanding is no airstrikes during this time period, and no further advances or use of heavy weapons by the Houthis? Does the pause mean no firing? What does it mean to each of those two sides?
Spokesman Dujarric: What it means is that, if you read the statement, the President… Secretary-General notes that the President, President Hadi, has communicated his acceptance of the pause to the coalition to ensure their support. A humanitarian pause means no fighting. It means no bombing. It means no shooting. It means no fighting. It means exactly that: a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've seen, to enable our humanitarian colleagues to get the aid to where it's needed, to preposition, and stockpile, and to reach the millions that need it.
Inner City Press: Right. But just for example, policing, who's doing policing in these various cities? Things happen.
Spokesman Dujarric: Obviously I think… [cross talk] In any area in the country, there is a… there is de facto control and, obviously, there is a need to ensure safety and security. What we're talking about is a humanitarian pause in the fighting that we've been witnessing for weeks on end now.
Inner City Press: So just one last thing on this. So the commitment on airstrikes is through President Hadi to the UN?
Spokesman: You know, the… [cross talk] Obviously, President Hadi is a critical interlocutor with the coalition. And as I've said, we've taken note of the fact that he's conveyed to the coalition his acceptance. We expect everyone involved in this conflict to honor this humanitarian pause.
On July 7 the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights upped its estimate of civilians killed since March 27 to 1,528, adding that one million people have been displaced since the beginning of this round of the conflict. To the Saudi airstrike on UNDP in Khormaksar, Aden, OHCHR added that "IOM’s Migrant Response Centre in Basateen, also in Aden, was struck by a mortar and an airstrike damaged IOM’s office in Harad."
IOM, as Inner City Press reported, had earlier paused its evacuation by air of those seeking to flee Yemen due to some party, which it left unnamed, demanding information about those fleeing BEFORE the flights could leave. Inner City Press has asked others in the UN about this and has been told IOM should have done the screening after the people were able to flee. IOM refused a direct question about caused it to violate this best practice, then stopped sending the Press any information.
There are countries, normally vocal about civilian deaths, which are selling military equipment to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. Ban Ki-moon, now in Oslo, is relying entirely on Saudi-selected replacement envoy Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who was unable to even get the parties in the same room in Geneva, much less reach an agreement. There remain, for now, OHCHR's body counts.
On June 24, Inner City Press asked the UN's replacement envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed about the request by the Houthis and others to meet not with him but with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who did not meet with them in Geneva. Transcribed here.
On June 25 Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm receipt of the letter and if Ban will meet them. Haq said Cheikh Ahmed is the envoy, and Ban's headed to San Francisco. The UN Security Council issued a Press Statement, here.
Also 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.
Here's from the June 24 stakeout, as fast transcribed by Inner City Press:
Inner City Press: On the parties in Sanaa requesting to meet the Secretary General – what’s your response?
Cheikh Ahmed: "This question was raised during our discussion with the Houthis, the GPC and their allies. The Secretary General had delayed twice his travel in order to be there for the parties. We have sent twice a plane from Sanaa which the delegation from Sana'a could not take.. Therefore the Secretary General had a major engagement, which was the election of the new president of the General Assembly which takes place only once a year , and he had to attend it. But the Secretary General will continue being engaged on this."
The ceremonial elevation of the President of the GA who will take over in September was not an election at all - no vote was taken.
Before the meeting, UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped and told the press of the danger of famine in the country, and of his hope for a Yemen Press Statement from the UNSC, in which the UK is the "penholder" on Yemen. Periscope video here, replay including on desktop for 24 hours.
Inner City Press was digging into the letter from political parties IN Yemen, asking for a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, NOT with replacement envoy Cheikh Ahmed. These parties, including but not limited to the Houthis, were delayed in getting to Geneva so that they could not meet with Ban (who while there DID meet with a US-listed Al Qaeda terrorist).
While some are sure to argue that Ban now meeting with the parties would undercut Cheikh Ahmed, others point out the the underlying resolution speaks of the Secretary General's Good Offices INCLUDING his Envoy. The envoy is not the only game in town - nor, given his lack of disclosure, raised by Inner City Press, should he be. We'll have more on this.
