Showing posts with label zeid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zeid. Show all posts

Friday, October 6, 2017

As Cameroon Shoots Kids, ICP Asked Why UN Human Rights Silent, Now Zeid Welcomes Biya


By Matthew Russell Lee, Photo, video, Q&A


UNITED NATIONS, October 6 – When Cameroon's President for the past 30-plus years Paul Biya came to meet Antonio Guterres on September 22, before he went back to the Hotel Inter-Continental in Geneva, he was accompanied by his state media and... Inner City Press. Biya, still in Geneva, has directed his forced to use water cannons in Buea, as they shoot to kill in North-West and South-West Cameroon. On October 5 Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript here: and below, how it was that the UN's supposed High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein had said nothing. Video here. Sixteen hours later Zeid's spokesman Rupert Colville, who previously refused to even acknowledge receipt of Inner City Press' written request for comment about Paul Biya's cutting of the Internet much less comment on it, belatedly issued a statement -- welcoming Paul Biya's cynical condemnation a full five days previously of "all" - his own - violence. This is a new low. Here is Zeid's / Colville's statement: 

"We would like to reiterate the concern voiced by UN Secretary-General António Guterres about the violence in South-West and North-West Cameroon on 1 October, amid demonstrations by people from the country’s Anglophone community.
According to government figures, at least 10 people were killed on Sunday and credible sources indicated that some of these deaths resulted from excessive use of force by the security forces. We call on the Government of Cameroon to establish prompt, effective, imparital [sic] and independent investigations to ensure accountability.   Cameroon’s Anglophone regions have seen multiple strikes and demonstrations over the past year as resentment and tensions have built at what English-speakers see as discrimination against them in favour of the majority French-speaking population. In response, the Government deployed additional security and defence forces.  We urge the authorities to ensure that the security forces exercise restraint and take measures to prevent the use of force when policing demonstrations. People should be allowed to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, including through having uninterrupted access to the internet. We call on all people to pursue peaceful means to make themselves heard. Over the past few months, public and private property has been damaged, and at least two homemade bombs are reported to have been planted in public places. There have also been arson attacks on a number of schools. We urge the Government and Anglophone groups to engage in a meaningful political dialogue so that the grievances of the Anglophone population, which date back decades, can be fully addressed. In that respect, we welcome the comments by President Paul Biya on Sunday in which he condemned all forms of violence, irrespective of the perpetrators, and called for dialogue as the only way to find a durable solution." Wow. Here was what Inner City Press asked the UN, in person, sixteen hours earlier:
Inner City Press: I've been wanting to ask you about Cameroon.  In fact, I've asked you some stuff in writing, but I want to ask you now in person.  Since your last statement…  I mean, there…  there…  I've asked you how many people the UN thinks have been killed in Cameroon, because Amnesty International said 17 some days ago.  People in the country are saying it's well over 100 now, their bodies being discovered.  So, I just…  one, I wanted to know, what is the role of the UN there in getting to the bottom of that?  How does it square with this…  people there are saying the idea that calling for dialogue with a President who seems to still be in Geneva when people are still actively being killed is a strange message from the UN.  So I wanted to know…  and where is Mr. [Francois Lounceny] Fall?  You said he'd be going this week.  It's now Thursday.  Where is he?  Spokesman:  He will travel as soon as it is appropriate and as soon as travel can be arranged.  There is a need, as in any situation, for a need for dialogue.  I have no specific information where the President of Cameroon may be, but there are…  there is a need for dialogue between the authorities and between the leaders of the Anglophone community.  I think the Secretary-General is extremely concerned about the increased tensions we've seen in the northwest and the southwest parts of the country.  He's been clear in condemning the violence that we've seen.  And we are…  as we've said in the past, we're ready to support any efforts by the parties for constructive engagement. I don't have…  We don't…  we're not in a position to, as far as I know, right now from here, to estimate the number of casualties.  We've seen the press reports, which are, as we've said, very worrying, but I have no…  we have no…  I…  at least I have no independent information from here. Inner City Press: There are not only reports but proof that both the internet and social networks have been cut off again, which was a bit issue earlier this year.  And I didn't see that in any UN statement.  And also, often it's…  sometimes human rights issues are not raised from here, but they're raised by the High Commissioner.  I haven't seen any statement by him.  So, people are saying they've seen him comment, for example, once there were, you know, mean tweets against CICIG [International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala] and he commented on that.  I'm not asking you to respond to him, but is this idea of this kind of division of labour, has something been dropped here? because it's a…  100 people killed and the internet…  young people are having their feet shot by soldiers so they can't protest… [cross talk] Spokesman:  "As I said, we've seen the press reports, which are extremely alarming.  The…  for the High Commissioner, I think he may have spoken out, but I think, again, that's a question you need to ask…  to address to his office.  There is a basic need to keep the internet flowing anywhere.  Access to information is critical for everyone, and that…  I think it's important that people have access to the internet." Also on October 5, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, who earlier this year told Inner City Press the UK did not view the situation in Cameroon as a threat to international peace and security but would continue to monitor it, if the threshold has been reached and the UK will ask for a UN Security Council meeting. Periscope video here. He said no one has asked and the UK continues to weigh the pro and con of putting it on the Council's agenda (along with Myanmar, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Colombia and others). Earlier Inner City Press asked Francois Delattre, the UN Ambassador of France and President of the UN Security Council for October, why he has not yet convened a Security Council meeting amid the killings of civilians and cutting off of social networks in Cameroon. Periscope video here. Delattre said the French Foreign Ministry's spokesperson has spoken earlier in the day, again calling for dialogue. We'll have more on this. Guterres' spokespeople have three times refused Inner City Press' request for the UN's estimate of how many people have been killed by Paul Biya's forces since Guterres offered him praise on September 22. Now, the US State Department through its spokesperson Heather Nauert has said, "The United States is deeply concerned about violence and the loss of human life in protests that have taken place in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon since October 1.  The Cameroonian government’s use of force to restrict free expression and peaceful assembly, and violence by protestors, are unacceptable.  We urge the Government of Cameroon to respect human rights and freedom of expression, including access to the internet.  We call on all sides to exercise restraint from further violence, and engage in dialogue for a peaceful, durable resolution." Tellingly, the Secretary General of the Francophonie Michaëlle Jean has while expressing "concern" said that "Violence should never be a means of expressing grievances." So Biya, who is killing, is doing so to express grievances? Or "pour se fair entendre"? We'll have more on this. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said nothing. Nothing, from a man who issued a statement about critical tweets directed at a UN official. His New York representative, as Inner City Press reported at the time, was not (invited to be?) present at Guterres' now infamous grip and grin meet with Biya on September 22, 2017. What has been the role of the totally untransparent UN Department of Political Affairs, under Jeffrey Feltman? Today's UN system is hypocritical, and failing. In Mamfe and elsewhere, Republique du Cameroun forces are reportedly shooting people in the feet and legs to prevent their peaceful protest, while Guterres tells Anglophones to take advantage of this "opportunity" and be sure to stay with the LRC Constitution. Tell that to, as only one of many examples, Benjamin Amin, a young tech-savvy Anglophone who returned from studies in India only to be shot and killed by Biya's forces in Kumba on October 1. Inner City Press on the morning of October 3 again asked Guterres top three spokespeople, "what is the UN's estimate of the number of civilians killed since September 27? And what is the UN's awareness of the Cameroon government's restrictions on the media and other attempts to restrict freedom of association, speech and belief? Where does the UN understand President Paul Biya to be, and his role in these restrictions? On deadline." Lead spokesman Dujarric replied, "On Cameroon, we have nothing to add to what I said at today’s briefing" - which, beyond the previous night's canned statement, below, was: "the issue of Special Rapporteurs is one that the Secretary-General… that's outside of the authority of the Secretary-General.  I think we've had a number of diplomatic contacts at various levels with the Cameroonian authorities.  We've expressed our concern at the ongoing situation, especially at the violence and at the loss of life that we've seen.  We've seen that the authorities have called for dialogue, and we encourage those leaders in the anglophone community to seize that opportunity." Who is seizing whom? Previously with the UN silent for more than a day after Inner City Press submitted written questions to it on Cameroon  - its High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid spoke on Catalonia but not Cameroon - Amnesty International issued a statement that "the reported unlawful killing of several people in the Anglophone regions by the security forces coupled with the blocks on Facebook and WhatsApp represent an extremely worrying escalation of the government’s on-going campaign to silence any form of dissent in the West and South-West regions of Cameroon." At the UN's October 2 noon briefing, lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric wasn't there; his deputy Farhan Haq had nothing at the top, vaguely alluded to statements, no answer. Haq emailed Inner City Press: "On Cameroon, we are awaiting a statement, which should come out shortly; maybe not by noon, though." By 10 pm, still nothing. Finally at 10:30 pm, 29 hours after Inner City Press asked the UN how many civilians it acknowledged Biya has killed, the UN issues this with no estimate: "Further to his statement of 28 September, the Secretary-General remains deeply concerned about the situation in Cameroon and strongly condemns the acts of violence reported in the South-West and North-West regions of the country on 1 October, including reported loss of life. He calls on the Cameroonian authorities to investigate these incidents and urges political leaders on both sides to appeal to their followers to refrain from any further acts of violence, and to unequivocally condemn all actions that undermine the peace, stability and unity of the country. The Secretary-General takes note of the calls by the authorities for dialogue and encourages representatives of the Anglophone community to seize the opportunity in their quest for solutions to the community’s grievances, within the framework of the Cameroonian constitution. The Secretary-General reiterates the support of the United Nations for such efforts, through the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa (UNOCA)." Pathetic. Or to be more charitable, too little too late. Meanwhile the UN's Resident Coordinator in Cameroon was robo-tweeting pablum about World Non-Violence Day, and France's Ambassador Gilles Thibault was expressing support to Yaounde (for flora and fauna). Inner City Press asked the UN Resident Coordinator Allegra Baiocchi for her response - none yet - noted the similarity to the UN's silence in Myanmar and emailed the UN's top three spokespeople: " In light of the government crackdown on communications and unarmed civilians in North-West and South-West Cameroon, after the UN's readout of September 22 and subsequent statement of concern, this is a request for the UN's already belated response to the government's killing. How many people does the UN acknowledge have been killed? What is the UN, both the country team and the wider UN, doing?" The lead spokesman provided this interim response: "We will try but may not have answers until tomorrow." Inner City Press has asked that any and all information be emailed to it as soon as available. More than 12 hours later, from the UN, nothing. Watch this site. According to the UN read-out, the September 22 conversation was entirely positive and did not mention Biya's abuse of Anglophones, or human rights in any way. Now on October 1 Biya's forces have opened fire from Buea to Ikiliwindi, Mamfe to Nkwen, Ndu to Nguti. Still, grainy footage has been sent to Inner City Press of Ambazonia independence celebrations in Bamenda despite the orders against freedom of association and movement, and ultimately freedom of speech and of belief. Biya has again undermined the Internet and rights to communicate in Southern Cameroons, to which Inner City Press after asking the UN  four days in a row until exclusion now turns. Here is a letter sent not only to Inner City Press, but to the UN Office of the Spokesperson: "I am writing from Southern Cameroons. I am pleading you should use your high office to stop the genocide that President Biya wants to exercise on the English speaking Cameroonians. a lot of people have lost their lives already and yet the President of Cameroons is seriously planning to shed more blood.  The truth is clear, the people of southern Cameroons (English speaking ) was a country  of its own that legally voted to joint La Republic of Cameroon. But now La Republic of Cameroon are treating these people as if they colonize them or conquered them in a war. sir use your conscience, it could have been your family going through what we are going through. Where is human rights in the 21st Century where people of a particular nation turns to treat their fellow brothers and sisters as slaves and the whole world is reacting as if there is nothing happening Does it mean that if tomorrow if I'm in one top position in the world that has to deal with the society i will give deaf ears to a situation that has to do with millions of lives ? what is wrong with the world today? where is human right? there is no justice at all? is it that human lives no longer matters? Please kindly react to stop the genocide that is about to happen in 48 hours." No response from the UN. Here is another letter: "Dear Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press: Accept my greetings and that of those who can't write to you. I am writing to you from Buea, Southern Cameroons. Am reacting to your articles on September 28 concerning the crisis in Southern Cameroons. The approach of the UN concerning the Southern Cameroons and it people, proves time and again that the UN must be very corrupt, and have turned it back against in commitment to protect human rights freedoms, and states sovereignty. How can the Secretary General be talking of his to consolidate peace and the Territorial integrity of Cameroon, when knows very well that, the UN holds no legal treaty that binds the British Southern Cameroons with LA Republique DU Cameroun? I hereby want to inform you that, I, as well as an overwhelming majority have chosen to separate from la Republique DU Cameroun because of what we have gone through in 56 of forced union. If the government of la République du Cameroun, considered us Southern Cameroonians as a people with the same rights as Francophones, if the government wanted to make peace and resolve this problem from it core, I think the repression taking place now won't have been. While you published on the Cameroon crises yesterday, the government of la Republique DU Cameroun became violently repressive and attacked and beating people their homes, taking seizing money and smart phones, and taking them to jail. As am writing to you now, six people were shot yesterday in the town of Ekona, and a grandmother was killed by the military in her home. 14 years old kids are being arrested and detained in jails under very cruel conditions. Since the beginning of this crises since November last year, 112 people have been killed by the military of la Republique DU Cameroun. The la République du Cameroun's government have been using terrorism blackmail the peaceful protests. I hereby call on the Secretary General to read the the UN charter on human right and freedoms, and the right for self governance." Biya's renewed attacks on the Internet have ranged from Bamenda to Kumbo and Kumba, but are being circumvented by VPNs. Meanwhile Inner City Press is receiving video of protests in front of the Inter-Continental Hotel in Geneva where Biya is staying. Guterres praised Biya, then belatedly called on him to dialogue: while Biya is not even in the country. His landing in Geneva: "VP-CAL used by #PaulBiya, President of Cameroon (Boeing 777) on 2017/09/26 at 08:56:46." We ran this sample letter to Inner City Press: " woke up this morning and discovered Internet Services in Cameroon have somehow been limited. I am suspected the regime of Paul Biya have tampered with the internet service and Facebook, Twitter,  WhatsApp, VPNs, Vcontact  aren't working. I am sure many other social media have been cut off as well.
There have been plans to celebrate the symbolic independence of this region 'the Former British Southern Cameroons' on the 1st of October 2017. That is on Sunday and the region have been heavily militarized by the Biya regime, Homes of people invaded, beaten , some killed, many kidnapped and with this shutdown to major social media to  which it is where most of these crimes are exposed, many have been fearing a total Genocide that can be perpetrated on the people of that region. There were rumors that, the internet will be shutdown come 30th September. The Minister of Communications made a public communique two days ago to say, the internet won't be shutdown but I guess it was just a ploy as through some websites are working, major social medias ( Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter) have been cut off. Please, make the world know what is happening in this region. This is a sly move to blackout to the world what atrocities the Biya's regime is/will be perpetrating in these regions."  In Fiango, Biya's security forces have killed, reportedly Enogene Basile, following their September 28 killings in Ekona. Watch this site. Inner City Press on September 26, 27 and 28 asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric about these glaring omissions. The first time, Dujarric alluded to "private" diplomacy. Then on September 27 when Inner City Press asked ask, video here, Dujarric said that UN envoy Francois Fall will be going to Cameroon "next week." On September 28, Inner City Press asked Dujarric deputy Farhan Haq if this would be before or after October 1, and Haq said he didn't know. Hours later, Dujarric's office put out a statement of concern below, which many see as too little, too late, with its emphasis on territorial integrity. On September 29, Inner City Press asked Dujarric not only about the UN's surveillance of the Press, on which he refused to answer referring to the question to the UN Department of Public Information whose chief Alison Smale has refused to answer basic questions for a month (now keeping a close eye on Catalonia, if not blatant crackdowns in Cameroon), but also if Guterres' concern is at threats to those in Anglophone Cameroon to stay indoors or be treated as "terrorists," for citing UN General Assembly Resolution 1608. Video here. Dujarric replied that he doesn't have "granularity" about what's being done and said. But he put this out: "The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about the situation in Cameroon, including with regard to the recent security incidents in Bamenda and in Douala, and mounting tensions in the South-West and North-West regions related to planned events on 1 October. The Secretary-General has encouraged the Cameroonian authorities to continue their efforts to address the grievances of the Anglophone community. He urges the authorities to promote measures of national reconciliation aimed at finding a durable solution to the crisis, including by addressing its root causes. The Secretary-General supports upholding the unity and territorial integrity of Cameroon and urges all parties to refrain from acts that could lead to an escalation of tension and violence. The Secretary-General believes that genuine and inclusive dialogue between the Government and the communities in the South-West and North-West regions is the best way to preserve the unity and stability of the country.  The Secretary-General stands ready to support these efforts, including through the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa (UNOCA). " We'll see. On September 26, Dujarric replied that Guterres would say there is a time for public diplomacy, and a time for private diplomacy. Video here. Some wonder, how many people have to die, or what kind of people, for it to be time for UN "public" diplomacy? Earlier on September 22 Inner City Press interviewed Southern Cameroonians out on 47th Street, then asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric about people killed that very day. UN transcript here and below. The crackdown is also financial: Biya's Minister of Finance has threatened the National Frincne Credit Bank in Bamenda with loss of its license for taking part in the "Ghost Town" expression of desire for independence, or in the first instance a referendum. See letter here. This politicization should trigger action by the "decision making phere" [sic] written about by Biya's state media, the kind of media that the UN and now its new head of Public Information favor over independent press. From the September 22 UN transcript: Inner City Press:  there’s a protest right now of Southern Cameroonians on 47th Street, but more importantly, there’s one in Southern Cameroon where five people have been killed today, as Paul Biya gave his speech, so I’m wondering…  I know the Deputy Secretary-General had some interest in the issue.  There’s Mr. [Francois Lonseny] Fall.  Are they aware of these protests? Spokesman:  "We’ve seen the reports I think we would definitely… we would call on the authorities to show restraint and ensure that people have the right to demonstrate freely." But on the UN's 27th floor, it was all smiles. And much later the UN put this read-out on its website: "The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mr. Paul Biya, President of the Republic of Cameroon. The Secretary-General appreciated Cameroon’s hospitality towards the refugees.
They discussed the latest political developments in the country, as well as regional issues, including Boko Haram and the situation in the Central African Republic. The Secretary commended Cameroon for its efforts to combat Boko Haram, and reiterated the readiness of the United Nations to support the Government in all areas." No mention of the Anglophone areas, much less the day's killings. This is a new low, even for today's UN. UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman had left the floor with the Australian delegation; it was unclear if any UN Human Rights official was present. One of Biya's handlers even signed the UN visitors book in advance for him. When Guterres greeted his next visitor he did so in French then apologized, the last meeting was in French. Back September 19. Guterres ended with two photo ops. The first was Paraguay's President Horacio Manuel Cartes Jara, who spent a long time writing in the UN's visitors' book, followed by a short meeting. Alamy photos here. Next and last was Uzbekistan's President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Guterres said pointedly, just the signature. But something was lost in translation: he still started writing. Alamy photos here. Then the Press was ushered out. Already on the way in before the Paraguay photo op, the Media Entrance on 47th Street was locked. The questions about double standards of media access, including retaliatory restrictions still in place on the investigative Press 
while no-show, no-question state media like Egypt's Akhbar al Yom have full access have yet to be answered by the official now responsible, Alison Smale. According to a photographer allowed into the smaller "G-200" room, Smale was there to greet "her" Prime Minister, Theresa May. 

Thursday, February 4, 2016

On Sri Lanka, Inner City Press Again Asks Ban Ki-moon Spox of International Participation in Tribunal, Abuse



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Sri Lanka represents one of the lowest points of the last decade at the UN, from inaction in 2008 and 2009 to cover-ups since.  On February 4 - the national day - Inner City Press asked the UN's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here:

Inner City Press: On Sri Lanka, in the north, there's been a case of a… of a 6-year-old boy that was… apparently went into this Navy base in northern Sri Lanka, offered food and chocolates, and has been found raped and dumped in a well outside of the Navy base.  And I wanted to know, what is the UN's current presence in the country, both as a matter of just human rights and an individual case, but also something that stokes communal tensions in terms of investigating or addressing or dealing with this type of a case?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, certainly, we can look into human rights violations where they occur.  We don't have a permanent human rights presence, but we do have staff on the ground, and we can bring in people as we need.

Inner City PRess:  And do you have anything on Zeid's trip there?  I mean, I'm sorry.  Go ahead if you had more to say on Prince Zeid's trip.

Deputy Spokesman:  You can check with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  I believe they put out some details earlier.

  Back on January 27, 2016, Inner City Press which covered UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's visit to Sri Lanka in May 2009, asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Ban's failure now to follow up, transcript here:

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask on Sri Lanka, I've been meaning to ask for a few days.  The President, Sirisena, gave an interview with BBC Sinhala and said:  "There is no room for foreign involvement in the proposed judicial mechanism to investigate war crimes," which is totally contrary to the resolution sponsored in Geneva by the Government.  What does the Secretary-General think of this reneging on international involvement…?

Spokesman:  I will take a look at the interview and get back to you.

 Two days later, there was nothing - except an NYT editorial - so Inner City Press asked again on January 29, transcript here:

Inner City Press: On Sri Lanka, I asked a couple days ago whether there's a DPA (Department of Political Affairs) response to President [Maithripala] Sirisena saying no foreign judges in the war crimes inquiry.  Do you have any answer?

Spokesman:  Yes, I do... On Sri Lanka, the Secretary-General understands that the discussions in Sri Lanka on the transitional justice mechanism, including the judicial component, are ongoing.  Broad-based national consultations are about to kick off, and they will help inform the modalities of the mechanisms.  The Secretary-General also recalls that the Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka, cosponsored by the current Government, affirms the importance of a credible justice process and international participation in the judicial mechanism.  He remains hopeful that the Sri Lankan Government stands by its commitments and fully implements the resolution.

  Apparently if Inner City Press, Ban's spokesperson would not have read out loud or otherwise released this statement called an "If-Asked." We'll have more on this.

On January 25, ICP asked Ban's spokesman Dujarric about the arrest of a journalist:

Inner City Press: in Sri Lanka, since, again, given the Secretary-General's long involvement in this issue, a journalist who went into exile based on death threats.  Sasi Karam Puni Maruthi [sic - it's Sasikaran Punniyamurthi, apparently the UN won't even use Google] has returned and, upon his arrival, was arrested by the government.  It's a little unclear… basically it seems like arresting a journalist for what he wrote.  Is this something that DPA [Department of Political Affairs] or peacebuilding…

Spokesman:  I will look into it.  I had not seen that report.

  But nine hours later, nothing. Nor on Sirisena backtracking on international involvement in any accountability for 2009.

  After Ban's spokesman also left Iner City Press' January 7 question about reports of torture under new President Sirisena, late on January 7 Ban Ki-moon issued a statement of pure priase for Sirisena. On January 8, Inner City Press asked Dujarric to explain, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: the statement on Sri Lanka.  I'd asked, I guess, Monday and yesterday.  Yesterday I asked you about these new reports of torture that at least two groups say have occurred even under President Sirisena, and people there are also marking, you know, the seventh year of a killed journalist, Lasantha.

So I'm wondering, it seemed like a pretty, he can write whatever he wants, but what is the answer to the Secretariat's review of… of torture allegedly occurring in the last year and of unsolved cases of dead journalists, et cetera?

Spokesman:  You know, obviously, unsolved cases of harassment and killings of journalists need to be solved and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.  On the reports of torture, I know our human rights colleagues are aware of the reports put forward by the NGOs that you'd mentioned

From the January 4 transcript, video here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you something on Sri Lanka, which is that, in the last couple of days, the President [Maithripala] Sirisena has said that there's no requirement of a special court for events in later stages of the conflict and also has announced some parcels of land to people in the north, but there seems to be a demand by the Tamil National Alliance that the military disoccupy land, that… private land that it continues to be in.  What's the UN's response to that?  What's the UN's, I guess, involvement, including through the peacebuilding commissioner and any other way…

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  I'll have to check… [cross talk] I don't have an update.  I'll check.

  Three day later, nothing. On January 7, Inner City Press asked about reports of torture in Sri Lanka in the last year, under President Sirisena.Video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: there were two reports issued yesterday about torture in Sri Lanka, not in the past but in the last year as well while Mr. [Maithripala] Sirisena has been in the Government, a UK-based group and a South Africa-based group, very detailed reports including, like, locations that they found.  What is… I mean… I guess…

Spokesman:  I will… I will check.

  While not answering any of those questions, on the evening of January 7 Ban Ki-moon issued a statement of pure praise of Sirisena, here. Has Ban's UN turned the corner on Sri Lanka or not?

Even as Ban and his spokespeople declined to answer basic follow up questions about Sri Lanka, about who in his Executive Office was informed of peacekeepers raping children in the Central African Republic, and about Burundi, his UN Correspondents Association now known as the UN Corruption Association, having charged $6000 for seats next to Ban, continues to promote him - without questions, literally.

  UNCA head Giampaolo Pioli, who tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for accurately reporting that Pioli had accepted rent money from Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's ambassador, then gave a "UN screening" on a war crimes denial film in the Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium, has issued this, only to those who pay UNCA money, leaked by a disgusted UNCA member:

"Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would like to meet with UNCA members and all UN correspondents for the New Year's visit this Wednesday, Jan 6th, 2016 from 10:35 to 10:50 am in the UNCA room. It will be an opportunity for him to say a few words to all of our colleagues and to exchange his best wishes. There will not be a Q&A session but as in every year it is a great occasion to be together. Please attend."

 Well, no. Providing a rah-rah session with no Q&A is pathetic. And, "all correspondents" will not enter the UN Corruption Association, which charges money for access to Ban. But there are questions, including on Sri Lanka. For now, the January 6 "event" was canceled, so Ban could speak to / at the press from the UN Security Council stakeout, without taking questions.

The former President of the General Assembly John Ashe and four others have been indicted, Ashe for buying documents from Ban's UN Secretariat.

Ban's envoy to Libya Bernardino Leon was exposed by leaks as having taken instructions and then a job from the United Arab Emirates.

And Ban's head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, is listed in UN Dispute Tribunal documents as having tried to cover up child rapes in Central African Republic by peacekeepers from his native France.

  Inner City Press, which Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric did not call on despite calling two separate times on the same UN Correspondents Association scribe, asked audibly, “Do you have any update on the John Ashe indictment? Bernardino Leon? These were major developments this year.” Vine here.

  But Ban refused to answer the question. He walked out of the briefing room, shaking hands scribes. The press conference began with Dujarric setting aside the first question for the head of UNCA, who thanked Ban for attending an event on Wall Street for which UNCA charged $6,000 to sit with Ban. This is the UN Corruption Association.

  A question on or to cover up the sexual abuse scandal was arranged, with Agence France Presse congratulating Ban for this response to the sexual abuse scandal. (Senegalese Babacar Gaye was urged to resign, Ladsous who on camera linked the rapes to “R&R," video here, remains in place.)

Ban read out a wan answer on Burundi; his deputy spokeperson refused an Inner City Press question on Burundi at the previous day's noon briefing.  We'll have more on this.

Ban once promised monthly press conference but his last one was three months before, then nine months before that. On September 16 with the UN being less than successful in mediating in Yemen and Libya, Syria and South Sudan, accused of rapes in Central African Republic and killing 8,000 in Haiti with cholera (after 40,000 died in Sri Lanka with little response from the UN), Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, What is your legacy?

  That question, nor none of the other 11 Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric selected, did not refer to the rape scandal, much less deadly cholera or the Sri Lanka report released earlier in the day in Geneva, after months of delay and supposed concern by Ban.

  Inner City Press asked, before the press conference ended and then again before Ban left the room, “Anything on Sri Lanka?” But there was nothing. Ban's spokesman Dujarric didn't even allow Inner City Press to put a question to UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who covered up rapes in DR Congo, Darfur and now CAR.

  Most recently, Ladsous linked rapes to a lack of “R&R,” rest and relaxation, video here.

Dujarric himself cut off Inner City Press questions on what Ladsous said, and declined to answer on Reddit in an “Ask Me Anything.” (He didn't say he's ANSWER everything, one wag pointed out.)

  But even beyond the scandals, Ban did not in his opening statement mention Somalia, or CAR, or Darfur; none of the questions selected by Dujarric was about Africa. (One wire points out Africa was part of a UN-at-70 question; noted.)

    Inner City Press also tried to ask about Burundi -- nothing - and South Sudan, on which we are preparing a story.

  It was Voice of America with the “What is your legacy” question. Ban said he'd answer next year. Inner City Press might answer sooner. Watch this site.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

In Burundi, Inner City Press Again Asks Ban Ki-moon Spokesman About Mass Graves, Only Zeid Reply



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- 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 28, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about a meeting held but not televised on January 27, at which it was urged that mass grave sites in Burundi be preserved as evidence,video here, transcript here.

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

Inner City Press: on Burundi, I'm sure that you… you and Mr. [Jamal] Benomar have seen this Amnesty International report with photographs and, in one case, video of what they say are these mass graves.  And I wanted to know… I'd asked you yesterday if there's any plan by the UN to preserve such evidence, but now that there's actual… I mean, they've taken photos, but they're not on the ground; they don't have blue passports.  What's the UN going to do about it?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Obviously, the High Commissioner for Human Rights is extreme… is very much aware of these reports.  I think, on 15 January, the High Commissioner had already flagged the possible existence of at least nine mass graves in Bujumbura and its surroundings, including one in a military camp containing about 100 bodies in total of people allegedly killed, I think, around 11 December of last year.  He also said that his office are analysing satellite images in an effort to shed more light on the extremely serious allegations.  The High Commissioner made clear then and remains as clear today that we urgently need an independent, thorough, credible and impartial investigation and that the alleged gravesites need to be safeguarded.  That's it.
 

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

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

  The UN Spokesperson answered

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

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

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

UN Spokesman: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  More specifically, now, who decided on the edits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Obtained by Inner City Press

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Press exclusively 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.

Friday, January 29, 2016

New UN Rapes on CAR, Inner City Press Asked UN on January 27, Zeid Confirms Jan 29



By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive follow-up

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- 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 wouldn't. UN transcript here. Video here.


 Now UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid on January 29 says:

"UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said Friday he was extremely alarmed at continuing allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of minors in the Central African Republic (CAR) by members of foreign military forces. The alleged crimes mostly took place in 2014, but only came to light in recent weeks."

  So if they came to light weeks ago, why did the UN refuse to confirm them when Inner City Press asked on January 27? 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?

 In fact, Zeid is disclosing new allegations against French Sangaris and other "non-UN" troops, concluded that "While the cases raised by the High Commissioner relate to non-UN military forces, a number of cases involving UN peacekeepers also came to light during the interviews carried out by the joint UN team. Those cases are being raised separately with the relevant Troop Contributing Countries by UN Peacekeeping (DFS / DPKO), in accordance with the standard policy of UN headquarters in New York."

  So Ladsous' DPKO - and Ban's Secretariat - withhold information about the UN's own rapes.

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 -- this as Inner City Press exclusively hears from sources of yet more sexual abuse cases in CAR, involving DR Congo AND Republic of Congo, and changes of abuses will in detention.

 On January 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about these new charges, transcript here:

Inner City Press: on CAR, I've heard there's a new round of sexual abuse allegations found by the Mission involving soldiers from the Republic of Congo and DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo].  Is that the case?  And what's the… why… if you haven't yet announced it, why haven't you?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't have anything to share with you at this point on this.

Inner City Press:  What's the protocol for the Mission going public when it becomes aware?  Because I've heard of this from pretty…

Spokesman Dujarric:  This Mission has been extremely proactive in sharing publicly allegations.  So, when we're ready to do so, we will.

 We'll see.

 On January 26, a new proposal on the systemic problem of UN peacekeeper sexual abuse was made by Code Blue: to take the UN’s "oversight of every aspect of peacekeeper sexual exploitation and abuse out of the hands of the UN Secretariat and place it under an external, independent management board," as Stephen Lewis put it.

  Inner City Press asked Lewis' co-founder Paula Donovan about retaliation against whistleblowers, and about Ladsous having on camera linked the rapes to "R&R," here.  Donovan replied that the board would decide how to have eyes and ears on the ground; she called the linking of rapes to recreation "appalling." It's the type of thing an oversight board would act on, she said.

 Following up about the UN merely handing a victim of sexual abuse in one of its camps in South Sudan the contact information of the alleged abuses, Inner City Press asked if that would be coverd by the proposal. Donovan said it would or should cover every single instance where any part of the UN system was implicated in alleged sexual abuse.

  Inner City Press then went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the proposal, and when Ban's response to the Deschamps report will be out. Video here.

On January 5, Ladsous mission in CAR issued a press release about yet more allegation of sexual abuse of minors by its peacekeepers, below.

 On January 18, Inner City Press managed to ask UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson about the report -- the UN Deputy Spokesperson appeared intent on not allowing the question, but Eliasson to his credit took it. Video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: The UK Ambassador mentioned sexual abuse.

DSG: Yes.

Inner City Press: He did. And so I wanted to know…

DSG: I did also.

Inner City Press: So, since that report came out about the Central African Republic, what has the Secretariat or the 38th floor done to ensure that in the future if a UN staffer becomes aware of child rape, that it goes to the right people?

DSG Eliasson: This is very serious. As you know, the Special Representative in Central African Republic resigned, was asked to resign. One of the others who were named by the Deschamps group, panel, was considered to have abused authority has left the United Nations, retired.  And we have a group set up right now, led by the Chef de Cabinet - Edmond Mulet - that is going to work very, very quickly on following up the recommendations of the panel. Mr. Mulet and his group will report to the Secretary-General by the end of this month.

We will look into both issues of individual responsibility, but also primarily on the systemic problems. This reminded me of my reaction to the Sri Lanka tragedy back in 2009. The panel came to the conclusion that it was systemic failure, so we drew the [conclusion] to that – we need to have a systemic response. That was the origin of Human Rights Up Front.  This time also the Deschamps report talks about, almost in the same language – systemic reactions. I also expect, or we also expect, Member States again to draw the conclusions from this.  In so many cases we have passed on to the Member States very damning reports, but very little sometimes has been done by Troop Contributing or Police Contributing countries. So we need to have nation states following up these [inaudible].

  We will have more, too, on DSG Eliasson's reference to the UN's failure in Sri Lanka. At the January 19 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq if Mulet's report at the end of January will be made public. Video here.  We'll see.

Earlier in the month,  Inner City Press asked the Permanent Representative of New Zealand and of Uruguay, President of the Security Council for January, about the report(s). Video here.

Ambassador Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand expressed concern. Ambassador Rosselli of Uruguay said in his national capacity that allegations should be dealt with has his country had, apparently a reference to Haiti. It appears the Security Council will take up this matter.

  Earlier at the January 5 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if now Ladsous, in the Security Council right then on CAR, would belatedly answer questions, since the firing / scapegoating of former mission chief Babacar Gaye clearly didn't end the rapes. From the transcript:

 I wanted to ask but CAR, since you have this new report.  One, I guess I’d like to… since Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous is briefing the Security Council today about CAR and has yet to answer any questions on the CAR sexual abuse allegations report… I guess it’s a timely request… can he do a stakeout, take questions on it?  Because it seems like Babacar Gaye was fired, but the problems go on.  So this is a request.  It seems like a reasonable one

 But as noted (and Vined, here), Ladsous did not answer.

 Back in December, once the report came out from under embargo at the noon briefing Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will do about the findings against Ladsous, and that he escaped the “abuse of authority” moniker only because “the mandate of the Panel is to assess whether an abuse of authority has occurred in connection with the Allegations.”

 Since the abusers Ladsous let into MINUSCA were not the French troops who are accused of rape -- these troops are not in MINUSCA -- Ladsous' malfeasance is not “in connection” with the Allegations. But is it acceptable?

  Dujarric seems unfamiliar with the report; he implied that the third person found to have abused authority was the Ethics Officer, when it was a lower level official in CAR. Inner City Press asked what this all says about Ban Ki-moon's management, along with the John Ashe / Ng Lap Seng and Bernardino Leon scandal, a question Dujarric did not allow Inner City Press to asked Ban himself on December 16. “Those are your words,” Dujarric replied. Yes, they are.

  When the Panel's three members held their 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.

And this: if OIOS' Lapointe was wrong, isn't James Finness, who continues the OIOS campaign? While the UK has spoken, where is France, given Sangaris and Ladsous?

  As to Ladsous, the finding was made even though the three authors of the report do not mention, and apparently have not yet seen, the notes from Ladsous' October 1, 2015 meeting about the CAR mission withBurundi's Vice President, in which Ladsous said he is “pragmatic” on human rights, in Burundi and by extension elsewhere, nor Ladsous' September 11, 2015 on-camera comments linking the rapes to “R&R,”video here.

  But Ladsous still as of December 17 holds the senior UN position into which France, which has chosen the last four heads of UN Peacekeeping, put him in September 2011. How much longer?

By contrast, the former head of OIOS Carman Lapointe, of whom the panel finds an abuse of authority, is conveniently gone, as is Babacar Gaye, who worked for Ladsous at the CAR mission.

  Perhaps it was easier for the panel to make the formal finding against people who had already left the UN by the time the report was released.

  One wonders: if responses like Ladsous' legalistic (and largely false) November 2 letter were received so long ago  by the panel, why did they withhold the report all the way until December 17, the day AFTER Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's rare (and last of the year) press conference?

  High Commission Zeid, of whom it is said he was slammed in the report, in fact gets the same treatment -- critical, but no formal abuse of authority -- as Ladsous, who is airbrushed out and conditions access to information and answers about Peacekeeping on positive / false coverage.

 The same finding is made with regard to former Chief of Staff Susana Malcorra. Will the critical language hurt what chance she has, as a non Eastern European, to try to follow Ban Ki-moon as Secretary General?

 More generally, how does all this criticism reflect on the tenure of Ban Ki-moon? The report does not mention the concurrent scandalsregarding UN Secretariat documents purchased by now indicted Ng Lap Seng through former President of the General Assembly John Ashe, nor Ban Libya envoy taking instruction and a cushy job with the UAE while representing Ban on and in Libya.

  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.

  The Panelists -- Marie Deschamps, Hassan Jallow and Yasmin Sooka -- leave unnamed a senior officer in Ban Ki-moon's office (finding that he misspoke when he said he had informed Deputy Jan Eliasson), without saying if the officer remains in the same position. We'll have more on this.

Friday, January 8, 2016

On Yemen, Inner City Press Asked UN of Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, He's Headed from Paris and UAE to Saudi, PNG Musings


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- 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. 
  Now that the Hadi government has declared "persona non grata" the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights representative for the country, George Abu Al-Zulof, Inner City Press on January 7 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN has to obey the order, accepting instructions from a "host country in exile." Video here.
 Inner City Press has also been asking where the UN's envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is. Now comes this, from Geneva:
"regarding the whereabouts of the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Chiekh Ahmed, this is to confirm that Mr. Ould Cheikh Ahmed is indeed "back in the region." The Special Envoy first spent a day in Paris where he met the Foreign Minister of France Laurent Fabius on 6 January. He then traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he met the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohammed Qarqash, and several other high-level Government officials.

The Special Envoy arrived in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, today, where he will meet the Vice President and Prime Minister of Yemen Khaled Bahah, the Government of Yemen delegation to talks, Leaders of Yemeni political parties, as well as senior officials of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Special Envoy will be traveling to Sanaa soon. "
  Did Ould Cheikh Ahmed not even try to visit Iran? Or was he rejected? With the Saudis (and Hadi government), will he raise the OHCHR representative's expulsion?
 Dujarric called the PNG-ing "regrettable," but when Inner City Press asked if the UN would in fact ban the human rights representative even from the north of the country, Dujarric said the UN respects sovereignty. [See below.]
  Does Hadi exercise sovereignty over Sana'a? Over Saada? Or does this constitute allow Hadi or really the country bombing Sana'a - Saudi Arabia - to ban the UN's human rights official from looking into the impact of the bombs? 
 Looking at a couple of analogies: does the UN allow Kosovo to "PNG" UN personnel? Can both Syria and Israel "PNG" UN personnel from the Golan Heights? 
A skeptic at the UN mused that Hadi's PNG of Zeid's representative might not be unconnection to Saudi anger at Zeid even mentioning the executed Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. We'll have more on this.

 Past 5 pm on January 7, the UN issued this statement by Ban Ki-moon.
On January 8, OHCHR's Zeid issued this.
From the January 7 noon briefing transcript:
Inner City Press:  the representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been declared persona non grata by the stated Government from Dubai.  And what's the UN's response to him being blocked?  And also if you can give an update on what Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed… I think you said he was going to kick back into action.  Where is he and what's he doing?

Spokesman:  He has been in action.  I think they expect him in the region today.  We hope to get an update.  On the announcement on the listing of the Head of the Human Rights Office in Yemen as persona non grata, it's obviously an extremely regrettable development.  I know our colleagues at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are waiting for some sort of official written communication from the Yemeni authorities.  But we would obviously underscore that that person has been doing a very, very good job, an excellent job, and as I said, we're waiting for more official confirmation.

Inner City Press: A specific on that.  It seems like probably most UN system personnel if they go into Yemen are flown on some kind of a UN flight.  Would that be accurate?  So does the UN check with the Government, the [Abdrabuh Mansour] Hadi Government, all people that it flies to Sana’a?  Do you see what I'm saying?  Would you… even though it's regrettable, is this… is this a statement that you're bound to respect as the UN system…  [cross talk]

Spokesman:  Obviously, the United Nations respects the sovereignty of Member States.  We hope… we are obviously awaiting further detail on this, but we cannot… it is difficult for us to keep a staff member in any country against the wishes of the host country.

Inner City Press:  But like in Libya, if you flew people in, which government would you check with?  You'd now… I guess you'd check with this new… in the past, when it was unclear who was the Government, what would you do?

Spokesman:  We'd check… obviously, there is a recognized State by… according to the United Nations, and I'm sure information is shared with that Government.
Now that the Houthis and the GPC have both said they won't participate in any more talks facilitated by the UN's Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed -- who insists on retweeting praise about himself after skipping any public Q&A at the UN -- Inner City Press on December 28 asked the UN's lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric: "On Yemen, what is Ban Ki-moon's or Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's response to Saleh saying GPC will only negotiate directly with Saudi Arabia, and seeming rejection of the UN-faciliated talks?"
 Dujarric replied at 2 pm on December 28 to another question, partial (on Burundi) then added: "On the other issues, if we have an update to share with you, we will."
 So on Yemen, as usual, there is no UN response.
In the talks in Switzerland, despite the happy-talk Note to Correspondents issued on December 20, UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed was repeatedly accused of merely operating “for the Saudis,” while the Saudi-led coalition took more military action.
 Inner City Press intended to put the question directly to Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, after UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq at the December 22 noon briefing said he would be speaking at the Security Council stakeout after briefing the Security Council.
  But after the Council meeting, in which High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid al Hussein said that of harm to schools and hospitals, "a disproportionate amount appeared to be the result of airstrikes carried out by Coalition Forces" -- Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed did not as promised appear at the stakeout.
 Last time he was at UN Headquarters, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed took only three questions at the stakeout, then went upstairs to the clubhouse of UNCA, now the UN Corruption Association after selling seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6000 and did an interview with the same pro-Saudi / GCC media.
 So where did Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed go this time? Watch this site.
  Inner City Press on December 20 reported that the UN-facilitated talks have been such a failure that there is already a clamor to replace Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that among the names being mulled is Germany's Bettina Muscheidt, the European Union's Ambassador to Yemen.

  UN insiders point to Germany having lost a UN post when Kim Won-soo replaced Angela Kane as Under Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs. Achim Steiner was passed over for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees post, in favor of Italy's Grandi.  Germany already "got" Libya with Martin Kobler - why not Yemen too? 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.
  So on November 4, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric,video here, transcript here:
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."
 On November 2, amid wire reports derivative and worse, Inner City Press followed up, video here, UN transcript here:
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."
  It would seem the UN spokesman, left unnamed by Reuters, said "DSS" and Reuters mis-heard it as "DSG," didn't note it would be strange for the UN's second highest official to be on two contractors when lower official Herve Ladsous is the one who made a call for 13 contractors in South Sudan.
 But Reuters, including the Thomson Reuters Foundation Trust.org,running its correction, says "UN corrects source of information in second paragraph." So the UN made the mistake?
 This is the same Reuters which on Friday regurgitated a UN report which Inner City Press had reported and asked the UN about fully two weeks earlier, same Reuters which refused to make public its policies, and tries to censor its anti Press complaints to the UN, here. We'll have more on this. 
  On Yemen, from the October 30 UN transcript:
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?
On July 20, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq.
  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."
 On July 14, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric.here
  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.

   Ban was in Addis Ababa for the Financing for Development conference; here are his UN's "messaging" points in the run-up to that conference (and here an Inner City Press story about it; we'll have more). But isn't the UN responsible to say something after a humanitarian pause it announced doesn't happen, and people are killed? 
  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.