As UN Report on Congo Is Toned Down, UN Won't Say By Whom, Ban's Role

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1, 2010 -- Hours after the publication of the UN's “watered down” report on war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky refused to disclose who in the UN, particularly in the Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon, was involved in making the changes from the stronger draft version of the Mapping Report.

Ban delayed publication of the report after President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, criticized in the report, threatened to pull Rwandan troops from UN peacekeeping missions including in Darfur. Ban flew to Kigali and discussed -- or negotiated -- with Kagame.

With the report issued in modified and watered down form, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the involvement of Ban's legal office, beyond the lawyers of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, in watering down the report. Here are three initial examples:

an earlier reference to "damning elements" that could be used by a court to conclude that genocide took place has been changed to "inculpatory elements.” Another section elaborates at length — compared with the earlier draft — on a number of "countervailing factors" that could be used to argue that such a crime didn't take place. A draft section that dismissed mitigating arguments was dropped entirely.

I think you've got it backwards, Nesirky replied.

Inner City Press asked, “it wasn't watered down?” Nesirky never answered this, rather emphasizing that the HCHR has experience lawyers. Yes, but what was the involvement of the legal office of Ban, who negotiated with Kagame?

Nesirky denied that Ban negotiated with Kagame, and then was questioned by BBC and Al Jazeera about Ban's failure to now make any recommendations about prosecution, and by CNN about Ban not making himself available for questions on this long anticipated day of publication.

Ban's only listed appointments of the day are with the Ambassador of Pakistan, and hosting a reception about the MDGs. It should be noted that after Ban named Kagame and Spain's Zapatero as the co-chairs of his MDG Advocacy Group, Zapatero refused to meet with Kagame due to war crimes charges pending against him in the Spanish courts. After this Mapping Report, will things only get worse? Watch this site.

As UN Council Prepares Trip to Uganda & Sudan, DRC Report to Raise Peacekeeping Price?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1, 2010 -- As the modified Mapping Report on war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was issued today, at the UN in New York Ambassadors of the accused countries as well as the DRC scrambled to make their nations' complaints and addenda heard.

On the eve of the Report's release, Uganda's Permanent Representative Rugunda took congratulations from a stream of other Ambassadors for the alphabetically honor of assuming presidency of the UN Security Council of October. There was little to no mention of the UN's charge of war crimes.

Several well wishers noted that for the first time, a president of the Council would be leading a mission of the 15 members to his country, just as his month began. The phrasing was conditional, as Sudan had yet to issue visas for the second part of the already controversial trip.

There is, however, a connection between the Mapping Report and the Uganda leg of the trip, on which Inner City Press has been told it will be included. Ugandan foreign minister Sam Kutesa has in writing urged that the Mapping Report, which accuses UPDF troops of terrorizing civilians in the Congo, not be published at all, and implied that it may lead to a reversal of Uganda's peacekeeping role in Somalia.

This is a odds with a position taken in the closed door meeting at the UN in New York on Somalia, during which multiple sources tell Inner City Press that President Yoweri Museveni said that if he received funding for 40,000 troops in Somalia, he would clean the place up, “African style.”

After the UN's Somalia mini Summit, from which as Inner City Press exclusively reported Eritrea was at the last minute dis-invited, African Union Commission chief Jean Ping took Press questions. Inner City Press asked about complaints that the Ugandan and Burundian troops in Somalia aren't being paid enough.

Jean Ping said that even with a recent increase, the AU troops in Somalia are compensated at the level of $750 a month, rather than the $1080 the UN pays.

This, Ping said, results in a situation in which “all the peacekeepers want to go to Darfur” to receive the higher pay. Of course, it is the troops' country which decide where they go, and which receives the compensation.

The Council, Ambassador Rugunda told Inner City Press on Thursday night, is slated to meet with President Museveni. How will the issue of the mapping report come up? Will commitments be sought or made about additional payments for Somalia peacekeeping? Watch this site.

Footnote: Not only is the Council trip to Uganda and Sudan, slated to begin October 4, still not confirmed as of 9 am on October 1 -- the terms of reference are not even being negotiated by the whole Council, but only the US and UK, the leaders of the Sudan legs of the trip, Inner City Press is told.

Meanwhile, last minute questions were raised about how many journalists, and even which journalists, should be allowed to cover the trip. These should and must be resolved today -- watch this space.

UN Won't Disclose Ban's 1 on 1 Meetings This Month, Presidents Beyond Sri Lanka?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30, 2010 -- While the UN issued summaries of some 100 meetings between countries' leaders and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during this month's General Debate, for between five and ten of these meetings there was an additional one on one session which was not included in the UN's summaries, it has emerged.

On September 29, Inner City Press asked Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom why Ban's statements minimizing the mandate of the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka, about which Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa later bragged, had not been included in the UN's summary of the Sri Lanka meeting, which alone among the 100 summaries included a summary of non-Ban statements.

Hayson admitted this was “abnormal,” but said that one in ten or one in twenty of Ban's meetings also had a tete a tete (or one on one) segment, not included in the summaries. He said these might involve “staff issues” or other private issues.

For two days now, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to disclose at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asteriskk by these incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the issues discussed tete a tete.

Nesirky has for now refused. This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law.

From the UN's September 29 transcript:

Inner City Press: what Mr. Haysom said that apparently 1 in 10 of these bilateral meeting of the Secretary-General during this general debate have been separate tête-à-têtes on seemingly un-summarized portions. I just wanted to know…

Spokesperson Nesirky: This is standard, Matthew. Let’s knock this on the head straight away. First of all, he said 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. And it was a figure he clearly plucked out of the air as a generalization. He wasn’t saying — he didn’t have a spreadsheet in front of him that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. First thing. Second thing is the very nature of diplomatic discourse is that if you have a tête-à-tête, that’s what it is. You can’t expect then to have a readout of what someone is trying to speak about confidentially. If the other party chooses to do so, that is for them to do and is not for us to judge. That said, the readouts that we provided, and which we tried to provide swiftly and provide in some detail, are to help you in the best way that we possibly can. Clearly you don’t seem to appreciate that.

Inner City Press: No, I guess my question is just that, rather than take his estimate of it, is it possible to get the number of the bilaterals with tête-à-têtes? And shouldn’t you put an asterisk on the ones that are incomplete summaries? It strikes me like, to have a summary that leaves the most important issues out is worse than having no summary, in a way.

Spokesperson: Well, you might want to ask your colleagues how useful or otherwise they believe the readouts have been. That’s the first thing. Second thing is to get involved in that kind of statistics, it really doesn’t work like that. And here is why: because sometimes there will be a meeting that is scheduled to be with delegations and the Secretary-General and the other principal will decide, no; they think that it would be time better spent given that most of these meetings are 20 minutes, 15 minutes — just the two of them, because they have one specific topic that they need to deal with. On other occasions, it can be the other way around. So, it’s not terribly helpful for you or anybody. We try to provide the information that we can in the best possible way. Next question, next question?

Inner City Press: I just want to ask one question actually about Israel in this situation, in which Israel made a representation about a promise they said the Secretary-General had made apparently in a tête-à-tête meeting. The Secretary-General and your Office said that’s not true, we deny that. So, it’s not the case that when Presidents or interlocutors make representations you don’t represent, it just seems like, given the controversy that surrounded the panel, given that the meeting with the panel wasn’t in his schedule, some conclude that he is somehow now ashamed of this panel or won’t include in the summary. Why wouldn’t he include his panel in the summary…?

Spokesperson: Matthew, with respect, with respect, the panel that you are talking about, we have spoken about that openly here. We’ve told you about the fact that they met. I don’t really see what your problem is there. What is your next question?

Inner City Press: I’ll ask this. There is a report…

Spokesperson: And then I might turn to some other people who might have some questions too. In fact I will take a question from someone else first and then I’ll come back to you.

From the UN's September 30 transcript:

Inner City Press: you’d said that there is no need of a spreadsheet of statistics. Having thought much about what Mr. [Nicholas Fink] Haysom said yesterday, which is that some portion — whether 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 — of these bilateral meetings with leaders included an heretofore undisclosed side meeting in which topics as public as the Panel would be discussed, is it possible to know which of the bilaterals involved in tête-à-têtes, not the topic of them, just the fact that…?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Typically, typically, as I said to you, there are different types of meetings. Sometimes a tête-à-tête will, if you like, spontaneously happen at the end of the meeting with the delegations. Sometimes it is pre-programmed, it’s scheduled as precisely that — a tête-à-tête, with no one else unless there is need for an interpreter. And sometimes, it is done at the request of one side or the other. There is nothing unusual or nothing new in this — absolutely nothing unusual or nothing new. What is new, and it doesn’t seem to be appreciated by you, is that we have been providing readouts of every single bilateral meeting, virtually every bilateral meeting that’s been held, the last one of which was held this morning with the Foreign Minister of Guinea.

Inner City Press: It was that Mr. Haysom used the word “abnormal”. I don’t want to belabour it, but he said it was abnormal that the readout of the Sri Lanka public, or open, meeting included a representation of what the President said. So, I’d actually thought since it’s abnormal, and I have looked at the other ones, there is not to my knowledge a single one of the other hundred that has such a representation. I think I would like to at least ask to know, how was that readout prepared? Was it prepared by the same people who prepared the other 99, or was it prepared in some special fashion? Because I think it’s relevant to get, he himself used the word abnormal, not me. So, if it’s abnormal…

Spokesperson: Well, I am the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. But I am not the Spokesperson for Fink Haysom. He speaks eloquently and on his own account and he also happens to be the Director of the Political Unit. So he has a very good understanding of how readouts are put together. But this is mechanics. I understand your interest, I do. And I also understand your interest in this particular country and subject matter, I do. Why it was done differently, I cannot say right now. If I can find out more, I’ll be very happy to tell you. But don’t simply assume that it’s been done for some particular political reason. It could simply be that that’s the way that that one was done. You don’t have to necessarily read something else into that.

But why not disclose at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asterisk by these incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the issues discussed in the one on one meeting?

This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law. Watch this site.

At UN, Debate Ends with Kashmir and Karabakh, Vietnam Hits at Swedish Pique

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- The UN General Assembly debate ended Wednesday with a whimper not a bang, with bickering about regional disputes and a self-important speech by self styled visionary GA President Joseph Deiss, before a nearly empty GA hall.

Azerbaijan and Armenia mixed it out about Nagorno Karabakh. India and Pakistan traded charges of interference around Jammu and Kashmir. Eritrea and Ethiopia fought another round, while the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- North Korea to you -- lashes out at South Korea and the United States, declaring itself innocent of sinking the Cheonan ship.

The UN can be blamed for its role in not solving several of these conflicts. The UN has a force in Kashmir, and like in Western Sahara there was talk of a plebecite / referendum. But none was ever held. Pakistan quoted from what it said was a 1952 offer by Nehru to leave J&K if so requested.

In Eritrea, the claim is that the UN and international community never enforced a border dispute ruling. On the Cheonan ship sinking, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement that was so vague it allows each side to keep claiming victory ad infinitum. And so on.

After Deiss, who has refused to disclose the outside business interests he says are paying him this year, declared that the G-20 must make itself relevant, there was a final requester for the floor: Vietnam.

In a speech on Tuesday, Sweden had criticized the treatment of press and bloggers in eight countries. Three of them, led by Cuba, hit back on Tuesday night, raising questions about Sweden's own record. Inner City Press wrote Wednesday morning about the showdown, including Cuba's statement that Sweden was asked to but refused to stay to hear the reply.

The Swedish Mission called Wednesday to explain that generally it does not talk back to criticisms of its human rights record, because it believes in the freedom of speech. Inner City Press asked Deiss' spokesman if Sweden would be able to speak on Wednesday afternoon at the Debate's final session if they wanted, and the answer seemed to be yes.

But after Vietnam's reply to Sweden, there was no call to surreply. Inner City Press understands that the Swedish reason for its Permanent Representative not being present Tuesday night was the way in which the Cuban Permanent Representative made the request to stay: as a barked order by the glass wall to the side of the GA rostrum.

So this General Debate ended inconclusive, in a fit of pique. And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.

At UN on Sri Lanka, Ban Son in Law Called "Irrelevant," Rajapaksa Relations Still Undisclosed after Tete a Tete Meeting

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon embroiled in controversies including about his personal and familial relations with Sri Lanka, Mr. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky declared on Wednesday that it is “irrelevant” whether Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee served with the Indian military forces in Sri Lanka.

Back in March, Inner City Press had posed this question in writing to the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary General, without getting any answer. So on September 13, Inner City Press asked it and another related question in the UN's noon briefing:

Inner City Press: ...can you describe the personal relationship of the Secretary-General with Mr. Rajapaksa, including prior to becoming Secretary-General? And, can you confirm that the Secretary-General’s son-in-law served in the Indian peacekeeping force that occupied Tamil areas of Sri Lanka during previous peace negotiations? Just as a factual matter to know what the Secretary-General’s connections to Sri Lanka are?

Spokesperson Nesirky: ... as the final two questions, I will get back to you.

Two weeks later, neither answer had been provided. In the meantime, Ban had met with Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Nesirky's office had issued a summary, including that “[t]he President updated the Secretary-General on the work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.”

Ban's summary made no mention of the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka's Office of the President issues its own summary:

“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had yesterday told President Mahinda Rajapaksa in New York for the sessions of the UN General Assembly that his committee on Sri Lanka ``was in no way empowered to investigate charges against Sri Lanka, but was solely to advice him on matters relating to Sri Lanka,’’ according to a news release from the president’s office.”

When Inner City Press on September 27 asked Nesirky to reconcile these summaries, he said it was normal for the UN to not comment on president's summaries of talks with the Secretary General -- despite having done so with, for example, Sudan.

On September 29, Ban adviser Nicholas Haysom told Inner City Press that the UN summary including a paragraph of President Rajapaksa's comments was not normal. He said there was a one on one, tete a tete, meeting between Ban and Rajapaksa, of a type he said took place in one in ten, or one in twenty, of Ban's meetings. Why was it not included in the UN summary?

Nesirky refused to say which other of Ban's meetings had tete a tete portions. Inner City Press asked about his statement, two weeks previously, that he would “get back” to Inner City Press about Ban's relations with Rajapaksa, and Ban's son in law's relations with Sri Lanka.

Nesirky now insisted that this latter, about son in law Siddarth Chatterjee, was “irrelevant.”

Ban's office has previous sought to cut off questioning about Ban's son in law, including his rapid rise through the UN system. In 2009, Inner City Press asked Nesirky's Office in writing to “please state from where the S-G's son in law Mr. Chatterjee got his degree(s), and the status of his case(s) with Ms. Shipra Sen.”

Ms. Shipra Sen had contacted Inner City Press, saying she could not otherwise get justice. She was married to Siddarth Chatterjee before he became involved with Mr. Ban's daughter Ban Hyu-yee. Ms. Sen states that Chatterjee used his connections to quash her in court, and that she had more recently contacted her to threaten her against speaking to Inner City Press.

Ms. Sen has described to Inner City Press Mr. Chatterjee's time with the Indian military whose time in Sri Lanka included charges of abuse and even war crimes, including graphic descriptions which make questions about Sri Lanka and Ban's son in law far from irrelevant.

It would seem important for Ban or his Office to comment. But on September 29, Nesirky also refused to answer the outstanding question about Ban's relations with Rajapaksa. The questions continue to mount. Watch this site.

UN Ban Confined Mention His Sri Lanka War Crimes Panel to Secret Unsummarized "Tete a Tete" Meeting with Rajapaksa

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- Five days after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa met and then issued different summaries of their meeting, Inner City Press asked Ban adviser Nicholas Hayson to explain the discrepancy.

Haysom admitted that after the “open” meeting between the two men, which included advisers including Haysom, there was a “tete a tete” meeting, one on one, which the UN did not include in its purported summary of the meeting(s).

Inner City Press asked how many of Ban's bilateral meetings include separate one on one discussions. One in ten, Haysom estimated. Inner City Press asked, why not include the contents or at least topics of these rare addendum to meetings in the UN's summaries? Haysom defended the omissions, saying that these tete a tete meetings often included “staff issues” or other private issues.

While Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky pointedly cut off follow up questions, it is amazing that the UN would now claim that the issue, even the name, of its panel on accountability in Sri Lanka is a private or secret issue.

And if it is so secret, why allow Rajapaksa to publicly make representations about the “private” portion of the meeting, and then have no response? Inner City Press wrote about the discrepancy over the weekend, and asked about it on Monday, September 27. Nesirky declined to comment on what the President said, despite the fact that it calls into question the completeness and even accuracy of the other summaries his Office has issued -- or at least one tenth of them. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban3rajapaksa092910.html

UN Upbeat on Cote d'Ivoire Despite NY Weapons Purchase, Open Air Polling

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- Long promised elections in Cote d'Ivoire are now scheduled for October 31, UN envoy Choi Young-Jin told the UN Security Council and Press on September 28.

Choi was relentlessly upbeat, that strongman Laurent Gbabgo and his two main opponents Alassane Ouattara and Henri Konan Bedie are all committed to a fair election without violence, “at least in the first round.”

Inner City Press asked Choi about the arrest in New York two weeks ago of Gbagbo colonel Yao N'guessan, trying to buy for $3.8 million 4,000 handguns, 200,000 rounds of ammunition and 50,000 tear gas grenades.

That is a matter for the [Security Council] sanctions committee, Choi said. But doesn't weapons purchase by a president who has already overstayed his term draw the attention of the Council? And isn't the US, which calls it Ivory Coast, concerned? Or does the US only concerned with its new big embassy in Abidjan?

France, a critic of Gbagbo, has drafted a Council resolution authorizing the deployment of additional peacekeepers for the election. Nothing about the abortive arms purchase; nothing about Gbagbo's invitation to Cote d'Ivoire of Sudan's Omar al Bashir, indicted for war crimes and genocide by the International Criminal Court.

One problem at a time, apparently. But aren't they all connected?

Inner City Press asked Choi how he and the UN Mission intend to build shelters for the 3600 outdoor polling places which must, under the rules, be covered by October 31. Choi spoke of building tents, the nitty gritty logistical details for which the UN receives too little credit. Rare praise: remember it.

At UN, Sweden's Hit & Run Human Rights Attack Lambasted by Cuba in UN General Assembly

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 29, 2010 -- As this UN General Debate reaches what some call its garbage time stage, when all the heads of state and attendant security are gone and the General Assembly Hall is largely empty, the deep fissures in the international community become apparent.

In a near empty GA on September 28, Sweden delivered a high minded speech, barely mentioning its own country but rather critiquing the human rights records of at least ten countries. The speech followed the more modest plea of Tuvalu, largely devoted to the right of Taiwan to participate in the UN's specialized agencies. A cynical called this Tuvalu “singing for its supper” -- saying what was necessary to keep Taiwanese aid following in, as Burkina Faso also did on Tuesday night.

At the end of the proceedings, new GA President and international man of mystery Joseph Deiss -- what are the outside business interests he mentioned but did not disclose? -- opened the floor for the right to reply. Most interventions were predictable.

Iran replied to the claims about three islands by the United Arab Emirates, a dispute between oil rich and well armed states which never seems to end.

Ethiopia issued a litany of complaint, including on behalf of Djibouti, against Eritrea, which in turn responded that the so called international community never enforced the boundary judgment it won.

Then Cuba, moving beyond the parochial, lambasted Sweden's “arrogant” attack on eight states in the Global South (somehow Cuba missed two). Most compellingly, at least to Inner City Press, Cuba said that the Sweden speaker had been asked to stay and hear Cuba's response, but chose not to. Even at the UN this passes for bad form.

UN Television panned over to the Swedish set of seat, in which two young staffers sat, looking outgunned. Neither of them chose to surreply. One imagined the Swedish speaker out to dinner, having gravlax and thinking big thoughts. But at the UN you have to engage. Score one for Cuba, on these grounds alone. Watch this site.

On UN Sudan Trip, “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” About Bashir, Darfur Stop Unmentioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 28, 2010 -- If 15 UN Security Council diplomats travel to a country run by an indicted war criminal but no one can take pictures of it, did the trip really take place?

That was a question being asked Tuesday at the UN, as details leaked out to Inner City Press about the Council's on again, off again and now on again trip to Sudan.

The sticking point had been whether Sudan would demand that the Council Ambassadors meet with President Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide, and secondarily whether the Council would first visit Khartoum or Juba in South Sudan.

Western diplomats bragged to Inner City Press on Tuesday morning that they had prevailed on both points. The trip would go to Juba, and in all probability to Darfur -- Darfur wasn't mentioned in the Council Tuesday, one participate said -- before going to Khartoum.

“The Council won't ask to meet with Bashir, and he won't ask to meet with us,” one seemingly excited diplomat told Inner City Press about the trip on Tuesday, adding that Bashir might conveniently be out of the country, in Libya, he said.

The “don't ask, don't tell” trip, Inner City Press has dubbed it.

Bashir has also been invited to visit Cote d'Ivoire. Inner City Press asked the UN's envoy to that country K.Y. Choi about this on Tuesday. Choi's response, strangely, was to repeat that inviter Laurent Gbagbo and his two main opponents are all committed to a peaceful first round of elections on October 31.

This perhaps is the approach of the UN Secretariat to questions about war crimes and impunity: to repeat talking points again and again, even if unrelated. We'll see.

Footnote: Just how dysfunctional things have become between the Security Council and the Office of the Spokesman of the Secretary General, which has already been barred from the Council consultation meetings they for years attended and summarized, is exemplified by that the fact that less than a week before the re-scheduled trip, the Council has not told the OSSG about any arrangements for press.

On past trips -- Inner City Press accompanied the Security Council to Sudan, the Congo, Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire and elsewhere in 2008 -- the Council has let the OSSG invite the press, arrange for visas, and attend. Apparently not this time. Watch this site.

UN Council Trip to Sudan is Back On, After Obama and Taha Praise, US to Announce

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 28, 2010 -- The UN Security Council is, after delay and negotiations, going on a trip to Sudan, Inner City Press exclusively learned on Tuesday morning. “The US will take the floor and annouce it,” a well place source told Inner City Press.

The issue was whether Sudan would require the Security Council Ambassadors to meet with and even take photos with President Omar al Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

The US and UK, in charge of different parts of the long planned Sudan trip, have been trying to get Sudan to drop these demands, to avoid the photo op.

Now, days after US President Obama gave a speech about Sudan in which he mentioned neither the ICC nor Bashir, and Sudan's Vice President Ali Osman Taha praised the new US approach, the impasse has been resolved.

Multiple sources say the trip will be announced later at Tuesday. But at what cost? Watch this site.

In Darfur, UN Prepares To Hand Over Bashir's Enemies for “Blood Money- Exclusive

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 28, 2010 -- In Darfur, the Joint African Union - UN peacekeeping mission UNAMID is preparing to turn over to the government of Omar al Bashir five supporters of rebel leader Abdel Wahid Nur who have been “accused by Sudanese authorities of having committed crimes,” as shown by UNAMID documents obtained by Inner City Press.

For two months the government of Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide, has demanded that UNAMID and the UN turn over the five, who “sought refuge in the Community Policing Center of the Kalma Camp for Internally Displaced Persons” after an outburst of violence in the camp.

Bashir's government imposed a blockade on the camp, not allowing in food or fuel or medicine, and now seeks to close down the camp.

A draft letter from UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari to Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Karti recites that Bashir's government “explained its position of principle that Sudan has the right to apply the death penalty as such a penalty is not illegal under international law and is part of Sudan's criminal code.”

Nevertheless, Gambari writes, “without prejudice to its position of principle, the Government has undertaken to work in a co-operative manner with UNAMID... with a view to bringing the issue to a mutually acceptable conclusion.”

Click here to see Gambari's letter, as obtained exclusively by Inner City Press.

In the concluding paragraph of his letter, Gambari “propose[s] that the issue of the five individuals be brought to a conclusion... on the basis of the additional terms set forth in the attachment hereto... to ensure that the five individuals concerned are transferred to the relevant authorities of the Government.”

So what are the terms under which the UN, Gambari and UNAMID would turn over the five to Bashir's government?

Click here to see Gambari's and the UN's Additional Terms, as obtained exclusively by Inner City Press.

Amazingly to some, under Gambari's Additional Terms, “blood relatives of the victims of the alleged crimes will be called upon to exercise their power to waive the death penalty and seek payment of compensation in the form of 'blood money' instead.”

This in reminiscent of an incident in Geneina, multiply described to Inner City Press, in which UNAMID became involved in and even proposed the payment of “blood money” by IDPs to janjaweed who came into the camp beating up IDPs and demanding money for a person they said had been killed.

The “Additional Terms of the Government's assurances for the transfer of the five individuals from the Kalma CPC to the host country authorities” ends with assurances that “UNAMID's Human Rights Division” could visit the prisoners, and that Bashir's government will not “undermine UNAMID's ability to conduct its activities.”

But Bashir's government has restricted the movement of UNAMID peacekeepers and helicopters, as peacekeepers and civilians as in the Tarabat Market early this money lay dying. The UN's human rights divisions in Sudan have been accused by opposition leaders of failing even to come on a timely basis to examine the body of a slain Darfuri student.

(The UN says it tried, but the Government stopped it -- even if true, hardly a basis for replying on the assurances in the Additional Terms. On September 27, Inner City Press asked a series of questions to Gambari, UN Humanitarian Coordinator Georg Charpentier and Under Secretary General for Field Support Susana Malcorra, click here for article, here for video.)

In this case of the five, UNAMID would rely on “the Ajaweed traditional justice” and, again amazingly, that “the President” -- indicted war criminal Omar al Bashir -- “has the prerogative of mercy which he has confirmed he will exercise in the event that the death penalty is imposed on the accused.”

To many, this is a new low for the UN: accepting the promise of an indicted war criminal not to kill again as a basis to turn over more of his enemies to him. Watch this site.

After Sudan Tripartite Meeting, UN Paints A Happy Picture of Darfur, But Questions Remain

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- Outside the meeting at the UN to address Sudan restrictions on movements and humanitarian access, Sudan's Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that everything was going smoothly inside, no complaints.

Upon exiting, the chief of the UN Department of Field Support Susana Malcorra also painted a positive picture. Inner City Press asked about restrictions on the use of helicopters, and about the UNAMID peacekeepers in Darfur not getting to part of Jebel Marra since February, and not getting to the Tarabat Market, where over 50 were killed, earlier this month. Video of Q &A here.

UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari acknowledged that the response to Tarabat Market had been too slow. But when Inner City Press asked if, going forward, permission from the Sudanese authorities would still be required to move, his answer wasn't clear. He said that Sudan could still cite security as a basis to move allow movement.

UN Humanitarian Coordinator Georg Charpentier talked about a meeting with Sudan's Humanitarian Affairs minister, at which he said access was granted to Jebel Marra.

Outgoing UN Humanitarian chief John Holmes had spoken of no access since February 2010. Equally at odds with that other UN officials have told Inner City Press, Charpentier on Monday said on camera that other than joint press releases, he has not shown his press releases to Sudanese authorities. We'll see.

On Myanmar, US & UN Ban No Comment on Crimes Against Humanity, Nambiar Can't Visit

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- On Burma, after his Group of Friends on Myanmar met on Monday UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took two questions about the meeting.

Inner City Press asked for his views of the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar for a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity by the Than Shwe regime, and if his envoy and chief of staff Vijay Nambiar is able to even get into Myanmar.

Ban Ki-moon said he has no comment on the question of crimes against humanity in Myanmar. He said that Nambiar -- who stood near him at the stakeout -- is not able to get into the country, and he regret it. As he spoke, Nambiar left the stakeout.

UK Minister Burt, who it was said might speak after the meeting, left during Mr. Ban's remarks.

Earlier Inner City Press asked the UK Foreign Minister about Myanmar -- he called it Burma -- and he issued some strong criticism.

So did US State Department PJ Crowley last week, but on Monday here's what Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said:

Question: A couple of Security Council members, including at times the U.S., have called for a U.N. panel of inquiry into war crimes committed in Burma. And a lot of people have said this can't happen until after the election. Is that a possibility the U.S. is considering, when you talk about new relationships after the balloting?

Campbell: Yes, I don't think I'll have very much to say on that issue at this time. I think what we have tried to indicate is that we have not ruled anything out, either on this issue or others, including sanctions on the way forward. We are looking at what transpires in November, in terms of the way forward. And we reserve the right to take steps either to respond to positive steps or negative ones.

Inner City Press is told, diplomatically, that while Myanmar wasn't formally invited, it was told it could attend if it asked to. It did not -- why should it? Here is the UN's transcript of Inner City Press' Q & A with Mr. Ban:

Inner City Press: The Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar has called for a Commission of Inquiry into possible crimes against humanity by the Government of Myanmar. Several of the Friends have also supposedly joined that call. What do you think of that call? And, also, is your Chief of Staff, Vijay Nambiar, is he able to get into Myanmar, if he so requests? And if so, why hasn't he gone?

SG Ban: I have taken note of that report – this is the report of a Special Rapporteur that I have just taken note of. This is something which needs to be decided, determined by the Member States. I do not have any comment at this time on that particular point.

Inner City Press: What about your Chief of Office being able to visit the country or not, can he visit or not?

SG: We have been trying to visit, somehow this year, it has not been possible. I expressed my regret about that fact.

Watch this site.

On Pakistan, Ripert out of a UN Job, Schulenburg Tried Carpet Bagging, Musical Chairs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- On Monday UN “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today announced the appointment of Rauf Engin Soysal of Turkey as Special Envoy for Assistance to Pakistan. The Secretary-General is grateful to Mr. Jean Maurice Ripert,” France's former ambassador to the UN. But what will Ripert's next job be? And who else competed for the Pakistan post?

On the latter, Inner City Press is told by well placed sources that Ban's representative in Sierra Leone Michael Schulenburg, previous the UN's Resident Representative in Iran, was lobbying member states to try to get the Pakistan position.

Schulenburg is already a controversial figure, having been accused of physically hitting a UN staff member in Sierra Leone. But there's more: these well placed sources say that while ostensibly serving the UN in Iran, Schulenburg engaged in the export of Persian carpets, including for profit. They joke that this focus on rugs explains his interest in Pakistan.

As for Ripert, who more and more obviously fled from the Press during his time in the Pakistan post, the buzz among Inner City Press' sources is that he will be getting a job at UN Headquarters. They point out, for example, that the top job at the UN Office of Partnerships is being vacated by Amir Dossal, who intends to set up another corporate social responsibility entity in and around the UN.

The Deputy Permanent Representative from one of Pakistan's neighbors notes that the UNOP job is at a lower UN level than the Pakistan post, which was at the Under Secretary General level. He also notes that Mr. Rauf Engin Soysal, as a Deputy Undersecretary in the Turkish foreign service, implies for the UN Pakistan post after Ripert, who was France's Permanent Representative to the UN, a downgrading. We'll see.

Footnote: On the Pakistan front, there are rumors of a September 28 meeting between the foreign minister of India, staying at the Palace Hotel, and of Pakistan, staying at the Roosevelt. We'll see. Watch this site.

As Kouchner & Le Roy Ask Where Darfur Nur Could Be Sent, Gambari Talks of Threats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- With Darfur rebel Abdel Wahid Nur living in Paris, what is France's relationship to and plans for him? Inner City Press on Monday asked French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner about Nur, whom Kouchner had said would be joining the negotiation process in Doha. Kouchner shrugged that Nur had said that. Now what?

“Where would you have us send him?” Kouchner asked Inner City Press. “Sudan?”

Inner City Press asked Kouchner to confirm that other French diplomats have argued, that France wants to expel Nur but believes a court would on current evidence grant him asylum. These Elysee sources say that France has been seeking evidence, including through the UN, that Nur is behind recent violence in the Kalma and Zalingei IDP Camps in Darfur, as a basis to expel him.

Before Kouchner could answer, his handler Monsieur Valero groaned and rolled his eyes, as if the question was forbidden. There are many causes for the violence in the camps, Kouchner finally said. Video here.

One would like to better understand France's position, but the denial of access, seemingly based on the content of articles, makes it difficult.

Later on Monday, Inner City Press asked the UN's top peacekeeper Alain Le Roy, a French national, about Abdul Wahid Nur. Le Roy replied much as Kouchner had: Where should Nur be sent? Inner City Press pointed out that Khalil Ibrahim of the Justice & Equality Movement is currently in Libya.

Inner City Press also posed a Nur question to the UN's Ibrahim Gambari, in New York for the Tripartite Meeting with Sudan held on Monday afternoon in the UN's Conference Room 7. Gambari said there is evidence Nur -- or his supporters? -- made death threats. There is talk of a flier to this effect, which Nur has denied.

The politics here seem to have Gambari, a fan of the Doha process and some say of Omar al Bashir, wanting Abdul Wahid Nur arrested or expelled from France. Obviously, someone is protecting him. Watch this site.

On Sudan, Obama Non-Mention of ICC Used for Support of Bashir by OIC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- The omissions in US President Obama's speech at the UN's Sudan meeting on September 24 were noticed not only by Sudan, whose Vice President Taha praised the new US approach, but also by the wider Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Inner City Press asked OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at his September 27 press conference about Paragraph 21 of the OIC's September 24 Communique, that

“21. The Meeting expressed its full solidarity with the Sudan under the leadership of H.E. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir and renewed its unflinching support for the various endeavors to achieve genuine national reconciliation, lasting peace and stability within the context of a sovereign and united country. The Meeting reiterated the OIC principled position on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictment against the President of the Sudan and warned of its implications on the ongoing Darfur peace process in Doha.”

In response, Ihsanoglu insisted that the OIC or at least he himself believes in accountability for the crimes in Darfur, but believe that the International Criminal Court through “certain of its statements” has set up the ICC “as a political party, a contender to the government.”

“Even President Obama,” Ihsanoglu continued, “did not mention the International Criminal Court” in which speech at the September 24 meeting on Sudan.

Inner City Press reported that day on Obama's failure to mention the name of Omar al Bashir, indicted by the ICC for genocide and war crimes. Now the OIC is making much of Obama's failure to mention the ICC, as supporting the OIC's statement of full solidarity with Bashir, and against the indictments.

What will Obama or his State Department say? Watch this site.

Footnote: beyond Obama's omissions, it has been argued to Inner City Press that the US was behind the opening up the September 24 meeting to the Press and public, against push back from parties unnamed. Openness is all the good - duly noticed.

At UN, As France Grabs the Mic, Kouchner Says to Report Only What He Says On It: Leaving Sarkozy Government Soon?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27, 2010 -- When Bernard Kouchner, for now the French Foreign Minister, did a media stakeout at the UN midday Monday, a dozen reporters showed up and fought with each other to ask questions. Video here.

Inner City Press managed to ask a question about Sudan, and France's hosting of Darfur rebel leader Abdul Wahid Nur, the answer to which will be published later today. But the sideshow was the maneuvers by France's Mission to the UN to control who could ask questions.

As reporters shouted out questions ranging from Israeli settlements to the Balkans and conditions in Haiti, Kouchner turned toward the loudest voice, or the most interesting word he heard. Meanwhile two French reporters, apparently promised the “right” to ask questions prior to the stakeout, stood to the side.

The French Mission's spokesman at first pointed to them, then grabbed the UN microphone boom to “give” the floor to the two French journalists.

This degree of control had never been seen or attempted, according to long time UN stakeout denizens. “It makes them look like the teacher's pet,” one such denizen remarked. Another opined that the French Mission to the UN tries to use access to newsmakers and events as a way to discipline or influence reporters about their coverage.

On the questions that he did take, Kouchner was energetic, and not as directly rude as he was during a stakeout in the UN's Temporary North Lawn Building last week. There, when a Japanese reporters was setting up a question, Kouchner goaded the reporter that it wasn't a question at all.

During his time in New York, the French Mission to the UN tried to tightly control all media access to Kouchner, including snubbing some of the most active reporters at the UN, including on the issues Kouchner speaks most about: humanitarian access, Sudan, the Responsibility to Protect and Myanmar. It is not clear on whose behalf this control was being exercised.

During his weekend in Haiti, Kouchner reportedly said off microphone that he will soon be leaving the Sarkozy government. Asked about this on Monday, Kouchner bristled that the press should listen to what he says on microphone and not off microphone.

In his speech to the General Assembly, Kouchner ranged back to the Security Council's resolutions on the Kurds in Iraq in the early 1990s, talking about the Right to Intervene and later Responsibility to Protect. How do he and France apply this to Sudan, or to Myanmar, the topic of another UN meeting later on Monday? We will have more on this.