At UN, Somali Minister Dodges on Saracen & Sharif Term, Even Who Ambassador Is

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- When Somalia's Transitional Federal Government's new Prime Minister Mohamed Abdulahi Mohamed Farmajo spoke to the Press at the UN on Friday, Inner City Press expected answers about the TFG's contract with private military contractor Saracen, about Sheikh Sharif, at least about who now is the TFG's Permanent Representative to the UN.

But none of these questions were answered.

Mohamed Abdulahi said he has “assigned a committee” on the issue of Saracen, which will report in “the next couple of weeks.”

Inner City Press asked who has signed the contract for the TFG with Saracen, since Mohamed Abdulahi's predecessor Prime Minister Shamarke had denied he signed, has said the document used by Mohamed Abdulahi is a forgery. Video here, from Minute 1:41.

“We have the letter of intent.. singed by the former Prime Minister,” Mohamed Abdulahi answered. When Inner City Press asked for his personal view on the use of mercenaries, Mohamed Abdulahi said it would be improper for him to comment for the next two weeks. Video here, from Minute 3.

Mohamed Abdulahi has cracked down on charcoal exports from Somalia, calling these a product of the country's chaos. But isn't a contract with mercenaries, with a company affiliated with the brother of Yoweri Museveni president of AMISON troop contributor Uganda, a product of chaos?

Inner City Press asked what will happen in August 2011 when the TFG expires -- will Sheik Sharif move to extend his term? Mohamed Abdulahi said “I don't want to speculate,” there are “several options” which will be clarified “in the next two months.” Video here, from Minute 8.

What is the Security Council's, and the United States', position on the use of mercenaries? Former US State Department official Pierre Prosper is speaking to the Press about the TFG deal, but its fundings have not yet been made public. (Inner City Press is told by sources the funders are the UAE and Jordan.)

What is the Security Council's, and the United States', position on democracy in Somalia?

Long time UN official Charles Petrie told Inner City Press he would be working in Somalia for the TFG. But when Inner City Press asked Mohamed Abdulahi about this, Mohamed Abdulahi said “never heard of it.” Video here, from Minute 8:45.

Somali sources previously told Inner City Press that the new foreign minister of the TFG had written directly to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon re-naming Idd Beddel Mohamed as Permanent Representative, and saying that the long time Permanent Representative was being recalled to Somalia.

Inner City Press immediately asked Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson's Office to confirm receipt of such a letter, on December 23. Having no answer, Inner City Press repeated the question several times between Christmas and New Years. Finally this answer arrived:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Subject: Answer
To: Inner City Press

We can confirm receipt of a 17 December letter from the Somali Foreign Minister recalling the Permanent Representative for consultations. The Permanent Representative himself sent the Secretary-General a 22 December letter confirming his recall.

Inner City Press prepared to write a follow up article, but wanted to speak to Idd Beddel Mohamed himself. But on January 5 in front of the first UN Security Council meeting of the year, Idd Beddel Mohamed refused to answer any Press questions.

On January 12, he chided Inner City Press for its articles. Inner City Press said that, since it covers Somalia, it will be better to speak, to be professional.

On January 14, Inner City Press spoke with the long time Permanent Representative and his staff. Who is running the Somali mission?

Mohamed Abdulahi wouldn't say. He answered that “we have an ambassador, he is with me here today, that is an internal matter.” Video here, from Minute 7:05. Which one is the Ambassador? Watch this site.

Ban Says Panel “Finalizing” Sri Lanka Dates, “Will Be Able” to Talk Beyond LLRC

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- For the four weeks since UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on December 17 announced his Panel of Experts would visit Sri Lanka and praised the “flexibility” of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his Spokesperson's office has refused to answer questions about Rajapaksa officials' statements that they were unable of any trip, that Ban's Panel would get only “conditional visas,” not to investigate but only “make representations” to Rajapaksa's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission.

When Ban held his next monthly press conference on January 14, Inner City Press sought to ask, as it has in writing without a responsible answer, when and under what conditions the Panel might travel, given that it was supposed to issue a report by January 15.

But despite Inner City Press signing up to ask a question, and keeping hand raised throughout Ban's 45 minute press conference, Inner City Press was not called on to ask any question. This was something new.

While other reporters shouted out questions about Ban administration corruption and if Ban will seek a second term -- no comment -- Inner City Press chose not to get into shouting. Rather, Inner City Press waited by the exit of the Dag Hammarskold Library where Ban would pass.

“Mister Secretary General, you said your Panel is going to Sri Lanka,” Inner City Press asked, “what happened?”

Ban Ki-moon replied, “They are now working very seriously on finalizing the dates of visiting Sri Lanka.”

Inner City Press asked about “the government has said they can only talk to the LLRC, that they can't investigate anything.”

Ban Ki-moon replied, “They will be able to... They are now discussing that.”

This again in contradictory to what the Sri Lankan government has said, and even to what Ban's spokespeople have said. Ban's acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq, bypassing Inner City Press' outstanding questions, told BBC's Sinhala service that the Panel might only meet the LLRC outside Sri Lanka.

Then, when Inner City Press asked questions on it day after day, Haq said that Ban's Panel's mandate is broader than the LLRC. Haq refused to answer if the Panel or its staff would travel to Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lanka government immediately said that to the contrary, it would only be with the LLRC, that no investigation or other discussion would be possible, and visas would be limited to this effect.

Inner City Press asked Ban Spokesman Nesirky with whom Ban spoke before making his December 17 announcement and praising Mahinda Rajapaksa. Nesirky refused to answer, just as he has refused any answer to the question of Ban's prior relations and meetings with Rajapaksa, and Ban's close family members' dealings and presence in Sri Lanka: all factual questions refused.

Nesirky's office on January 14 emailed Inner City Press that the Panel would delay its report into February. (Nesirky's Office's post hoc insertion in the transcript, below, refers to the end of February ).

Then Nesirky refused to allow any question from Inner City Press: the above quoted and recorded answer was only possible by waiting in the entrance of the auditorium.

Ban claimed transparency, but this is not it. Watch this site.

From the UN's supplemented January 13 transcript:

Inner City Press: since there’s no noon briefing tomorrow, I just wanted to ask....with the Sri Lanka panel, and it was said that the four months, its work term, expires on 15 January. Is that report going to be turned in on that date? Has there been any — you know, on the Secretary-General’s statement of 17 December, that the panel was going to go to Sri Lanka?

Spokesperson: I’ll check on both of them for you, Matthew. Okay, thank you very much and have a good afternoon.

[He later added that the Sri Lanka panel has been granted an extension until the end of February.]

As Ban Again Dodges on 2d Term, Claims a Transparency Not Seen at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- With expectations he'd confirm he'll seek a second term, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a press conference in New York on Friday. He began by focusing on three issue, not mentioning the critiques of the UN on any of them.

Ban mentioned Haiti, but not the allegation that UN peacekeepers brought cholera to the island and then covered it up. He has been asked to remove the UN immunity of a UN staffer there for a murder inquiry, but his spokesman Martin Nesirky has refused to address Ban Ki-moon's response.

Ban mentioned Cote d'Ivoire, but not that UN peacekeepers under the command of his close ally Choi Young-jin in fact turned tail and retreated leaving a neighborhood of supporters of Alassane Ouattara to be attacked by forces loyal to Laurent Gbagbo. All Ban would say is that those who comment attacks will “face accountability.”

Ban mentioned Sudan and Darfur, but did not address the the UN Mission there this week provided free transportation and logistics help to an indicted war criminal, Ahmed Haroun. What was that about accountability?

After these three points, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky presided over a question period in which issues like the Middle East, North Korea and Ban's own statements a month ago about his Panel of Experts being able to do work in Sri Lanka were not present or allowed. As the frustration against Ban and Nesirky grew in the room, some journalists started shouting out questions.

One question was about the corruption and lack of transparency in the Ban administration alleged by former top UN investigator Inga Britt Ahlenius.

Ban, reading from notes, claimed that 99% of his officials now make public financial disclosure on the UN's web site. This figure is not true. Many officials simply file a one page form that they refuse to make any disclosure public.

Other Ban envoys, such as Alexander Downer who simultaneously works for a business consultancy Bespoke Approach, don't make financial disclosures.

Ban's expert on genocide Francis Deng is allowed, on UN time, to work on private book projects. He owns property, allegedly in the Sudanese region impacted by the referenda and stalled popular consultations. But his “public financial disclosure” doesn't even state what state of Sudan his property is in, nor how much it is worth. On UN time Deng writes books about Sudan and the referendum, but the UN refuses to say that the contents are attributable to the UN.

Questions pend for weeks in Ban's Spokesperson's Office. Spokesman Martin Nesirky says proudly that that are questions that he simply will never answer, without even explaining why. This is not transparency.

On Sri Lanka, UN Panel Delays Report into Next Month, Travel UNclear

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- On war crimes in Sri Lanka, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon belatedly set up a Panel of Experts, saying that their work would be finished, and report provided, by January 15. On December 17 he announced that the Panel could travel to Sri Lanka, and thanked President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his “flexibility.”

Since then, the government of Sri Lanka has said visas would only be granted for Ban's Panel to “make representations” to Rajapaksa's own Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission. Inner City Press has asked whom Ban spoke with before his December 17 announcement, and whether the Panel members or their staff are in fact going to Sri Lanka. Neither question has been answered.

With the January 15 deadline coming, Inner City Press on January 13 asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky if the Panel will turn in its report on time, and if they have traveled or will travel to Sri Lanka.

Nesirky said he would look into it. While Inner City Press did hear back from Nesirky's Office for the rest of Thursday, apparently late on Thursday an answer was inserted into the transcript, as if it had been given to Inner City Press. (See below). Then on Friday this e-mail arrived:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:16 AM
Subject: Your question on Sri Lanka
To: Inner City Press

The Panel expects to submit a report sometime in February.

So Panel's deadline was silently extended, just as it ostensibly extended its deadline for submission of comments and evidence, after many e-mails bounced from the Panel's full mailbox and overnight mail packages were refused, no one to receive them.

The rationale for this extension would seem to be the visit to Sri Lanka announced by Ban Ki-moon on December 17. But the UN has refused to say if the visit will take place, under what agreed conditions, and with whom Ban spoke before making his announcement. This is flexibility?

From the UN's supplemented January 13 transcript:

Inner City Press: since there’s no noon briefing tomorrow, I just wanted to ask....with the Sri Lanka panel, and it was said that the four months, its work term, expires on 15 January. Is that report going to be turned in on that date? Has there been any — you know, on the Secretary-General’s statement of 17 December, that the panel was going to go to Sri Lanka?

Spokesperson: I’ll check on both of them for you, Matthew. Okay, thank you very much and have a good afternoon.

[He later added that the Sri Lanka panel has been granted an extension until the end of February.]

Watch this site.

UN Didn't Announce Darfur Kidnappings, Waited to See if Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- When UN peacekeepers or humanitarian contractors are injured or especially kidnapped, the UN usually speaks up quickly to deplore and demand action by the host government.

But this week when three Bulgarians working in Darfur for the UN and its World Food Program were taken hostage, the UN didn't even announce it in its daily media briefing in New York.

This came days after a coalition of human rights groups accused the UN in Darfur, particularly the UNAMID mission under Ibrahim Gambari, of imposing a “humanitarian information blackout” which benefits the Omar al Bashir government of Sudan. The group surmise that the blackout is getting worse and worse as the UN tries to not upset Bashir, despite his indictment for genocide, during the Southern Sudan secession referendum.

The groups appear to be right, not only as to the UN stopping or delaying response to and reporting of attacks on civilians in Darfur, but even attacks on and kidnappings of UN affiliated personnel. How else to explain the UN's failure to mention the kidnapping of the three Bulgarians, and to follow through and name the guilty parties -- allegedly Bashir connected and even funded tribes -- in previous Darfur kidnappings?

Here is the transcript of the UN's January 13 noon briefing:

Inner City Press: On the Sudan, can you — this kidnapping of humanitarian workers, Bulgarian pilots of the UN in Darfur. What’s the — what’s being done about it, and I guess I was expecting you to say it at the beginning. It’s widely now known.

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: What did you expect me to say?

Inner City Press: I guess that three UN-contracted humanitarian workers have been kidnapped in Darfur, and they should be returned, and the Government should do all it can — if the tribes that did it are associated with them.

Spokesperson: So what’s the question?

Inner City Press: I guess my question is, I’m just saying as an aside, I wonder — what’s the standard? If UN personnel are taken hostage, isn’t it usually said from here?

Spokesperson: Well, you’ve asked me, and I can tell you.

Inner City Press: Okay, so what’s the status?

Spokesperson: That we can confirm. But you’ve pretty much — it’s almost as though you wrote it, Matthew. We can confirm that three helicopter crew members working for the United Nations humanitarian air service, managed by the World Food Programme, have been abducted by armed men in Sudan. The incident happened at 10:35 local time on Thursday — that’s today — at a landing strip at Um Shalaya, 60 kilometres south-east of El Geneina in West Darfur.

Inner City Press: Since this has been — it’s happened many times — it’s always said that nothing will be said while they’re being held, but once they’re released something will be said. In the case, for example, of the peacekeeper that was taken in El-Fasher and was returned, did the UN conclude that these were Government-affiliated kidnappers? Rebel-affiliated? What conclusion have they reached? It seems to happen all the time.

Spokesperson: The point is that Istvan Papp, the Hungarian civilian working in the Mission, was released. And as you know, he was held for 90-something days. That’s the most important point here, is that he was released. I don’t have anything further on who abducted him and why, but simply — the local authorities, the [UN] Mission and the Department for Safety and Security worked extremely hard to secure his release.

Inner City Press: There’s just always this — the reason I asked you about announcing, is that — that definitely is an indicator of kind of lack of stability and of a problem. It seems like — maybe you think it’s a strange question. Because normally the UN speaks about if a staff member is injured or taken hostage — it just strikes me — to some, it seems strange not to say it, if it happens in Darfur. Is it a big deal, or…

Spokesperson: But I’ve said it, Matthew. I’m not quite sure what the point is there.

The point is, Nesirky only said anything about the three kidnapping because he was asked a question. He had the information, but waited to see if anyone would ask about it. The UN does this when it does not want to offend a government. But should that be its approach now to Sudan? Watch this site.

In Cote d'Ivoire, As Ouattara is Served “UN Food,” UN Dodges Plot Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13 -- When a crowd of Laurent Gbagbo supporters in Cote d'Ivoire stopped and looted a UN food convoy earlier this week, the UN said it was a violation of international humanitarian law. On January 13, Inner City Press asked for confirmation that the food trucks had been bound for the luxury Golf Hotel, asked what kind of food it was and who was paying for it.

UN spokesman Martin Nesirky did not answer the question during the noon briefing, but inserted into the subsequent transcript was this line: “The food is UN food.”

Does that mean UN World Food Program food, the sort of high energy biscuit or sacks of rice and flour that the UN delivers in many part of the world?

UN sources have told Inner City Press that the Alassane Ouattara camp -- hundreds of people -- are being provided with “Presidential food” as one disgruntled UN staffer put it, and all with UN money. There is talk of linen in the hotel being changed every day: a new human right, perhaps.

What does the phrase mean, “UN food”? Does the UN have some warehouse of steaks and even wine? Or did it put out a procure contract for these humanitarian supplies?

Inner City Press would liked to immediately follow up on the “the food is UN food” answer, but the answer was not provided to Inner City Press directly. Rather it was said over a speaker system that is audible in the cubicles the UN provides to the UN press corps, the so-called whistleblower free zone. It would have been easy to e-mail the answer, as Inner City Press has requested. But it was not done.

Here is the UN's transcript, beginning with a still unanswered question:

Inner City Press: Sure, I wanted to ask some questions about Côte d’Ivoire. I understand that you said there would be some statement on things on the ground. I just want to know, in advance of deploring these things, is the UN confirming the burning of its vehicles by supporters of Mr. Gbagbo?

Spokesperson Nesirky: What I can confirm is that there have been a number of incidents, including the burning of a number of UN vehicles in Abidjan today.

Inner City Press: There’s a pretty widely circulated — there’s been in the French press now, among others — and no one knows if the memo is true or not, so I want to preface it that way. But the buzz is that the Forces Nouvelles intend to break out of the hotel around January 19 to 23, there’s a document being circulated that purports to be a kind of a plan for it — it could just be a de-stabilizing document. But I just wanted to know, since the document says that the UN will also get involved — the document seems to indicate that incidents will precipitate action by both forces on that date. Has the UN seen this? Does it deny that it’s playing any part in it? And how would it view the Forces Nouvelles coming out of the Golf Hotel?

Spokesperson: I’d need to check on whether the Mission is aware of the document that you mention, and what their take is on it.

Inner City Press: One more thing, if you don’t mind — it’s just a factual one. Maybe you’ll answer it or not, but I know that the trucks that were looted were delivering food to the Golf Hotel. It may seem like a strange question to you, but was the food — there are a thousand people or more in the Golf Hotel. Who’s paying for all this? Who’s paying the hotel bill, is the food UN food? If so, how — I heard a figure of $5 million, maybe that’s too high, but — is there some way to know what the actual kind of logistics of this now month-long stay — unplanned stay at the Golf Hotel — who’s paying the owner? Is the food from the UN, and is it WFP [World Food Programme] food or some other, more presidential food? I’d just like to get an answer on that.

Spokesperson: Sure. Yes, Massoud? [He later said that the United Nations does not pay the bills at the Golf Hotel. The food is UN food.]

What was does “UN food” mean? And how much does it cost? Watch this site.

Amid Kyrgyz Blame Game, UN's Jenca Claims Progress, Water War Looms

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13 -- After attacks on ethnic Uzbek communities in Kyrgyzstan last year, what has the UN done? This month's Security Council president Ivan Barbalic of Bosnia painted a positive picture in a press statement he read out on January 13.

Inner City Press asked him if UN envoy Miroslav Jenca, in his closed door briefing, had mentioned continued charges of torture in Kyrgyzstan. Video here, from Minute 2.

Balbalic said that Jenca portrayed “a lot of progress achieved in Kyrgyzstan” but that it would be better to ask Jenca himself. That has not always been easy. As other Council members came out, Jenca walked by. Inner City Press asked, “Are you going to speak at the stake out?”

“No, I am going to UN Radio,” Jenca said. Inner City Press repeated Barbalic's statement, and asked about Kyrgyz torture.

“We are looking closely,” Jenca said, “attracting attention to the problems in the south.” Some would that a UN envoy who is seeking to attract attention to human rights problems would probably speak on camera at the stakeout. Kyrgyzstan is run by a former UN staff member, Rosa Otunbayeva.

Recently the Kyrgyz official inquiry into the clashes that pushed Uzbeks out of Kyrgyzstan blamed the incidents on the Uzbeks themselves. Inner City Press asked Jenca whether the UN took part in what's called the international inquiry headed by Finnish MP Kimmo Kiljunen.

The UN Spokesperson's Office never answered Inner City Press repeated questions about what role, if any, the UN would play, just as it did not answer Inner City Press' questions of January 13 and before about Ban Ki-moon's Panel on Sri Lanka, whether it will in fact travel to that country and make any public report.

“We maintain close contact,” Jenca said, “we provide technical assistance.” He said the work “on the ground” will be finished by the end of January, and a report out in February or March. We'll be waiting.

Inner City Press also asked about the water wars between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, an issue on which it is not clear if the UN Regional Office is doing anything. Jenca responded by referring, as before, to an different water issue, an organization to Save the Aral Sea.

“You've spoken with the Tajiks and Uzbeks, you know how it is,” Jenca said. “We need to keep impartiality.” He mentioned the dam at issue, and an World Bank risk assessment. “Both sides are looking at us,” Jenca said. “We cannot just be there and do nothing.” We'll see.

As JPM Chase Cuts Off UN Missions, US Says Bailed Out Banks Are Free

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13, updated -- When JPMorgan Chase wrote to countries' Missions to the UN and told them accounts would be closed in March 2011, several countries complained, to the UN and to the “host country,” the United States.

Thursday US Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy came to the UN in New York to speak to countries' Ambassadors about Chase's move. Afterwards, Inner City Press asked Kennedy if he -- or Hillary Clinton or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both of whom Kennedy said were involved -- had spoke with JPMorgan Chase.

"We have had discussions with the major banks," Kennedy answered, later confirming that yes, this included Chase. But what was the response of Chase, whose CEO Jaime Dimon is often rumored to be a line for an appointment by the Obama administration?

Kennedy told the press that “we cannot tell a bank what to do.” Inner City Press immediately asked, What about the banks which took bailouts and still owe TARP money to the US and its taxpayers? "Could the government use its leverage?"

Kennedy said he was not “technically competent to get into that level of detail," and told Inner City Press to ask the Treasury Department official who had also come to the UN. Video on Inner City Press YouTube channel here.

While the US Mission later said this Treasury Deparment official was Mark Poncy of the Office of Strategic Policy, Poncy never came to speak to the Press.

Inner City Press asked Kennedy if he thought the UN should go forward and re-rent space inside the UN under its Capital Master Plan to JPMorgan Chase, when this bank was turning its back on Missions of the countries which make up the UN.

“Ask the UN,” said Kennedy, who has responsibility at the State Department for Management, including at the UN. At the US Mission to the UN in New York, the Management position has remained with only an interim person, the genial but part time Professor Joseph Melrose.

At the UN's noon briefing, Inner City Press did ask Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if the UN would give space to JPMorgan Chase in the Secretariat building when it re-opens.

“Ask Chase,” Nesirky said. But Chase is already in talks with the UN as to which space to get in the repaired building -- not, apparently, the fourth floor space it previously had, but some other location.

Nesirky now said that he would not comment on negotiations. But is Chase's closing of UN Mission's accounts, Inner City Press asked, even part of the negotiations? Nesirky seemed to say he would look into this.

JPMorgan Chase is not only interested in re-entering the Secretariat building when it re-opens: Chase also has a branch on the first floor of the DC-1 building which houses the UN Development Program. Many countries' Missions to the UN opened accounts at Chase because they were thus inside the UN. Will the UN allow this to continue?

At UN, Patrick Kennedy, spokesman Mark Kornblau & Joseph Melrose: where's Chase? (c) MRLee

After the meeting with Kennedy, Inner City Press asked Iran's Permanent Representative as he came out if he thought Chase should continue to remain in UN buildings. No, the Ambassador said, UN space should go to banks which will deal with UN Missions.

He spoke of the UN Federal Credit Union -- currently embroiled in a dispute about the account of the UN Staff Union -- and was asked if the UN should withdraw its own funds from a bank which in effect redlines Missions, like Chase.

Egypt's Permanent Representative told the Press about “transfer fees” while Turkey's Deputy Permanent Representative shrugged that “there are Turkish banks in New York.”

Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin, asked in front of the Security Council about JPMorgan Chase's move, laughed and said "the ruble is a very strong currency," when you have the ruble you don't need anything else. But the others? Watch this site.

Update of January 14, 2011: the following arrived:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:05 AM
Subject: Your questions on Chase Bank
To: Inner City Press

We can say the following in reply to your questions at the noon briefing:

Some ambassadors emerging from the US briefing about their accounts being shuttered think the UN should withdraw all its accounts with Chase. Has this been broached with the administration? Being weighed at all?

We understand that this was raised by one Member State delegate in the briefing with Ambassador Kennedy. The UN Secretariat has not been approached in this matter.

Will Chase open an office in the UN building after the CMP?

Under the CMP, the new UN building design includes space provision for banks. No agreements have been entered into with any banks for this space.

UN in Sudan Didn't Ask Security Council As Flew War Criminal Haroun to Abyei

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 12 -- After Inner City Press got the UN to confirm on January 11 that its UN Mission in Sudan provided transportation and logistics help to indicted war criminal Ahmed Haroun to organizing nomadic tribes accused of murders in Abyei as in Darfur, reports went out and criticism of the UN rolled.

Inner City Press asked several UN Security Council ambassadors laste on January 11 about UNMIS' assistance to Haroun and they expressed surprised, that the Council had not been told anything.

On January 12, Inner City Press again asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky about the UN's transport of International Criminal Court indictees or indictee: had UNMIS checked with the UN's Office of Legal Affairs, headed by Patricia O'Brien, who rarely speaks to the press?

Why did UNMIS think it should not check with the Security Council, which sets the Mission's mandate?

Nesirky did not say whom UNMIS had checked with.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky, “since what he’s alleged to have done in Darfur is to actually work with such nomadic tribes — at least it’s alleged in the ICC – to bring about war crimes against more sedentary populations, you don’t see any contradiction then in calling him an organizer, as sort of a uniter of such tribes?”

Nesirky protested, “I haven’t used that word, Matthew. This is the Governor of Southern Kordofan, and this was critical to help to bring the Misseriya leaders to the meeting with the Nur Dinka people — to try to ensure that the further clashes could be avoided.” We'll see.

From the UN's January 11, 2011 transcript:

Inner City Press: I just wanted to... ask you to confirm it from here, that UNMIS flew Ahmed Haroun, the ICC [International Criminal Court] indictee who was the governor of south Kordofan, flew him in a UN helicopter to Abyei and facilitated his travel. I wanted to know, if that’s true, what’s the UN’s policy on the transporting and facilitating the travel of an indicted war criminal?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: ...On the question of Governor Haroun, the Mission is mandated to provide good offices to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement parties in their efforts to resolve their differences through dialogue and negotiations, and I can tell you that the UN Mission in Sudan has been working with the parties, including local authorities, to contain any potential violence that may escalate. As you know, there have been clashes in Abyei, and these clashes were actually threatening to escalate into a wider war. And so Governor Haroun was critical to bringing the Misseriya leaders in southern Kordofan to a peace meeting in Abyei to stop further clashes and killings. And, in accordance with its mandate, the Mission will continue to provide the necessary support to those key players in their pursuits to find a peaceful solution.

Inner City Press: So, they did transport him? I mean, I just want to make sure I’m not reading between the lines.

Spokesperson: Correct.

Inner City Press: I guess I just wanted to know, have they transported Ali Kushayb, the other indictee, and did they check with OLA [Office of Legal Affairs]? I mean, I understand the rationale of transporting someone if necessary. But it makes you wonder, like, Joseph Kony, I mean, where’s the line drawn, and was this checked with Headquarters before it was done?

Spokesperson: What I can tell you is what I’ve already told you. It’s in accordance with the mandate to provide support to key players. Clearly, as I also said, Governor Haroun was critical to bring the Misseriya leaders in southern Kordofan to this meeting that had been arranged in Abyei.

Inner City Press: Doesn’t the Government of Sudan have its own Air Force? I mean, they fly patrols, and bomb in South Sudan, why weren’t they able to transport their own leaders?

Spokesperson: This is something that was being brought together with the help of the Mission. In other words, this was a mediation effort — and this was a part of that mediation effort.

From the UN's January 12, 2011 transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Sudan. After your statement yesterday about UNMIS [United Nations Mission in Sudan] transporting Ahmed Haroun, some human rights groups have been pretty critical of it. And I’ve spoken to a couple of Security Council ambassadors, who said they weren’t aware that UNMIS was transporting these ICC [International Criminal Court] indictees…

Spokesperson Nesirky: Indictee.

Inner City Press: Okay, indictee. So, two questions. One, did UNMIS – who did UNMIS check with before engaging in this? I understand there’s a 2006 OLA [Office for Legal Affairs] guidance. But was this the kind of thing that they would try to check with the Security Council or OLA? And also, is there anything more that you want to say, given – the Save Darfur Coalition and others have said that this was irresponsible and sends all the wrong messages to the people of Darfur when an indicted war criminal is transported by the UN elsewhere in the country.

Spokesperson: I think I was fairly explicit yesterday on the reasons why this was done. And as you pointed out, there is a standing instruction that dates from 2006 that spells out the way that one should interact — and namely that it should be done when it is necessary. And clearly, in this instance, the Mission felt, given what was happening in Abyei, and given that there was a risk that this could escalate into wider conflict, it was deemed necessity — necessary, critical, for Governor Haroun to be able to bring the Misseriya leaders in Southern Kordofan to this meeting in Abyei. And this is in line with its mandate, which is to provide good offices for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and is, as I say, meeting the criterion of necessity. This was a necessity to ensure that the two sides that were fighting could be brought together to stop that, to prevent further clashes.

Inner City Press: Just because, since what he’s alleged to have done in Darfur is to actually work with such nomadic tribes — at least it’s alleged in the ICC – to bring about war crimes against more sedentary populations, you don’t see any contradiction then in calling him an organizer, as sort of a uniter of such tribes?

Spokesperson: I haven’t used that word, Matthew. This is the Governor of Southern Kordofan, and this was critical to help to bring the Misseriya leaders to the meeting with the Nur Dinka people — to try to ensure that the further clashes could be avoided.

We'll see.

In Cote D'Ivoire, as UN Retreats from Gbagbo Turf, Talks Tough in NY

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 11 -- While at the UN in New York the new Ambassador of Alassane Ouattara says the UN is ready to “be firm” to remove Laurent Gbagbo from power, in Abidjan the UN peacekeepers drove away from a crowd of Gbagbo supporters, leaving behind four civilian UN employees who were then disappeared.

Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky on January 11 about an incident the previous day, in which the UN “withdrew” from a neighborhood with Gbagbo supporters in it. What are the UN's rules of engagement? How can the it protect civilians if it retreats in this way?

From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: In Côte d’Ivoire, there’s this report of the peacekeepers retreating, as some headlines put it, or turning around, leaving a neighborhood described as being under Gbagbo’s loyalist security concerns. Can you say, is that true, and what are the terms of engagement, and are they going to return to this area? Or is that an area they’re no longer policing or able to protect people in?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, generally, obviously the Mission has a mandate to protect civilians, and has been regularly patrolling. It also has to exercise discretion where necessary. I can tell you that, referring to an incident or an instance on 10 January — in other words, yesterday — this was a logistics convoy from the Mission that comprised four civilian trucks, and it was stopped at the checkpoint near the American embassy on its way to re-supply the Golf Hotel in Abidjan. And then a few minutes later, three vehicles with some 20 defense and security force, FDS [Defence and Security Forces] elements, arrived at the location. And then a crowd of several hundred, which included five additional vehicles with 50 people from the FDS, the police and the gendarmerie, and then four civilians who were part of this convoy were taken into custody. And then, in the meantime, the crowd started looting the items from the vehicles. The peacekeepers, the UNOCI elements, left to bring reinforcements, and when they returned the three civilian trucks and the four drivers were missing.

And UNOCI is, as I’ve been informed, is in direct contact with the FDS leadership to ascertain their whereabouts and the mission is investigating the incident and is also putting in place measures to try to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in the future.

Inner City Press: They said 13 trucks, that seems to add up, it sounds like [inaudible] the incident that’s being --

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I’m telling you – this is from the Mission. Okay?

No, it's NOT okay. Watch this site.

On Haiti, UN Fetes Itself, Ignores Call for Cholera Indictment, Immunity Withdrawal

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 11 -- While the UN congratulates itself on its reactions in Haiti, it dismisses all criticism, including from Haitian women's NGOs, and has refused so far to remove the diplomatic immunity (or impunity) of a UN staff members whom a Haitian judge wants to question about the hanging death of a Haitian teenager inside a UN base.

Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky on Tuesday whether Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will in fact revoke the immunity of UN interpreter Joelle Rozefort, in the case of the boy found hanged in the Nepali peacekeepers' camp in Cap Haitien. From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: there was a case some time ago of a boy that was found hung — a Haitian boy found hung in a Nepali base in Cap Haitien. Some say that Mr. Mulet has asked the Secretary-General to remove the immunity of a national staff member there, Joelle Rozefort, so she can testify to a court about this. Is that – one, has Mr. Mulet made the request? But whether he has or not, is the Secretary-General considering removing the immunity of this staff member to respond to a court subpoena?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’m aware of the incident you’re referring to in which someone was found to have been hanged. And I think we may be able to provide you with a little bit more information on the question that you’ve asked a little bit later.

But nine hours later, no information had been provided. The transcript continued:

Inner City Press: And just one other thing, maybe just for a response…

Spokesperson: Is this about Haiti?

Inner City Press: It is about Haiti. There’s a group there known as SOFA, the Solidarité des Femmes Haïtiennes. They’ve recently, I guess in connection with, or slightly before this one-year anniversary, they’ve said that – I guess, more explosively, they’ve asked the Government to somehow indict the UN for – they say – having brought cholera. But they’ve also raised this issue of compensation – so I wanted to make sure that the two things – can you, they’re saying that the UN should pay some compensation for - for cholera. That’s their claim. They’re a Haitian group, you can – so I guess I just want to know, what’s the UN response to that? Are they aware of that call, and what’s their response?

Spokesman Nesirky [misidentified as “Question” in Transcript] -- As you know, the Secretary-General instituted a panel. Those four experts are working precisely to establish the source of the outbreak of cholera, which has not been established so far. That’s their job to do so, to the extent that they are able to do so, and to report back to the Secretary-General and the Government of Haiti as quickly as they can. And to go the next step beyond that is not really helpful at this point. There is a clear job to do, and that’s the job that the panel has been asked to carry out as swiftly as possible, and in the meantime, of course, the key priority is to help those people – you heard from Mr. [Nigel] Fisher yesterday about the death rates being lower, but still the number of cases being very high. So this is something that needs to be tackled as a priority.

Inner City Press [misidentified as Spokesperson in transcript]: So I understand that the panel comes first. But I just want to know, I mean maybe you can answer this — does the idea, in the abstract, of compensation seem unreasonable to the UN? Depending on what it finds?

Spokesman Nesirky [misidentified as “Question” in Transcript]: Look, I don’t – this is something that – let’s do things step-by-step. And the most important thing is to help those in need. You’ve heard extensively, not just from Mr. Fisher but most recently from Mr. Fisher, on that. And you also know that this — the four panel members, experts each in their own right, are working hard to establish precisely what the source of the outbreak was, if they are able to do so. Okay. Thank you very much.

A few hours later in the UN's North Lawn building, an event was held about Haiti, sponsored by Canada's Mission to the UN and a trio of NGOs. Canada's Permanent Representative John McNee sat on the panel and spoke, but when the Q&A started, McNee left the room and took no questions, not even about his country pulling out of Jacmel. In fact, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask any questions at all.

Meanwhile, an intrepid correspondent spotted Alain Le Roy in JFK Airport in New York on Tuesday morning seeking to fly American to Haiti for the anniversary. While others were unceremoniously booted from the flight, which also include Wyclef Jean, Le Roy remained on, leading some to wonder if despite the relatively short length he was flying first class. We'll see what he say while in Haiti -- he said little of use from Cote d'Ivoire. Watch this site.