For Syria Study, OHCHR Paid Benetech $25,000 But Selection Process Not Yet Disclosed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- After the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights announced on January 2 that 60,000 people have been killed in Syria, Inner City Press asked OHCHR and its contractor Benetech how Benetech had been selected, and how much it got paid.

  The how-much we can now report, answered by OHCHR: $25,000. But how was Benetech picked?

  One basis for the question was Benetech's human rights project's listed funders, including the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy.

  With all due respect, Inner City Press has asked OHCHR if "perceived independence (including from funding by the foreign ministries of P5 countries with a strong position on Syria) played a role in the assessment and selection" of Benetech, and how exactly Benetech was selected, from among how many bidders?

  Benetech itself had told Inner City Press, "Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details."

   Understanding that OHCHR's hardworking spokesperson was busy with larger if not more critical media, Inner City Press waited some hours and then published a story, which was picked up in the UK Guardian. When the next day January 3 OHCHR did respond, this Inner City Press questioning, quoted in the Guardian, was characterized as "casting aspersions."

  Inner City Press replied that it's not " casting aspersions to ask questions about how the contractor was selected, and to note who the contractor's other funders are... To listen to the doubts of some Security Council members and try to get to the bottom of how the selection of contractor was made is, I think, journalism, maybe more so than just slavishly reporting what a UN agency is saying."

   OHCHR has for now said "We agreed to pay 25,000 dollars for the work, and yes due procedure was followed." 

  But what procedure is that?  Many readers have written in; hence this interim story. 

  Inner City Press has asked, "Is the Request for Proposals public? How many companies responded? What criteria were used?" We anticipate answers, despite being told in advance it is a waste of time, on Monday, January 7. Watch this site.

On Bahrain Protest Tweeter Imprisoned, UN's Ban Has No Comment: 6 Strikes & Not Out of Jail

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- In Bahrain back on December 17, Sayed Yusuf al-Muhafadha tweeted a photograph of a protester injured with birdshot by the authorities, with the hashtag #Manama.

   He was arrested and charged with "willfully disseminating false news" and "incitement to violence."

   Inner City Press has now six times asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople for Ban's view of this arrest: five times in writing, and Friday in person at the day's noon press briefing.

   Then, spokesman Martin Nesirky said he would check with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  Back on December 24, Inner City Press asked Nesirky and two other spokespeople 

"Does the Secretary General have any comment on the jailing in Bahrain of Said Yousif al-Muhafda for his Tweets? Also, on the poet sentenced by Qatar that I asked about (and was told to ask UNESCO), I got nothing back from UNESCO. Is the S-G still following that case? Does he have any comment?"

  While some other questions were answer, this was not. Inner City Press re-submitted the question on December 26, 27, 28 and 31. Still, no answer.

  There has been some delay in getting even OHCHR's explanation of how it selected its contractor Benetech for its recent Syria study from the agency's hard-working spokesman. In any event, the question has been and is for Ban Ki-moon's and his Secretariat's view. Watch this site.

Footnotes: As an aside, Human Rights Watch claims to have good access to Ban Ki-moon, has even refused to provide the Press with any summary of topics it has raised to Ban, in order to maintain its access. But if it has such good access, why has it not been able to get Ban to take an interest in the case of the incarcerated Tweeter? 

  And why is its director's tweeting entirely one-way, self-congratulation on getting a travel ban imposed for example on an M23 political leader such that he couldn't attend talks in Kampala with the Congolese government?

  What has HRW done to hold the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and its boss Herve Ladsous accountable for their supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, after the 126 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova? HRW, director and two staff, have been asked without answer. And so it goes.

At UN, South Africa Sangqu on Missions in Somalia, Mali & DRC, Fight for Fairness

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 3 -- After two years on the UN Security Council, South African diplomat Baso Sangqu held his wrap-up press conference on Thursday before taking up a new position in Addis Ababa. 

Inner City Press asked Sangqu about the UN's relations with the African Union and African regional organizations, in Somalia, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  In Somalia, just before South Africa left the Security Council, it led the push for the African Union position that the naval component of the AMISOM mission, that is Kenyan ships, should be made a compensated part of AMISOM. But this was rebuffed or deferred by the UK, which "has the pen."

  Sangqu hearkened back to the push for African peacekeeping in Somalia begun in the Council by his predecessor Dumisani Kumalo, and said the force should still be "re-hatted" and properly compensated.

   He called on the Council's other African members to keep up the push. Inner City Press will be asking new member Rwanda.

  Likewise on Mali, Sangqu said that the AFISMA mission should be paid for out of UN assessments, not only on a voluntary basis.

   On DRC he quoted Uganda's Yoweri Museveni on the MONUSCO mission having turned into military "tourism," and said discussion are underway that might -- might -- see South African troops in DRC serving in an international neutral force.

  In his opening statement, Sangqu brought up Western Sahara, an issue on which South African like Uganda before it has taken the lead in pushing the African Union position: referendum with self-determination as an option. Will Rwanda take that banner up, this year with Morocco on the Council, and then in 2014 without?

 Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, thanked not only Sangqu but the rest of the South African mission team for their openness over the last two years.

  From Deputy Doc Mashabane to political coordinator Zaheer Laheer, from Cedrick Crowley to spokesperson Nomfanelo Kota, from its able representative on the 1540 Committee to its legacy in the current President of the General Assembly's office, it's been a good run. To be repeated.

Footnote, inside baseball: After Inner City Press said this thank-you on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, the fill-in representative of the old, some say outdated group cut in rudely, "Jesus Christ." Video here, from Minute 7:34. There was no need for it: certainly there must be room for two groups, multi-party democracy, in any UN with South Africa in it.

   But for now FUNCA fliers announcing its principles (Freedom, Fairness) are torn down. As was said* in the first 15 seconds of the archived webcast, video here, UNCA or its representative are "normally antagonistic." 

  In fact in 2012 at least three of them tried to dis-accredit the Press, and met with the UN about it. And so, South Africa style, a new party or movement is born. Thank you, South Africa.

* - this was not a blooper but refreshing and needed candor. But will the UN now try to edit it out? Watch this site.

At UN, Pakistan Cites "Differing Views" on Drones, Says DRC Ceasefire Would be Good

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 3 -- When Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan, January's UN Security Council president, took questions Thursday about the Council's work, drones came up again and again.

  Inner City Press asked Khan not about US drone strikes on his country, but about the proposal by Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous to use drones in the MONUSCO mission in Eastern Congo.

  Khan said there are consultations but there are "differing views." He did not say Thursday, but other member states on the UN's C-34 have told Inner City Press, differences include who would get the information.

  Wouldn't all 193 member states have a right to it? Or only the 15 Security Council members? Or only the Permanent Five?

  Inner City Press also asked Khan about the call by the M23 rebels for the Congolese government to sign a ceasefire, for the Kampala talks to continue. 

  A ceasefire is good, Ambassador Khan replied, they should cease fire. At noon, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky said much the same.

  But the Security Council's last resolution calls, unrealistically, for the M23 to disband. And the Council on New Year's Eve passed a travel ban which undermines the Kampala talks. That part of the question, Ambassador Khan did not answer. But it was a good start.

  Masood Khan pointed out that the current consultation on drones is under Operative Paragraph 9 of the most recent DRC resolution. 

  But Ladsous, in an interview with the blog of the French publication La Croix, said drones would help in Cote d'Ivoire.  Inner City Press asked the UN, and got back this:

"On UAVs: DPKO says it is continuing with its feasibility study on the use of unarmed aerial vehicles by peacekeeping operations, and with its consultations with Member States."

 So under which paragraph or resolution, and for whom,  is Ladsous talking about drones in Cote d'Ivoire? This is question to which Pakistan or another large Troop Contributing Country might want to get and provide an answer. We'll see.

Footnote: Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA asked Khan in advance if he will take stakeout questions after closed door consultation. Video here, from Minute 18:18. He replied that Pakistan's presidency will be transparent and inclusive. So far, so good.

As M23 Leader Banned from Kampala by UNSC, Rwanda PR Gasana Notes Contradictions

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 3 -- After M23 political leader Jean-Marie Runiga told reporters in Bunagana that "his team" was returning to Kampala for talks with the Congolese government, with an first emphasis on a ceasefire, in New York Inner City Press asked new Security Council member and Rwandan Permanent Representative Gasana about the situation.

 On New Year's Eve, the Security Council imposed a travel ban on Runiga.

  Gasana sighed and exclusively told Inner City Press, "This is the whole structure of the UN. They want them to negotiate, then they put on a travel ban."

  It appears that the effect of the Security Council travel ban is to undermine the Kampala talks, which might breakdown on the Kabila government's refusal to sign a ceasefire anyway.

  Ambassador Gasana told Inner City Press, "We have to set a cease fire, it shouldn't be a pretext. Let the big guys here talk again, see how they can handle the stuff in Congo. We don't need to stop the process. It's very important to keep that process going."

  The next meeting in the Security Council will be a briefing on Thursday afternoon about another country in which rebels gained territory, the Central African Republic. There, the Security Council's level and direction of focus has been quite different.

  Inner City Press asked Gasana about the CAR. He said, "They should get back to the 2008 [deal]... First of all not to give a chance to the rebels to take arms and go fight, second to ask the President [Bozize] to follow what they agreed upon in 2008." 

  Sort of like what Kabila agreed on March 23, 2009? Watch this site.

UN's Syria Study Contractor Benetech Has "Anonymous" Funder, State Dept Funds Affiliate

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- How many people have been killed in Syria? The day after New Years the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the figure has reached 60,000. 

  A major UK newspaper -- The Independent -- said these were "UN figures."

  Then at the US State Department's briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, "we've seen this report by UN Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay."

  Not so fast. The number is from an outside contractor chosen and presumably paid by the OHCHR, Benetech. 

  As Inner City Press reported earlier in the day, onBenetech's website, following the only link for "Human Rights," there are eight funders listed, including the National Endowment for Democracy and, yes, the US Department of State.

  Inner City Press immediately asked Pillay's spokesperson Rupert Colville to "please describe when and how it was decided to commission this study, how much was paid, and how the selection / procurement process settled on Benetech. 

 "And please comment on the idea that choosing a firm which lists the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy among its eight funders might call into question its impartiality or objectivity."

  One would think the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would answer this question, would want to address this question. But eight hours later, no response had been received.

  Inner City Press asked Benetech, "how was Benetech selected to do this work? When? Was there a Request for Proposals? What other work has Benetech done for the UN system in the past? Are the eight funders listed Benetech's only eight funder? Eight largest funders? 

 "Were these all grants, or payment for work done? Separately, and if you can say, is Benetech currently at work on any comparable study, whether for example about the DR Congo, Sri Lanka, Libya, Colombia, etc?"

The question was referred around within Benetech and finally this answer arrived, from Patrick Ball of Benetech:

Subject: Inner City Press questions
From: Patrick Ball [at] benetech.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Megan Price [at] benetech.org, Ann Harrison [at] benetech.org

Hello Matthew, to your questions:

-- The Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) is the part of Benetech that did this report. HRDAG's donors are the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oak Foundation, an anonymous private foundation, and the Open Society Foundations.

-- There are a number of smaller HRDAG projects that get project-specific funding, for example our work with the Historical Archive of the National Police in Guatemala is supported by the National Endowment for Democracy.

-- None of HRDAG's (or Benetech's) donors knew of this project (except OHCHR) knew of this project until today. It has been strictly embargoed.

-- Other parts of Benetech receive funding from many other places, including the Skoll Foundation and the Omidyar Network; the Department of Education supports the Bookshare project; the MacArthur Foundation, the Department of State, and Radio Free Asia support the Martus project.

-- Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details.

-- We have worked for the UN system as individual consultants (via UNDP) in several capacities. I spent most of 2010 designing new information systems for the MONUSCO mission in the DRC, for example.

-- Perhaps more relevantly, we've provided software and statistical support -- at no cost, I want to point out -- to a number of UN-sponsored truth commissions, most importantly, the Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala, and to UN criminal tribunals, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

-- Over the last 13 years, we've done analysis like this for projects in Guatemala, Peru, Kosovo, Colombia, and Timor-Leste... There are a few ongoing projects, but they're confidential until we release them.

  The detailed answer is appreciated. Ball states that "Yes, there was an RFP for this project. For the specific selection mechanism, you should contact OHCHR who can provide the details." 

  But in the eight hours since OHCHR was asked, on the morning they released "their" report, no answer has been provided.

   Is the "Data Analysis Group" really so separate that the US State Department / Radio Free Asia funding is not relevant? Given the issues at stake here, what of OHCHR's contractor being funded by an " anonymous private foundation"?

   And, rather than Benetech, isn't it the OHCHR and the UN which should be answering these questions? Watch this site.

Amid Cover Up of FARDC Rapes in Minova, UN Quick to Clear FDLR in Masisi

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- Since the 126 rapes by the Congolese Army and Police in late November in Minova, the UN has claimed it cannot say which Army units were there, pending an investigation.

   Inner City Press asked which Army units the UN works with. Top Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous refused to answer, and had his spokesman seize the UN Television microphone. Video here.

  Between Christmas and New Year, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's top spokespeople several times for an update on Minova, and on the implementation of Ban's claimed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. Each time it was said that the investigation continues.

   But on January 2, the UN mission in the Congo MONUSCO issued a press release containing conclusions, not about the events in Minova in November, but about a probe it conducted in Masisi from December 21 to 24, to shoot down rumors about the Hutu FDLR rebels.

   So when the UN wants to quickly look into something and make a public announcement, for example to clear the FDLR, it can and does. But it continues to delay issuing any finding about the rapes committed by its partners in the FARDC. This is shameful.

   MONUSCO's January 2 press release was to dispute "the following persistent rumors: 

that 4,000 FDLR members accompanied by their dependents arrived at Kazibake through Zambia; that two white-colored helicopters with no UN logo flew over the space between Nyange and Lwama on 13 December; that a there is a new commander of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), in Kivuye and his name is Bakota; that weapons and ammunitions were supplied to FDLR by means of Government military aircrafts."

   MONUSCO says, "At the end of the mission, the team concluded that those allegations were all unfounded," but goes on to emphasize that "it has carried out several joint operations with the Congolese army in order to reduce the capacity of the armed groups including FDLR, to cause trouble."

   But WHICH units of the Congolese army has MONUSCO worked with? Which were in Minova during the mass rapes in late November? And how will the UN explain the difference in speed of the two inquiries and (one) announcement? Watch this site.

As Pillay Says 60,000 Dead in Syria, Qs of Benetech & US State Department

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- That too many people have been killed in Syria is without a doubt. But how many? The day after New Years the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the figure has reached 60,000. A sample major UK newspaper said these were "UN figures."

  Not so fast. The number is from an outside contractor chosen and presumably paid by the OHCHR, Benetech, which says that it used figures collected from seven different sources, some of dubious objectivity, and none of them "UN" sources.

  Various Inner City Press readers had questions about the figures, then about Benetech. A Security Council member asked Inner City Press, of the figures, "how do they know, with no presence in the field?"

    Inner City Press went to Benetech's website, there finding that of eight listed funders, one is the National Endowment for Democracy and another the US State Department.

  So Inner City Press wrote to Navi Pillay's spokesman Rupert Colville, who in the past has often been quick and helpful with some answers, initally about the Democratic Republic of Congo. Inner City Press asked:

"Quick questions on deadline: first, please confirm that the new Syria study was commissioned by OHCHR from Benetech, and that it is this Benetech:http://benetech.org/human_rights/strategic_partners.shtml

"Then, the real question(s): please describe when and how it was decided to commission this study, how much was paid, and how the selection / procurement process settled on Benetech. And please comment on the idea that choosing a firm which lists the US State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy among its eight funders might call into question its impartiality or objectivity."

   The questions were sent before 11 am New York time, but four hours later, no response from the OHCHR. It would seem that the questions should be answered.

 In this case, Benetech used data from ": 1) the Violations Documentation Centre, the documentation arm of the Local Coordination Committees; 2) the Syrian Network for Human Rights, 3) the Syrian Revolution General Council  which was combined with the SNHR;  4) the Syria Shuhada Website, 5) the March 15 Group; 6) the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and 7) the Syrian government." 

  No, these are not now "UN figures."

   Back in September, UNICEF announced 1600 dead in one week in Syria. But when Inner City Press inquired, OCHA disavowed the figures, which were only from media accounts. They are laundered to become "UN figures."

Footnotes: from before Christmas, Inner City Press is still waiting for an answer to this: "will OHCHR play any role in, or does it have any comment on or guidance for, the (now third) review of UN action and inaction in Sri Lanka in 2009, now chaired by DSG Eliasson and to be completed in the 2d quarter of 2013?"

  The UN system would never stand behind -- in fact it covered up -- casualty figures in Sri Lanka. It would have been good to do enumeration then, when the UN had people on the ground. If that's a lesson learnt, good. But it should be done transparently. How was Benetech selected and how much were they paid?

 Inner City Press also let Colville and the OHCHR know, "still NO information from DPKO on which FARDC units were in Minova during the 126 rapes in late November, nor even which FARDC units MONUSCO works with or supports. Growing doubts about this 'Human Rights Due Diligence Policy'" -- a UN system policy in which the OHCHR ostensibly plays a major role. 

  The stonewalling of DPKO chief Herve Ladsous should not be allowed to be the whole UN's position - or will it be?Watch this site. 

UNSC To Belatedly Meet Jan 3 on Central African Republic, & Yemen

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 2, updated -- As the US, France, China and other evacuated their citizens from Central African Republic, and the UN pulled out all of its international staff, the UN Security Council has not held a meeting about CAR since December 19.

On January 2 as each Security Council member came to meet with January's Council president Pakistan, Inner City Press asked when they might at least get a briefing about the Seleka rebels' advance on Bangui.

French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud said there "could" be a meeting, but it's "the regional organizations that are in charge." This was not the approach taken when the M23 rebels moved on Goma; so much for consistency.

Inner City Press asked US Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo is there would be a Council meeting about the Central African Republic before the regular, pre-scheduled one about the UN's political mission there -- all of whose international staff have been removed.

Ambassador DiCarlo told Inner City Press, ""I think there will be one." Later other diplomats confirmed a briefing for January 3 in the afternoon, after the Council meets to adopt its program of work for January.

  One of the new Council members, more open than the rest, told Inner City Press exclusively that the Thursday afternoon Council session will also concern Yemen, and a possible Council trip there.

  On Central African Republic, at Wednesday's UN noon briefing, the first since December 21, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky confirmed that all UN international staff were out of the country, but said that envoy Margaret Vogt is in touch with the Department of Political Affairs. 

  But is she in touch with Bozize? What is the UN's role now? What has this political mission being doing?* [See below.]

Footnote: All of the five new Security Council members sent their Permanent Representatives for bilateral meetings with January's President, Pakistan's Permanent Representative Masood Khan.

 This was true for two of the Council's Permanent Five members. Chinese Permanent Representative Li Baodong stopped and noted Kim Jong Un's overture to South Korea, saying that it is important to facilitate better relations on the Peninsula.

 Some might say, this make follow up on the Council's elements to the press about the launch less likely. Watch this site.

Update of 3:40 pm -- after publication, this came in:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Questions
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

On the Central African Republic: But is she in touch with Bozize? What is the UN's role now? What has this political mission being doing?

As made clear at the noon briefing, while as a security precaution, international staff have now all been temporarily relocated outside the country, we remain engaged in efforts to resolve the crisis. The Special Representative has remained in close dialogue with the key parties in the Central African Republic and the region and has offered support to political negotiations.

 

  We publish this ten minutes after receipt - and, we'll see. Watch this site.

UN Does Not Tell M23 Rebels of Its Helicopter Flights, Threatens with ICC for Being Shot At

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 2 -- After the UN complained its helicopters were shot at over territory in Eastern Congo controlled by the M23 rebels, Inner City Press twice asked the UN if it informs the M23 when it is flying above the territory M23 controls.

  The UN has now told Inner City Press that its mission "MONUSCO has a Status of Forces Agreement with the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and... informs DRC authorities of peacekeeping flights. MONUSCO does not formally communicate with the M23 in this way."

  To some this seems strange, since under the Kampala agreements M23 was to pull out to territory outside of Goma, and even co-manage the Goma airport. 

  If the Kampala agreement recognizes that M23 controls territory, some ask, is it responsible for the UN to fly over it without informing M23 in some way?

   Inner City Press asked the UN to "please respond to the following statement by M23 spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Vianney Kazarama: 

'We never attacked MONUSCO, we fired at helicopters from the FARDC, who were flying reconnaissance over M23 zones. If MONUSCO wants to fly reconnaissance over our territory, they must do so by day and they must warn us. At night, we can't make out the UN symbol.'"

   But the UN told Inner City Press, "We will not comment on quotes attributed by media to an M23 spokesperson."

   In this context it's worth noting that since Facebook has several times taken down M23's page -- the legal authority is not clear -- it is difficult to get the group's statements first hand. 

  The question remains: given the situation between the M23 and the Congolese Army FARDC, should the UN be surprised if its helicopters flying at night without notice over M23 territory get fired on? Is this responsible?

  Is it responsible for MONUSCO to continue working with FARDC units that were in Minova during the 126 rapes in late November, and for top Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous to refuse Press questions about it, despite the UN's claimed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy?

   As noted, and twice asked about, UN Peacekeeping in South Sudan has not issued any threat referring to prosecution for war crimes even after South Sudan shot down a UN helicopter in December and killed all four crew aboard.

   But the UN has threatened war crimes prosecution for these errant shots in the night over M23 territory. What explains the disparity or double standard? Inner City Press asked again at the January 2 noon briefing. We are still waiting. Watch this site.