On January 2 when the UN accepted Palestine's papers to join the ICC, no photo op was announced by the UN, only a stakeout by Palestine at 10:45 am. Inner City Press arrived and set up at the stakeout. But then one media -- Al Jazeera -- ran to the elevator and went upstairs at the UN.
Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access went and asked UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit if there was a photo op. The answer was, the Assistant Secretary General's office called and said let Al Jazeera up. Update: that was the quote. However, it has been explained to Inner City Press that actually two media were let up: Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya before them. This is still wrong - to some, even worse. We'll have more on this. Update II: Now Inner City Press and FUNCA are told that at least some in UN MALU considered this Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya only event a UN photo op, even though no notification was given. Inner City Press was waiting at the UN Security Council stakeout, within view of the elevator and MALU. It's asked, but how did we know you were interested? How indeed. Seems UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance f/k/a UN Correspondents Association, doesn't
care because the insiders are on its board. But FUNCA has demanded
appropriate notification of all journalists by the UN in 2015.
This was irregular and improper. The UN Secretariat cannot pick individual media organizations for such photo ops. FUNCA will have more on this.
On the afternoon of December 31, the US State Department's Jeff Rathke, Director of Office of Press Relations, put out this statement:
"We are deeply troubled by today’s Palestinian action regarding the ICC. It is an escalatory step that will not achieve any of the outcomes most Palestinians have long hoped to see for their people. Actions like this are not the answer. Hard as it is, all sides need to find a way to work constructively and cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and find a path forward.
"Today’s action is entirely counter-productive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace.
"As we’ve said before, the United States continues to strongly oppose actions – by both parties – that undermine trust and create doubts about their commitment to a negotiated peace. Our position has not changed. Such actions only push the parties further apart.
"Every month that goes by without constructive engagement between the parties only increases polarization and allows more space for destabilizing actions. Our efforts should focus on creating an environment for meaningful talks.
"While we are under no illusions regarding the difficult road of negotiations, direct negotiations are ultimately the only realistic path for achieving the aspirations of both peoples. All of us would like to see the day when that effort can resume, and can lead to the peace that we all know is the only real, sustainable answer to the underlying causes of this conflict."
The document is supposed to be filed or deposited with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is listed as on "annual leave." (Ban's spokespeople have no press briefing scheduled for today.)
The Palestinian resolution which failed on December 30 needed nine "Yes" votes to trigger the expected US veto. It got only eight "Yes" votes, as Nigeria abstained along with the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.
Afterward, Palestine's Mansour said, "Why have the efforts of the Arab Group, with the full support of the NAM and the OIC and all other friends worldwide, to legislate this consensus through the Council as a contribution towards bringing an end to this conflict through peaceful, political, diplomatic and non-violent means repeatedly blocked?"
The NAM is the Non-Aligned Movement and as Inner City Press noted contemporaneous with the vote, both Rwanda and Nigeria are members of NAM (list here) -- but both of them abstained.
Rwanda's abstention was assumed, including in the Arab Group meeting held earlier on December 30. The abstention of Nigeria, which meant that the United States' "No" vote would not be considered a veto, was something else.
To the surprise of some, Nigeria and its President Goodluck Jonathan were not listed among the calls of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department's spokesperson Jeff Rathke on December 30 said
"In the last 24 to 48 hours the Secretary has made a number of calls to counterparts. Let me give you a list of them. He has spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda; he has spoken on a few occasions with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh; he has spoken with the Saudi foreign minister, the Egyptian foreign minister, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, with the UK foreign secretary, with the EU high representative, Chilean Foreign Minister Munoz, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linkevicius. The – he has spoken, as I mentioned yesterday, with PA President Abbas. He has spoken with the Luxembourg foreign minister, with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and with French Foreign Minister Fabius. So by my count, that’s 13 different individuals. Some of them he’s spoken with more than once, so more than 13 calls over the last day or two."
Despite this, it's said that Kerry called Goodluck Jonathan, and that a State Department spokesperson - Rathke? - said it. Where? We continue to wait.
It's reported that while Kerry doesn't list a call to Nigeria, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyau did -- for Goodluck, some say.
Inner City Press after the vote asked Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar if the Arab Group intended to put this or another Palestine resolution in front of the new line up of Security Council members entering in two days, with Angola replacing Rwanda and Malaysia replacing South Korea (and New Zealand replacing Australia, which voted no). She said the Arab Group would keep working, but did not say when another resolution will be put forward.
So what comes next? Below, we cover the issue of the International Criminal Court.
A source from inside the Arab Group meeting tells Inner City Press that question - the benefit or not of "making" the US veto - was a major topic in the meeting, but the decision was made by the Arab Group to support the Palestinians' strategy and request for a vote, with the above expectation, at this time.
On December 30 at around 1 pm, Mansour said, “We are happy that the Arab Group on the basis of previous ministerial meetings has considered in a positive and responsible way the request of the Palestinian leadership to put the draft resolution to a vote, possibly this afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, this is related to the readiness of the Secretariat of the Security Council.”
Referring it seems not only to the US but also to the UK, Palestine's Mansour said on Tuesday, “If one party decides for whatever reason that they do not want to go along with this massive support to find a solution to this conflict, to try to save the two-state solution by asking for an end of the Occupation that started in 1967, so that the State of Palestine could enjoy its independence, if a party is not going to go along with this mood, in Europe and in all corners of the globe... it is not for lack of giving time as Arabs, we have been deliberating for almost three and a half months.”
Down in the UN's first basement diplomats from Jordan paced around; the meeting upstairs in the Security Council about Sudan throwing out two more high UN officials was essentially forgotten.
Before the Sudan expulsions meeting on December 30 of the Security Council, for now their last of the year, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the press of the Palestine amended draft, “the new text has been circulated but no negotiations have been scheduled and no vote has yet been scheduled, so we wait to see if there will be a vote this year, or next year or not at all.”
On the contents of the resolution, Lyall Grant said “there are difficulties with the text, particularly the language on time scales and the language of refugees. We would have some difficulties with the text. We don't know when the vote will be held.”
Palestine met with the Arab Group at the UN about the pending draft Security Council resolution on December 29. Afterward, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour and Jordan's Permanent Representative Dina Kawar about US opposition. Video here.
The text of the amended draft is below; six changes include:
New in PP 3 “and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,”
New PP6 “Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,”
New PP8: “Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,”
New phrasing in OP2: “a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;”
adding the 2 words “and prisoners;”
New 10bis. "Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem."
Less than an hour before the Arab Group meeting ended, at the US State Department briefing in Washington, the Department's spokesperson said the US opposes the draft, and others oppose the draft as well, in part because it “fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs.”
Update from US transcript:
MR. JEFF RATHKE: "We’ve seen reports regarding Palestinian and Jordanian plans to bring their text to a vote at the Security Council. There are discussions still taking place in New York and we are – and with the Secretary, who has spoken with some of his counterparts, and we are therefore engaging with all the relevant stakeholders. As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have."
Inner City Press asked, and Mansour replied, “There was a telephone conversation between President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and I'm sure they discussed all the issues.”
Dina Kawar said the amendments concern “the issue of Jerusalem, and others concern prisoners, water, settlements.” She said, “the Arab Group supports, they have now the copy of the new amendments, we are going to submit today to the Secretariat.”
On timing she said, “If I tell you this week and it happens next week you're going to come back and ask" why.
Dina Kawar and Riyad Mansour on Dec 28, 2104, (c) M.R. Lee
Mansour said on the timing of a vote, “realistically it could be tomorrow or the day after.”
UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- The only New Years call by Ban Ki-moon for which the UN has issued a read-out, as of 11 pm on January 1, is with Park Geun-hye of Ban's native South Korea, where he is reported in the mix for the next Presidential race.
The UN issued this:
"The Secretary-General and President Park Geun-hye of the Republic of Korea (ROK) exchanged New Year's greetings in a phone conversation today.
"The Secretary General commended the ROK's active contribution to the work of the United Nations under the leadership of President Park, including through global efforts to address climate change and fight against Ebola, among others. The Secretary-General noted this year would meaningfully mark the 70th anniversaries of both the founding of the United Nations and the independence of the ROK.
"He told President Park that he looked forward to the ROK’s leadership in forging a meaningful agreement on climate change, as well the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals and the shaping of the post-2015 development agenda.
"They also discussed issues related to the Korean Peninsula. The Secretary-General appreciated President Park's commitment to building peace and prosperity in the Korean Peninsula through inter-Korean dialogue. He took note of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s positive response today.
"The Secretary-General reaffirmed his readiness to provide any support, as appropriate, in facilitating peace and stability in the region in close coordination with the concerned countries."
Who is writing this material? Back on December 22, when UN Secretary General returned from a belated Ebola tour and took three questions, two of them were about North Korea. Ban, looking down at notes, answered about human rights.
At the end, Inner City Press asked about the allegations that UN Peacekeeping covered by 200 rapes in Tabit in Darfur. Ban smiled but did not answer. Meanwhile Ban has been sent a letter from 123 non-governmental organizations and experts saying, among other things, that the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous should not remain in the position.
Another question: does Ban Ki-moon demand and get questions in advance of his rare press conferences, the better to answer them?
On December 17, it seemed that he did. Video here, Inner City Press and Free UN Coalition for Access story here. Of those picked by Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December 17, two of his three on December 22 were again selected, including the most obviously pre-submitted question(er); the third on December 22 was Agence France Presse, predictably about North Korea, not Ladsous.
On December 18, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, for the record, if questions had been given in advance. Dujarric said, twice, that it is his job to get Ban Ki-moon ready for the press conference.
Does that mean getting questions in advance? Dujarric repeated the same answer. Video here. It seems that it does.
On December 17 after Ban thanked some of those in the UN Press Briefing Room for inviting and celebrating him at a black-tie ball the previous night, the first question was set aside for the group that celebrated him, the UN Correspondents Association. Video here.
Outgoing UNCA president Pamela Falk asked Ban about Cuba, “since you've visit,” and Ban said he had been told in advance. While he added, by the US, he glanced down and read out a statement. Of course, Ban Ki-moon has no responsibility for or power over US policy on Cuba.Video here.
Ban was asked a soft question about the US torture report -- but NOT whether he thinks anyone should be prosecuted. Ban was asked a question about Ebola and another about the transatlantic slave trade from Africa.
In response to the latter question, Ban read the entirety of his answer from a script. Video here.
Yes, it was in French. But if he's getting the questions in advance on this, why not others? And as another journalist in the room, not Inner City Press, said afterward, maybe he wasn't called on because he hasn't been willing to give his question in advance.
Here's from the UN's December 18, 2014 transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about the press conference held yesterday, if you can confirm or deny that at least certain of the questions were provided in advance to the Secretary-General and he read an answer to them. And I ask this because it seems if we are here having what seems to be a press conference, it seems at least important to at least know if it's scripted.
Spokesman Dujarric: No, I think the press conference is not scripted. It's my job as the Secretary-General's Spokesman to be ready for this briefing and to be ready for… to help the Secretary-General be ready for his briefing.
Inner City Press: On the answer on the Transatlantic Slave Trade, his entire answer was read out. And I'm saying this with all due respect, but is this normal? Is it normal in a press conference to have an answer known in advance and an answer read out?
Spokesman Dujarric: I think, as I said, Matthew, it's my job to be ready for the briefings and to make sure the Secretary-General is ready for his.
Inner City Press: Does that include knowing what questions will be asked? There is a big difference.
Spokesman: Those are the only words I can use. So, anything else? Yes, I'll come back to you.
UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- The day after a rocket killed more than two dozen people at a wedding party in Helmand province in Afghanistan, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon churned out a statement condemning the bombing but not mentioning the role of the Afghan National Army.
The UN said Ban “condemns in the strongest terms the shelling that hit a wedding party in Helmand province yesterday and which reportedly killed 25 civilians and wounded 45 others" and "urges the Government to carry out a full investigation of the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice.”
Previously, when Afghan National forces were involved in the the killing of UN staff members Louis Maxwell, Ban's UN never followed through. Ban said a movie should be made about Maxwell; now follow through is not even on the agenda of the UN mission there, only of the UN Department of Safety and Security.
Chile took over the presidency of the UN Security Council on January 1. Will this shelling in Afghanistan trigger the first of what are sure to be many Security Council Press Statements during Chile's month?
Back on December 18 after the UN Mission in Afghanistan's new chief Fink Haysom briefed the Security Council, he came to the Council's stakeout and took questions from the Press.
Haysom on December 18 said that the Louis Maxwell case was being handled by the UN Department of Safety and Security. On December 19, when to his credit he held a sit-down press conference, he said that the LOTFA issues were more for the UN Development Program -- which has been far from responsive -- and that it is largely a matter of answering the questions from donors. That's certainly part of it. But what about the “public accounting”?
Some of these issues go beyond Haysom as SRSG. It was up to Ban Ki-moon to push the Karzai government about the killing of Louis Maxwell, and he didn't. UNDP should be answering the questions about LOTFA, but isn't. Still, doesn't this make the UNAMA mission's job more difficult?
Again to his credit, Haysom said that UNAMA formally reached out to the Taliban, on human rights issues, and meet with them in Doha. He emphasized there can be no (entirely) military solution.
Inner City Press tried to ask UNAMA Human Rights Office chief Georgette Gagnon if her office works with the International Criminal Court's inquiry into Afghanistan.
But it was Haysom who answered, saying yes UNAMA participates constructively but that it is confidential. With the release, even redacted, of the summary of the US torture report, the ICC's Afghanistan inquiry has become all the more interesting. We'll have more on this.
Footnote: in terms of accessibility during his visit to UNHQ in New York, Haysom should be credited. Under Secretaries General like Herve Ladsous and even, less abusively, Jeffrey Feltman rarely speak to the media. Inner City Press for the new Free UN Coalition for Access on December 19 thanked Haysom -- and posits that willingness to answer questions from the media should be one of the criteria by which UN officials, including for example the next head of OCHA, are chosen.
UNITED NATIONS, January 1, more here -- In the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the Army committed mass rape in Minova and UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous helped cover it up, now a celebrated rape treatment center is being targeted by the Joseph Kabila government.
And days into the attack, the UN which runs the large MONUSCO mission under Ladsous is quiet.
According to the Panzi Foundation, "On December 30, 2014, the Panzi Hospital staff in DRC received word from the Congolese government, through the Directorate General of Taxes, that the Hospital allegedly owed upwards of €500,000 in penalties. Authorities seized €38,000... To address this crisis, the Panzi Foundation USA is raising funds and facilitating direct transfers to fund emergency operations at Panzi Hospital. A major social media campaign grew from a protest in Bukavu at the offices of the DGI. Supporters are encouraged to take a photo of themselves with the hashtag #IStandWithPanzi or #StandWithPanzi, and post it on social media."
So where is the UN? From cover ups of the rapes in Minova, Ladsous has continued on to do the same in Sudan. In Darfur, now the gambit it to try to blame this on an underling, to try to save Ladsous.
But even beyond the December 12 shooting at unarmed demonstrators by Ladsous' "peacekeepers" in Haiti, on which he spoke in the past for the ouster of Aristide, there are cover ups in the DRC Congo on his watch, and by him.
On the mass rapes in Minova, Ladsous refused for months to answer Press questions, video here.
Now a report by none other than Human Rights Watch, loath to criticize Ladsous, says in connection with attacks in Beni in the DRC, "UN officials said that the army has resisted its attempts at coordination to protect civilians and has blocked UN troops from carrying out patrols in certain areas."
Inner City Press on December 16 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric who these "UN officials" are - and why Ladsous, as he stands accused in Darfur, did not go public with the blockages in real time.
Dujarric said, among other things, that the Sudan and DRC cases are quite different. Perhaps. But the common denominator is Ladsous. Continuing under-performance in DRC cannot be blamed, as is tried in Darfur, on a lower level staff.
In Darfur, ten days after after the UN issued a statement on its internal investigation into charges it covered-up attacks, its UNAMID mission there under Herve Ladsous on November 9 issued a statement that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area" and that no evidence of rape was found.
While that UNAMID statement remains online and of record, UN Peacekeeping sent Meg Cary to Darfur. On December 9, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric why:
Inner City Press: there is a new AU [African Union]-UN Mission on the ground led by Margaret Carey of DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] — that it is in Nyala. And they described its mission as looking into alleged covering up of reports of crimes against civilians in Darfur. I thought that report had already been done and partially released to the Security Council. What is the mandate of this Mission?
Spokesman Dujarric: My understanding is that this is part of the strategic review that will be delivered to the Security Council.
Inner City Press: Will she be going to Thabit?
Spokesman Dujarric: I do not know. But obviously, we have not received any clearance to go to Thabit, as far as I'm aware, as of this morning
Multiple sources told Inner City Press that the goal was to blame, for the problems in UNAMID, staffer Karen Tchalian, not even the head of UNAMID, much less of UN Peacekeeping.
Whatever the sins of Tchalian, the problems of UN Peacekeeping are more extensive and are ultimately the fault of its chief, Herve Ladous: the failure to protect civilians in the DR Congo, the outright shooting at demonstrators on December 12 in Haiti. What are those who spun / used their pass-through wire going to do about Ladsous' peacekeepers shooting protesters for democracy in Haiti?
On December 4, Inner City Press asked Ladsous, Why did UNAMID not say on November 9 that it was surrounded by soldiers? Video here,and embedded below.
As is his habit, Ladsous did not answer on December 4, even with his UN Peacekeeping under fire for cover ups. It is a pattern with Ladsous. He refused Press questions for months about rapes in Eastern Congo in Minova by DRC Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports: video compilation here;Vine here.
On the morning of December 4 Ladsous claimed to the Security Council that UNAMID's findings were "inconclusive" due to army presence. But his UNAMID's press release whitewashed the situation in Tabit and did not mention the army presence. The covering-up continues, with no credibility, as Ladsous did on the Minova raped by DR Congo Army units his UN Peacekeeping supports.
On November 25, a wide range of groups in Darfur petitioned the UN Security Council about UNAMID's malfeasance. Inner City Press that morning obtained the letter (h/t) and put it online in full here, and below.
While UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked at noon, said he had not seen the letter, by 6 pm when Inner City Press asked November's Security Council president about the letter, he confirmed receipt.
Quinlan said he had circulated the letter to the other 14 Council members -- as of 3 pm, one of them had not yet received it -- and that he expects the issues to be considered when the Security Council takes up UNAMID "next week, under Chad's presidency."
(On November 26, the UK Mission to the UN"s Arran Skinner told Inner City Press, "I can confirm that we received the letter indirectly. In terms of contents, on alleged rape cases, the Security Council issued a press statement calling for a full investigation. The UK initiated the call for a press statement and so agree that this issue needs to be looked at." Another Security Council mission has yet to confirm receipt or comment, but it's expected.)
On Ban Ki-moon's report into UNAMID under-reporting attacks on civilians and even peacekeepers, Inner City Press asked and Quinlan repeated it should be taken up soon, the question is finding the right, credible (or disinterested) briefer. Watch this site for that. Here is the letter:
11/25/2014
Dear Gary Quinlan, Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations,President of the United Nations Security Council, November 2014
United Nations
New York, NY
c. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary-General for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations United Nations
Dear Ambassador Quinlan,
As Darfuris in the diaspora, we have watched with great sorrow and growing anger the plight of our people in this ravaged region of Sudan. Darfur at one time commanded considerable attention in the United Nations, but no longer.
The international community in general has drifted into an acceptance that somehow the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) is an adequate means of protecting millions of vulnerable civilians. It is clearly not, and the recent mass sexual assault on women and girls in Tabit, North Darfur, makes this all too clear.
But the disgraceful "investigation" by UNAMID of events in Tabit should be the occasion for our remembering that this is, in fact, a UN-authorized mission; it has UN Chapter 7 authority; it is deployed with a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated by the UN and African Union (February 2008), even as the agreement is now simply a travesty, violated at will by the Khartoum regime. It is not, however, simply the failing of UNAMID and the African Union that must be reckoned with. It is the Security Council, the Secretariat, and UN Department of Peacekeeping Affairs (UN DPKO) that must accept responsibility for a failing mission; and it is UN DPKO that must do most to explain what it will do in light of this failure.
It is in this context that we demand that the following questions be addressed forthrightly and expeditiously:
[1] UNAMID, even if augmented and re-directed along the lines recently suggested by Secretary Ban Ki-moon, cannot provide adequate security for the people of Darfur. We demand that plans be made immediately for an UN force that can adequately take on the "responsibility to protect" civilians at risk, per the September 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document (§38, §39).
[2] We demand that the Security Council and UN DPKO confront the Khartoum regime over its countless flagrant violations of the SOFA.
[3] We demand that UN DPKO undertake a full review of UNAMID's performance to date. The context here should be the fact that more than 2 million Darfuris have been newly displaced since UNAMID took up its mandate in January 2008; we would remind you of how closely violence and displacement have correlated over the past decade of conflict. Moreover, insecurity has increased steadily for more than two years—this on top of the insecurity that prevailed so widely in earlie years.
[4] We demand that UN DPKO, in consultation with the Security Council and the Secretariat, formulate plans to provide adequate protection to the civilian population of Darfur. This must include contingency plans for a very rapid acceleration of what is already unacceptable insecurity for civilians and humanitarians.
[5] We demand in particular that UN DPKO ensure that UNAMID is prepared to provide adequate protection to the people of Tabit, especially girls and women, from retaliation by Khartoum for having had the misfortune of making clear to the world just how brutal this regime is.
[6] We further demand that UN DPKO instruct UNAMID to provide all necessary protection to humanitarian efforts to reach Tabit. Many residents have been badly traumatized and injured.
[7] We also demand accountability from those who are responsible for the failures that led to the brutal crimes at Tabit, and so many others over so many years. Accountability must extend to the leadership of UNAMID and the African Union Peace and Security Council, as well as to the UN DPKO. As part of this assigning of responsibility, there must be a full and competent investigation, authorized by the Security Council of how this atrocity crime was essentially white-washed by all parties, most notably UNAMID. But we must emphasize as well that we are deeply troubled by the silence of UN DPKO.
[8] We demand that UNAMID be guided by the "rules of engagement" for UNAMID in Darfur that have been previously negotiated. UN DPKO must ensure that these "rules of engagement" are widely understood and dictate the actions taken by UNAMID personnel.
[9] We demand that UN DPKO assess the possibility that insecurity is now so great that there will be an exodus of international NGOs providing critical relief aid to Darfuris. Many INGOs have expressed their deep concern for the safety of their workers in Darfur, more than 95 percent of whom are Sudanese nationals. The safety of these workers must not be discounted because they are African and Khartoum permits no news coverage of Darfur and no human rights reporting presence.
Would relief workers similarly threatened in other parts of the world be regarded in the same light as Sudanese relief workers?
[10] We demand that UN DPKO communicate with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in order to ascertain when a continued humanitarian presence by the UN might become impossible for security reasons.
[11] We demand that UN DPKO assess the implications for future UN peacekeeping missions if
UNAMID is allowed to continue to fail so conspicuously. The events at Tabit and the performance of UNAMID investigators bring this question into high relief.
[12] Most generally, we demand that UN DPKO speak forthrightly about its understanding of the limitations and weaknesses of present peacekeeping in Darfur and the provision of civilian security.
We remain troubled by the comments of the Under-Secretary General for DPKO when in spring 2012 he declared that security "conditions on the ground" had improved sufficiently that UNAMID could begin to draw down its forces (a figure of 4,000 personnel was promulgated at the time). This ghastly error in judgment was never acknowledged, even as by July of 2012 we saw a tremendous upsurge in violence, especially in North Darfur. How can we trust statements from UN DPKO when egregious errors are not acknowledged?
[13] We demand that the United Nations collectively develop an effective response to the gross deficiencies of UNAMID in protecting civilians and humanitarians. UN DPKO in particular must develop benchmarks for assessing UNAMID's performance and formulate emergency contingency plans in the event of a massive and precipitous withdrawal of humanitarian personnel.
These are matters of the deepest concern to us; to date, there are far too few answers from UN about why the Darfur genocide continues more than a decade after it began. We demand clear evidence that the people of Darfur will not be further abandoned.
Sincerely,
Darfur People's Association of New York
Darfur People's Association of Maryland
Fur Cultural Revival
Darfur People's Association of Houston
Darfur People's Association of Dallas
Darfur People's Association of Illinois
Darfur Human Rights - USA
Massalit Sons' Association - USA
Darfur Rehabilitation Project
Sudanese Revolutionary Front
Sudanese Opposition Forces- USA
Broad National Front
Justice & Equality Movement - Sudan
Sudan Liberation Movement - MM
Sudan Liberation Movement - Wahid
SPLM-N
Umma Party
Girifna
Sudanese Marginalized Forum - USA
Sudanese National Democratic Forum - California
National Sudanese Alliance - Philadelphia
Peace & Democracy Center - New Jersey
Democratic Alliance, USA
Federal Democratic Alliance
Sudanese Front for Change
Kush Liberation Movement
Democratic Unionist Party
Activists without Borders
Sudanese Congress Party
Darfur People's Association of Boston
Darfur People's Association of Indiana
Darfur People's Association of Utah
Darfur People's Association of Nebraska
Darfur People's Association of Seattle
Darfur Son's Union of Greater Washington DC
Darfur People's Association of Iowa
Darfur People's Association of Arizona
Darfur Women Action Group
Darfur Association of the United States
Darfur Self-reliance Organization - San Francisco, California
Inner City Press on November 21 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to explain UNAMID's November 9 press release in the context of the internal memorandum, put online here, that UNAMID knew Sudanese security was filming the interviews, had even put together a "committee" of Thabit residents to speak to UNAMID. Video here.
Inner City Press on November 19 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what the UN would do in the wake of its (cover up) November 9 press release, and about bombing in North Darfur three days earlier.
On November 20, UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci was in charge of the UN noon briefing, and read out a statement that UNAMID is trying to verify the reports of bombing on November 16. One has to wonder, are they mishandling this like the rape reports in Thabit?
So Inner City Press asked, what is actually being done to get into Thabit, after the cover-up press release? Inner City Press asked about UNAMID's acting head Abiodun Bashua's reference to "rumors" of rape in Thabit - is that the UN's position? And why hasn't UNAMID accessed the site(s) of the November 16 bombings, four full days later?
On November 21, Dujarric returned with an answer, that UNAMID had in this case done out and had found "craters." But apparently UNAMID drew no conclusions from that.
Inner City Press at the November 17 UN noon briefing asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Sudanese forces having filmed UNAMID's interviews and to confirm the new blockage.
Haq did not comment on UNAMID letting its interviews about rape be filmed by Sudanese authorities; he confirmed the blockage and said to expect a comment from Ban.
And two hours later it came:
"The Secretary-General is deeply troubled about persistent allegations of mass rape in Thabit, North Darfur. The African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) visited Thabit on 9 November. However, the heavy presence of military and police in Thabit made a conclusive investigation difficult. UNAMID has since then attempted to gain further access to shed light on what happened.
"The Secretary-General is concerned that after intense consultations with the Government in Khartoum and with local authorities in Darfur, UNAMID was yesterday denied access to Thabit. Only a full investigation by UNAMID will help shed light over these serious allegations. The Secretary-General therefore urges the Government of Sudan to grant UNAMID unfettered access, without further delay, to Thabit and its population so that these reports can be verified."
Ban does not mention that his and Herve Ladsous' mission had this to say, on November 9: "Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area. None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Thabit on the day of that media report. The team neither found any evidence nor received any information regarding the media allegations during the period in question.”
Who is going to take action, on whom, about that? Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access are asking.
On November 13, Inner City Press again asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq what had been done in the last 48 hours.Video here.
Haq was unable to describe any investigation done without Sudanese military presence; instead, he said that the Force Commander of UNAMID, already charged with cover-ups, spoke with Herve Ladsous, who refused to answer Press questions about 130 rapes by the DR Army in Minova. Video here.
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask again about the allegations of rape in North Darfur. Radio Dabanga there has not only questioned, you know, the UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] press statement but has interviewed both victims and has quoted a local community leader in Tabit, basically threatening people that if they spoke on the rapes to UNAMID, they would face the consequences. So I wanted to know, now at this remove… yesterday the President of the Council spoke about it, at this remove, what is UNAMID going to do to get to the bottom of it? And also, the reporting to Ms. Aicha Elbasry’s allegations, who would brief the Security Council on that? He said yesterday, the President of the Council, that they are looking to take it up and are looking for the right briefers. Does the Secretariat have in mind either the author of the report or who would be the appropriate briefer? Thanks.
Deputy Spokesman: As the Council President informed you, they'll be looking at briefers, so we'll work that out with them. Regarding your initial question, yes, we've been in touch with the UN-African Union Mission, UNAMID, who have informed us that security personnel were in fact present during UNAMID's mission to Tabit. The African Union-UN Mission in Darfur will continue to look into the rape allegations in the area of Tabit, North Darfur. As reported to the Security Council yesterday, the findings of the UNAMID team, which was granted access to Tabit on 9 November, are inconclusive and need further investigation. UNAMID remains committed to this and it will revert with any additional findings that might shed light on these allegations.
Inner City Press: [Inaudible] I just wanted to ask you again if there's been any reflection again on that line where it says residents… and I'm going to paraphrase it, residents said that they get along fine with the military. Just seemed the line was such a clunker, basically, it was totally inconsistent with other reports…
Deputy Spokesman: I'm not going to second-guess how my colleagues write press releases. Different press releases are written by different people at different times.
Inner City Press: Who wrote this one?
Deputy Spokesman: Someone from the Mission. The point is: you're writing, trying to get all the information out as best you can in the circumstances you have. What I have been able to say right now is that we are aware that security personnel was present during UNAMID's mission there.
We'll have more on this. Later on November 11 Inner City Press asked International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda if she had seen the whole UN report on allegations of cover-ups by UNAMID, or only a summary. She said only the summary, and only the day before. We'll have more on this too.
On November 10, Inner City Press asked UN Security Council president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia about the UNAMID press release, and if and when the Security Council will act on the "cover-up" report, including requesting the full report from the Secretariat, which to date has provided only a summary. Video here. From the Australian transcript:
Inner City Press: Sure, thanks a lot. I wanted to ask on Darfur. Thanks for what you said about what Ms Bangura said. There’s a press release put out by UNAMID that has this line in it: “Village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they co-exist peacefully with local military authorities in the area.” The press release doesn’t mention at all the military presence. So I wanted to ask you, one, if you could comment, what do you make of this press release by UNAMID? And two, does the report by the Secretary-General on allegations of covers up by UNAMID of attacks on civilians and on peacekeepers, where does it stand? He said that the, the Spokesperson said that an executive summary of the report went to the Council. Is the Council going to have a meeting on it? Are you going to have a full report? And are you satisfied with UNAMID’s press release on these allegations of rape?
AMBASSADOR QUINLAN: Matthew, on the second part of the question. Members of the Council are very concerned on this whole question of UNAMID and UNAMID reporting, but also what UNAMID is doing. And one of the big issues there is the denial of access and restrictions that are imposed largely by the Government of Sudan, with whom UNAMID has a formal arrangement on access. But also, of course, by armed opposition groups and that is inherently more difficult sometimes to get the access that’s needed.
That report has not yet been discussed by the Council. I expect that it will be over the next couple of weeks. A number of members of the Council are extremely interested in it. We want to be sure that we’ve lined up the briefers from the Secretariat to have a proper discussion of that report.
Secondly, in relation to the UNAMID press release, I think the key is that they’ve indicated that they had access but it was the first time since November 4, when they’d been seeking access. And they had proactively been seeking access to be able to undertake investigations. That’s a long period to have access denied, by the way, in a circumstance like rape. You really do need, as Ms Bangura reminded us, to have access straight away, for obvious reasons. So that’s one point I’d make. The second point is UNAMID has made it extremely clear in its press release that it will conduct further follow-up actions, including possible further investigations and patrols and that they will do that in cooperation with the Government of Sudan and other parties. We have confidence that that will happen. SRSG Bangura is making this a top priority for her and so is the Secretariat itself and we were reassured about that this morning by ASG Mulet. So I think that’s basically it.
We'll continue to follow this -- but how can a peacekeeping mission already accused of covering up for the Sudanese government say, today, that "village community leaders reiterated to UNAMID that they coexist peacefully with local military authorities in the area"? To some, this is shocking - and indicative of problems in today's UN Peacekeeping.
Inner City Press on November 7 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the challenges to the UN's statement it couldn't and didn't access the site of mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur. Video here; transcript:
Inner City Press: there are witnesses in Darfur who actually say that the UNAMID investigators, rather than being stopped outside Tabit went inside and interviewed four people and after that they were spoken to by Sudanese military intelligence. And so these are credible people that have been reporting on Darfur for some time and see the reports being issued by UNAMID although as a reaction to the quote “cover up report” as not being accurate. And I wanted to know, can you check with them to be sure that the UNAMID investigators didn't in fact enter Tabit Tuesday at 5 am and whether they were spoken to by Sudanese intelligence and decided to say that they hadn't been able to enter the town?
Spokesman Dujarric: I'm not going to judge the credibility or lack of credibility of people who have been reporting on Darfur. I mean, they report. What I can tell you is the Mission clearly stands by its reporting. They've sent us a bit more detail, said the verification patrol comprising of military police and civilian personnel on Tuesday, 4 November, that it was sent on Tuesday, 4 November, from Shangil Tobaya to Tabit to 14:50 hours, I assume local time. The patrol was denied access at the outskirts of the town at a Sudanese military checkpoint. Attempts to negotiate access to Tabit were unfruitful and the team returned to the base in Shangil Tobaya. We've repeated… the Mission's leadership has repeated its call to the Government to grant the UN, to grant UNAMID unfettered access to the whole of Darfur and obviously especially in areas where we're trying to investigate horrendous reports of mass rape. So that's a longer, a long way of saying that the Mission stands by its reporting.
But if UNAMID and UN Peacekeeping was just outed for under-reporting attacks, how it is now automatically credible? On November 6, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about similar cover-ups in Central African Republic, exposed by an Amnesty International report about that country.
Inner City Press: I'm sure the Secretary-General has seen the Amnesty International's report today about the peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic. They basically, I mean, they say a number of things. Maybe you have some kind of response to it. But, I wanted to especially ask you about the reporting aspect of it they describe a number of killings and attacks that have taken place in Dekoa, Bambari and elsewhere in [the Central African Republic] about, which, at least being here every day, I've heard nothing from this podium. So, I wanted to know both substantively what's the response of UN peacekeeping to not protecting civilians and in terms of communications and transparency the response to what appears to be an underreporting similar to that analogous to that in Darfur?
Spokesman Dujarric: Sure. Obviously, a big part of the Missions' mandate is the protection of civilians. The Mission, its peacekeeping forces, its formed police units, are doing that to the best of their ability. Obviously, it's a very challenging situation. It's a challenging terrain in which they work. And there is, obviously… one could always use more troops and more police. I'm not sure they're up to their mandated force as of yet. As far as reporting goes, you know we report from here whatever we receive from the Mission.
Inner City Press: Because of the Darfur thing, I wanted to ask: Their report is very detailed. The report, it says names of places, number of people killed. Maybe, first of all, does the Mission send it to [the Department of Peacekeeping Operations] in New York and they're supposed to give it to your office? At what point has this information in the Amnesty report, has it reached New York before or is it a surprise to UN?
Spokesman: I can only speak to what I receive from the Mission
Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked if the full Darfur report will be released, at least to the Security Council, and about under-reporting of attacks in the Central African Republic. Video here.
Dujarric said that even before the summary was given to the Security Council members -- so that is apparently all that has been given to them -- UN missions were told to be sure to report attacks. He said he reads out what the missions sent him.
So has the UN mission in CAR, MINUSCA, simply not send in reports about killings in Bambari and elsewhere? We'll see.
Despite a request from Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access the UN will not release the report. Back on October 29, Inner City Press asked, given that even the sanitized statement says information on attacks was withheld from the media and UN Headquarters - at its request? - who is responsible? Video here.
Back on September 12, eight days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that the head of the Darfur peacekeeping mission Mohamed ibn Chambas was being given the UN Office in West Africa post in Dakar, and asked about it, the UN confirmed the move.
Inner City Press has asked on September 5, and did again on September 12, if this move didn't undercut or pre-judge the UN's investigation into charges that the Darfur mission under Chambas under-reported attacks on civilians.
And now in January 2015 Chambas heads to Gambia for the UN...
UNITED NATIONS, January 1 – After the coup attempt in The Gambia, but before the 10 am UN Security Council meeting on the subject, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon issued a 123 word statement calling for restraint and an investigation of the attempt in the The Gambia, albeit not mentioning the name of the target of the coup, Yahya Jammeh.
After the Security Council's 45-minute meeting, Inner City Press asked the Council's president who is supposed to do the investigation Ban had called for before the meeting. He responded that UN official Chambas will go to Banjul; Inner City Press later learned and published that this will take place on January 2.
Reuters however reported that "Following brief talks at the U.N. Security Council, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a transparent investigation into the events and also urged restraint."
This is false.
Ban's statement was at 9:37 am; the Security Council meeting didn't start until 10 am, and didn't end until 10:45 am. (At that time, Inner City Press asked Ban's Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman for more detail; he replied that since Ban had issued a statement, he had nothing to add -- all too common at the UN, as pointed out and opposed by the Free UN Coalition for Access.)
Reuters was not present at the UN Security Council stakeout before, during or after the meeting on Gambia (Tweeted photo here), and apparently not in the UN building either. The crediting on the above quoted story is"Reporting by David Lewis and Diadie Ba in Dakar, Lesley Wroughton in Washington, Louis Charbonneauin New York; Writing by David Lewis and Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Giles Elgood."
Six journalists listed; one outright falsehood. What does Reuters do in these cases? We've asked management including Stephen J. Adler before, amid censorship, withno real answer. #ReutersFail.
Since then, African Union commission chief Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has expressed "preoccupation" and rurged deepening "democracy and the respect for human rights."
By the time of Ban's 9:37 am December 31 statement, later misrepresented by Reuters, the US had already issueda statement: “The United States is aware of reports of a coup attempt on December 30 in The Gambia. We strongly condemn any attempt to seize power through extra-constitutional means. We regret the loss of life and call on all parties to refrain from further violence.”
Thirteen hours later when Ban Ki-moon issued his statement, he went a bit further and cited calm and called for an investigation, apparently by Jammeh's government itself:
“The Secretary-General is following closely developments in The Gambia. He reiterates the United Nations principled condemnation of all attempts to seize power through unconstitutional means. Referring to reports that indicate that the situation in Banjul is calm, he calls for all parties to exercise restraint and to refrain from further violence.
“Noting the seriousness of any attempt to overthrow governments by force, the Secretary-General encourages the establishment of a transparent investigation into the events of 30 December, in compliance with due process and respect for the rule of law. In that regard, he urges the Government of The Gambia, and its security and defense forces to act in full respect for human rights. The United Nations will continue to closely monitor the situation.”
When the UN Security Council meeting on the topic began at 10:10 am on December 31, there were tumbleweeds at the stakeout in front. Some may denounce The Gambia, but at the UN or at least in its press corp, there is not apparently much interest.
When the meeting ended, in less than 45 minutes, Inner City Press asked Feltman about it. He said since the SG had issued a statement, he had nothing to add. In 2015, theFree UN Coalition for Access will be pressing for all UN Under Secretaries General to answer questions.
Finally, the Security Council's president for December, from Chad, came and summarized the meeting, saying that UN official Chambas, previously the head of UNAMID in Darfur, will file a report. There have been problems with UNAMID's reporting.
(Again in terms of micro-news, Inner City Press is exclusively told by sources that Chambas will go to Gambia on Friday, January 2. Since the UNSC President was asked on camera when Chambas would go and only said "soon," call it a coup scooplet.)
Inner City Press asked the outgoing Security Council president about the December 30 closed door meeting about Sudan throwing out two UN officials, Yvonne Helle and Ali Al-Za'tari. He said he couldn't speak, nothing had been agreed to. Which is why the UN Secretariat should have spoken and taken questions, as FUNCA requestedand will continue to request in 2015. Watch this site.
