In First Remarks in Sri Lanka, US John Kerry Quiet on War Crimes Probe, No Follow Through?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 2 -- When in Sri Lanka US Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a thousand words of remarks after his counterpart Mangala Samaraweera the war crimes reports, withheld by the UN for at least six months and previously promised by Sri Lanka's government, were not addressed. Diplomacy may (often) be about emphasizing the positive, but where is the follow-through? Here is a transcription of Kerry's remarks:

"I want to thank the foreign minister for an extraordinarily generous... Mangala has given me a really generous and very personal welcome here today, and it is an historic moment, one that I’m very proud and pleased to be able to share with him. And I’m grateful for his friendship and for the invitation, which he offered me when he came to Washington, to come here today in order to renew the relationship between the United States of America and Sri Lanka.

This is a paradise, a very beautiful island nation. It has enormous assets, wonderful, extraordinary people, and great, great promise for the future. And I pledged to him and to his delegation here today that the United States wants to work with Sri Lankans and help in any way we can to shape the future that the people of Sri Lanka want.

The foreign minister and I last met in February in Washington, and today we talked about the enormous progress that Sri Lanka has made in just a few short months – and progress that can be measured: progress on restoring democratic institutions; progress on creating more accountable governance; the passage of the 19th amendment, in which the president kept his promise to reduce the powers of the presidency and move them more to the people through a broader sharing, is an example of that; progress in combatting corruption; and progress on reconciliation that can lead to a much more enduring peace and to shared prosperity for all Sri Lankans.

So I am very mindful that as I stand here in Sri Lanka, more than 10 years after the tsunami on December of 2004, so many people are suffering in Nepal from the devastating earthquake that struck one week ago. And I want to commend the government and the people of Sri Lanka for quickly sending response teams to Kathmandu. The United States is also mobilizing a major response, but it’s indication of the sensitivity of this government and its sense of responsibility and its desire to be a part of the world community that it responded so quickly.

It is tragedies like the Asian tsunami, of the Nepal earthquake – or the Nepal earthquake – that underscore our need to work together to support one another in times of crisis, yes, but also in times of opportunity. And this is a time of opportunity for Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka today, I think many of us see a moment of extraordinary promise. The foreign minister recently gave a rousing speech to parliament, and I was particular inspired by his statement that the true safeguarding of sovereignty can be achieved only by fulfilling our obligations to our people and by preserving and upholding the multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious nature of our society.

He emphasized as well the importance of working closely together with other countries and with international organizations. Already we have seen those words actually backed up by actions. That’s what makes this government important, and it’s what makes this government different. Sri Lanka is now playing a role on everything from maritime security and trade to cyber issues and climate change. And I am particularly grateful to the foreign minister for hosting an event on cyber-crime and for taking steps to become the first country in South Asia to accede to the Budapest convention.

But I know that you also have a tremendous amount of work to do here at home. You are working on creating an enduring peace and you’re working on providing prosperity for all of your people. Many challenges and difficult decisions obviously still lie ahead, and we talked about many of them this morning. But one thing that struck me was the readiness of this government to open its doors and to open its minds to different ideas and to new and more effective and efficient ways of doing things.

One thing about this Sri Lankan Government seems very clear: the president and the prime minister and the foreign minister are not afraid of tackling tough issues. They’re willing to make difficult decisions and

they are committed to keeping their promises. We’ve seen that with the 100-day Plan. And as the government heads into the parliamentary elections this summer, Sri Lankans will continue to rely on their tremendous leadership and commitment.

So I am here today because I want to say to the people of Sri Lanka that in this journey to restore your democracy the American people will stand with you. We intend to broaden and to deepen our partnership with you. And to that end, the foreign minister and I agreed to establish an annual partnership dialogue between our two governments. I’ve also asked teams from across our government to mobilize quickly in order to provide technical assistance as the Government of Sri Lanka embraces these important reforms. And we will soon have members of that team from the Treasury Department and from the Commerce Department come here in order to work with the government on the economic measures that could be taken to provide for greater investment and greater growth. And as you know, President Obama recently nominated one of our most talented Foreign Service officers – Atul Keshap – to be our ambassador to Sri Lanka.

So Mangala, thank you again for a very generous welcome. These are very important days here in Sri Lanka. And all of us need to rely on each other and we need to work together cooperatively. That’s exactly how we’re going to forge a stronger friendship, and that’s also how we’re going to forge a stronger partnership and an even better future for both of our countries.

What strikes me about Sri Lanka and the United States – and it got lost in the last years – is that the truth is we want the same thing for our people. We actually share the same values. We have the same aspirations for better jobs, for education, for health, for prosperity, for peace, for stability, for reconciliation. Those are the things that bring us together; that’s what brings me here today. And I’m very proud to be here to help renew the partnership and the friendship between the people of the United States and the people of Sri Lanka. Thank you, my friend."

  And certainly not only the current Sri Lankan government, but those involved in war crimes including the killing of tens of thousands of people in 2009, are thankful for these type of remarks. We'll have more on this.

Back on February 26, 2015, nine days after the UN Human Rights Council under Joachim Rucker granted HCHR Zeid's request to withhold the already delayed report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, the UN added Jaffna as a stop to the Sri Lanka visit by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's highest political official Jeffrey Feltman.

  That came two days after Inner City Press asked if Feltman would go to Jaffna, site of protests of the delay, and was told "Colombo only." 

  But when Inner City Press asked the UN on both March 3 and again on March 4 if Feltman while in Jaffna had received what's called the genocide resolution, and what he will do with it, the question went unanswered for a week.

  Until on March 10 when Feltman came to do a too-rare sit down press conference. Inner City Press asked Feltman three questions on Sri Lanka, including about the genocide resolution and deferral of the investigation report. Video here, from Minute 12:19

 On this last, Feltman said the delay keeps the pressure one -- NOT the position the UN takes for example with the African Union's report on South Sudan. This incongruity, like other incongruities of the UN on Sri Lanka, have not been explained. 

 On the genocide resolution, he said "I was handed the packet of material but it was not the genocide resolution passed by the Northern Provincial Council" but rather the type of issues of the north as represented by their elected would like to see included in any credible accountability mechanism. Video here. Really? We'll have more on this.

  Here is the video of March 3; the March 4 video has yet to be provided and the transcript is not online. Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when asked again, said that Feltman has been asked, if he briefs the Security Council, to come to the Council's stakeout. On no notice? And when might Feltman brief the Security Council about Sri Lanka?

  Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Feltman is conveying a weakening of the call for an international inquiry (video here and see below), and Dujarric said to watch what Feltman says in his lone Colombo press availability. How?

  (There's this, from Jaffna, by Feltman's interlocutor. What's wrong with the UN?)

  In any event, since the decision was made by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, how can Feltman be making any representations about what will happen next?

   With the UN yet to send out any of the promised read-outs, even as it sends them out about other countries, this has been reported:

“The Under Secretary General for Political Affairs of the UN Jeffrey Feltman who arrived in the island today on a 4 day official visit met with President Maithripala Sirisena and Acting Foreign Minister Ajith P Perera. Following the discussions Acting Foreign Minister Ajith P Perera expressed these views during which he said the calls for an international inquiry against Sri Lanka are weakening.”

  Inner City Press directly asked for the UN's response to this last, but by noon on March 2, nothing. So it went and asked the question.

 On Friday, February 27, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: on this trip by Mr. Feltman to Sri Lanka, I wanted to know:  can you confirm he's meeting with the Tamil National Alliance… that's tomorrow?  And will there be any readouts?

Spokesman Dujarric:  We talked to our colleagues in DPA [Department of Political Affairs] to make sure we can get some readouts e-mailed over the weekend as they happen.

   But more than 24 hours later, after Feltman's meeting with the TNA, there was no read-out. 

  Meanwhile it was reported under the headline "UN clarifies the delay" that "the UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, told the TNA that the release of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry on Sri Lanka (OISL) report on alleged war crimes in the Island was postponed to September this year following the assurance given by the new Government, that it would conduct an internal investigation under UN supervision."

  So since UN DPA is tweeting about Feltman's trip, Inner City Pressasked in this same medium, "Press Q: So, did government promise an 'investigation under UN supervision'?"

  So far, no answer. The UN is UNresponsive - click here for that,including with regard to the UN's Censorship Alliance - but we'll stay on it.

  Rucker, speaking in Geneva, has claimed that this delay was "very rational" in a "relatively unique" case. Are all forms of impunity and justice delayed "relatively unique"?

  On February 24, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said:

"Mr. Feltman will then travel to Sri Lanka on Saturday.  There, he plans to meet with senior officials of the Government of Sri Lanka, political parties and civil society groups. This will be his first visit to Sri Lanka, and he looks forward to discussing with Sri Lankan leaders various issues of mutual concern."

  Inner City Press immediately asked Ban Ki-moon's Spokesman Stephane Dujarric if Feltman will at least visit Jaffna in the north, site of protests of UN High Commissioner Prince Zeid's recommendation of the day:

Inner City Press: I want to ask in advance whether he’s going to go only to Colombo or Jaffna where there were pretty big protests over the weekend against the decision to defer that human rights report.  I’m wondering what’s the relationship between his trip and that… the process supposedly in six months to…

Spokesman Dujarric:  My understanding is that he will only go to Colombo to meet with various people.  We’ll get you, as the meetings happen, we’ll try to get you readouts.

 Now, Jaffna has been added. But what will the read-outs be? We'll have more on this

  Back on February 13 after Sri Lanka's new government spoke of doing another local investigation into war crimes in 2009, and asking for a suspension of the UN Human Rights Council process, Inner City Press went to Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera's meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  No other media at the UN attended; only the UN's own in-house UN Photo and UN TV. But accompanying Mangala Samaraweera were outgoing Ambassador Palitha Kohona and others. Video here.

  Ban Ki-moon, before Inner City Press was whisked out of the meeting, told Mangala Samaraweera he had met him after the tsunami - that is, when Ban was a South Korean diplomat.

  On February 17, after High Commissioner Prince Zeid recomended and got for Sri Lanka a six month deferral of action, Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, asked of Shavendra Silva by IPS, said 

"the Secretary-General is aware that the new administration is planning to set up a domestic accountability mechanism and will be carefully assessing developments.  The Secretary-General, as you're aware, met with the Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka last Friday, 13 February, and stressed the importance of Sri Lanka to show firm and clear commitment to accountability, reconciliation and human rights.  He also encouraged the Government to engage continuously with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Advancing accountability, like other parts of the post-war agenda in Sri Lanka, will lay the basis for the country to make further progress on peace, democracy and development.  The UN remains committed to support Sri Lanka’s efforts to address the postwar agenda.  The Secretary-General is also aware of reactions from various communities to the decision by the Human Rights Council, and the Secretary-General will positively engage with the new Government and support its efforts."

  This is shameful all around, in light of talk of accountability.

  Last week, the UN's Oscar Fernandez Taranco met the US State Department's Nisha Biswal. Inner City Press asked if it was about Bangladesh, and was told, "in part." Taranco was at Ban's meeting with Samaraweera, here. So was Sri Lanka and the deferral request the other part? Watch this site.

Back on February 12 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman for the UN's position. Video here. 

  First, Inner City Press asked whether Sri Lanka's Palitha Kohona is leaving the UN:

Inner City Press: yesterday, he met with Ambassador Kohona of Sri Lanka.  I couldn't tell if that was a farewell call or not.

Spokesman Dujarric:  It was indeed a farewell call.

Inner City Press:  And did the issue of not pursuing the Human Rights Council investigation into Sri Lanka arise?

Spokesman Dujarric:  It was, indeed, a farewell call.  I mean, the Secretary-General's position on the, on the human rights investigation is unchanged.  He's obviously aware that the new administration is considering setting domestic accountability mechanisms and will be carefully assessing these developments.  The Secretary-General has stressed the importance of Sri Lanka establishing credible mechanisms that meet international standards.  Advancing accountability, like other parts of the post-war agenda in Sri Lanka, will lay the basis for the country to make further progress on peace, democracy and development.  The UN stands ready, as always, to support Sri Lanka's efforts to address the post-war agenda as we have consistently affirmed.

  It's a question that when raised, here, to the US State Department went so far unanswered. New foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera is set to meet with Ban on February 13. Watch this site. 

  Back on January 12 the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made this call:

"The Secretary-General congratulated President Sirisena’s election and the successful conclusion of the presidential election. The Secretary-General and President Sirisena discussed the President’s 100-day plan and Sri Lanka’s post-war agenda. The Secretary-General affirmed continuous support by the UN to Sri Lanka."

  That is, the UN's read-out of Ban's call had no mention of accountability or of the UN Human Rights Council inquiry into the bloodbath on the beach in 2009. We'll have more on this.

 After Mahinda Rajapaksa conceded defeat but before 10:30 pm on January 8 in Washington, US Secretary of State issued a statement, below. 

  Inner City Press published it, and asked the UN for its comment. Told to expect one in the AM, New York time, Inner City Press noted, the earlier the better. Twelve hours later, there was nothing.

  So Inner City Press asked again at the noon briefing on January 9, after new President Sirisena's inauguration. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN welcomes the transfer of power, then later in the briefing read out this statement:

"The Secretary-General congratulates the people of Sri Lanka on the successful conclusion of the presidential election, and welcomes the constitutional transfer of power.

"The Secretary-General applauds the Sri Lankan Elections Commission for its professionalism in ensuring a peaceful and credible election. He also commends the efforts of the candidates, including in particular outgoing President Mahinda Rajapaksa, law enforcement agencies and civil society for upholding and respecting democratic governance.

"The Secretary-General looks forward to working with President Maithripala Sirisena and the people of Sri Lanka. He affirms the continuous support of the United Nations for development, reconciliation, political dialogue and accountability in Sri Lanka."

  Inner City Press immediately asked Haq if what this reference to accountability portends for the UN inquiry into the events in 2009. We'll have more on this.

  Amnesty International has said that "Sri Lanka has for years resisted all international efforts to investigate the conflict years, and instead relied on domestic investigation bodies that toed the government line. This has to end – the new government should cooperate fully with the UN investigation.”

   Watch this site.

  In other possible routes to accountability, talk of seeking justice in US courts as to several joint American citizens in Team Rajapaksa - or on the team during the 2009 "Bloodbath on the Beach" -- has picked up. Some team members have reportedly already left the country: we'll have more on this.

 

   

On French Army Child Rapes in Central African Republic, Transcript of UN Refusing Say Why It Never Told CAR's Government

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1, video here -- French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly  sexually abused children, and after more than nine months, no action has been taken. On May 1 from Geneva the spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zaid, Rupert Colville, sought to explain or bolster the reputations of the Office, and of France. 

  But Colville did not address, much less explain, why the UN did not tell the Central African Republic authorities about the alleged rapes of their citizens by French soldiers. Later on May 1, an African Permanent Representative sought out Inner City Press to say that "CAR is very mad the UN didn't tell them." He noted that the UN deputy spokesperson called Inner City Press "rude" for asking why.

  At the UN's noon briefing in New York, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq read out loud from Colville's statement. Inner City Press asked questions, video here and now transcribed by the UN, here:

Inner City Press: ...what Rupert Colville had said about the alleged child rapes in Central African Republic.  I read it all, and it didn't answer some of the questions that are public about it, which include the following:  The Central African Republic authorities have said that they only learned of these events and charges by reading The Guardian.  And so what I wanted to know, it seems pretty extraordinary that the UN would collect evidence of rape in a — in a host country in that case.  Was it not provided?  Is that true that it wasn't provided to the home country people?

Also it's reported that similar allegations are against peacekeepers, quote-unquote, from Chad and Equatorial Guinea.  I don't see that addressed in his statement.  My question is, is the UN equally satisfied or happy with the follow-through by those two countries?  And finally, he talked about an OIOS investigation of Mr. Kompass, but he's previously confirmed in writing a previous, prior OIOS investigation of Mr. Kompass for releasing to Morocco about Western Sahara.  And I wanted to know, does the UN feel any responsibility — if the leaking to France is as bad as Mr. Colville says, why was nothing done about the first leaking to Morocco?  And what's the status of that investigation?

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Both investigations are under way.  We, of course, in terms of what response we would have would rely on what happens when each of those investigations are completed.  Those are separate issues, one involving Western Sahara and one involving Central African Republic.  And we'll to await the results of each.

Now, in terms of the Chadians and Equatorial Guineans, we've seen these orders.  The information that we have was handed over to the French authorities and therefore that investigation would need to go to them.  As you may be aware, there were, I believe, Chadian and Equatorial Guinean troops in the precursor to the UN force, what was called at that point MISCA.  Neither of those contingents wound up in the UN mission, MINUSCA.

And — and I believe — neither of them was rehatted, in other words, as UN contingents. And your first question —

Question: Did the UN tell the CAR authorities, and if not why not?

Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq:  Right now, Rupert has been handling, as you have seen, questions about the timeline.  And as he made clear, some of the questions about the timeline are pending the results of the actual investigation into this.  So he's been trying to provide as much details on that.  But — but certainly the idea was to provide the information to the people who could prosecute the people who we thought may have done wrong in this case.

Inner City Press: Thanks a lot.  Whether or not the Equatorial Guinean and Chadian forces remained in MINUSCA, if the UN heard allegations of child rape by those forces, doesn't the UN then tell at least that country that they were abused?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I can't comment on evidence that was collected.  I'm not aware of the extent of evidence that was shared, and I don't know whether it includes these nationalities or not.  That will become clear as course of these investigations proceeds.  So I will have to wait until those investigations are done.

Inner City Press:  One more on press freedom.  I want to ask you this because it's talked about a lot in this room.  There's a paragraph of Mr. Colville's statement where he says he expresses extreme concern that the unredacted copy of the report is given to media, urges media what to do with it, but he also says as his example that reporters have contacted some of the victims.  And what I wanted to know is, on what basis does he believe that's from the report?  Is the UN saying, don't actually investigate this case, which some people believe the UN or the French covered up for nine months?  Is the message to reporters don't speak to people that claim to have been victimized or don't use the report to —

Deputy Spokesman:  No, no.  The message is what he actually said.

Inner City Press:  Okay.

Deputy Spokesman:  So I would go back to what his words were, which I have in front of me.

Inner City Press:  A person named in the documents was contacted.  But the question is, [how does the UN know how the reporter and victim connected]

[overlapping talking]

Deputy Spokesman:  His concern is that the names of these children is out there in the public.  It's obvious that it's out there because people are contacting them.

Inner City Press:  But there are reporters who actually can find victims without the UN's report —

Deputy Spokesman:  It's possible they’ve done it in a different way.  Our priority is to protect children.

Inner City Press:  So —

Deputy Spokesman:  Children, who at the end of the day, live in the Central African Republic and could face —

Question:  But then why didn't —

Deputy Spokesman:  — danger and —

[overlapping talking]

Deputy Spokesman:  Please stop talking over me while I'm giving you the answer.

Inner City Press:  I —

Deputy Spokesman:  I'm sorry.  This not a debate.  This is a briefing.  No, seriously.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  It — I have another question.  Finish what you say.  Then I'm going to ask a question because you just said —

Deputy Spokesman:  You must have been the most obnoxious child.

[laughter]

Matthew, you're asking a question, you're talking over me while I answer.  That's not how briefings go.

Inner City Press:  I asked questions yesterday you haven't answered yet.  What happened to Conference Room 3?  Do you have an answer to that?

Deputy Spokesman:  I'll get back to you, but you still haven't let me answer the question I was doing.  You seem actually more interested in talking over me than in getting the answer.  The answer — what was it again now —

Inner City Press:  Did you tell Central African Republic about the rape charge?

Deputy Spokesman:  The — the point — the point is that they told it to the authorities who were in a position to actually deal with the question of wrongdoing.  So that — that is where — that is where the report went.

Regarding Rupert Colville, which is what we were talking about before you rudely interrupted me several times, his concern is that these children who are in a very dangerous country, their names are now out in the public, and so obviously their names are now out in the public because these reporters are contacting them for whatever reason, and the worry is a worry about their safety.

Inner City Press:  My only — this was the question that I was asking.

Deputy Spokesman:  For God's sake, Matthew!

Question:  You said you'd finish and I'd ask a question.  It's a very simple question.

[overlapping talking]

Inner City Press:  Can I ask a question on this?

Deputy Spokesman:  Ladies and gentlemen, is there a point for me to continue with if he continues like this?  I leave it to you.  One of your colleagues is shaking their head no.

Inner City Press:  Let's take a poll then.

UNCA rep:  Yes, let's take a poll.

[overlapping talking]

Inner City Press:  On World Press Freedom Day and I have a question and this is the question.  Can I say it?

UNCA rep:  No.

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  First of all, press freedom has to do with your rights to go about your work.  You're actually constraining other people's right to go about their work by shutting me down.  You realize that, right?  There are other reporters in this room who are not you.

Inner City Press: Sure.  I understand that.

Deputy Spokesman:  All right.  And you respect their right to receive information —

Inner City Press:  I don't have an answer.

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  — without hearing some other guy talking from the crowd over me, right?

Inner City Press:  It's a yes-or-no question.  Did the UN tell the Central African Republic authorities of the rape of their citizens?  And if not, why not?  That's it.

Deputy Spokesman:  As I've said, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is trying to prepare the timeline.  As Rupert has made clear from Geneva today, some of that remains pending an investigation.  I would — I would have to urge you to wait for the result of that investigation to go out.

  Haq never answered te question. Clearly, Colville already knows if OHCHR gave the report to CAR or only to France.

 Inner City Press also asked about the UN's investigation into OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass having leaked information about Western Sahara to the Moroccan government, and why that investigation took so long that leaking continued, to France of its victims' names. Haq would not say which investigation began first, a key point. We'll have more on this.

  Haq said that Inner City Press was rude for asking and was cutting him off, and turned to the representative of the UN Correspondents Association to support him, and then to ask question of which he approved. The UNCA representative began by saying that who the UN told, and when, wasn't important.

  Haq said, this is how questions are supposed to be asked -- apparently, the questions the UN wants, from the partners it selects, ignoring the UN's own role in problems. It was World Press Freedom Day at the UN; the Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this.

Here's from the OHCHR "Briefing Notes," with clarifying annotations by Inner City Press:

"In response to a question about the investigation of sexual abuse of children in the Central African Republic, the OHCHR spokesperson had the following reply..  This is being investigated by the French authorities. I understand they have now said publicly that that investigation started on 31 July last year."

  Inner City Press notes, if despite the clarity of the charges France has not brought charges against a single soldier in the nine months it has supposedly been investigating with "no mercy" (President Hollande's phrase), why is the UN human rights office so openly defending the French Army?

Colville continued: "We are extremely glad that the French authorities are investigating this and that they have said they plan to call for the harshest punishments available under the law for anyone found guilty. This is incredibly important... We have been cooperating with the French authorities and will continue to do so to the best of our ability."

Inner City Press: This while the UN Peacekeepin mission MINUSCA, run by Frenchman Herve Ladsous, continues "cooperating" with the same French Army forces accused of the rapes (while Ladsous refuses to cooperate with the Congolese Army in military operations against the Hutu FDLR militia).

OHCHR continued: "The second investigation is internal, and is being carried out by OIOS at the request of the High Commissioner.  A statement was made about this by the Secretary-General’s Spokesperson in New York on Wednesday."

But as Inner City Press has reported, Anders Kompass was ALREADY under OIOS investigation for leaking information about Western Sahara to Morocco. Colville know about this and has answered other journalists' questions about it. But it is not mentioned in his May 1 statement. 

  That OHCHR was already informed of Kompass' leaking to governments makes them negligent, it seems, in any similar leaking to France of this information. We'll have more on this.

Colville on May 1 continued: "We are extremely concerned that in recent days copies of this preliminary compilation of unredacted interviews with these children appear to have been given to journalists, possibly with the names still unredacted, and we urge any media organization or other individual that has this document not to circulate that information any further."

   Inner City Press notes that the impact of this is to say to media, do not check into the UN's and France's "processing" of these child rape charges. Do not speak with parents. Trust us. But would such trust be justified?

Finally Colville tried to clean up the reputation of UN Peacekeeping -- which works with these French forces -- and of France, saying:

I would also like to clarify a number of elements that have been widely misreported.First, this does not concern UN peacekeepers. The French force in CAR was not under the umbrella of the UN.  This begs the question: Why would OHCHR - or indeed the wider UN - try to protect French troops accused of such odious acts against children by sitting on such information?

Inner City Press answers: Why indeed. UN Peacekeeping has been run four time in a row by citizens of France, a P5 country which chooses the Secretary General who chooses the High Commissioner. And Ladsous' MINUSCA does work with these same French forces now. Suddenly Colville omits the supposed "Human Rights Due Diligence Policy."

"Secondly, there is the timeline. This will obviously be clarified during the investigation.  But it is incorrect to say this collection of interviews was submitted on 24 June. That was the date the last interview with one of the children took place.  As far as we are aware at this point – and I stress this remains to be established as fact by the investigation – the document containing the interviews was apparently sent to Geneva in mid-July. And, as you are aware, the French have said they started their investigation on 31 July."

 And no one has been been charged, in nine months in counting. This is a new low. We'll have more on this.

On April 30, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq when, if ever, the UN was going to make public its report -- which it did not even share with the CAR authorities, only France. Video here.

From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: if Mr. [Anders] Kompass had not given the unredacted report to the French and if it had not appeared in the Guardian, when was this ever going to be made public?  What… can you describe what the UN's process… once it hears testimony from nine-year-old children that they were raped by soldiers in an area in which it has a mission, how is it taken this long?  What is the normal process once you have such a report?  Would it ever have been made public [inaudible]

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  The normal process is to hand it over to the authorities who are in a position to prosecute and that was in fact been done and they have in fact been prosecuting.  Of course, their investigation, their own work in this is continuing, and we respect the ability of them to turn… to continue with that investigation.  Regarding that… the handling of evidence, as you know, we've… we said yesterday… and I'm not going to go over all of that again, what our concerns were, but it has to do with another thing that is a key priority of the United Nations, which is to say the protection of the sort of people who place their trust in us come forward with vital information as witnesses or as victims or as investigators, and we want to make sure that no harm comes to those people.  And that's also an important priority to keep in mind.

Inner City Press: The question becomes — so what's the UN's usual procedure if it receives allegations of rape of children, it provides it to a country.  How long does it give a country… when you say prosecution, has anyone been charged in the nine months since the information was provided, anyone?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  That's not a question for me but for the French authorities.  They are ones that are conducting the prosecution.

Inner City Press:  Once you provide information about child rape by soldiers to a country, if no one is charged, when do you go public?  Was it just a fluke that the Guardian published it, or would you ever have gone public with it?  That's really now question.  Is there a procedure for the UN to say children say they were raped and the country has not done anything?  When does that happen?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Yes, at some point, the relevant information comes out, but we also have to respect the ability of the authorities to conduct an investigation without our interference in their investigative process.

We don't try to interfere with countries' investigative processes.  In the meantime, what we did through our human rights office in Bangui is conduct a human rights investigation in the late spring of 2014.  That was in response to serious allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of children by French military personnel.

We… we tried to make sure that that will be followed up on, and in fact it is being followed up on.  In terms of when it's being made public, I believe the French authorities have their own way of processing this, and you really need to ask them the question of how they disclose this sort of information as they go about this.  But certainly we're not trying to prejudice or interfere with an investigation.  For us, the main priority is accountability.  The main priority is to make sure that whoever committed this, if… if there were crimes committed, that justice is done and that the people who committed these… these alleged crimes are held accountable.

Inner City Press:  Is there a deadline for a country to actually prosecute somebody once they're given information such as this because you treat other countries differently?  For example, in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] has said we won't work with the army because they didn't do certain judicial things.  So what's the rule?  Is it nine months, a year, a year and a half?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  This country is in fact doing judicial things and we're respecting that process.  Ultimately for us the important point is to make sure justice is done, and we'll continue it follow up on that.  But they are in fact going ahead with that process.

 Setting aside for now whether that's true or not, what about Equatorial Guinea?

  On April 30 prosecutors in CAR's capital Bangui said they were never told about the allegations or report by the UN. What is the UN's function, when the rape of CAR children is reported only to France, and not to CAR? 

  Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the process, how long the UN would wait -- without answer. Haq spoke positively of French president Francois Hollande now saying "no mercy" to the perpetrators. After nine months?

  Now it emerges that troops for example from Equatorial Guinea are also named in the UN report. Was Equatorial Guinea also told by the UN (and not CAR)?  This is a cover-up, in more ways than one.

  Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row in charge of UN Peacekeeping, has made an announcement from Bangui: that he will deploy drones there. 

But who will get the information, and what will be covered up, like the rapes?

The UN's own in-house organ UN News Center, not mentioning the rapes of course, quotes Ladsous that "the arrival of attack helicopters and drones would help." 

 The story is more complex. Inner City Press has asked the UN questions, below.

  Yesterday's Guardian report focused on a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights staffer Anders Kompass -- who some media insist on identifying as an "aid worker" -- saying he is being retaliated against for sharing this information with the French.

  As Inner City Pres previously reported, there is more to this story and to Kompass, in the public record. Kompass shared information with Morocco, to undermine human rights reporting in Western Sahara. Inner City Press reported on Kompass and this in December; the leaked documents are online.  

 What is the relationship between the two stories, beyond the UN's near total lack of transparency and standards? 

  On April 29, the UN came out with a statement that Kompass was suspended with pay for leaking a report to French authorities with the name of victims and witnesses. Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq these questions, here

After US Samantha Power Says Cut North Korea's Mic & UN Does, On Video, UN Won't Tell Inner City Press Why

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1, with new UN video  -- When the US Mission and that of South Korea started an event on human rights in North Korea in UN Conference Room 3 on April 30, from the podium US Ambassador Samantha Power called for the microphone to be turned off on North Korean Counselor Ri Song Chol's right of reply speech, given too early as it happened. Inner City Press shot this video; below is a transcription.

  After Inner City Press on April 30 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to explain the rules by which the UN cuts the mic on one member state at the request of another, Haq expressed skepticism that the event occured and said he would have to look into it. April 30 video here.

 On May 1, Haq read out answers to other April 30 questions, including about a previously undisclosed firefight in Haiti, but nothing on this one. So Inner City Press asked about it again (and was called rude by Haq, video here).

 On this, Haq when Press claimed that it was entirely a member states event, and the question should be asked to the member states. May 1 video here. 

But one member state got the UN to turn off the UN microphone on another. Shouldn't the UN have to provide an answer about this, rather than call the jouranlist who asks "rude" for asking so? Watch this site.

  US Ambassador Power said to cut the microphone, then said that UN Security would be called. Ultimately the North Korean delegation left. Inner City Press at the day's UN noon briefing asked what rules apply.Video here.

 From the UN transcript:

Inner City Press: this morning, as I'm sure you know, there was a… an event on North… on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the DPRK envoy sought to speak and there was some back and forth from the podium telling the UN… the UN technicians to turn off his microphone and, in fact, it was turned off for a time and eventually there was some talk of calling UN Security and eventually they did leave with UN Security.  So I wanted to ask you, maybe here or shortly after the briefing, what are the rules in terms of invoking UN Secretariat resources such as turning off a microphone or calling Security to remove a diplomat of a country?

Deputy Spokesman:  I don't have any of the details of this meeting so I need to confirm what exactly happened and who asked for what.  I… I can't even confirm that that… what… the details of that.

Question:  Okay.  I just want… a request was made from the podium from the US ambassador to turn off the gentleman's microphone and it did turn off.  I just want to know from you is this usual UN procedure or was it a mistake or…

Deputy Spokesman:  This is not something I'd heard of.  So we would need to look into it and see what's happened and who made any sort of request.

  But here's a transcription from Conference Room 3:

"I’m Barbara Demick. I have been covering the DPRK since 2001. I wrote a book about North Korea called Nothing To Envy, and I’ve also been writing for the Los Angeles Times and the New Yorker on the subject. I’m delighted to be here and happy you will have an opportunity to hear...

DPRK DIPLOMAT

Demick: I think you’ll have a chance to speak in the question and answer period.

DPRK again tries to speak.

Samantha Power: Sir, you’re discrediting yourself further by interrupting the proceedings. We will continue our panel You can speak when the panel concludes.

DPRK still trying to speak (speech as prepared for delivery now put online by Inner City Press here, excerpted below)

Power: I think the audience will agree it’s better to allow the DPRK to speak, since it is a self-discrediting exercise. Conclude your statement, and we will go back to our panel. There’s no need for a microphone.

DPRK: (inaudible)

Power: Please shut the mic down, since this is not an authorized intervention. If we could ask the acoustics people? Please ensure that the microphone is not live. Thank you.

DPRK keeps speaking, but can’t hear without a mic. Woman yells in Korean.

Power: So we are calling UN Security. Sir, you can either conclude your remarks, or you will be removed from the room.

Demick: you will have a chance to speak.

Power: No. He’s had his chance.

  Inner City Press has asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq what the UN's rules are, for cutting of a member state's microphone. Here's a part of DPRK's speech: (and here, on the US Mission's website, is Power's)

"The DPRK categorically rejects the groundless allegations made in this event organized by the US and south Korea.
 
  "It is well known to the world that the United States pursues the political confrontation and plot against the DPRK even in the international human rights fora as an extension of its hostile policy towards the DPRK. The principal human rights violator of the world is none other than the United States."

  "Under the 'Liberty Statue,' the United States enjoys its reputation by ranking the Number 1 in murder and crimes by murdering the innocent black people, extreme racial discrimination, sexual abuses against the women, and in the number of prisons and prisoners. These are just a tip of iceberg among the human rights violations committed in the US every day. The acts of racial discrimination committed by the white police officers through shooting, strangling, and beating to death the African-Americans in several cities of the US such as Ferguson and Baltimore as well as cruel and barbarian acts of torture by the CIA in the secret prison camps in all parts of the world clearly show that the US, so-called guardian of 'freedom' and 'human rights,' is the true kingpin of human rights violations and the barren land of human rights."

"The United States has no rights to raise the human rights issues of other countries, as it officially detain people, without any legal procedures, and brutally torture them in secret prisons placed in several countries around the world. The United States should disclose whole part of the report on torture by the CIA at detention centers, accept the international special investigation and take measures to punish those responsible for those crimes. It is preposterous for the US to accuse other's human rights. The US is better advised to correct its own faults in human rights."

 Eventually the North Korea trio left the conference room accompanied by UN Security officers. Inner City Press followed, and asked them if they'd return for a more UN-conventional right of reply. No, was the response.

Update: Inner City Press has obtained North Korea's speech and puts it online here, since the mic was cut off. Inner City Press also asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq what are the UN's rules for cutting off microphones on member states, and use of UN Security.

 As the DPRK trio went up the escalator, a heckler who had followed from the Conference Room shouted at them, "You are human scum!"Video here.
They proceeded up the escalator, through the UN's checkerboard floored lobby and were gone.

 The event was called "Victims’ Voices: A Conversation on North Korean Human Rights," and included author Barbara Demick.

  Back on April 8 the North Korean mission to the UN held a press conference at its office on Second Avenue, at which its Deputy Permanent Representative An Myong Hun denounced the continued detention of the Mudubong ship in Mexico.

  An Myong Hun said that in January Mexico was going to release the ship, which ran into a Mexican coral reef (damage to which North Korea paid for) - then reversed its position, saying that a UN Under Secretary General had told them to hold the ship.

  Inner City Press asked An Myong Hun if that UN Under Secretary General was Angela Kane of Disarmament, soon to be replaced by Kim Won-soo (see Inner City Press' scoop, here). An Myong Hun said that the USG was unnamed - but said the United States was behind the continued "illegal" detention of the ship.

  But, An Myong Hun said, DPRK has not spoken about this with the United States. He was on his way to deliver a speech to the UN Disarmament meeting Inner City Press is also covering. 

Here's how An Myong Hung began his press conference:

"One peaceful commercial ship of my country has been detained for more than eight months and we think that this is complete abnormal situation. Mudubong, which was on a peaceful voyage for foreign trade activities, entered into one port at Mexico but unfortunately it went aground on a coral reef near that port. It was totally an accident. Mexico requested payment for damage to the coral reef according to its domestic law. We the DPRK fully paid all this compensation for environmental damage to the reef. And since we fulfilled our legal obligation by payment, Mexico authorities decided to release the Mudubong and allow Mudobong to leave the port, January this year.

"But suddenly, the Mexico government revoked its position. They said they have received advice from an unnamed Under Secretary General of the United Nations for the continued detention of the ship."

  The North Korean mission held another press conference back on February 16, President's Day, when the UN was closed. The purpose then  was to go public with the opposition of the DPRK Korea to the “Conference on North Korean Human Rights” to be held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on February 17.

   Inner City Press asked North Korean Ambassador Jang Il Hun if, as the Korea Times has reported, the event would be held in the US Capitol. No, he said, he expected it would be held on CSIS's campus. The State Department told him that since it is not a US government event - despite the participation of Ambassador Robert King and Kurt Campbell - the DPRK's request for cancellation or participation was not granted.

   But, Jang Il Hun said, why wasn't DPRK allowed to participate in the US goverment event in September 2014 in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel? Inner City Press covered that event, here, and asked the same question, in the spirit of the right to reply. 

  Despite the presence of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid, and a blue UN flag, Inner City Press was told that was not a “UN event,” so no right to reply.

  Inner City Press also asked Jang Il Hun if UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has replied to his government's recent letter. No, was the answer. Video here and embedded below. And so it goes at the UN.

  This press conference was held a small room at the DPRK mission on Second Avenue; Inner City press tweeted photos here, and here. 

  Jang Il Hun said he hoped this would be the first of many such events, part of DPRK's campaign. In the foyer were photographs of gifts given to DPRK, including a signed Wilson basketball. “Now you must leave,” the Press was told. Back at the UN, the temperature was 57 degrees. Watch this site.

On Yemen, No UN Security Council Statement About No Diesel in Country, Where to Meet, "Procrastination"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1, with transcript -- On Yemen, the UN Security Council convened a closed door meeting on Friday May 1 at 1 pm. Going in, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin explained that he called it, because not only weapons but diesel fuel is being blocked from getting in, to propose a statement.

  Churkin emerged mid-meeting and said more, then finally at the end expressing disappointment no agreement was reached. Here's Inner City Press' fast transcription of what Churkin said:

"There were some proposals for language from resolution 2216. But this really shows an amazing indecision and I think lack of understanding of how things are evolving. I told them, listen, when you were pushing for this resolution 2216 your forecast was not what we are seeing now. If it wasn’t, then there is a problem with their analysis. They are, some countries are going back to the capitals. But I see the mood, I don’t see any prospect for this.

"It was a procrastination reaction. In one situation we heard people talking about humanitarian problems, and now they are prepared to ignore them altogether. They play lip service. They say, things are very bad. But what can we do?

  "It is very clear from resolution 2216 that it did not authorize the use of military force. Some colleagues were saying that the Saudi led coalition is trying to make sure that resolution 2216 is implemented. This is not the case. Their action is completely outside the resolution. The resolution does not provide for military means....
 
  "The next step, I am pretty sure we will not have any statement today. But we’ll see what the new special representative is going to do. I think I was encouraged, somewhat encouraged, to hear Jeff Feltman say the SG wants to act quickly. He wants to put together a conference very quickly. And I think also it’s my understanding the things which were worked on before agreed on before are not going to be discarded.

"The GCC initiative is there, and the GCC initiative is supported in 2216. So you cannot – if that were to be discarded we would have to start from scratch. The GCC initiative needs to be implemented. And this is what the special representative of the SG, the previous one, had been working on. Now we have a new person, and we hope he can restart the process very quickly."

  We'll see. New UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft stopped on his way into the meeting and said "there can be no military solution, the only way out is a political solution and that means a return to political talks."

  Good - but where?

  On is way into the meeting, Churkin had cited an April 30 statement by Saudi Arabia which he said could be read as calling for the talks to resume in Riyadh, which "some of the parties are definitely not going to attend."

  As Inner City Press reported and asked the UN, Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif at NYU this week said Geneva might be the venue; Inner City Press asked the UN which, in a rare answer, said it is a possibility.

Here is Inner City Press' fast transcript of what Churkin said on his way into the UNSC:

  "There are very serious basic shortages of food, medicine, diesel fuel which for some reason they’re not allowing to be brought in. Everything there works on diesel fuel in Yemen. 
There is no embargo of bringing anything but weapons for some people. So, why they are posing problems for bringing in diesel fuel is something which has to be looked at.

"And generally, we all support negotiations and we don’t see an interest on the part of those who are engaged in bombing in engaging with the new special representative of the Secretary General. So, we are going to discuss, and I hope we hear what Mr. Feltman has to stay about the statement they issued yesterday where it could be read as calling for a meeting in Riyadh, which some parties definitely are not going to attend, and sort of as a rallying cry for those who support President Hadi, against whom, I suppose against those who they are fighting now in Yemen.
But always, it is boding very ill for developments in the near future, both on humanitarian and security front. We want to discuss the situation with members of the Security Council.

....we’ll be proposing a brief press statement. As from the outset. From the outset. It reflects end of hostilities, or at least humanitarian pauses, and immediate resumption of talks on the basis which has been prepared through a lengthy process of negotiations by Mr. Benomar."

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on April 25 named Ismael Ould Cheikh Ahmed to replace Jamal Benomar as envoy.

  Three times Inner City Press had asked the Office of the UN Spokesperson why Ould Cheikh Ahmed is not listed on Ban's webpage of public financial discloure and to say, yes or no, if he has an interest in a business which received funding from the Gulf. Three times the Office of Spokesperson promised to look into and give an answer, but never did. This is Ban's UN.