By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- Ten days after Haiti cholera claims were deemed “not receivable” by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Human Rights Watch boss Ken Roth met with Ban yesterday.
One might think HRW would issue some summary or read-out, at least of the issues it raised to Ban. But one would be wrong.
Immediately after the scheduled meeting, Inner City Press wrote to Roth, his press office and UN lobbyist asking to be informed of the topics
raised to Ban Ki-moon at the meeting listed from 4:40 pm to 5:15 pm, including but not limited to:
did HRW/Roth raise the issue of Ban's dismissal of claims the UN brought cholera to Haiti?
did HRW/Roth raise any needed safeguards for the UN's use of drones?
did HRW/Roth raise the issue of Ban Ki-moon praising post-war steps taken by Sri Lanka?
did HRW/Roth raise the UN's “Human Rights Due Diligence Policy” including how it relates to Mali and/or the 126 FARDC rapes at Minova in the DRC?
Awaiting your response, on deadline.
The last question, on the Democratic Republic of Congo, is meant to assess whether Roth and his HRW only raise the issue of the M23 rebels, or for example the 126 rapes committed by the Congolese army which is supported by the UN, which now seeks to use drones.
On Sri Lanka, Ban Ki-moon as exclusively exposed by Inner City Press on February 22 accepted a whitewash report from Japan and others, then praised it in Geneva on March 1. Did Roth use his Ban face time to raise the issue? Many would like to know.
But there has been no response from HRW. The seemingly automated Twitter feed of Ken Roth has been churning out messages unrelated to the meeting or UN, one an hour, on Pakistan and Azerbaijan and urging the EU to press Burma / Myanmar.
But what did HRW “press” Ban about? What about Pressing HRW to disclose at least this? Previously in May 2011, its UN lobbyist Philippe Bolopion replied to Inner City Press' request for a read-out of Roth's meeting with Ban Ki-moon thusly:
Date: May 28, 2011 at 10:04 AM
From: Philippe Bolopion [at] hrw.org
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Cc: Ken Roth [at] hrw.org
Subject: Re: Press request for read-out of Ken Roth's meeting with Ban Ki-moon, incl re Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Sudan / Haroun, or explanation
From: Philippe Bolopion [at] hrw.org
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Cc: Ken Roth [at] hrw.org
Subject: Re: Press request for read-out of Ken Roth's meeting with Ban Ki-moon, incl re Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Sudan / Haroun, or explanation
Hi Matthew: To preserve our ability to have frank discussions with UN officials and advance our advocacy goals, we don't typically communicate on the content of discussions we have with them.
Very best
Philippe Bolopion, UN Director
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch
And now? Is this acceptable? Watch this site.
Footnote: Perhaps just as HRW tells its big donors what it is raising, it tells some journalists (its UN lobbyist used to be a UN correspondent). But the UN Correspondents Association, increasingly known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, chose on the day Ban's Haiti cholera dismissal was announced at the UN noon briefing to demand the first question -- only to ask about an unrelated letter it had sent to the UN Department of Public Information about the floor plan of the renovated Security Council. This is an issue on which UNCA fell asleep in 2012 as it sought to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN.
On the Minova rapes, for example, no reporting from the UNCA “leaders” - rather, hallways “exclusives” from UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, click here to view. This and HRW's secrecy are two reasons the UN has become what it is.
