On Indian Diplomat Khobragade, UN Won't Say If It Told US Of Her Accreditation, Stonewalls on Dudley & OIOS, Bax & UNOPS

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- Back on December 26 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's two top spokespeople to

"please confirm that Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was accredited to this session of the UN General Assembly, that the UN accreditation runs through December 31, and state if such accreditation confers full diplomatic immunity."

  But for five days, the UN spokespeople provided no answer at all. So at the last UN noon briefing of the year on December 31, Inner City Press asked spokesperson Martin Nesirky in person about the immunity, and also if the UN had informed the US, as "host country," of Khobragade's accreditation to the General Assembly.

  Although he had the question in writing for five days, Nesirky said he'd have to check with the UN Office of Legal Affairs; he insisted the question is mostly or almost entirely between the Indian authorities and the US as host country. Video here and embedded below.

  Well, no - the question of whether the UN informed the US of of Ms. Khobragade's accreditation is for the UN to answer. And the UN should answer on that type of immunity being accredited to the UNGA provides.

  This dodging is more and more the rule: also at the December 31 noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked about a ruling by the UN's own Dispute Tribunal that its acting head of investigations Michael Dudley"altered and withheld" evidence about scandal in the UN Medical Service(which Inner City Press exclusively uncovered), Nesirky said he doesn't speak for the unit Dudley works in, the Office of Internal Oversight Management, but that he'd ask them for an answer. OK - but when? Next year?

Footnote: The UN Dispute Tribunal ruling on Dudley cites Inner City Press' reporting, and calls Inner City Press "a daily online media outlet that specializes in reporting on the United Nations." Inner City Press on December 31 also asked about another case it first exposed, that of David Bax of the UN Mine Action Service in Mogadishu sharing genetic information with US intelligence and other abuses. 

  The UN alongside trying to rehabilitate Bax tried to put the clamp on any follow up by saying the Office of Project Support is investigating. But it's been six months now. We'll have more on the UNOPS, and who will head it, soon. Watch this site.

   

Exclusive: UN Stonewalling on Japan Bullets to South Korea Unit in South Sudan Triggers Theory Based on Ban Ki-moon in Poll for 2017, -Sources

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- As 2013 ends at the UN, the question has arisen why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's statement on tensions between Japan and Ban's native South Korea (and China) was given to regional media before the Press which had formally asked a question, and why Ban's spokesperson has been deflecting questions since.

The answer, proposed exclusively to Inner City Press by well-placed sources in South Korea, involves Ban Ki-moon being in a poll for the country's 2017 presidential election, as a candidate of incumbent Park's faction of the ruling Saenuri party. Click here for story on that polling, in Korean.

Last week, Inner City Press asked Ban's two top spokespeople:

"on South Sudan, in light of the SG's response at his last stakeout, please provide his / the UN's response to the subsequent report that

'The Korean side is now accusing the Japanese of politically using the emergency faced by Korean troops in South Sudan, with one unnamed official saying that the Abe government’s linking of the ammo supply to its 'active pacifism' initiative was a 'clear political provocation.' Another unnamed official said Korea had told the Japanese to handle this quietly out of fear that the locals would turn hostile and attack Korean troops if word got out that they’d received ammo, but the Japanese were instead turning this into a big story. Korean government officials are also saying that they intend to return all the ammo to Japan once Korean ammo arrives from Korea, despite the fact that the Japanese said they could keep it.'"

But the spokesperson, Martin Nesirky and Farhan Haq, never answered this question, or even acknowledged receiving it. 

  While later a "Note to Correspondent" about Ban's position was sent out, and Inner City Press reported on it, it turned out that the very same Ban position had been given out to regional media 13 hours before. This practice is being opposed in 2014 by the Free UN Coalition for Access, whatever the motives of the practice.

  But here, as also illuminated by Ban spokesperson Nesirky's push-back at questions from Chinese media on December 30, and December 31 responding to Inner City Press' factual question about whether UNMISS had been contacted by the South Koreans before the South Koreans contacted Japan (and also about UNMISS' relationship with the American military or bullet-holders), there may be more.

  December 31 Q&A video here, and embedded below.

The theory, made composite from Inner City Press' South Korean sources, goes like this:

"South Korean peace keepers receive artillery fire from hostile forces -> SK field commanders immediately request ammunition shipment from Japanese peace keepers in the vicinity -> Japanese cabinet convenes an emergency meeting to approve the shipment -> shipment goes to SK -> upon media scrutiny (as this could mark a landmark shift in Japan's overseas defense activity), SK denies making a direct request to Japan and claims that it was made through UN (UNMISS) -> Japan refutes and even releases a clip from video conf between SK and JP units to prove its point -> UN supports SK's claim -> SK explains that the decision was made by field commanders... To put it succinctly [according to this theory]: Ban is potentially giving political cover for the Park administration by insisting on UN's role in the process."

So why didn't Ban's spokesperson answer Inner City Press' initial written question last week, or Inner City Press' in-person December 31 question? Such stonewalling only gives rise to more questions, or as here, theories. Or, when will it and the other so far ignored questions be answered? Watch this site.

Footnote: as context for most other than Chinese media on December 30 not pursuing this, consider that the insider United Nations Correspondents Association has accepted a large Samsung television, being installed on December 31. 

 UNCA's 2013 and 2014 president Pamela Falk claimed that the TV does not involve any mission. But even the UN, when asked by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, admitted that the TV equipment went from Samsung to South Korea's Mission to the UN to the UN and then to UNCA: it involved the South Korean mission and government. We'll have more on this. 

   

UN Wants South Sudan to Let In Moroccan Peacekeepers, But What of Western Sahara, MINURSO, Human Rights Monitoring and Spain?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous on December 30 criticized South Sudan for putting "caveats" on which countries' peacekeepers would be acceptable to come in. 

   An hour later, African sources exclusively told Inner City Press that South Sudan is well within its rights to reject Morocco, which is not an African Union members due to its "occupation of Western Sahara," in the AU view. Click here for Inner City Press' exclusive December 30 report.

  Now more sources from the Continent, and from Europe, have chimed in, noting not only did Morocco publicly oppose having any human rights monitoring function for Ladsous' MINURSO peacekeeping mission in Western Sahara, but also they said had resisted the inclusion in MINURSO of peacekeepers from Spain.

   The question arises, why is Ladsous given this history so publicly putting pressure on South Sudan, "for Morocco," to waive any objections when his DPKO has allowed other countries to prevail with such objections?

  Even if the question of human rights monitoring in MINURSO is distinguished as a "political question," is it only the members of the Security Council which have a right to make political decisions?

    Ladsous on December 30 said "we will not look pleasantly" if there are, "as there seem to have been, some caveats" about which countries' troops South Sudan would accept as peacekeepers.

  "There should be no objection to anyone coming in," Ladsous intoned, before telling Inner City Press, "I do not answer you, Mister." Video hereand embedded below.

  Inner City Press then set out to find which countries South Sudan was objecting to -- which is its sovereign right, as a number of other nations' diplomats pointed out, speaking exclusively to Inner City Press about this and which countries.

  Morocco is an ally of France, Ladsous' country which he represented on the UN Security Council as Deputy Permanent Representative in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide.

  But Morocco is NOT a member of the African Union, which South Sudan is, because of the issue of Western Sahara. South Sudan recognizes Western Sahara -- and therefore has a right not to want Moroccan troops in its country.

  Although the UN sent 73 Bangladeshi peacekeepers to South Sudan from a formed police unit in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudanese sources tell Inner City Press they had a problem with Bangladesh's battalions in the past, mentioning Western Equatoria around 2005, "under Jan Pronk" then envoy to Sudan and what is now South Sudan.

  The problems included allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation, statutory rape, and lack of accountability. If UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous continues to allow this -- witness the lack of updates on the alleged gang rapes by Chadian peacekeepers in MINUSMA in Mali -- why should South Sudan put up no resistance to such deployments? Ladsous continues to say he does not answer Press questions.

  South Sudan is more than willing to take peacekeepers from, for example, "Nigeria or Zimbabwe," or Togo which like Morocco, Pakistan, Guatemala and Azerbaijan is leaving the Security Council after two years on December 31. (Inner City Press photo of Team Togo's December 30 goodbye at the stakeout, here.)

  So why, some wonder, would Ladsous be pushing back so publicly, for Morocco? They call it FrancAfrique. Watch this site.

Footnote: Anyway, Morocco is slated to send 500 "UN guards" to Central African Republic, see Inner City Press' exclusive story here.

   

While DR Congo Cited "Terrorist Attack" and its Soldiers Reported Looted, UNSC Silent and Ladsous: "I Do Not Answer You, Mister" (Video)

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- Just after the gunfire in Kinshasa, the spokesperson for Joseph Kabila's government Lambert Mende called it a "terrorist attack." 

  But twelve hours later, the UN Security Council under its French presidency had not issues any press statement, as it routinely does for terrorist attacks and an attempted coup d'etat.

 Inner City Press asked Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, if after this attempted coup or terrorist attack it still made since to move a battalion of UN peacekeepers out of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Ladsous, who as France's Deputy Permanent Representative in 1994 argued for the escape of genocidaires from Rwanda into Eastern Congo, replied, "I do not answer you Mister." UN video here from Minute 4:34; Inner City Press YouTube video here.

 And Ladsous never did answer about events in the DRC.  The UN's envoy Martin Kobler belatedly tweeted his deep concern ("2013 has been the year of new hopes... I strongly condemn") -- but he had also re-tweeted photos of a Bangladeshi formed police unit which had signed on to preserve international peace and security in the DRC flying out to South Sudan.

  Later on December 30, even the French government owned France 24 channel reported that DRC soldiers had looted people's houses near the Army headquarters in Kinshasa.

  Inner City Press reported this, citing France 24 -- but Kabila defenders rejected it, blaming Rwanda even for this. Call it, dysfunction. And as to Ladous, call it FrancAfrique.

   The question remains: will France, which holds the UN Security Council "pen" on the DRC and controlled the Council's recent trip there now draft a Council press statement on the chaos?

  While this remains to be seen -- France has been silent in the Council of last on the breakdown in its former colony the Central African Republic, even as eight African peacekeepers have been killed -- it must be noted that the UN has proposed removing a full battalion of peacekeepers from its MONUSCO mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here for long form analysis on Beacon Reader.

  For a week since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that he would move peacekeepers and "assets" including attack helicopters from DRC, Darfur, Abyei, Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire to South Sudan, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about any UN analysis or recognition of the potential impacts on the places the peacekeepers would be removed from.

  Nesirky has not answered the questions. None of them. Another question Inner City Press asked, about tensions between South Korea and Japan including in South Sudan after Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe's visit to a shrine for Japan's World War Two dead, Nesirky answered but first to other media on a regional or politicized basis, 13 hours before a more general "Note to Correspondents." These practices are being opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access.

  Mende's use of the word "terrorist" has significance: the Security Council routinely issues fast press statements condemning terrorist attacks. (See yesterday's Inner City Press story here.) So will France propose a press statement now on the DRC? And will it address, as the UN Secretariat hasn't, the pull out of a battalion from MONUSCO at this time? Watch this site.

Footnote: Meanwhile for hours after what Mende called the "terrorist attack," nothing has been heard from the UN's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler. One wag wondered if Kobler was "pulling a Hilde Johnson" -- the UN's envoy in South Sudan said little in the days after the fighting and killing in Juba. Is Kobler now as aligned with Kabila as Johnson is with Salva Kiir?

  Kobler's MONUSCO mission was blithely tweeting out photographs of blue helmets holding hands with Congolese children... in Pinga in North Kivu, far far away. This is the Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous, who "has a policy" of not answering Press questions, video here, UK coverage here. This is the UN of late: no answers, just spin.

   

Exclusive: UN's Ladsous Says South Sudan Must Take Peacekeepers from Any Country, But Morocco Is Not in African Union, Bangladesh History Recounted

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- Speaking about South Sudan, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous on December 30 said "we will not look pleasantly" if there are, "as there seem to have been, some caveats" about which countries' troops South Sudan would accept as peacekeepers.

  "There should be no objection to anyone coming in," Ladsous intoned, before telling Inner City Press, "I do not answer you, Mister." Video here.

  Inner City Press set out to find which countries South Sudan was objecting to -- which is its sovereign right, as a number of other nations' diplomats pointed out, speaking exclusively to Inner City Press about this and which countries.

  Morocco is an ally of France, Ladsous' country which he represented on the UN Security Council as Deputy Permanent Representative in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide.

  But Morocco is NOT a member of the African Union, which South Sudan is, because of the issue of Western Sahara. South Sudan recognizes Western Sahara -- and therefore has a right not to want Moroccan troops in its country.

  Although the UN sent 73 Bangladeshi peacekeepers to South Sudan from a formed police unit in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudanese sources tell Inner City Press they had a problem with Bangladesh's battalions in the past, mentioning Western Equatoria around 2005, "under Jan Pronk" then envoy to Sudan and what is now South Sudan.

  The problems included allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation, statutory rape, and lack of accountability. If UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous continues to allow this -- witness the lack of updates on the alleged gang rapes by Chadian peacekeepers in MINUSMA in Mali -- why should South Sudan put up no resistance to such deployments? And so on.

  South Sudan is more than willing to take peacekeepers from, for example, "Nigeria or Zimbabwe," or Togo which like Morocco, Pakistan, Guatemala and Azerbaijan is leaving the Security Council after two years on December 31. (Inner City Press photo of Team Togo's December 30 goodbye at the stakeout, here.)

  So why, some wonder, would Ladsous be pushing back so publicly about Morocco? They call it FrancAfrique. Watch this site.

Footnote: Anyway, Morocco is slated to send 500 "UN guards" to Central African Republic, see Inner City Press' exclusive story here.

   

On South Sudan, France's Araud Says Salva Kiir Can Invite Ugandan Troops, Ladsous Says I Don't Respond to You, Mister: On Transfers After Haiti Cholera?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- With reports from UN staff in South Sudan of Ugandan troops on a bridge in Juba, Inner City Press put this question to UN Security Council president Gerard Araud on December 30: is Uganda actually a mediator between Salva Kiir and Riek Machar?

  Araud replied that Uganda is there are the request of the legitimate government and that under international law a government can invite in such support. Araud also praised the mediation role of IGAD -- a grouping Uganda is a member of, and whose "spirit" Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni says he is channeling in his threats to Riek Machar.

  Moments earlier, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky about Uganda and South Sudan, and whether the UN is providing any support to the South Sudan army now that is subject to the UN's supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. 

 Nesirky said he would check on the Policy, and that the first question might be answered by UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, to take questions at the stakeout with Araud.

  But when Inner City Press asked a question to Ladsous - see below - Ladsous replied, I do not answer you, Mister. This was his "policy" during the months Inner City Pressasked about mass rapes by Congolese Army battalions 41 and 391, which the UN was supporting. Strange policies, this UN has. UK coverage here.

  The question Inner City Press asked Ladsous had to do with something directly in his responsibility: the killing in Darfur over the weekend of peacekeepers from Senegal and Jordan. Inner City Press asked given that, and the reported coup attempt (or "terrorist attack") in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was this the right time to be moving UN battalions from those countries to South Sudan?

I do not respond to you, Mister, Ladsous said. Then, looking elsewhere, he said that it is a balance. OK -- but is the UN moving battalions out of Darfur, where two peacekeepers were just killed, or DRC, from which is already removed 73 Bangladeshi peacekeepers in a formed police unit?

(Inner City Press asked Nesirky about Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina's pre-election crackdown, including putting Khaleda Zia under house arrest. Nesirky said Oscar Fernandez Tarranco had been there, and that there might be a further statement. We'll have more on this.)

Nesirky said the next "new" deployment to South Sudan will be of Nepalese; Ladsous referred to a contingent leaving Haiti and heading to South Sudan. Since it is widely alleged that it was peacekeepers from Nepal, unscreened by the UN for cholera, who brought that disease to Haiti and it spread due to the UN's negligent sanitation practices, questions should be answered, by Ladsous.

Are is Nepali contingent he is moving to South Sudan coming from Haiti? Are they being screened for cholera?

It emerged that the UN, beyond "inter-Mission" transfers, will be asking for 500 truly new peacekeepers. Where will they come from? Watch this site.

Footnote: UN Under Secretaries General saying they have a policy against answering particular media's questions is something that is being opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access, along with cynical use of copyright law to try to ban leaked documents from Google and engage in censorship. More on this, including with regard to the above, to follow.

   

Free Press Undercut By Abuse of DM Copyright Act at Google by Reuters' Louis Charbonneau

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- The right to freedom of the press is being circumvented by a cynical request on the part of Reuters to remove leaked documents from Google's search. What are its ramifications?

  In this case, an email from Reuters' Louis Charbonneau to the UN's chief Media Accreditation official Stephane Dujarric, seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, was blocked from Google's search based on a cursory take-down request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

 If this remains precedent, what else could come down?

  Why not an email from Iran, for example, to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency? Why not a sanctions filing by a country? Here is Reuters logic, accepted if only automatically by Google:

The copyrighted material is a private email I wrote in April 2012 and for which I never gave permission to be published. It has been published on a blog and appears in on the first page of search results for my name and the firm I work for, Reuters. It can be seen here: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf

  But this is true of ANY leaked document: it can be said that the entity or person exposed "never gave permission [for it] to be published." Does that mean Google can or should block search access to it?

  Can a complaint to a Media Accreditation official against a competitor legitimately be considered "private"? In any event, the DMCA is not about protecting privacy.

  Iran or North Korea could say a filing or status report they make with the IAEA is "private" and was not intended to be published. Would Google, receiving a DMCA filing, block access to the information on, say, Reuters.com?

  Charbonneau's bad-faith argument says his complaint to the UN was "published on a blog." Is THAT what Reuters claims makes it different that publication in some other media?

  The logic of Reuters' and Charbonneau's August 14, 2013 filing with Google, put online via the ChillingEffects.org project, is profoundly anti free press.

  The fact that Google accepts or didn't check, to remain in the DMCA Safe Harbor, the filing makes it even worse. The request to take-down wasn't made to InnerCityPress.com or its server -- it would have been rejected. But banning a page from Search has the same censoring effect.

  The US has a regime to protect freedom of the press, and against prior restraint. But this is a loophole, exploited cynically by Reuters. What if a media conducted a long investigation of a mayor, fueled by a leaked email. When the story was published, could the Mayor make a Reuters-like filing with Google and get it blocked?

  Here is the text of Charbonneau's communication to the UN's top Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit official Stephane Dujarric and MALU's manager, to which he claimed "copyright" and for now has banned from Google's Search:

Hi Isabelle and Stephane,

I just wanted to pass on for the record that I was just confronted by Matt Lee in the DHL auditorium in very hostile fashion a short while ago (there were several witnesses, including Giampaolo). He's obviously gotten wind that there's a movement afoot to expel him from the UNCA executive committee, though he doesn't know the details yet. But he was going out of his way to be as intimidating and aggressive as possible towards me, told me I "disgust" him, etc.

In all my 20+ years of reporting I've never been approached like that by a follow journalist in any press corps, no matter how stressful things got. He's become someone who's making it very hard for me and others in the UN press to do our jobs. His harassment of fellow reporters is reaching a new fever pitch.

I just thought you should know this.

Cheers,

Lou
Louis Charbonneau
Bureau Chief. United Nations
Reuters News Thomson Reuters reuters. com

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.

"UNCA" in the for-now banned e-mail is the United Nations Correspondents Association. The story developed here, as to Sri Lanka; here is a sample pick-up this past weekend in Italian...