By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- After a UN Security Council trip to Burundi that failed to squarely address how the Arusha Agreements apply to the upcoming election, nor to get to the bottom of the killings in Cibitoke, on March 27 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued this read-out:
"The Secretary-General spoke today with H.E. Mr. Pierre Nkurunziza, the President of the Republic of Burundi. He stressed that with elections less than two months away, the country had made great progress, thanks to the determination of Burundians to preserve the spirit of Arusha and build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous nation. He urged President Nkurunziza to carefully consider the potential consequences, for the country and his legacy, of his decisions in the run-up to the presidential election.
"The Secretary-General pointed to the many voices in Burundi and the international community calling for strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Arusha Accord, which is the basis for the country’s Constitution. He called on President Nkurunziza to ensure that the security services remain impartial in the event of public protests.
"The Secretary-General expressed the hope that President Nkurunziza’s decisions would keep Burundi on the path to peace and stability."
"The Secretary-General pointed to the many voices in Burundi and the international community calling for strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Arusha Accord, which is the basis for the country’s Constitution. He called on President Nkurunziza to ensure that the security services remain impartial in the event of public protests.
"The Secretary-General expressed the hope that President Nkurunziza’s decisions would keep Burundi on the path to peace and stability."
Back on February 6 Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the killings in Cibitoke. Video here. From the transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Burundi. I saw the statement about the High Commissioner of Human Rights about Bob Rugurika. I wanted to know, there also have been statements about various countries about killings by the Government of Burundi in a place called Cibitoke where some people came across from the DRC, apparently an attack, but they were stopped and then executed summarily. I wanted to know if that’s anything MONUSCO or this MENUB (United Nations Electoral Observation Mission) in Burundi can speak to. And also has the Government signed its agreement with MENUB, as had been projected?
Spokesman: We will get you an update and I will look into that situation you mentioned.
Spokesman: We will get you an update and I will look into that situation you mentioned.
But when the Spokesperson's Office replied, it was ONLY on MENUB:
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Subject: Your question on MENUB
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Regarding your question at noon on Burundi: The Government of Burundi signed the agreement on MENUB on 21 January.
Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Subject: Your question on MENUB
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Regarding your question at noon on Burundi: The Government of Burundi signed the agreement on MENUB on 21 January.
But there were TWO questions at noon about Burundi. What about the extra-judicial killings?
On February 18, a French-drafted Presidential Statement was adopted by the Security Council, without even being read out loud. It offered some praise of Burundi's government but also said the Council “expresses its concern regarding the recent events that occurred in the provinces of Cibitoke, strongly condemns such attempts to resort to violence for political means, and stresses the importance of guaranteeing a peaceful electoral process. The Security Council expresses its deep concern at the high number of reported victims resulting from this incident, looks forward to the outcome of an impartial investigation by the Government of Burundi, and stresses the need for it to be independent and impartial, led by competent national institutions.”
We'll see. People say there's some French and US joisting, and a controlled trip coming up. Watch this site - and read this, in French, about Cibitoke.
On February 5, the US State Department through its deputy spokesperson said this:
"The United States is troubled by reports implicating Burundian security forces in the extra-judicial killing of at least two dozen members of a rebel group after they surrendered in Cibitoke Province in early January. The United States calls on the government of Burundi to fully and credibly investigate these allegations, prosecute any crimes that may have been committed, and hold those responsible accountable.
"The United States is also deeply concerned by the increase in irregular detentions and prosecutions of media workers and members of political parties ahead of elections in May, including the recent detention of journalist Bob Rugurika, and continuing due process flaws in the prosecutions of Frederic Bamvuginyumvira and members of the Movement for Solidarity and Democracy youth. These cases raise troubling questions about freedom of expression and the independence of the Burundian judiciary. We urge the Government of Burundi to respect the rights of these individuals and all its citizens to due process of law and to ensure that the judicial process is not politicized. An independent, professional judiciary is a key component of the Burundian government’s stated commitment to having a free, fair, and credible electoral process during this important election year in Burundi."
"The United States is also deeply concerned by the increase in irregular detentions and prosecutions of media workers and members of political parties ahead of elections in May, including the recent detention of journalist Bob Rugurika, and continuing due process flaws in the prosecutions of Frederic Bamvuginyumvira and members of the Movement for Solidarity and Democracy youth. These cases raise troubling questions about freedom of expression and the independence of the Burundian judiciary. We urge the Government of Burundi to respect the rights of these individuals and all its citizens to due process of law and to ensure that the judicial process is not politicized. An independent, professional judiciary is a key component of the Burundian government’s stated commitment to having a free, fair, and credible electoral process during this important election year in Burundi."
Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN about Rugurika but they had nothing to say. Back on January 2 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gushed about the new UN Electoral Observation Mission in Burundi, MENUB, see below.
But then Burundi boycotted MENUB's launch, with Foreign affairs spokesman Daniel Kabuto saying there are "technical problems" concerning the role of the mission, adding that it does not have the authority to verify the final results, something it says can be done only by the electoral commission, known as Ceni. (Inner City Press noted, echoes of Cote d'Ivoire and Laurent Gbagbo here.)
On January 21, UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman told the UN Security Council that “regrettably, Government officials and representatives of the ruling CNDD-FDD did not attend the ceremony on account that the Status of Mission Agreement (SOMA) had not been signed. We signed the SOMA yesterday and expect the Government to do so soon.”
We'll see. Kabuto said, "We asked for an election observation mission, not for a validation of the elections. For the government, the validation of elections is the prerogative of Ceni, it's very clear, there can not be any debate about that."
We'll see. Kabuto said, "We asked for an election observation mission, not for a validation of the elections. For the government, the validation of elections is the prerogative of Ceni, it's very clear, there can not be any debate about that."
On January 21 Feltman recounted that“on 30 December the Burundian army reported clashing with an unidentified armed group of approximately 100-200 members entering from neighboring Democratic Republic of teh Congo into Burundi's Cibitoke Province. Over the course of several days, the Burundian army reportedly defeated the group, killing between 95 and 105 of its members. The government did not formally identify the attackers and no one has claimed responsibility for the clash.”
Strange... Feltman continued, “on January 4, five unidentified gunmen dressed in military fatigues executed three members of the rulling CNDD-FDD in a bar in Ruyigi Province, some 250 kilometers east of Bujumbura. If not managed carefully, incidents such as these, at a time of elections, could heighten political tensions.”
You don't say.
So what about Ban Ki-moon's premature gushing? Inner City Press on January 12 asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, "In Burundi, the government had reportedly boycotted the launch of the UN observer mission for elections in May and June. Foreign affairs spokesman Daniel Kabuto said there were 'technical problems' concerning the exact role of the mission, saying it does not have the authority to verify the final results, something it says can be done only by the electoral commission, known as Ceni. "We asked for an election observation mission, not for a validation of the elections," Kabuto said.Please provide the UN's response, in light of the SG's recent statement about Burundi.
The UN's Haq replied to Inner City Press, "On Burundi, we note that the Government of Burundi did not attend the official launch of the UN Electoral Observation Mission (known by its French acronym MENUB) today in Bujumbura. As laid out in Security Council resolution 2137, the mandate of MENUB is to follow and report on the electoral process in Burundi before, during and after the 2015 elections. The Mission does not have a mandate to validate or certify the results of the elections, as has been claimed. The National Electoral Commission is responsible for organizing the elections and publishing the results."
We'll have more on this.
This was Ban's January 2 statement: "The Secretary-General is pleased that the United Nations Electoral Observation Mission in Burundi (to be known by the French acronym of MENUB) officially started work on 1 January 2015 as mandated by Security Council resolution 2137 (2014). MENUB is headed by the Secretary-General's Special Envoy, Mr. Cassam Uteem of Mauritius, and will follow and report on the presidential, parliamentary and local elections that are scheduled between May and September 2015. The Secretary General notes that peaceful and credible elections are critical for the people of Burundi, and hopes that all Burundians will seize this opportunity to consolidate peace and stability in their country."
But will this new / replacement UN mission say what it sees?
Back on November 28 the UN was scheduled to publicly release a report about human rights and torture in Burundi. But it restricted pre-distribution of the report to media that can afford to have a Swiss-based correspondent, and refused requests by the Free UN Coalition for Access to state how many Burundian media organizations are so represented at the UN in Geneva. Why?
Now, the UN Committee Against Torture "concluding remarks" have been belatedly put online, in French, including on the Imbonerakureyouth wing of the ruling CNDD, the reported arming of which the UN largely covered up, as it is accused of also doing for example in Darfur in Sudan:
Violences politiques
22. Le Comité est préoccupé par :
a) les restrictions posées au droit de réunion et de manifestation par les forces de maintien de l’ordre, et des rapports faisant état de cas de répression violente des manifestations, menant à l’utilisation excessive de la force par les autorités, par exemple lors de manifestations de mars 2014.
(b) les violations graves des droits de l’homme perpétrées par un groupe de jeunes proche du pouvoir appelés Imbonerakure, telles que le harcèlement d’opposants politiques, la perturbation de réunions publiques, les intimidations, les arrestations et les détentions arbitraires, voire l’usage d’actes violents et le recours au règlement des affaires «à l’aimable». Le Comité exprime sa vive préoccupation à propos des informations indiquant que le gouvernement fournirait des armes et des formations à ce groupe. (art. 2, 12, 14, 16)
L’État partie devrait :
a) prendre des mesures urgentes pour s’assurer que toute violation des droits de l’homme commise soit immédiatement réprimée, indépendamment du statut de leur auteur. Les responsables de violations devraient être poursuivis et, s’ils sont reconnus coupables, condamnés à des peines appropriées, et les victimes devraient être dûment indemnisées et des mesures de réadaptation devraient leur être octroyées.
b) diligenter des enquêtes sur les Imbonerakure, leurs liens avec le pouvoir, y compris la livraison d’armes, et leurs actions, ceci en vue d’assurer le plein respect des dispositions de la Convention.
So what follow up will there be? Watch this site.
The November 24 announcement said only the "UNOG-based press corp" will get embargoed copies of this:
"BURUNDI: Allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and prison officers; sub-standard conditions of detention; no independent body to monitor places of detention; high numbers in custody and pre-trial detention; political violence; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."
Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access immediately challenged this restricted distribution. First Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman in New York, and now the UN in Geneva have refused to lift the restriction, without substantive explanation. On November 27, Inner City Press and FUNCA asked:
"Now on the eve of the press conference, reiterating the request below, that embargoed copies not be needlessly restricted only to "UNOG-based" press... But the media that have reporters based in UNOG are larger, more corporate media. So that particular embargoed report should be released to all UN system accredited media, not only those with reporters based at UNOG. The Free UN Coalition for Access says that should go the other way, too -- embargoed UN reports should not be restricted to NY / UNHQ based media either."
On November 27, the UN in Geneva via Liz Throssell Media Officer for the UN Treaty Bodies, replied:
"Dear Matthew, The six-hour time difference is very much in your favour, and unlike the journalists here you will have an entire working day to report on the Committee against Torture's 'Concluding Observations' on the eight countries they have been reviewing this session. These will be posted online at around 8:00 a.m. New York Time -- you will be able to find whichever ones that interest you by scrolling down through the countries listed here."
But this is not responsive. As Inner City Press and FUNCA have replied, "the request is that you not arbitrarily limit embargoed copies only to your 'UNOG-based press corps.' They will be able to publish stories at the embargo time, while despite your message, others will not."
The UN's Throssell replied again:
"Dear Matthew, The story is a Geneva dateline. The Treaty Bodies meet in Geneva and hold their press conferences here, hence when we are able to give embargoed copies, often at short notice, it is standard practice that it should be to journalists based here. The concluding observations will be available on our website from around 8am your time. It is also important to note that the committee's session was not about one country but eight, and that the interests of the UNOG press corps are similarly not limited to one country. You speak of the larger more corporate media in the UNOG Press Corps, but, as Stephane [Dujarric, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman] pointed out, there is a large number of freelancers here, working for a variety of English language and other language media."
Note that the UN, at least in New York, has stated that it does not accredit freelancers. Inner City Press and FUNCA replied in an hour's time:
"BURUNDI: Allegations of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and prison officers; sub-standard conditions of detention; no independent body to monitor places of detention; high numbers in custody and pre-trial detention; political violence; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."
Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access immediately challenged this restricted distribution. First Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman in New York, and now the UN in Geneva have refused to lift the restriction, without substantive explanation. On November 27, Inner City Press and FUNCA asked:
"Now on the eve of the press conference, reiterating the request below, that embargoed copies not be needlessly restricted only to "UNOG-based" press... But the media that have reporters based in UNOG are larger, more corporate media. So that particular embargoed report should be released to all UN system accredited media, not only those with reporters based at UNOG. The Free UN Coalition for Access says that should go the other way, too -- embargoed UN reports should not be restricted to NY / UNHQ based media either."
On November 27, the UN in Geneva via Liz Throssell Media Officer for the UN Treaty Bodies, replied:
"Dear Matthew, The six-hour time difference is very much in your favour, and unlike the journalists here you will have an entire working day to report on the Committee against Torture's 'Concluding Observations' on the eight countries they have been reviewing this session. These will be posted online at around 8:00 a.m. New York Time -- you will be able to find whichever ones that interest you by scrolling down through the countries listed here."
But this is not responsive. As Inner City Press and FUNCA have replied, "the request is that you not arbitrarily limit embargoed copies only to your 'UNOG-based press corps.' They will be able to publish stories at the embargo time, while despite your message, others will not."
The UN's Throssell replied again:
"Dear Matthew, The story is a Geneva dateline. The Treaty Bodies meet in Geneva and hold their press conferences here, hence when we are able to give embargoed copies, often at short notice, it is standard practice that it should be to journalists based here. The concluding observations will be available on our website from around 8am your time. It is also important to note that the committee's session was not about one country but eight, and that the interests of the UNOG press corps are similarly not limited to one country. You speak of the larger more corporate media in the UNOG Press Corps, but, as Stephane [Dujarric, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman] pointed out, there is a large number of freelancers here, working for a variety of English language and other language media."
Note that the UN, at least in New York, has stated that it does not accredit freelancers. Inner City Press and FUNCA replied in an hour's time:
"You write 'it is standard practice that it should be to journalists based here' but please be aware: for UN reports released in Nairobi embargoed copies are offered to reporters outside of Kenya and outside of Africa. So is this “standard practice” Geneva (and New York) specific? TheFree UN Coalition for Access is opposed to this “standard practice,” which is inconsistently applied even in the UN system. We are very much aware that reports beyond the US (and Ukraine) are being released. In light of the above, can you please state how many Burundi based media organizations are represented in the UNOG-based press corp to which you are limited distribution of the embargoed (Burundi) report?"
But Ms. Throssell and the NY based spokesperson she copied did not answer; both gone from the office. No answer on Burundi (or anything else.)
Again: Why limited pre-distribution of this report to the media which can afford to have a Switzerland-based correspondent, or "freelancer"? What is wrong with the UN? And what will be the effect, like with themurky "gray lady" system at the UN in New York, be of this pre-spinning? Click here for Inner City Press and FUNCA's coverage of the opaque race to head the UN Department of Public Information, here. The UN must do better.
Back on November 5 when UN envoy Parfait Onanga-Anyanga briefed the UN Security Council by video, he cited the belated release from jail of rights defender Pierre Claver Mbonimpa.
But little was said of why the government jailed him: for inquiring into the UN's own leaked memo about the ruling CNDD party arming its youth wing, including in camps across the border in the DR Congo.
When the public then private meetings of the Security Council were over, Inner City Press asked the Council's president for November Gary Quinlan if the leaked memo about CNDD arming its youth wing had been discussed, what the Council's current understanding of that is, and if possible sanctions for political violence are being considered.
Quinlan replied that sanctions were not discussed. He said that the Council is well aware of the memo and has discussed it, but that today's focus had been on the trajectory going forward to the 2015 elections.
Even after Quinlan's Q&A stakeout, to his credit his second in as many days, the UN Spokesperson's office still didn't have or give a copy of what Onanga-Anyanga had read to the Council three hours earlier.
On behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press repeatedly asked for this, which is given out much quicker on other countries on the Council's agenda. Finally the question was put to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric himself -- because it should be fixed. It is not good enough to say that the office of this particular envoy -- a nice guy, we note in passing -- undercuts and is allowed to undercut the UN's transparency - particularly after the leaked memo and attempts to cover that up. We'll have more on this.
Back on September 3, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power about Mbonimpa, and relatedly about the reports of Burundi's ruling party arming its youth wing. Video here, and embedded (with Libya question) below, with US Mission transcript.
Samantha Power replied that she has raised the imprisonment of Mbonimpa with Burundi's leadership, publicly and privately. (Inner City Press previously asked Ambassador Power about Burundi at a Security Council question and answer stakeout of the type the new Free UN Coalition for Access urges all Security Council presidencies to hold after closed door consultation sessions.)
“I suppose the situation on the ground has not changed materially,” Ambassador Power said, “since we last engaged on this... the closing of political space, the walking away from aspects of the Arusha Accords.”
During the recent African Leaders Summit in Washington she and other US officials raised the issues, she said. The US “wants the UN to maintain a role on the ground in the coming weeks as we approach the elections,” she said. Inner City Press has reported on Burundi using the “persona non grata” process to expel UN staff.
Ambassador Power noted that the Security Council has held more meetings about Burundi this year than in any other analogous period. One wonders, will this continue up to the election? After? Watch this site.
Updated with US Mission transcript:
MODERATOR: Last question is Matthew.
QUESTION: Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. Thanks for the briefing and, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, hoping for question and answer stakeouts after consultations to hear what happened and ask you about it... On Burundi, I know that you visited there, and I wanted to know what’s the status of the UN looking into allegations that the ruling party was arming its youth wing and trying to get the release of this human rights defender, Mbonimpa, who is, I believe still in jail after several months. Thanks.
AMBASSADOR POWER:On Burundi, I personally raised the case of the human rights defender and lawyer that you mentioned many, many times publicly and privately with the Burundian leadership. I think the – I suppose the situation on the ground has not changed materially since we last engaged on this. We still have real concerns about the closing of political space, the walking away from aspects of the Arusha Accords, which have been the foundation on which Burundi’s stability and peace and reconciliation have been predicated. All of those concerns remain, and they were raised by myself and by other American officials in the African Leaders Summit when President Nkurunziza visited not long ago.
The only thing I can say I guess beyond that at this point is that we are also deeply committed to ensuring that the UN maintains a role – an important role on the ground in Burundi in the coming weeks, particularly as we approach the elections, which are likely to be a very tense time, given what the government has done against opposition parties, and given that, again, the circumstances for civil society and the opposition have grown much more difficult in recent weeks. We don’t have reason to expect that things are suddenly going to open and that’s going to create tension, and I will note that the Council, I think, has met more on Burundi in recent months than probably in any other analogous period.
So again, this is something that I think we have made our views as a council and we have made our views bilaterally speaking by national capacity very well known to the Burundi authorities at a very combustible time. Thank you, everybody.
QUESTION: Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. Thanks for the briefing and, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, hoping for question and answer stakeouts after consultations to hear what happened and ask you about it... On Burundi, I know that you visited there, and I wanted to know what’s the status of the UN looking into allegations that the ruling party was arming its youth wing and trying to get the release of this human rights defender, Mbonimpa, who is, I believe still in jail after several months. Thanks.
AMBASSADOR POWER:On Burundi, I personally raised the case of the human rights defender and lawyer that you mentioned many, many times publicly and privately with the Burundian leadership. I think the – I suppose the situation on the ground has not changed materially since we last engaged on this. We still have real concerns about the closing of political space, the walking away from aspects of the Arusha Accords, which have been the foundation on which Burundi’s stability and peace and reconciliation have been predicated. All of those concerns remain, and they were raised by myself and by other American officials in the African Leaders Summit when President Nkurunziza visited not long ago.
The only thing I can say I guess beyond that at this point is that we are also deeply committed to ensuring that the UN maintains a role – an important role on the ground in Burundi in the coming weeks, particularly as we approach the elections, which are likely to be a very tense time, given what the government has done against opposition parties, and given that, again, the circumstances for civil society and the opposition have grown much more difficult in recent weeks. We don’t have reason to expect that things are suddenly going to open and that’s going to create tension, and I will note that the Council, I think, has met more on Burundi in recent months than probably in any other analogous period.
So again, this is something that I think we have made our views as a council and we have made our views bilaterally speaking by national capacity very well known to the Burundi authorities at a very combustible time. Thank you, everybody.
