UN Experts Urge Transparency on Drone Deaths, As UN Peacekeeping Withholds Reports on Its Killing of Civilians in Mali, Shootings in Haiti

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 29 -- After the US said it will review the deaths of Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto by drone strike, the UN on April 29 announced that four of its Special Rapporteurs said the report should be released, subject to narrow national security exemptions.

 "The experts stressed that, subject to redactions on the grounds of legitimate national security, their results must be open to public scrutiny, and, where appropriate, adequate reparation to victims and their families must be offered," the UN said. 

  But the UN itself doesn't live up to this. When UN Peacekeepers in Mali this year killed three civilians, the UN never released the report, and UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refused to answer basic Press questions about it. Video here, Vine here.

  When Inner City Press asked the Office of the UN Spokesperson about this withheld report, and another one about UN Peacekeepers shooting at unarmed demonstrators in Haiti, the excuse for withholding was that these are "internal" documents. So much for transparency. 

 Doctor, heal theyself.

The experts urging transparency on April 29 were Juan Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Christof Heyns, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; and Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers. 

 What do these UN Experts think of UN Peacekeeping's and Ladsous' performance?

On April 2 Ladsous appeared at the UN Security Council media stakeout but after reading a prepared statement refused to answer Press questions about the underlying Tabankort agreement with the MNLA which led to the Mali shooting. Video I here.

  Inner City Press also asked about shooting at civilians by Ladsous' peacekeepers in Haiti, caught on video, and asked if that withheld report would be released. Ladsous said, I do not respond to you. Video II here.

  Inner City Press asked if it isn't now a pattern, peacekeepers shooting at unarmed civilians not only in Mali but also Haiti, and if Ladsous will take responsibility.

  Ladsous' spokesman Nicholas Birnback then grabbed the UNTV microphone and moved it away from Inner City Press. This happened before with Ladsous and his previous spokesman. Video here, story here. At that time, after the Free UN Coalition for Access complained, the UN Spokesperson told FUNCA it would not happen again. Now it has. Accountability?

 Tellingly, the Ladsous scribe who angled for and got the first question asked pointedly if the peacekeepers in Mali weren't from Rwanda. Ladsous leered and said the Troop Contributing Country, then spoke again at the end to lay the blame on them. Video II, here, near end.

  In the public record is Ladsous' 1994 memo supporting the escape of the Hutu genocidaires who formed the FDLR into Eastern Congo, where now Ladsous' MONUSCO finds one excuse after another NOT to neutralize the FDLR as it did the largely Tutsi M23 armed group.

  Accountability? 
   

On US Torture Report, Does UN's Ban Ki-moon Agree Convention Against Torture CAT Requires Prosecution, or Does Cat Have His Tongue?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- After the much anticipated US torture report was released on the morning of December 9, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had no direct comment. 

  Now, does Ban agree that the UN Convention Against Torture, UNCAT, requires prosecution? Or has the cat got his tongue?

   At the December 9 UN noon briefing in New York Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric for a comment from Ban Ki-moon, which was expected.

But Dujarric said that there was no comment, that the UN was following it. Video here, and embedded below. 

  Fully 24 hours later, at the December 10 noon briefing, Dujarric read out a statement from Geneva by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid.

  Inner City Press asked Dujarric why Ban hadn't commented in his own name. He is commenting through me, Dujarric replied, and stands with Prince Zeid's comments.
 
  Inner City Press asked if Ban stands with the comments of UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in combating terrorism Ben Emmerson, that there should be prosecutions. Apparently not -- the answer was UNclear.  Video here.

  Now on December 11, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Mendez has said

“the example set by the United States on the use of torture has been a big draw-back in the fight against such practice in many other countries throughout the world... I travel to parts of the world in my capacity of UN Special Rapporteur on torture and I can attest to the fact that many states either implicitly or explicitly tell you: ‘Why look at us? If the US tortures, why can’t we do it?’ We have lost a little bit of the moral high ground, but it can be regained and it should be regained.”

The publication of the summary of the report, Mendez said, is but “a first step in the direction of fulfilling other US obligations under Convention against Torture, namely to combat impunity and ensure accountability, by investigating and prosecuting those responsible... In the past, I have engaged the US Government on a number of cases referenced in the CIA report and I will carefully study the replies I have received and the facts now revealed in this report. There is no doubt that ‘torture programs right after 9/11 have made the matter of terrorism worse’ and the torture that has taken place has been a breeding ground for more terrorism.”

   So does Ban Ki-moon agree that CAT now requires prosecutions? Or has the cat got his tongue? Watch this site.

The UN Security Council churned on -- UN Peacekeeping chief refused to answer a simple Inner City Press question as he left the Council, here-- even with some of the countries which hosted “black sites” for torture members of the Council.

An Amnesty International representative said that countries that are members of the International Criminal Court, which hosted such sites, could be acted against by the Court. UN expert Ben Emmerson chimed in, calling for prosecutions:

“the summary of the Feinstein report which was released this afternoon confirms what the international community has long believed - that there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law.. The identities of the perpetrators, and many other details, have been redacted in the published summary report but are known to the Select Committee and to those who provided the Committee with information on the program... Torture is a crime of universal jurisdiction. The perpetrators may be prosecuted by any other country they may travel to. However, the primary responsibility for bringing them to justice rests with the US Department of Justice and the Attorney General.”

But still, from Ban Ki-moon, silence. Watch this site.

   

Post-Snowden, UN's Ben Emmerson Tells Inner City Press of “Conceptual Censorship" in US Debate, Foreign Fighters Question UNanswered

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 23 -- When UN human rights rapporteur Ben Emmerson held a press conference on his report on mass surveillance on October 23, Inner City Press asked him to review the Obama administration's and its Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's response to the spying revelations by Edward Snowden and others, and if any dangers are posed by the “foreign fighters” resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in September. (The latter question was not answered.)

  Emmerson began diplomatically, calling the PCLOB's reports “worth reading,” but then said that the debate and proposal legislation is confined to the “detailed fringes.” He said the key question is whether the right to privacy simply will not apply to the means of communications most in use today, given government's appetite for surveillance.Video here and embedded below.

  He said as long as governments -- like that of the United States -- won't disclose their surveillance programs, the debate is subject to “conceptual censorship.”

  The UN set aside the first question for the old UN Correspondents Association, which asked a softball question leading Emmerson to reply, “read the report.” (It has been online for some time, here.) 

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access objects to set-asides, and to UNCA's function as the UN's Censorship Alliance, having tried to order Inner City Press to remove factual articles from the Internet, and thengetting Google to block from its search leaked copies of anti-Press complaints filed with the UN, here. We'll have more on this.

First Look's "The Intercept" has revealed that the US National Security Agency and FBI spied on at least five Americans, all Muslims, and used place-holder code names like "Raghead," click here for that. 

   Those spied on included a Republican candidate for the Virginia legislature, Faisal Gill; Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor; lawyer Asim Ghafoor; Nihad Awad of CAIR; and "Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights."

 It's shameful, but who can stand up to the United States?

  The United Nations' Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has already said he thinks Snowden "misused" information, as Inner City Press reported here.

  Back on March 14 when the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva took the floor, it was a full court press. Of the elephant in the room, NSA spying, the speaker from the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice used a single line: DOJ is "monitoring" a number of private actions. You don't say.

  The head of the US delegation, Mary McLeod, said but did not explain why the US Administration has "no current expectation to become a party to the optional protocol" to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- which the US says does not apply to its actions outside of its borders. 

The session closed with a slew of questions: Walter Kalin asked why the US deports people to Haiti even amid the cholera epidemic -- for which, Inner City Press notes, the US has said the UN should be immune. 

  The US repeated that argument on July 7, which Inner City Press has covered here. Watch this site. 

   

At UN on Drones, Ben Emmerson Says Pakistan 2005-2008 was Worst, Yemen Death Count Is "Skewed," Silent on NSA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 25 -- When Ben Emmerson had his UN press conference on drones on Friday, the briefing room was more crowded than for Myanmar or Iran, and the questions were mostly friendly. He was asked, for example, if he gets much push-back from officials in the UK, where he practices as a lawyer (a partner of Cherie Blair, we note).

Emmerson made much of President Barack Obama's May 2013 announcement he would "migrate" drones from the CIA to the Department of Defense. Inner City Press asked of documents recently released by whistleblower Edward Snowden showing National Security Agency involvement in the targeted killings program. Would that migrate too? Should it?

Perhaps erroneously, Inner City Press also asked Emmerson about the high percentage of civilians casualties in the US' drone strikes in Yemen. Emmerson fastened on this, saying that the numbers killed are higher in Pakistan.

Yes, but what about the percentage? Emmerson said this is "skewed" in Yemen by the inclusion of deaths by cruise missile. He never answered on the NSA.

Emmerson said the worst of drones were in Pakistan from 2005, at first he said to 2011 then limited it to 2008. He seemed convinced by recent statements by the Obama administration. His co-panelist Christof Heyns barely spoke, except in answer to a long question about Turkey. The last question, about reparations, was from Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. The UN needs to be shaken up. Watch this site.

   

Yemen Eclipsed by Weapons Seizure & Iran Sanctions Committee, No Drones

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 – Yemen has been cited as one of the Security Council's successes, about which it remains very concerned. 

   But Thursday's sixty-day briefing by UN envoy Jamal Benomar attracted interest mostly due to the allegation that weapons seized by the government came from Iran.

  Outside the closed door meeting, Western diplomats primed the pump speaking about a request from Yemen's Hadi government to “the relevant sanctions committee” to investigate the weapons – that would be, the Iran sanctions committee.

  Thus primed, when Benomar came out to the stakeout, after he vaguely referred to spoilers – which would seem to refer to Ali Saleh – he was asked by a wire service much concerned about Iran if the arms shipment from Iran (“allegedly” from Iran, it was quickly pointed out) was indicative of the spoilers he referred to.

  Benomar answered, never naming the committee to which the complaint was directed. But it is the Resolution 1737 Committee, the Iran Sanctions committee.

  Non-western diplomats who had been in the meeting told Inner City Press that the weapons and Iran was a part, but not the majority, of the discussion. But the Iran angle was being pushed and promoted outside.

   Inner City Press asked Benomar about the promised but delayed Transitional Justice law. He said the UN would like to see discussion of a new law, that comports with international standards. Would that remove immunity from Ali Saleh?

 During the Security Council's trip they were told by Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkol Karman and others that Saleh must be removed from politics.

   Benomar complained how little of the $8 billion pledged to Yemen has come through. He did not directly mention it, but there have been protesters in front of the Council of Ministers office, amid calls for a new uprising, surrounded by the Fourth Armored Brigade.

   As the session broke up, Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant if the weapons allegedly from Iran took the focus away from the Yemen transition issues. 

  Lyall Grant told Inner City Press that while there is a move for a press statement on the weapons issues – Inner City Press understands that China on Thursday said it had to check with Beijing – there is also a move for a Presidential Statement on the Yemen issues.

   But will the weapons allegedly from Iran dominate some coverage? We will bet, yes.

   While the Council met behind closed doors about Yemen, in the Senate in Washington prospective CIA director John Brennan was questioned about torture, Benghazi, leaks and especially drones. 

  Protesters unfurled signs; chair Diane Feinstein excused the killing of American citizens by drones since those targeted were “not upstanding.” (“Not anymore,” remarked one wag.)

  UN special rapporteur Ben Emmerson was reported to "endorse" Brennan as US CIA chief - strange, for a UN affiliated person.

   Inner City Press at the UNTV stakeout tried to ask Benomar a question about drones, about the US drone base in Saudi Arabia. But there were more Iran questions to be fielded, a whole machinery to be fed.

  If even the Western members of the Security Council acknowledge that the weapons allegedly from Iran was only a small part of Thursday's discussion, why it is pitched, accepted and promoted as the main story?

Sanctions footnotes: On another sanctions front, after the meeting the Permanent Representative of Eritrea knocked on the door to get into the Security Council. He told Inner City Press it was to deliver a letter to the chair of his (and Somalia's) sanctions committee.

  There's talk of removing the arms embargo on Somalia. But will the Council do it? Watch this site.

Will US Drone Strikes in Yemen Pause for UNSC Sanaa Weekend Visit?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 24 -- As the UN Security Council prepares for its trip to Yemen, the revived proposal for which Inner City Press first reported and then was encouraged to stop publishing details about, a new security threat has arisen. 

  The US campaign of drone strikes on Wednesday reached Al Masna village in Khawlan district, killing six people a mere 35 kilometers away from Sanaa, which Security Council members are slated to visit this weekend.

   The question is, will the US pause or move its drone campaign during the Council's visit?

   After the question arose - on Twitter - Inner City Press posed it to several Security Council diplomats later on Thursday morning. One said that another closed door consultation about the trip, including a briefing by the Department of Safety and Security, would take place Thursday afternoon.

   Another said there is "no way" that the issue of US drone strikes will be discussed in the Security Council, even in a closed door session right before Council members visit the "drone rain" of Sana'a.

  But UN expert Ben Emmerson is beginning an inquiry into drone strikes, including in Yemen. Click here for Inner City Press coverage of Emmerson and drones, here for coverage of the UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous' proposal to use drones. Watch this site.

Wittig Won't Say If His Committee Used Info Obtained by Torture, But Answers

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, December 14 -- When Germany's Permanent Representative to the UN Peter Wittig spoke Friday on the end of his two year term on the Security Council, he mentioned as one of the highlights having chaired the Council's Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctions committees.

  Inner City Press asked Wittig if during these two years, he or the Committees used information obtained by torture. This was recently charged by UN Special Rapporteur Ban Emmerson, at a session held at the Germany mission ten days ago (story here.)

  Even Ombudsperson Kim Prost, purporting to rebut Emmerson, said that torture was "plausibly raised" in at least two of the 22 sanctions cases she reviewed. So Inner City Press asked Wittig on Friday, have you or the Committee handled information plausibly related to torture? Video here, from Minute 25.

  To this, Wittig said that the proceedings of the Committee are confidential, so he "could not speak about the contents." He said that the Committee "itself has not been seized" of the question of torture. One might ask, why not?

  (In fairness, some argue the no Security Council member, even a Committee chair, can speak for other members, even to answer a question about using information obtained by torture. Whether this reticence is wise or an excuse is another question.)

  Inner City Press also thanked Wittig and his spokesman Alex Eberl, on behalf of the beta Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, for the time they took, monthly or more frequently, to explain Germany's views if only on a background or off the record basis. The views, especially from the top floors of the German Mission on 49th Street, were illuminating.

   Wittig's deputy Miguel Berger continues past January 1 as chairperson of the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee, now facing issues ranging from re-costing of the budget to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's mobility plan, on which questions raised by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs have yet to be answered.

   Unlike some at the UN, Wittig on Friday at least purported to answer the questions raised. We wish him well.

At UN, Expert Heyns Tells ICP of Legal Flaws of Drones and US Sales

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, October 25 -- US drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia are problematic, the UN system's Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns told Inner City Press at Thursday afternoon at the UN. Video here, from Minute 31:50.

 

Along with a question on execution in Sri Lanka, Inner City Press asked Heyns about drone strikes, as it had last week asked US State Department official Harold Koh. Heyns answer was different than Koh's, and made different points than fellow Rapporteur Ben Emmerson.

 

Heyns told Inner City Press that he (and Emmerson) will submit a report on drones "next year to the [UN] General Assembly in October." He said while "the use of a drone is not inherently illegal... in Yemen, Somalia and so forth it is problematic, outside the theater of war."

 

Inner City Press has also asked about Pakistan, but Heyns did not mention it by name. He continued that "the inherent nature of drone, far away from where there is a military conflict taking place" raised two issues "when you look at the defense by US officals" like Koh.

 

Heyns summarized that US defense as "it's an act of self-defense, so the normal rules of international humanitarian law don't apply." He said, "that's wrong -- first ask if entitled to self-defense, then ask if comply with international humanitarian law."

 

He said, "the largest problem is tartgeting individuals who are not direct participants. There is a general requirement they be an immediate threat, enemy combattants or those participating in hostilities... Mere membership is not enough."

 

He concluded that beyond the US' own use, "the US agreed sell to 66 countries, maybe 70 states already have drones.. there's the specter of collateral damage anywhere."

 

Click here for Heyns' answers to Inner City Press on Sri Lanka; click here for US official Harold Koh's answers to Inner City Press on drones. Watch this site.