On Central African Republic, Jan Eliasson Cites "Rights Up Front" Plan - But UN Was Silent on Sri Lanka During CHOGM, Squawks Censors

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- The Central African Republic briefing of the UN Security Council on Monday was, Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson said, under the UN's post-Sri Lanka "Rights Up Front" plan.

That Plan, which Inner City Press first published -- UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky then said it "may or may not exist" -- provides for sounding the alarm to human rights abuses such as those that occurred in Sri Lanka in 2009, when 40,000 civilians were killed.

Eliasson said the alarm will henceforth be sounded, especially when national authorities cannot act.

That is a distinction between CAR, which Eliasson described as falling apart, and Sri Lanka, where it was an authoritarian government, member of the UN, which did the killing. In these cases it is less likely the UN Secretariat will sound the alarm.

Even this month during Sri Lanka's crackdown during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the UN remained silent as Inner City Press asked four times in a week if they had any comment. Journalists were banned from going to the north, where the killings took place; families of the disappeared were blocked from traveling south to testify. But the UN Secretariat said nothing. Rights up front, indeed.

  While the Central African Republic meeting of the UN Security Council was ongoing, the UN squawked to (some) reporters to go to the UN Censorship Alliance, with its own record on Sri Lanka, see outside coverage here....

   

On Sri Lanka, UN Silent As Families of the Disappeared Banned from Traveling South, Media Can't Go North

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 13 -- In Sri Lanka, Channel 4 was blocked from traveling to the North to film. Families of the disappeared were banned from traveling south to Colombo.

  In New York, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about the banning of the survivors of the disappeared; we have no comment at this stage, he replied. Video here and embedded below. When, then?

  Even the UK's William Hague raised the issues with Sri Lankan foreign minister GL Peiris. Where is the UN? And what does its "Rights Up Front" plan, leaked to Inner City Press but still deemed "internal" by the UN, really mean?

From the UN's November 12 noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: yesterday you said to listen to what the Secretary-General said to Member States, so I did and he did now name this document of rights--

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Rights Up Front.

Question: Rights Up Front, okay, so it does exist. I wanted to know, will it be a formally public document? Earlier the Deputy Secretary-General had said that it might be released once some part of it had been implemented, I just wanted to know how do… given that he said this is going to go out through the system, what are the next steps? I asked you yesterday about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, I wanted to be more specific. There have been various complaints raised in the run-up of restrictions on the press, there was a BBC report about, not 2009, but 2013 abductions and rapes committed by the Government, so my question is what’s the Secretary-General’s current thinking, not simply about what he said about the study of 2009, but the current issues that are very much being raised? Especially on press freedom, can he say anything? Thanks, that’s the question.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, with regard to the second part, I will come back to you on that. I don’t have anything specific at this point. On the first question, yes, you did listen and you did hear. And it is known as the Rights Up Front Action Plan, and this was the Secretary-General’s intention to explain to Member States in a little bit of detail what this is about. And of course more detail will be provided to Member States in the near future. And likewise, I would anticipate that we will also be able to brief the media in a little bit more detail, but not right now. And certainly the key part of this is to ensure that it is implemented. And there has been a concerted effort within the UN family, all the different parts of the United Nations system that have been working on this, to do precisely that. And there is a clear commitment amongst the senior leadership to make that happen. So the focus at the moment is on what is an important internal process with external ramifications; the focus is on implementing. And certainly, the intention is both to brief Member States in more detail and, of course, in due course, the media as well.

When? Watch this site.

   

On Sri Lanka, Ban Ki-Moon Belatedly Cites UN "Rights Up Front" Lessons Report, After Spox Said "May Not Exist;" No Comment on CHOGM

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 11 -- Ever since the UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did nothing, and worse, as 40,000 civilians were killed in Sri Lanka in 2009, its officials and spokespeople have claimed they want to learn from what happened.

  But now, not only did the UN withhold its internal report on the lesson learned. After Inner City Press obtained andexclusively published the report on October 11 and Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq answered Press questions about it, on October 17 lead spokesperson Martin Nesirky said that nothing had been confirmed, the documents referred to "may or may not exist." 

   Well, it exists. Inner City Press put it online here.

  Now, in his November 11 speech to an informal meeting of the General Assembly, Ban Ki-moon has said this:

the Member States and the UN Secretariat, agencies, funds and programmes have not always succeeded in achieving our goals and upholding our responsibilities in complex situations. The 1994 Rwandan genocide represents the most emblematic failure of UN and Member State action; followed by our collective failure to prevent atrocities in Srebrenica in 1995.

We pledged to do better, and we have done so in many cases. Yet in 2012 my Internal Review Panel assessed UN action in the final stages of armed conflict in Sri Lanka as a “systemic failure”.

That is why, in January, I launched a process to follow-up on the Panel’s recommendations. This has led to the “Rights Up Front” Action Plan to improve UN efforts, in accordance with our obligations under the Charter and as set by Member States.

The Plan recommits every UN staff member to our core responsibilities for protecting human rights and strengthening accountability, particularly of our most senior managers. It will simplify communications to and from Headquarters, improve the flow of information and better leverage the UN’s work and presence in a country.

I also intend to do more to help Member States reach early consensus to prevent large-scale violations.

I urge all Member States to support these efforts, which go to the very purpose of our Organization. It is within the scope of those of us in this room to enable such change and prevent horrendous human suffering.

  But going into Ban's speech smiling, and no less so afterward, was Sri Lanka Deputy Permanent Representative, military figure Shavendra Silva. And Ban's spokesperson Nesirky had no comment on or for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting when Inner City Press asked on November 11.  Video here.

So what really has been learned?

   

On Sri Lanka, Hugo Swire Silent on What UK Does in UN Human Rights Council or UNSC, Nothing on Somalia Journalist Murders

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 7 -- In the run-up to the UK's controversial attendance in Sri Lanka at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, minister of state Hugo Swire took questions on Twitter for 45 minutes today. 

  They focused on Sri Lanka -- lack of accountability for war crimes, killing and disappearance of journalists, torture and authoritarianism -- as well as the Maldives and also Somalia.

Swire answered that "we consistently call for an independent, thorough & credible investigation into allegations of war crimes."

Inner City Press asked what if anything the UK has done about this in the UN Security Council, where it has one of five Permanent seats. Also, since the UK is "running" for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Inner City Pressasked what the UK would or will do there on Sri Lanka issues.

  The reality is that the UK is running on a "clean slate" with no competition. Like some other "candidates," it will essentially be automatically elected. Perhaps it's for that reason that Swire did not answer the Human Rights Council -- or UN Security Council -- questions.

  Also in the UN Security Council, the UK "has the pen" on Somalia. But contrary to what happened when two journalists were killed in Mali this month and the Security Council quickly issued a press statement condemning it, the Council does not do this when Somali journalists are killed. Why not? This question has yet to be answered.

Swire was asked, given the cancellations of elections in Maldives, if they will be seated at the CHOGM. No one, it seems, asked about The Gambia, quitting the Commonwealth (and reportedly being evicted from office space of Commonwealth members in New York).

Like many UK diplomats, Swire has the hashtag #DigitalDiplomacy in his profile. He did answer some questions on Thursday, but it is unclear what will happen with those he chose not to answer. Watch this site.

   

While US Drafted UNSC Statement on Journalists Killed in Mali, Why Doesn't UK on Somalia?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 4 -- After journalists Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon were killed in Mali, the UN Security Council quickly approved and issued a press statement strongly condemning the assassinations. 

  The Free UN Coalition for Access deplored the murders too. But in the spirit of journalism, Inner City Press asked: why didn't the Security Council condemn or even note the killing of eight journalists so far this year in Somalia, in which there is also a UN support peacekeeping mission, AMISOM?

  By the Security Council on Monday morning, Inner City Press learned more. First, that perhaps seeing the conflict of interest, France the former colonial power in and "pen holder" on Mali did not circulate the statement. 

   "The United States did it, which was strange,"a Council member told Inner City Press, adding that it seems France asked the US to do it in its stead.

  Another source agreed that it is strange, now, that when journalists are killed in Somalia, the UK as pen holder (or the US in its stead) does not circulate any draft press statements.

 "Maybe it's more sensitive in Somalia," the source said, going on to acknowledge the "politics" of such statements.

 The statement on the killing of Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon in Northern Mali uses the words France or French three times, including concluding that "the members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and French forces who support it."

Actually, it was the French army which went in first, in Operation Serval; the UN's MINUSMA went in later, to support the French. For the new Operation Hydra in the North, as noted by Inner City Press, the UN says that MINUSMA is not involved.

The French-drafted Security Council statement begins: "The members of the Security Council strongly condemned the kidnapping and assassination of two French journalists in Kidal, Mali on 2 November 2013."

  Journalistically one must ask: why list the nationality of the reporters killed? While condemning their killing, couldn't the identification of journalists with a particular country and its foreign and military policies be a problem?

  Also, why didn't the Security Council condemn the killing of eight journalists in Somalia so far this year? Why hasn't it said more, as just one example, of the killing of Congolese journalist Floribert Chebeya for which the Congolese government, as on the 135 rapes in Minova by its own troops, has assigned no accountability?

Outside of Africa, why has the Security Council said nothing of the many killings and disappearances of journalists in Sri Lanka, where UK prime minister David Cameron is set to visit this month for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? Has he yet seen "No Fire Zone"?

Footnote: Surprise grows, alongside the above, that the UN Security Council which must procure 15 approvals or at least 15 non-objections through silence was able to issue a statement on the killing of Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who held a press conference about Mali on November 1 and now is there. Ban is listed on a press release about the World Bank allocating $1.5 billion to the Sahel. But still nothing on the killing of the journalists.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky on November 1 if Ban (and the World Bank's Jim Kim) will be going to northern Mali and Kidal; this question was not answered. Watch this site.

   

Killing of Two Journalists in Mali Rightly Condemned by UN Security Council, Nationality-Specific: Unlike Eight in Somalia; DR Congo or Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 3 -- In Mali, journalists Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon have been killed. The UN Security Council approved and issued a press statement strongly condemning the assassinations, full text below. 

  The Free UN Coalition for Access deplores the murders too. But in the spirit of journalism, one must ask: why didn't the Security Council condemn or even note the killing of eight journalists so far this year in Somalia, in which there is also a UN support peacekeeping mission, AMISOM?

  For each countries on the Security Council's agenda, as both Mali and Somalia are, one Council member, usually one of the Permanent Five "holds the pen" and drafts statements to be approved by the other 14 members through a silence or "non objection" procedure.

  France, the former colonial power in Mali, holds the pen on the issue, and has also nominated the last four chiefs of UN Peacekeeping.

  The Security Council press statement on the killing of Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon in Northern Mali uses the words France or French three times, including concluding that "the members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and French forces who support it."

  Actually, it was the French army which went in first, in Operation Serval; the UN's MINUSMA went in later, to support the French. For the new Operation Hydra in the North, as noted by Inner City Press, the UN says that MINUSMA is not involved.

  The French-drafted Security Council statement begins: "The members of the Security Council strongly condemned the kidnapping and assassination of two French journalists in Kidal, Mali on 2 November 2013."

  Journalistically one must ask: why does this Security Council statement list the nationality of the reporters killed? While condemning their killing, couldn't the identification of journalists with a particular country and its foreign and military policies be a problem?

  Also, why didn't the Security Council condemn the killing of eight journalists in Somalia so far this year? Why hasn't it said more, as just one example, of the killing of Congolese journalist Floribert Chebeya for which the Congolese government, as on the 135 rapes in Minova by its own troops, has assigned no accountability?

  Outside of Africa, why has the Security Council said nothing of the many killings and disappearances of journalistsin Sri Lanka, where UK prime minister David Cameron, and a delegation from Australia, are set to visit this month for theCommonwealth Heads of Government Meeting?

Footnote: Some were surprised, alongside the above, that the UN Security Council which must procure 15 approvals or at least 15 non-objections through silence was able to issue a statement on the killing of Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who held a press conference about Mali on November 1 and is headed there this week.

  Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky on November 1 if Ban (and the World Bank's Jim Kim) will be going to northern Mali and Kidal; this question was not answered. Watch this site.

The UNSC's press statement on Dupont and Verlon:

Subject: Security Council press statement on journalist killings in Mali
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Security Council press statement on journalist killings in Mali

The members of the Security Council strongly condemned the kidnapping and assassination of two French journalists in Kidal, Mali on 2 November 2013.

The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the family of the victims as well as to the Government of France.

The members of the Security Council recalled that in accordance with international humanitarian law journalists, media professionals and associated personnel engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict are generally considered as civilians and shall be respected and protected as such. The members of the Security Council recalled their demand that all parties to an armed conflict comply fully with the obligations applicable to them under international humanitarian law, including as related to the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

The members of the Security Council stressed that those responsible for these assassinations shall be held accountable.

They called on the Government of Mali to swiftly investigate the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) and French forces who support it and called on all parties to cooperate fully with the Mission.

   

After Inner City Pres Publishes UN Sri Lanka Report, Spokesperson Admits "No Fire Zone" Didn't Work - But It's Worse Than That

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 11 -- After Inner City Pressexclusively published the UN's internal report on its "systemic failure" in Sri Lanka in 2009, on Friday Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq said that the UN had called for "safe zones." 

  Inner City Press asked if this was the notorious "No Fire Zone" in which tens of thousands were killed, which even the UN's John Holmes called the Bloodbath on the Beach. Video here, from Minute 25:27.

  Haq replied of the idea of "safe zones" and "days for halting" conflict that "many of those concepts did not work out or be implemented in the way we would have wanted them to be."

  You don't say. But did the UN call for a ceasefire? No. Did it say anything about the weapons bought or used by the Sri Lankan government? No.

  Now that Inner City Press has published the internal report, with its call for the Deputy Secretary General to take issues to the Security Council, when will it be implemented? Inner City Press asked, and Haq said, "this is something we're going to be in dialogue with member states about." Video here from Minute 6:07. 

 Haq said the Secretariat would be briefing NGOs and "the media" - when?

Now that the report has been obtained and published, it's time for the UN to speak out more.

  Since the slaughter, the UN has accepted one of the most involved military figures, Shavendra Silva, on the UN Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations; this month, Silva's putative boss Palitha Kohona, also involved, took over the chair of the UN General Assembly's Sixth (Legal) Committee.

  So what was learned from the cited 1999 Independent Inquiry on UN Action in Rwanda and the 1999 review on the fall of Srebrenica?

  Syria is cited in, and explains, this "Plan of Action to strengthen the UN’s role in protecting people in crises." The report says: "Today we are witnessing the agony of the Syrian people. That conflict is a test - not just of Member States’ will to fulfil their responsibilities, but of the UN’s ability to use all the tools at its disposal to make sure that people are protected."

  Again, this may explain the report: while the Western P3 members of the Security Council, the US, France and UK, did not much or at all push Ban Ki-moon to "do something" about the slaughter in Sri Lanka -- the UK is holding its Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there -- they are pushing, and hard, on the issue of Syria and ousting Bashar al Assad. So, now a UN report and plan for "Rights Up Front." What next? 

The plan says the UN will "hold accountable staff, particularly at senior levels." But if the UN can't even admit and apologize for bringing cholera to Haiti, what does accountability mean?

  If Ban's UN allows its head of peacekeeping Herve Ladsous to openly refuse to answer Press questions about mass rape by his partners in the Congolese Army, where is the accountability? Now that farce has been reported this week in the UK New Statesman, here.

 This comes after the UN's Censorship Alliance tried to oust Inner City Press for its Sri Lanka reporting, then spied against it to the UN, click here for that; it is the new Free UN Coalition for Access, despite threats from the UN, now working to further open the UN.

Watch this site.

   

On Sri Lanka, UN Now Tells ICP It May Release Report "In Days Or Weeks," When Support of Member States: Lanka Veto?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 10 -- Now that the UN's Sri Lanka report is completed, why isn't it being released? Has Sri Lanka been given some sort of veto over it? 

 After being told that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would have something to say about in September and hearing only a brief reference in one of his speeches, at the October 10 noon briefing Inner City Press asked, video here and embedded below

Inner City Press: yesterday, the Deputy Secretary-General spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations and he said as to this report, which he said is finished, that he has advised that it not be released until a part of it is implemented and, or at least as I understood, until Member States are comfortable with it. What is the benchmark? Could it be years until it is implemented? Does this involve Sri Lanka giving the green light to its release? Why wouldn’t this simply be released in the spirit of courage of speaking that he referred to? Thanks.

Associate Spokesperson: Well, first of all, in the spirit of courage of speaking, he actually, at that discussion, gave out quite a lot of the details of the report, as you will have noticed. So, he has been speaking out on this, and we will have, I think, more to say in, I believe, the days and weeks to come. I don’t think that this is a long wait, but there is a dialogue that is going on, and we will have something more to say about our follow-up to the work of the internal review panel. But, as you know, we put out the report of the internal review panel; Michael Keating has proceeded to follow up with this, and we will be able to say things about the follow-up work as they proceed. But, the Deputy Secretary-General yesterday in his discussion did discuss what the main priorities were about this particular effort and what things we seek to strengthen, including prevention, the protection of civilians and the need for faster action. And those are three priorities that we will try to uphold.

Meanwhile at the UN, Sri Lanka Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, who played a role in the 2009 end game, is now the chair of the UN's Sixth (Legal) Committee. Yesterday a representative from Slovenia speechified about working with the chair -- Sri Lanka -- to put an end to mass atrocity crimes. Really? 

And now it's reported that protests will be banned in November when the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting comes to Sri Lanka. Watch this site.

   

Shut-Down US Government Compared to Lebanon, Feltman's DPA Pitches Maldives, Not Sri Lanka: Report Still Withheld?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 4 -- During this week's shutdown (or slim-down) of the US government, analogies to various other countries and failed states have been made.

  Now former US State Department official Jeffrey Feltman, whom Inner City Press has covered this week in meetings with Iran's Hassan Rouhani and Lebanon's caretaker prime minister Najib Mikati, has brought the analogy home.

  Feltman is quoted as texting Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri that he moved on from the US government when it became too much like... Lebanon.

  At the UN, Feltman's Department of Political Affairs is sometimes kept from the biggest ticket items by the big-footing of the Permanent Five members of the Security Council, but it is active on other issues. 

  When on October 2, just before the Security Council's Great Lakes trip which Inner City Press has so far covered here and here took off, DPA at its own request briefed the Security Council about the Constitutional crisis in the Maldives.

  While the UK said that its Commonwealth has already expressed concern at delay in second round of Presidential elections, it should be noted that this Commonwealth still plans to go to Sri Lanka in November for its Heads of Government Meeting.

  Are the UK's concerns consistent? Are Ban Ki-moon's and Feltman's DPA's? Under Ban Ki-moon, did DPA ever ask for a Security Council meeting? Or was it only the British chief of Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes? And what did that come to? And where is Ban Ki-moon's report on the UN's inaction in 2009? Watch this site.