On Cholera in Haiti, UN Expert Gallon Hopes Ban Ki-moon's Visit Leads to Reparations, as UN Continues Stonewalling

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- A week after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ended his trip to Haiti and Santo Domingo after taking a single question about the UN bringing cholera to the island, the UN's independent expert Gustavo Gallon had this to say, in his statement, which Inner City Press putting online here:

“As for cholera, the independent expert noted that the Secretary General of the United Nations visited the country and traveled on 14 July to the Central Plateau, where cholera first appeared. He launched a sanitation campaign there. I hope that this visit will contribute to the implementation of the recommendation I made in my report of March 2014 on the necessity of creating a reparations commission for the victims of cholera, in order to allow the evaluation of damages, corresponding compensation or idemnification, the identification of those responsible, the stopping of the epidemic and other measures. As Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, I take this opportunity to reiterate this recommendation.”

 Back on July 16, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ban dodging questions on cholera, and about the court ruling that the state of Netherlands is liable for the deaths of 300 Bosniaks in Srebrenica. Video here and embedded below.

 Inner City Press asked Haq to comment, in the context of the more than 8000 deaths in Haiti, on this sentence: "there is a growing acceptance that an individual state can be held liable for deaths in a UN-mandated operation."

  Haq said, we are still studying it. But he has said nothing in the week since. And on July 23, based on Inner City Press' style of questioning or legal focus in questions, Haq said "You are not entitled to be at the noon briefing," video here.

  Later on July 16, Ban's office sent out what he said to the Dominican Congress: mentions of Junot Diaz and Robinson Cano, but nothing about the UN bringing cholera to Hispaniola.

   On July 15 after Ban's spokesperson's office said it had closed, it released the promised transcript of Ban's "question and answer" press conference in Haiti. To the lone cholera question, Ban said

“I and the United Nations feel very sad for the tragic death of more than 8,000 people and more than 700,000 people who have been affected by cholera. One of the main purposes of my coming to Haiti this time is to demonstrate our strong solidarity with the Government and people, particularly those affected people, the United Nations’ continuing commitment to eliminate this cholera. I will do my best as the Secretary-General to work with the partners and donors and with the World Bank to mobilize all the necessary resources to provide assistance to those affected people and to improve water and sanitation systems. This is exactly what I did yesterday with Prime Minister Lamothe in Los Palmas. Thank you.”

   That's it. At the July 15 UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson to respond to protest signs in Haiti: "Dead: 8563, Sick 704,000; Justice 0."

  Haq said Ban assures Haitians of his personal commitment, wants to be the advocate of the Haitian people.

  Inner City Press asked, will the UN apologize? (Video here and embedded below.  Here's an Inner City Press song on topic.)

   Haq replied that Ban is "anguished" about the situation.

   But is that an apology? 

  Haq said he had nothing to add. Where he gave the next question, he got back a softball which invited him to talk about money Ban's UN gave, or raied, or merely tried to raise.

  Each time Ban mentioned cholera, without once addressing who brought it to Hispanola. While an Inner City Press reader points out the troop contributing country, Nepal, the question is: wasn't the UN in charge of sanitation?

  Doesn't UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous still refuse to screen peacekeepers before deployment from cholera hot-spots? Didn't the UN dissemble about the failure to take this safeguard?

 Ban ended his first speech saying "you can count on me and the UN to do our part." Really?

  After meeting a family impacted by (the UN's) cholera, Ban said "the whole international community, including the United Nations, has a moral duty to help those people to stem the further spread of cholera." Just "including" the UN. Just because.

  In what the UN called a "press encounter," without providing any Q&A, Ban said "Lastly, in addressing all socio-economic issues as well as cholera issues, let me also underline that this is not a time for donor fatigue."

  Is that it?

  A question is whether Ban while there be served with legal papers about the UN bringing cholera to Hispanola, another topic on which Ban's spokespeople dodged and worse.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access will have more on this.

    

On Haiti Cholera, US Files "Suggestion of Immunity" for UN, No Accountability, Impunity

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 7, with a song -- On having brought cholera to Haiti, the UN on February 28 rebuffed the call of its own UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Haiti Gustavo Gallon that "diplomatic difficulties must be overcome to ensure a prompt end to the epidemic and provide full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people."

  But today the US government filed a briefing supporting the UN's immunity -- or in this case, impunity. From the State Department's briefing transcript:

 Today is the deadline, apparently, for the State Department to decide whether it wants to file a brief in this lawsuit that’s being brought by some Haitians against the United Nations. Has the Department decided whether it will file a brief in this case, and if it has, is it in support of the UN or is it in – which wants the case dismissed – or is it in support of the people bringing the case? Or is it just neutral?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, my understanding is DOJ, of course, would file the brief, right, not the State Department. But we did – the U.S. Government filed a statement of interest and suggestion of immunity yesterday, asserting that the United Nations, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Assistant Secretary General for UN Peacekeeping Operations are immune from suit in the case of – in this case.

The cholera outbreak resulted, as we all know, in a tragic loss of life just when Haiti was struggling to recover from the devastating earthquake from 2010. We, of course, first and foremost, express our sympathy for the victims of the epidemic. But in cases like this, we don’t file a brief out of a lack of empathy. We – the United States has legally binding treaty obligations that require it to afford the UN immunity from suit and also provide immunity for UN officials. That’s why it was important to file the brief and why we filed the brief.

Q: So you believe, along with the UN, that this case should be dismissed because they enjoy immunity?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we believe that they should enjoy immunity, and this brief was submitted based on the legal analysis of that issue.

    To many, this is shocking. Members of Congress have written to State Department diplomats about this case.

As this US answer was released, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was partying with in-house scribes, most of whom never pursued this most outrageous case of UN impunity, or even asked if Ban Ki-moon like a scoff law was hiding from the process server.

Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.

   

On Haiti Cholera, UN Rebuffs Expert Gallon's Report Saying "Pay Compensation," Nail & Mail Service of Lawsuit on Ban Ki-moon: Scofflaw

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 3, with a song -- On having brought cholera to Haiti, the UN on February 28 rebuffed the call of its own UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Haiti Gustavo Gallon that "diplomatic difficulties must be overcome to ensure a prompt end to the epidemic and provide full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people."

  Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond thissong, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.