Sri Lanka and Responsibility to Protect Arise in UN, Would Ban Take to Council under Article 99?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1may7srilanka050809.html

UNITED NATIONS, May 8 -- With bombs dropping on civilians in Northern Sri Lanka and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon still mulling the government's invitation to visit, the talk at the UN has turned to the Responsibility to Protect. On May 6 at a reception attended by Ban Ki-moon and Ed Luck, his special adviser on R2P, as it known, Inner City Press asked Luck how the concept would apply to Sri Lanka. "To both sides," Luck answered.

He noted that R2P was formally cited during Kofi Annan's mediation in Kenya. Inner City Press asked what he thought of the appointment of former Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen as the adviser to the President of the General Assembly on R2P. While diplomatically praising Sen, Luck remarked that India was the "last country to come aboard" on the R2P Outcome Document in 2005.

In May 7, Inner City Press asked Nirupam Sen for his views on R2P, specifically regarding Sri Lanka. While refusing to answer on Sri Lanka, Sen insisted first the India wasn't the last to join consensus in 2005, then that it had only held out to make the points of "U.S. civil society groups." Sen said that India's position had been that R2P should only be a UN doctrine if the use of the Security Council veto by five countries were repealed, to "eliminate the strategic imperatives of any great power." Video here, from Minute 41:42.

Ironically, it is China's and to some degree Russia's veto threats which have kept the carnage in Sri Lanka off of the Council's formal agenda, and keep the Council "dialogues" on the topic confined to the basement.

Inner City Press asked asked Sen about Sri Lanka's application to the International Monetary Fund for a $1.9 billion loan, and whether the bloodshed and internment camps in the North should be considered. Sen said that "anything the IMF does to reduce and tone down conditionality is a step in the right direction," toward "mitigating humanitarian impact." But what if the loan is used to involuntarily relocate and detain people? The IMF wouldn't do that, Sen implied. But wouldn't they?

On May 8, Inner City Press asked a senior Ban adviser about Sri Lanka's invitation. I don't think the Secretary General should go, the adviser replied. The government could just use it. He suggested that, instead, Ban should invoke Article 99 of the UN Charter and push to put Sri Lanka on the Council's agenda, in the name of R2P. The draft outcome document gives the Secretary General that role, Ban's adviser said. Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson about this an hour later, but she said she had nothing to add to what Ban had said on May 5.

Ban's Deputy Spokesperson announced on Friday an upcoming trip by Ban, not to Sri Lanka but Manama, Bahrain. To many these seem to be strange priorities.

Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert if his foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, another major player in R2P, is requesting a Security Council session on May 11, when he and his UK counter-part David Miliband will be in New York. Ripert said, "On the side of the meeting on the Middle East... we are organizing with UK a meeting... we are working on the exact form." Video here, from Minute 10:53.

Footnote 1: According to NGO sources, Ambassador Ripert in a recent meeting with them said, of Sri Lanka's Army, "their war is our war," which the NGOs took to mean the "war on terror." Some wondered if this didn't just give a green light to the Sri Lankan Army. We'll see: we will report on this site any response received, on France's view of Sri Lanka (or in advance of the Council's trip to Africa next week of MONUC in the Congo appearing in a memo in French to work with a war criminal.)

Footnote 2: In what could be called an R2P cat fight, Nirupan Sen's criticism of Ban's adviser Ed Luck went further, when Sen said the Fifth (Budget) Committee was right to refuse to confirm him in his post, and to keep him on "a dollar a year." Inner City Press asked Luck about the dollar, and if he has a UN phone number. Of the latter, Luck said he still doesn't, but that at the UN there are many people with phones but the Secretary General doesn't pick up at the other end. And if the call came from the Vanni conflict zone, would Mr. Ban pick up?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1may7srilanka050809.html

As India Criticizes UN's Ban on Nepal, Will He Counter-Attack as on Zimbabwe?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- Nepal has been one of the UN's recent success stories, if seen in context, at least for now. But even on this, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has managed to get publicly criticized. Nepal recently requested a six-month extension of the UN Mission in Nepal, UNMIN. Ban responded with a report asking for more clarification from Nepal, and stating that "should this matter remain unresolved by the time the Council considers the present report, I would recommend a one-month extension."

In the July 18 Security Council session about Nepal, the Ambassador of India Nirupam Sen said "it is difficult to accept parts of the Secretary-General's latest report... It seems inappropriate for [Ban] to advise this Council to extend the mandate for one month unless Nepal's request is 'clarified.' In other words, unless Nepal's request is in line with what UNMIN want it to say, the request is not good enough."

Minutes later at the UN's regular noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to India's critique. She noted that Ban's Special Representative Ian Martin had, in his comments that morning to the Council, recommended at six-month rather than one-month extension. But Martin's statement was made before the Indian Ambassador spoke; India went forward and criticized Ban anyway, criticized him for even asking for the clarification.

One week ago, when Zimbabwe's Ambassador said that "the Secretariat" could not be viewed as impartial, because the UN Department of Political Affairs' reports on Zimbabwe only criticized the government and never the opposition, Ban's Spokesperson responded with a statement on Saturday expressing "deep concern" at the "highly inappropriate" comments of the Zimbabwean Ambassador. This stood in contrast to this Spokesperson's declining to criticize or respond to comments by Russia's Ambassador, about law-breaking in connection with Ban's reconfiguration of the UN Mission in Kosovo. The theory was that since Russia is a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, and could veto any second term by Ban, his office did not express concern when criticized by Russia. On July 15, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson Okabe

Inner City Press: Over the weekend, your Office put out a statement calling a statement by the Zimbabwe Ambassador highly inappropriate and unacceptable, for having said that, in his opinion, DPA reports were one-sided. How are his comments different from ones like those of Russian Ambassador Churkin, who said the Secretariat was breaking the law with EULEX, and then I was told it was just his right to have that opinion? What’s the basis for calling an Ambassador’s commentary highly inappropriate?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: It's evident that the Secretary-General felt strongly about the Ambassador's remarks, because, as you know, the Secretary-General has been discussing the situation in Zimbabwe and how to bring a resolution to that situation with parties in the region. He's been talking with SADC, with his partners, all regional parties and this is an area where he’s been working very closely. And, as you know, he had dispatched an envoy to the region and I think that he did not find such comments helpful to the efforts that he was exerting.

Inner City Press: I think that's something people don't understand, like on Kosovo. He's making a lot of efforts, but he’s been subject to criticism. So what's the difference? Is it that Russia’s one of the P-5?

Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I'm not going to engage in comparing the situations. That's the way he felt about this situation and I gave you the reason why.

But did Ban change his proposal from one month to six months entirely because he was satisfied with Nepal's clarification? Or because India, a country certainly larger than Zimbabwe and that wants a permanent seat on the Security Council, let it be known, even before Friday morning's meeting, of its dissatisfaction with him even asking for clarification?

Why did India go forward with its public critique even after Ian Martin announced Ban's new position? Since the critique is that by demanding the clarification, Ban made Nepal say what he wanted to hear, recommending a six month extension after receiving the requested clarification does not answer the critique. After making his statement, Ambassador Sen said he will only offer further explanation after the Security Council votes on the Nepal mission extension, currently slated for Tuesday, July 22. Ian Martin will speak at that time, as well, hopefully to offer an update on the deadly UNMIN helicopter crash among other topics.

It's worth noting that the same Department of Political Affairs which Zimbabwe's Ambassador criticized oversees Martin's UNMIN mission, and is in this cas being criticized by India.

For now, given Ban's response a week ago to Zimbabwe's criticism, will his Office respond to India's similar critique?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1nepal071808.html

In UNIFEM Spin, Alberdi Speaks Only to Spanish Media, India Calls Sen More Qualified, UNDP Silent

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1unifem041008.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 10 -- What carries more weight, in today's United Nations, $700 million or one billion people? The doling out of the top UNIFEM post this week to Ines Alberdi of Spain, which recently gave $700 million to the UN Development Program, over the official candidate of more-populous India, Gita Sen, implies that money still rules the UN.

On Thursday Inner City Press asked India's Ambassador to the UN, Nirupam Sen, what he thought of the selection. While remaining diplomatic, he said that the (unrelated) Gita Sen "was the more qualified candidates." Since UNDP made a point, 18 minutes after its selection of Alberdi over Sen, of issuing a press release granting the top spot for Asia in UNDP to another Indian, Ajay Chhibber, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Nirupam Sen if he thought that made things right, and if the two appointments were connected.

"I don't think so," Amb. Sen said. Chhibber was already "part of the system... he's not a person in India, coming to work for the UN," he said, noting the Chhibber already worked in the international system. " I don't think you can equate the two," Amb. Sen concluded. UNDP, of course, hasn't answered any of these charges, and Administrator Kemal Dervis has been nowhere to be seen.

Meanwhile, to try to quell the controversy, Ms. Alberdi held a press conference on Thursday at the Spanish mission -- but only for the Spanish press. Ms. Alberdi was asked if she thought that Spain's grants, of $700 million to UNDP and over $11million to UNIFEM, played a role in her selection; she reportedly replied that she couldn't deny there might be some connection. She also argued that President Zapatero's policies on women were be recognized via her appointment.
News analysis: but why then limit Ms. Alberdi's press availability to media from her own nation, which benefited from the transactions with the UN? In Spain, it may be popular to said, we got something back, for the money we are giving. But non-Spanish media would ask the inconvenient question, did you buy the post, and how does Spain and Zapatero feel about in some view stealing a post from a developing country? Watch this space.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1unifem041008.html