UN Shields DRC Rape Units, Its Logic is Secrecy, Its Scribes File Complaints

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 11 -- With the UN belatedly announcing, after Press questions for more than three months, that it has written to two units of the Congolese Army to prosecute for the 126 rapes at Minova in late November or face suspension of UN support -- why not identify the units?

  UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refused on camera to answer Inner City Press questions about the Minova rapes on November 27, December 7 and December 18, when he directed his spokesperson to seize the UNTV microphone to try to avoid the Inner City Press question.

  Then after Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Ladsous' and the UN's inaction on the rapes on March 5, suddenly DPKO on March 7 convened friendly scribes who had not asked about the rapes.

  DPKO told them of a letter to two unidentified Congolese Army units on February 4 -- more than a month before the briefing -- and of a deadline, which it would not specify. These refusals were not noted in the scribes' stories.

  On March 8 Inner City Press asked Ladsous - without answer - then Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky what the deadline is. There was no answer. 

  

At the next UN noon briefing on March 11, Inner City Press asked Nesirky WHY the UN will not disclose the identity of at least the army units:

Inner City Press: there is a follow-up I want to ask you about the rapes in Minova. I tried to figure out why at this point DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], if they have first privately briefed and then publicly announced that they have warned two units of the Congolese army to begin prosecutions or that support will be suspended, why they won’t identify the units.

I’ve asked you before whether it is the 802 and 1001 regiments, but what I am trying to understand is, it’s not about due process for an individual. It seems like these are units that they have written to, that either we’ll prosecute and that will be public, or they will suspend aid and I am assuming that will be public. And I would like you to confirm that if and when MONUSCO [United Nations Operation Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] suspends aid to these two units, if they do it, will that be public, and if so, what’s the rationale for not identifying the units at this time? It seems to be a form of impunity or a grace period or three strikes and you are out. I just want to know, what’s the thinking behind it?

Spokesperson Nesirky: The thinking behind it is that there is a process under way. You have noted that there have been warnings that have been sent to the relevant authorities, and there is a deadline there, and after that point, if the Department of Peacekeeping Operations deems it to be necessary, they will then do as they have said and they would limit or stop or suspend support to those units. However, at this point, this is something that is still in train, there is still a process under way, and that’s the simple logic behind it.

Inner City Press: in thinking it through, it seems like if they prosecute, that would be public, it seems to me. Even from the UN’s point of view, there probably needs to be closure to the story. So, one way or another, either they will say, these are the two units and they did prosecute, and that’s great, or they will say, these are the two units they didn’t prosecute, and they are out. But it seems like either way, the units are going to have to be made public, so why keep them back in a way that makes the policy look less than meaningful... to some?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I am glad you added that bit at the end.

Inner City Press: Sure.

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think that you have explained the logic yourself. You might not agree with it, but you have explained the logic, and I don’t really have anything further to add on that.

  But what is the logic? Is the UN planning to try to keep it secret, either prosecution or suspension of support? What kind of “Human Rights Due Diligence Policy” is this?

  Click here to see short video, third in #LADSOUS2013 series.

  Meanwhile as partially recounted above, after Ladsous' DPKO on March 7 sought out friendly journalists to spin about the February 4 letter, Inner City Press on March 8 asked Ladsous, which two units and what's the deadline? 

  Ladsous refused to answer, and another journalist at the UN Security Council stakeout asked Inner City Press about it. Inner City Press answered, and AFP's Tim Witcher hissed, “lies and distortions.” Inner City Press replied, as it already had in writing, “lapdog.”

  But on March 11 Inner City Press was informed by UN Security that Witcher and the Reuters' correspondent had converted this verbal interchange into a security complaint.

   Inner City Press has asked to see a copy of the complaint, and has asked what rules apply, and if there are any rules about frivolous or pretextual complaints. Only at the UN. Watch this site.

Ladsous Shields DRC Rapes Units, ICP's Named 802 & 1001 Regiments, Banning Truth?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 11 -- For 126 rapes in Minova from November 20 to 22, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations is belatedly blaming two Congolese army units -- but it will not identify them.

  Back in December, Inner City Press exclusively reported that during the rapes, the Congolese Army FARDC 802 Regiment and 1001 Regiment were in Minova.

  On March 5, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon what if anything had been done by the UN about the rapes.

  On March 7, DPKO responded with a private briefing for scribes who'd never even asked about the rapes, excluding Inner City Press which three times asked DPKO chief Herve Ladsous about the rapes, until he had his spokesperson seize the UNTV microphone to try to avoid the question, video here.

  DPKO's chosen scribes wrote stories that two unidentified units had been given an unspecified deadline to prosecute, they said, in a February 4 letter.

  On March 8, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to identify the units and the deadline. He declined, but went further than DPKO in disclosing 200 witness statements about sexual violence, and a “final” February 18 letter.

  But why NOT identify the units? One of the scribes said that DPKO's March 7 briefing was not for attribution because the contacts with the DRC were “private.” Not anymore. Earlier the UN told Inner City Press that for “due process” even the units would not be identified.

  But now, either the prosecutions will begin before that UN's undisclosed deadline -

- and prosecutions are public -- or they will not, and the UN will ostensibly suspend support to the units, which of course should be public. 

   Or might this basic information NOT be public, in the UN of Herve Ladsous and ultimately Ban Ki-moon? Watch this site -- and watch this short March 10 video, third in the #LADSOUS2013 series.

Ladsous' Cover Up: UN Says Helps FARDC in Ituri, But Not Which Units & If In Minova During Rapes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 16 -- While the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations claims it will not work with or support units of the Congolese army which engage in rape or other abuse, DPKO chief Herve Ladsous has three times on camera refused to answer Press questions about Congolese Army rapes in late November in Minova. 

 Click for videos of November 27, December 7 & December 18.

The UN has even refused to say which units of the Congolese army it works with. 

   But when it was reported that in a particular operations in Mambasa the UN supported the Congolese Army or FARDC, Inner City Press on January 15 asked about it.

   Twenty four hours later, just as the January 16 UN noon briefing became, Nesirky's office emailed Inner City Press this:

On 5 January, the Mayi Mayi Simba militia attacked and captured the city of Mambasa, Ituri, in Province Orientale. The next day, on 6 January, MONUSCO supported the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) in an operation against Mayi Mayi Simba, which led to the recapturing of the city of Mambasa. The FARDC is now in full control of Mambasa Town and MONUSCO is carrying out joint patrols with FARDC.

  The response totally ignores Inner City Press' question of WHICH UNITS of the FARDC were being supported by the UN. How can Ladsous' DPKO spend public money and refuse to disclose who it is helping?

  The UN also provided a response about the "Minova investigations" which still does not specify which FARDC unit were there -- Inner City Press is aware of, at least, Regiment 802 and Regiment 1001 -- nor even how many soldiers are accused of the rapes, as opposed to looting.

  To many, this has become Ladsous' cover up. And where is Ladsous? Watch this site.

Has HRW Lost Its Way in DRC, Silent As UN Stonewalls on 126 FARDC Rapes in Minova, Human Rights Policy?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 28 -- After the UN belatedly admitted that its partner the Congolese Army committed at least 126 rapes in Minova in late November, and top UN Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous openly refused to answer questions about the rapes, among the notably silent has been Human Rights Watch.

  HRW has historically been focused on Eastern Congo, particular though now deceased Alison Des Forges. But of late, HRW director Ken Roth has only one line on the Congo: the M23 mutineers are bad; Rwanda supports them; so Rwanda is bad and should not be in the UN Security Council.

  It's an advocacy line, but Human Rights Watch usually pretends to be objective at least while it is collecting facts. This model would be, compile a multi-sided depiction of a zone of conflict, name the bad actors on all sides, and then advocate.

  Here, HRW has made its position clear and now pays -- at least "travel costs" -- for evidence to support its position, as Liberation has reiterated with reporting from Project Healin Goma.

  But HRW being "all in" against M23 means it has failed with regard to not only the Congolese Army, whose Regiments including 802 and 1001 were in Minova during the mass rapes, but also with regard to the UN.

  The UN claims to have a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, that it will not support or work with army units engaged in abuses. But on November 27, December 7 and December 18, the UN's Herve Ladsous openly refused to answer any Press questions about which units were in Minova.

  Even asking at the UN noon briefing and repeatedly in writing, the UN won't list which FARDC units it works with.

  This would seem to be a HRW issue -- "Human Rights" and all -- but HRW is nowhere to be seen. Its UN "director" Philippe Bolopion, formerly of Le Monde and France 24, has penned an anti M23 and anti Rwanda post in the Herald Tribune.

   From the view in front of the UNSC, Bolopion's references to the "lifesaving work of the Security Council" and claim that "few countries dare challenge the Security Council the way Rwanda does" ring false.

  Earlier Bolopion refused to answer Inner City Press on even the topics Roth met with the UN about.  Bolopion for HRW told Inner City Press, "To preserve our ability to have frank discussions with UN officials and advance our advocacy goals, we don't typically communicate on the content of discussions we have with them."  

  When Inner City Press asked the questions again on December 16, Bolopion did not answer it. Again we ask, are only HRW donors told about HRW's meetings with the UN?

  More to this point, did Roth meet with Ladsous? What is HRW's position on Ladsous' refusal to answer basic questions about the UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy? 

   The question has been posed, to Ken Roth and two other HRW staffers. Watch this site.

As UN Raises Minova Rapes to 70, Ladsous Hasn't Answered, on Regiments 802 or 1001

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5, updated with video -- First the UN said there were 21 rapes in Minova while the Congolese Army FARDC was there in late November.

 But UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refused repeatedly to answer Press questions, about which FADRC regiments were in Minova at the time, and if his MONUSCO mission works with them, under the UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy.

  Click here for video of Ladsous refusing Press questions on the Minova rapes, then taking chosen correspondents into the hall.

  On December 3, the UN told Inner City Press that it had not been able to access Minova to get this information. But as noted, UNICEF was able to deliver medical supplies soon after the rapes, and journalists traveled there.

  From such eye witnesses, Inner City Press knows of at least two FARDC regiments present during the rape spree. But shouldn't it be UN Peacekeeping which discloses what it knows, if its supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy is to have any meaning?

   On December 5, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky read out a statement that an inter agency assessment team had gotten to Minova, and upped the number of rapes to 70, saying that the 70 survivors are receiving treatment. (Actually, Inner City Press is informed that at least one of the rape victims died.)

   So Inner City Press asked again, which units of the FARDC, which with the UN works, were present in Minova during the 70 rapes? Video here, from Minute 14:39.

   Nesirky said the statement is all he had, but that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations was listening to the questions.

   Inner City Press then asked, yes or no, whether FARDC regiments 802 and 1001 were in Minova during the time at issue, and whether the UN works with either regiment. Three hours later and counting, there has been no answer. Nor to the previous questions about which FARDC units have re-entered Goma, and which units the UN is working. Here was Ladsous on Nov 27:

  At the Security Council stakeout later on Wednesday, December 5, Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about the UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. (Unlike Ladsous (here, on Abyei and Sudan), Araud now answers Press questions, click here for Mali coverage.)

  On DRC Araud said that if the UN find units or personnel which engaged in abuse, "the UN should cease supporting these units, that is I think the rules in DRC." Video here, from Minute 11:50. We'll see, in this test case. Watch this site.