Ladsous Bans Inner City Press Q&A With Mali FM Diop, Protecting Himself from Rape Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1 -- When Mali's Foreign Minister Abdulaye Diop came to the UN General Assembly stakeout on October 1, Inner City Press was prepared to ask him about the International Criminal Court case about the destruction of cultural heritage in Timbuktu.

  But the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who even earlier on October 1 openly refused to answer Inner City Press questions about UN Peacekeeping rapes andLadsous having linked them to "R&R," here, acted like he owned the UN and its stakeout, and not the member state(s).

  Ladsous had his spokesperson order the UN Television boom microphone operator to keep the mic away from Inner City Press; he solicited another questioner to ask. But does Ladsous have the right to make it impossible to ask a question to a member state's foreign minister?

  Not only are Ladsous' comments on the rape an embarrassment to the UN and to several Troop Contributing Countries -- now Ladsous' defensiveness is putting the UN Secretariat at odds with, essentially censoring, member states, at least those from Africa.

  One observer asked, afterward, would Ladsous does this with the Foreign Minister of Ukraine? Of Slovakia? Is Ladsous' strange entitlement limited to (Francophone) African countries? We'll have more on this.

When UN Peacekeepers are determined, by the UN itself, to have killed three civilians in Mali by using excessive force, what accountability is there?  None - and UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous on April 2 refused to answer questions about his own responsibility. Video here.Vine here.  

 On June 23, Inner City Press asked Mali's foreign minister Diop to confirm that the UN is going to pay compensation to the families of those its peacekeepers killed in Gao. He told Inner City Press to "ask the UN."

  And so Inner City Press did ask, at the June 23 noon briefing:

Inner City Press: This is something that the Malian Foreign Minister said to ask you.  So, I want to say that in advance before asking you.  And it has to do with whether… I asked him whether the UN is in fact going to pay monetary compensation to civilians that were killed by peacekeepers in Gao in that report that was issued some time ago.  And he said:  You should ask the UN.  So, I'm asking you.  Is the…

Spokesman:  Okay.  I will… let me check on what we'd announced at the time, and I'll get back to you.  [He later added that a compensation fund had been set up by the Department of Field Support.]

 The bracketed material, Dujarric's Office added to the transcript, after emailing Inner City Press this:

"Regarding your question on compensation for casualties in Gao, Mali, we would like to recall that a compensation fund has been set up by the Department of Field Support."

  Inner City Press has been told - NOT by the Spokesperson's Office -- that the UN is calculating how much to pay each family in Mali. But why has the UN paid NOTHING to the families of those killed by the cholera the UN brought to Haiti? Inner City Press asked the UN's Mali envoy Mongi Hamdi, who gamely tried to distinguish the two cases, focusing on the UN exonerating itself in Haiti. We'll have more on this.

  On June 11, the day after an attack against Malian military posts in the south of the country that killed one soldier and injured two, MINUSMA issued a statement which the Free UN Coalition for Access translates here:

  “MINUSMA firmly condemns the cowardly terrorist attack  against posts of the Malian military and security forces in Misseni / Kadiolo, in the south of Mali. The attack early on the morning of June 10 killed one soldier and injured two, as well as causing physical damage. MINUSMA offers its condolence to the Government and Armed Forces of Mali as well as to the soldier's family. The Mission wishes a fast recovery for the two wounded soldiers. MINUSMA again underlines the urgency of advancing the peace process to ensure that the Government and the stakeholders can combine their efforts and act in unity to put an end to the terrorism which threatens Mali and its people.”

  That the attack happened in southern and not northern Mali may be a bad omen.

After his May 16 press conference in Bamako, Ladsoussaid the UN's report about its killings in Gao will never be released; follow up question here. During the press conference, tellingly, Ladsous berated Malians for not sufficiently thanking... France and its Force Serval. Audio here, Minute 27:52.  

  Ladsous said, referring to criticism of him and his mission by Mali's president and others at the signing ceremony the day before, "Did I hear a single word of thanks for France and its Operation Serval? No." (Translation by Free UN Coalition for Access.)

   In this use of his UN post to serve France, for which he was a (most undiplomatic) diplomat for decades, this is similar to Ladsous' much worse intervention into the process of the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights in trying to get fired OHCHR whistleblower Anders Kompass, who exposed reports of French Sangaris Force soldiers raping children.

  This appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal rulingreinstating Kompass, at Paragraph 9. It was not contested by OHCHR.  Ladsous, breaking with his striking refusal to answer Press questions, told Inner City Press, "I deny that." Video here.

 But Ladsous has not explained or answered what he is denying: getting involved in l'affaire Kompass at all, or just the wording? Ladsous was not asked this question in Bamako. 

 On May 18, Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq who Ladsous was speaking for:

Inner City Press: Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous of DPKO held a press conference in Bamako over the weekend.  There was some criticism, by actually the President of Mali, of the mission.  But, I wanted to ask specifically, in his press conference, he said that he sort of chided, he said:  Was there even a word of thanks for its operation in Sangaris?  No.  Isn't that curious?  And I wanted to know, in what capacity was he saying that?  Is the UN?  Does the UN have a position on Malians not being sufficiently grateful to France or was he speaking in some other capacity?

Deputy Spokesman:  I don't have any real comment.  I would just refer you to the text of his statements.  And if you have anything further, you can ask our colleagues in peacekeeping.

  Later on May 18, a well placed African Permanent Representative said "Ladsous should resign."

 On May 10, two UN Peacekeepers were wounded in Mopti in Mali, see below.

 Now Ladsous is under fire for appearing in a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling as urging the firing of the whistleblower who exposed rapes by French soldiers in the Central African Republic. Ladsous denied it - to Inner City Press - but the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not dispute it. Accountability?

 On May 10 "around 1 pm, the forces of MINUSMA on patrols hit a mine or an improvised explosive device 25 kilometers from Tenenkou, in the region of Mopti,” MISUMSA said in a statement.

  “Two blue helmets were seriously injured by the explosion and their evacuation to the MINUSMA hospital in Timbuktu was underway, MINUSMA said.

   “The head of MINUSMA Mongi Hamdi strongly the attack against the peacekeepers and emphasized that MINUSMA remains more determined than ever to implement its mandate in support of Mali and its people.”

 On May 8, the UN announced what the Press already knew, that Mbaranga Gasarabwe, a Rwandan national, is moving from the Department of Safety and Security in New York to become Hamdi's deputy in Mali. We wish her well.

Tellingly, Ladsous refused an invitation to attend a "protection of civilians" high level event in Rwanda in May, click here for that scoop.

 Back on April 27 the MINUSMA mission issued a statement that the Platforme group attacked the town of Manaka, loosely translated by Inner City Press below. But how does UN Peacekeeping killing civilians, then its boss refusing to answer or even take questions about it, impact the UN's credibility?

 Here is our loose translation of the MINUSMA press release of April 27:

SRSG Mongi Hamdi called for the armed groups to immediately cease hostilities and return to their positions. “This resurgence of tension puts in jeopardy all efforts to restore durable peace in Mali,” Hamdi said. MINUSMA said that on Monday near noon the mission learned of an attack launched by the MAA-Platform and GATIA groups on the town of Menaka, held by elements of the Coordination of Movement of Azawad (CMA). MINUSMA said it deployed helicopters to evaluate the situation.

Hamdi went to Nouakchott on April 26 to meet the representatives of the CMA, who reaffirmed their adherence to the peace process under way, and confirmed their intention to initial the agreement.

“Two months of intense negotiations involving all of the parties with a view to put an end to the Malian crisis could be threatened. These actions are a grave violation of the ceasefire accords reiterated in the declaration of February 19, 2105,” Hamdi said in his statement.

Hamdi also cited the UN Security Council's statement of February 6 which threatened the imposition of targeted sanctions on anyone who returned to hostilities and violated the ceasefire.

“I therefore appeal for calm and reason for the benefit of all Malians. The only solution to this crisis is through the route of dialogue. I remain convinced that all the parties will show wisdom and reason and sign this historic peace agreement,” Hamdi said.

  Here's what Inner City Press asked the UN about Darfur on April 27:

Inner City Press: on Darfur, I saw the clarification put out by UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur], but the Government of Sudan is saying that the UNAMID peacekeepers killed seven civilians, and I wonder, what… beyond just UNAMID putting out a press release, some of which in the past have been press releases that the UN has ultimately walked away from, is there an intention to do the type of report that was done in Mali when people were killed or in Haiti when people… when people were shot at?

Deputy Spokesman Frahan haq:  On that, I actually expect that we will have a statement from the Spokesman for the Secretary-General responding to the latest events in Darfur.  So, I'll wait until… until we get that.

Inner City Press:  But, is the protocol if a Member State alleges that UN peacekeepers have killed civilians to do such a report, or is there no such protocol?

Deputy Spokesman:  Like I said… first of all, I… as you know, you're aware of the press release from UNAMID, which is their clarification of the situation, and then beyond that, we do expect to have a statement attributable to the Spokesperson.

  But when the statement came it did not even mention the government's allegations. Khartoum's credibility may be low - but what about Ladsous'? We'll have more on this.

   

UN on Rapes Scandal Sends Central African Republic Deputy Diane Corner Not Herve Ladsous, UNanswered Questions, TCCs Given Six Months to Even Start Probes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it a year ago, the UN and UNICEF did nothing, until French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower in March of this year.

  Babacar Gaye but not Ladsous was fired by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; Inner City Press obtained and put Gaye's letter online here(credited here and here)  citing systemic problems.

 On August 20 it was Gaye's deputy Diane Corner who took questions about the new round of rape allegations - and not DPKO boss Ladsous. Inner City Press asked Corner if Ladsous when he was in Bangui on April 28 was briefed about the rapes -- more about this later. Video here.

 Corner did not answer that, insteading saying that she spoke with Ladsous earlier in the day. So why wasn't he the one answering questions?

On August 19 the UN disclosed three more rape allegations in CAR. UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci said UNHQ learned of the allegations on "August 13 or 14." Then why not disclose them until August 19?  Inner City Press asked Maestracci if Ladsous will answer.Video here.

  Later on August 19 the UN issued a page and a half "in reponse to questions at the Noon Briefing," which @InnerCityPress tweeted hereand here.

  The UN says that in 2015 as of July 31 -- that is, before the one Bangui August 3 and three Bambari rapes now disclosed -- there've been nine allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse recorded by OIOS for MINUSCA.

 In one case, the contributing country itself asked for repatriation. This is not a trial or discipline.

Even this self-serving presentation is inconsistent with that UN spokesperson Maestracci said earlier in the day. For example, she said “Per procedure, the Troop Contributing Country has been asked to indicate within ten days if it intends to investigate the allegations itself. Should the member State decline to investigate or fail to respond, the UN will rapidly conduct its own investigation.”

  But this supposed ten day deadline is not, apparently, the procedures. In the “fact” sheet distributed later on August 19, the UN disclosed a rape allegation notified to the member state on July 29 then says “Response is awaited from the member state.” Awaited after more than twenty, rather than 10, days?

 Inner City Press specifically asked Corner about this, but it was not explained.

What was said is that the UN gives TCCs SIX MONTHS to even name a National Investigative Officer. How much evidence is left after that much time? We'll have more on this.

 The UN gave a second round of questions to Agence France Presse, but not Inner City Press. Watch this site.

  Likeness the ten (or is it twenty?) day deadline can be extended. In another case, the UN says it notified the member state on July 6; “further request to member state, providing further details on identity of the military personnel was sent on 3 August. Response is awaited from the member state -- more than forty days after the first request, and more than two weeks after the second request.

  And this is by the UN's own accounting. It is time for an outside accounting and investigation, and for UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous to be held accountable.

  Inner City Press observed Ladsous, who has answered no questions on the scandals, emerge smiling from the Security Council on August 19. Inner City Press asked Council President Joy Ogwu if Ladsous, in briefing Councnil members in consultations, disclosed the new rape charges. No, he did not.

  We'll have more on this.

Here is some of what Meastracci read out, previously tweeted by@InnerCityPress:

   “On the Central African Republic, the UN Mission there said this morning that a new series of disturbing allegations of misconduct have recently come to light. The events allegedly took place in recent weeks. These new allegations concern a report that three young females, including a minor, were raped by three members of a MINUSCA military contingent.

  “The allegations were reported to the Mission's Human Rights Division on 12 August 2015 by the families of the three women. After receiving the report, the Mission informed the UN Headquarters in New York, which notified the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Troop Contributing Country in question. The Department of Field Support has requested to meet with the Member state immediately.

  “Per procedure, the Troop Contributing Country has been asked to indicate within ten days if it intends to investigate the allegations itself. Should the member State decline to investigate or fail to respond, the UN will rapidly conduct its own investigation..

  “The Mission reiterates its commitment to combating all forms of misconduct by its personnel. It calls on anyone in possession of information to come forward in this regard and assures them that they will be protected,” the statement on Wednesday concluded."

 Protected like Anders Kompass?

   Consider for example the sadly similar report of UN Peacekeepers raping underaged girls in the DR Congo on which Inner City Press reported in August 2012, noting even then that Ladsous refused to answer Press questions about peacekeeping-related rapes.

  In those cases, reported by Victoria Fontan then of theUniversity for Peace, it is not clear even if the peacekeepers are issued were disciplined or put on trial.

 Inner City Press on August 17 asked UN Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci about the cases. After being told "you are so no interested in the answers" and then to ask such questions by email rather than in the briefing - why? - Inner City Press has sent this to Maestracci and the lead spokesman:

"At today's noon briefing, after a presentation from the podium about how the UN will follow through, be transparent and help victim(s) of the August 3 rape allegations in the Central African Republic, I asked about the following previous (sample) case in the DR Congo and was told to just “email the information” (and, apparently, not asked about it in other ways, like at the briefing).

In any case, this is the case that I asked about, and I am reiterating the request for the UN and DPKO to say what ever happened in this specific case, which I asked about in 2012 and which was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, here:

'In February, 2011, two orphans, Gisèle, then 14, and her sister Espérance, 15, were attacked by five soldiers, three from MONUSCO and two from the Congo’s notoriously undisciplined and brutal army. While the Congolese were beating Gisèle, Espérance was gang raped and beaten by the three white MONUSCO soldiers. She was both badly injured and pregnant. Last October, Espérance gave birth by cesarean section. Her son died two days later.'

"What did the Mission, DPKO and the UN do about this, and what was the outcome?"

  On August 19, Maestracci said the UN has no records of these cases.Video here. We hope to have more on this.

Why haven't the SRSGs of other missions like in the DR Congo (or South Sudan) been treated like Gaye?  Consider the nation(s) they come from. And the boss and responsible of it all, Ladsous? We'll have more on this.

  After Ban Ki-moon briefed the Security Council behind closed doors, US Ambassador Samantha Power but not UNSC President Joy Ogwu of Nigeria spoke for 24 minutes at the stakeout (while taking questions only from Reuters, AP and the WSJ.)

  On August 14, Inner City Press asked Central African Republic and UN Peacekeeping rape questions to Ambasssador Joy Ogwu (video here); she replied to Inner City Press:

"Well, I thought I would brief yesterday, but I waited for a long time, this podium was busy, so I decided to leave. Well, there was a consensus on the action that was taken. I think it was Shakespeare who said, there is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. The Secretary General got to the point where he drew the line. To say, to indicate that there is, and to reaffirm zero tolerance on this matter of sexual violence against women. I don’t think there were any differences on the action that he took, we supported that action, and indeed that it should broaden beyond the Central African Republic. All the contributors, troop contributors, must be that way, that the point of no return has been reached, and it needs to be taken very very seriously. It had to happen at some point. That’s some line, the dividing line. So there was no specific target."

 (The UN's UNIFEED, here, cut the podium reference and Inner City Press' question.)

 Also on August 14 Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on sexual abuse and UN peacekeeping.  In this room, a couple of times, you've used this figure of 57 complaints and 11 having to do with sexual abuse or sexual exploitation in MINUSCA [United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic].  And you've said to look at the report to UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] for comparison.  But, when you look at that report, it doesn't… MINUSCA's not even in the top three.  So, are the numbers that you're using are comparable to these numbers, or can you produce similar numbers for other missions to know what the scope of the problem is?

Spokesman:  Those numbers that we have are the most updated numbers for MINUSCA.  If we have other updated numbers for other missions, we'll share them with you. [After the briefing, none were provided.]

Inner City Press:  That's what we've been asking for, for several days.

Spokesman:  Okay.

Inner :  Okay.  I wanted to ask you about a quote that was given by the Spokesman for MINUSCA that I'm sure you may have seen, to Lauren Wolfe for Foreign Policy magazine..  I'm going to read you this quote, because I think you'll have a response to it.  Mr. Hamadoun Touré said as follows:  "When peacekeepers arrived at the site, they were attacked immediately with heavy weapons.  I'm sorry, but I don't think someone would think of raping someone at this time.  I think they just think of escape.  He will think, I'm a human being before I am a man.  If you're under fire, I think you're just saving your life.  Really, in this situation, you don't really think of a girl," i.e. equating the rape of a 12-year-old with being a man or… what do you think of this comment and… and what… what are the implications of it?

Spokesman:  I think the comment does not reflect in any way, shape or form the opinion of the Secretary-General, the United Nations or the peacekeeping mission.  Clearly, our thoughts and our work and our focus should be on the victims of sexual abuse, whether in the CAR [Central African Republic] or anywhere else.  There is no excuse for rape, none, period.  So, that's what I'm saying.  So, the quote is of… does not in any way reflect the position of the Secretary-General, the peacekeeping or the Mission itself.

Inner City Press:  Do you… I’d say the problems extend, go both below Mr. [Babacar] Gaye but also above Mr. Gaye.  It seems like… the final thing I wanted to ask you is…

Spokesman:  Matthew, I will come back to you.

 After this cut-off, later more:

Dujarric: Mr. Lee?

Inner City Press: Here's what I was trying to ask you about CAR, and I also want to ask about Burundi.  The Government Accountability Project, who, you know, we've… you've said from there you respect much, said:  "In demanding Gaye's resignation, the Secretary-General apparently thought it's time to look serious about peacekeepers and sexual assault."  They go on to say that, if the Secretary-General were serious… and they go back to the Sangaris case that was… in which Mr. [Anders] Kompass was… was… says he was urged to resign by Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous, they urged the Secretary-General to suspend the investigation of Mr. Kompass if he's actually serious, as he said at the stakeout.  What's your response to that?

Spokesman:  I do respect GAP.  It doesn't mean I need to agree with them.  I think the Secretary-General made an unprecedented decision yesterday, and he sent strong [message] to UN officials that there will be institutional accountability.  On the CAR… on the Sangaris case, he has called for and implemented a full review, led by Marie Deschamps in Canada.  We look forward to receiving that review and acting on its recommendations.

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask about Parfait.  Obviously, in these remarks that you were… put online earlier today, it said that Mr. Parfait Onanga [Anyanga] is now replacing Mr. Gaye, beginning early next week.  It seems pretty fast and it's obviously a very fast process.  So, I wanted to ask, in terms of Burundi, what exactly is the sticking point on the… multiply decided imminent…?

Spokesman:  There are two different situations.  The consultations on appointing a new envoy for Burundi are continuing.  As soon as we have something to announce we will announce it.

 When covering this was over, Ban's spokesman's office was closed. Stories appeared quoting Ban's remarks and praising him, with no mention of the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who had not deigned to return from his vacation for the scandal and firing of Gaye, or even to call his putative boss Ban Ki-moon.

  Now on the morning of August 14 when Ban's Spokesperson's office reopened, there were Ban's remarks out on the counter. They run four and a half pages and do not once mention Ladsous, only Babacar Gaye (whose name is not forever linked with rape as Ladsous' more properly should be) and Gaye's quick replacement Parfait Onanga-Anyanga, who previously represented Ban in Burudni, where Ban cannot this week bring himself to name an envoy amid torture and threats.

  Whether anything will come of Ban's four and a half pages remains to be seen. The Free UN Coalition for Access is fighting this lack of transparency, and lack of accountability. Watch this site.

 On August 13 Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to provide the type of sexual abuse complaint numbers he gave for CAR for any other UN Peacekeeping mission. The problem goes well beyond CAR and Gaye.

 Inner City Press after asking in the briefing (video here) asked Dujarric in writing:

Yesterday (and today) I asked you for number of abuse and sexual abuse complaints at each UN Peacekeeping mission, to compare to the 57 / 11 figures you announced for MINUSCA in CAR. Yesterday:

ICP: Can you provide similar numbers for the other missions?

Spokesman:  We'll try to do that.  I will come back to you.

  Today you did not provide the number, said look at SG's report to UNGA. But in that report, the CAR numbers you have announced, they are not there. Instead at undocs.org/A/69/779

'(a) The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), with 13 allegations each (51 per cent of the total), and the
United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), with 12 allegations (24 per cent);

(b) The remaining 13 allegations (25 per cent) were received from the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), with five allegations, and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), with three allegations. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) and the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) all reported one allegation each.'

 So again, this is a request for numbers on the other peacekeeping missions, comparable to the 57 / 11 numbers you announced about CAR / MINUSCA."

  Dujarric ignored this part of Inner City Press' request, while declinding to say WHO was on Ban Ki-moon's call.

  Inner City Press asked on that, in writing after twice at the briefings:

"Yesterday you said: 'As to who will be on the call tomorrow, we will let you know once the call happens.' So, again, this is a request for the list of those on today's 10:30 call."

 On this, UN spokesman Dujarric has replied only that:

"On the call, all the following missions were represented, either at the Head of Mission level, or acting head if someone was on leave. If the mission had a Force Commander and Police Commissioner, they were represented as well.  DPKO, DFS, Military Advisor and Police Commissioner were there. Children in Armed Conflict and Sexual Violence in Conflict were also represented.

UNMISS
UNISFA
UNAMID
MONUSCO
MINUSMA
MINUSCA
UNMIL
UNOCI
UNFICYP
MINUSTAH
UNMOGIP
MINURSO
UNDOF
UNIFIL
UNTSO
UNOAU
UNHQ."

  So again, as now more than one UN Permanent Representative is asking, where is Ladsous? Some note Senagal's president's statement on Ban's firing of Senegalese Babacar Gaye.

  To similarly fire Ladsous, who bear more and wider responsibility, Ban would have had to speak with France, the way he runs or lets the UN be run. But French Ambassador to the UN Francois Delattre is on vacation - as is Ladsous, it turns out, even amid this scandal.

  Ban's spokesman Stephen Dujarric told Inner City Press that UN Peacekeeping's "senior leadership" only learned of this new CAR rape on August 10, then that Ladsous is "on leave," and finally that Ban had yet to speak with Ladsous. How then does he know WHEN Ladsous learned of these new rapes? What is the basis of the claimed (and reported) "full confidence"? We'll have more on this.

   After Amnesty International reported in detail on the alleged rape on August 2 by UN Peacekeeping of a 12 year old girl in the PK5 neighborhood of Bangui, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on August 12 announced he asked for a resignation: of Babacar Gaye, head of the CAR mission and not Ladsous, the head of UN Peacekeeping documented to have tried to get CAR whistleblower Kompass fired (Ladsous denies it) and responsible for previous cover ups in DR Congo and Darfur. Compiled video here.

  When Ban Ki-moon took three questions on August 12, Inner City Press between each one asked, What about Ladsous? Ban heard but did not answer, except to (politely) say as he left, You can ask him, pointing at spokesman Staphan Dujarric.

  Inner City Press did, asking several time where is Ladsous -- on vacation or "leave," it emerges -- and about Babacar Gaye's letter to Ban Ki-moon about more systematic problems. Video here.
Here is the UN's transcipt:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask what I was trying to ask at the stakeout, which is, what's the role of the head of UN peacekeeping, Hervé Ladsous, in all this?  Given the Secretary-General noted correctly that there had been scandals in other missions as well, and it seems extraordinary that the Secretary-General is the one calling the Mission chiefs who ultimately work for Ladsous.  So, when is the last time he spoke to him?  Did he consider Mr. Ladsous taking responsibility rather than Mr. Gaye?  And, finally, I'm looking at Mr. Gaye's letter, and this is why I'm asking the question.  Mr. Gaye says:  "Going forward…" to the Secretary-General… "Going forward, you may wish to consider there could be a systematic problem warranting consideration at the highest level of the organization".  So, what do you say to that?  It seems extraordinary that you jump a level and then there's no answer as to the man in the middle.

Spokesman:  You know, I think… a couple of things:  First of all, the Secretary-General has full confidence in Mr. Ladsous, the peacekeeping department, and, of course, Mr. [Atul] Khare, the head of the Department of Field [Support].  Both DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] and DFS [Department of Field Support] are dedicated to ensuring the highest level of standards and accountability among personnel.  And I wanted to add that Lieutenant General Paul Cruz, who is the Director of Strategic Partnerships at DPKO/DFS, which is a role akin to an inspector general role, will leave for Central African Republic to examine systematic challenges of dealing with conduct and discipline issues, particularly sexual exploitation and abuse, including prevention, training, as well as reporting management and any further help that is required for Headquarters.  As for Mr. Gaye, he is, indeed, the head of the UN Mission, but he, like the other heads of the UN missions, has another title, and that's Special Representatives of the Secretary-General.  They represent the Secretary-General.  The action taken by the Secretary-General this morning was not taken lightly, but I think he spoke very eloquently as to the reasoning behind it, and I think, if you look at the comments by the Secretary-General, he will speak very strongly to all his Special Representatives as well as police commissioners, force commanders tomorrow to deliver a strong message, and that message [is] that people will be held accountable.

Inner City Press:  I guess my question is, going back to, let's say, Darfur, in Darfur, there was an allegation of mass rape in the city of Thabit, and the peacekeeping mission put out a press release saying it didn't happen; everything was fine.  This was found to be problematic by the Council.  The SRSG isn't gone.  What's the status of that?  And what's the connection of this case to the French peacekeepers?

Spokesman:  I think this is… as you know, the Secretary-General did not take this action based on one particular case.  He took it based on the repeated number of cases of sexual abuse and misconduct that have taken place in the Central African Republic.  According to our numbers, we had 57 allegations of possible misconduct in the Central African Republic reported since the beginning of the mission in April 2014.  And that includes 11 cases of sexual abuse, possible sexual abuse.  Those cases are being investigated.  And the Secretary… I think today the Secretary-General sent a strong message on accountability.

Inner City Press:  Can you provide similar numbers for the other missions?

Spokesman:  We'll try to do that.  I will come back to you.

Inner City Press:  [Inaudible - It's telling you only] have it for one mission.

Inner City Press obtained Gaye's letter and put it online here. One wire service "saw" it, without explanation of Ladsous' role. Voice of America, typically, did not mention Ladsous and incorrectly reported that the UN has an "Inspector General."

 There is no UN Inspector General.

  This is how it works: Ladsous while refusing public questions about rapes would offer private briefing in exchange for positive coverage, like here. Reuters, with two reporters bylined, of Ladsous said only that Ban has "full confidence" in him. We'll have more on this.

  At the August 11 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked  Dujarric about UN Peacekeepers' exemption from the UN "End Rape in War" office, and if Ban would belatedly in this case identify those charged, and disclose findings and punishment, if any. Video here. Transcript below.

  Dujarric among other things said Ban might speak to the press later in the day:

"The Secretary-General is considering this situation as we speak, and I expect him to issue a statement or brief you personally on this subject a bit later."

  Five and then six o'clock came -- no statement from Ban Ki-moon, much less needed Q&A. Dujarric has said "Either you'll hear from him or you'll get a statement... as soon as I know which it will be, I will let you know." But there was no such guidance either. We'll have more on this.

  This is part of a pattern, occuring under UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous who pointedly has refused to answer Press questions.


From the UN's August 11 transcript:

Inner City Press:  Sure.  I hear what you're saying about… about… I mean, first, the announcement, but I did want to ask you a question since I'm not sure if the Secretary… will be able to get answered by the Secretary-General.  And it has to do with this.  The allegation by Amnesty International is that this rape took place the day after peacekeepers were fired at in PK5.  So, it seems to smack of… not of sexual abuse and exploitation only, but also rape as a tool of war, as a weapon of war.  And I know that, in this room, Ms. [Zainab] Bangura said that her mandate doesn't cover UN peacekeepers.  And so, I wondered, is that something the Secretariat would reconsider given… at least in this case, if not other cases?

Spokesman:  What I referred to in my opening statement were troubling allegations of abuse, so abuse writ large.  Obviously, the Mission in Central African Republic has been looking into this, and we expect them to investigate the exact circumstances of these allegations thoroughly and quickly.  There are… we are talking about alleged… cases of alleged abuse or misconduct by UN peacekeepers, whether they be military or formed police units.  There are very clear procedures in place on how to investigate and deal with those issues.  Ms. Bangura's mandate is given to her by the Security Council.  We do expect the procedures already in place to be used to fully investigate and, if necessary, discipline those who have committed these alleged crimes.

Inner City Press:  If… if the Mission finds what Amnesty International alleges to be true, is the maximum UN penalty repatriation to the country of the peacekeeper?

Spokesman:  I think… we're… we're talking about hypotheticals here.  So, let me try to answer it without referring to the exact case.  Obviously, if a crime of this nature is committed by a military personnel, it is… it comes under one set of rules, and as we all know, the UN has no direct authority over the uniformed personnel.  That person would be repatriated, and we would expect them to face justice, be it military or civilian justice, in their home country and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  If it is a civilian person or if it is a police officer, my understanding is that that is different.  Obviously, the case… we would be in touch with the local authorities, and obviously, the authorities of which that person is… their nationality, so to speak.

Inner City Press:  And one last thing.  There was… it was said that the Secretary-General was considering moving beyond sort of anonymity for countries and non-disclosure of what actually happens.  Would this… can he say, without yet knowing what the Mission will decide, that, were they to find this to be true, that this would be the case to dispense with that?

Spokesman:  I would just refer… I don't think there's a change in policy.  I think I would refer you what the Secretary-General said in his latest report -- would be that it is his intention to do so.

  For the Panel that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon belatedly announced, Inner City Press on August 4 asked if they will travel to CAR to do any interviews. Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq insisted "that is nothing we could know in advance." Transcript below.

  On August 5, Inner City Press asked UN Peacekeeping's leader in CAR, Babacar Gaye, who said that the Panel had visited Bangui. So, UN Peacekeeping knew.

  Did only Ladsous' DPKO, in the UN Secretariat, know about this visit by the "independent" Panel? On August 6, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, as transcribed by Inner City Press, video here:

Inner City Press: Earlier in the week, I asked Farhan if the panel would travel to CAR, and he said there’s no way we would know. Yesterday Babacar Gaye said they have already traveled there. Does DPKO know where they’re traveling, and you don’t?

Spokesman Dujarric: I think the point is, I’m not keeping track of them, because they’re independent. So, they go wherever they need to go, they do whatever they need to do. They do what they need to do. Obviously, their travel needs to be arranged, there are logistical arrangements that they rely on us for. They’re not traveling on their own. There are logistical and security concerns I’m sure people know where they are going. But it is not my job to keep up with them and give you a play by play of who they’re talking to or where they’re going. We’ll see what they come up with ata the end and, as I said, we will share their report.

Inner City Press :Any update on the French prosecution of the individuals accused?

Spokesman Dujarric: No. I do not. My understanding is that that investigation is continuing.

 From the UN's August 4 transcript:

Inner City Press: Two questions about the Central African Republic.  One is just there was a study report, I guess, it came out on Friday by Amnesty International about the… this sort of forced conversion of Muslims in the Central African Republic and the fact that many of the people that left are basic… those were thought to come from Chadian or Sudanese grandparents are not returning.  I wanted to know if… I don’t know if you had some response or the UN had some response about how its mission can deal with those two issues.

And the other one has to do with the panel on the sexual… the allegations of the child sexual abuse in CAR by Sangaris.  I wanted to know if the panel… I know you’re going to say they’re independent, but there’s a… whether they are, in fact, going to travel to the country to do any interviews.  And the reason I’m asking is, what is their budget?  Where does the budget of the panel come from?  And what is the budget of the panel?

Deputy Spokesman:  At this stage, they are free to go about their work as they see fit.  They will submit figures on their budget once they’ve completed their work.  At this stage, it’s a work in progress.  We don’t have nor do we ask for details about what their work is going to be.  They will complete it, and then they will inform us of what their work is.  So whether it includes travel on the ground or not, that’s their call, and it’s nothing that we would learn in advance.

Regarding the Amnesty International report, of course, we’re concerned about the situation there.  You’ll have seen what our own human rights officers on the ground have been saying about the situation, and it’s a tremendous cause for concern, both the displacements and the sort of inter-community and inter-ethnic and interreligious violence that there’s been.

Inner City Press:  Could I just… to understand the budget issue.  Obviously, they’re supposed to pay for it out of their own pocket and get reimbursed, or how is the actual work of the panel being paid for currently?

Deputy Spokesman:  We have different accounts that can deal with expenses, such as unforeseen expenditures, like new panels.  Regarding what specific accounting they will do, that… you know, that will become clearer as… you know, once they’ve gone about their work, so we’ll have to wait and see what they submit for their budget.

   Now both the UN's outgoing -- gone -- "Ethics Officer" Dubinsky and the three person panel UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named to investigate are under fire. On July 31, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about... Ms. Dubinsky, the Ethics Officer contract extension, which would give her a lifetime pension, and the extension was given just as she discussed investigating Mr. Kompass on the Central African Republic rape allegations.  And I’m asking you this because the head of Aids-Free World and Code Blue, you say you respect, as well as the Government Accountability Project, both find that an extreme… extremely troubling timing and say that it calls for… demands Secretary-General Ban’s personal attention, the idea of a conflict of interest of giving $12,000 a year for life to the person that was investigating the whistle-blower of these rapes.  What’s your response?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Indeed, I ... very much respect the work that Ms. Dubinsky has been doing over the last five years.  I know the Secretary-General does as well.  This is her last day.  She’ll be retiring as of tomorrow... I think in accordance with UN staff regulations and staff rules, the authority for the selection of staff members at D-2 Level and above rests with the Secretary-General including the retention of staff members beyond the retirement age should the need arise.  The Secretary-General attaches great importance to the selection and appointment of senior managers as a priority seeks to have smooth transition during a change in leadership.  We’re not in a position to discuss individual staff members’ contracts.  The UN has an obligation to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of all staff records.  As I mentioned, her term ends today.  Again, the Secretary-General is grateful for her work.  And I think, you know, what is also of concern, I think, is the fact that some of her personal data was leaked, was leaked to the press and personal information concerning her.

Inner City Press:  Who’s the next Ethics Officer?  If the rationale for giving the extension was continuity…

Spokesman:  We hope to announce someone in due time.

Inner City Press:  Has she been spoken with by the panel on these rapes...

Spokesman:  I don’t know.  The panel is independent.  I’ve made it a point to have no contact with them unless asked to, and I won’t ask them who they plan to talk to.

Inner City Press:  And just finally, the Government Accountability Project, again a respected organization, has now said that two of the three panellists are not, in fact, independent because of the dangling of future UN appointments in front of the--

Spokesman:  I think the panel put together is an extraordinary panel.  I think everyone can always find something to argue with.  They are… they are people of great ethical standard.  They are people who have had great legal careers, have been outspoken human rights defenders, have done great reform work in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces.  I would ask people to judge the panel on its report and to be a little bit patient and see what they come up with.

  But there is an ever-growing pattern here.

  After BuzzFeed's Jina Moore documented that when an aid worker was allegedly raped inside UN Peacekeeping's Bentiu "Protection of Civilians" site in South Sudan, the UN system did little to nothing -- until on July 27, in transcribing Spokesman Stephane Dujarric's answerto Inner City Press' questions, the UN added in a parenthetical that Nobert did not work for the UN.

 On July 30, Inner City Press asked Dujarric about yet another case in this unfolding scandal, this one again involving one of Herve Ladsous' peacekeeping missions, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Video here.


From the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: I’m sure you’ve seen the story in The Guardian, actually by one of our colleagues or former colleagues here, Roger, about the systematic rape by an air contractor of the MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission] in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo].  And they basically say that there’s some pretty horrendous evidence or descriptions of what happened, that the UN kept paying the contractor after, with some idea of rehabilitating it.  But I wanted to ask you about, there was an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation of it, and it seems since it’s also a vendor, it obviously brings up this other… this case in Bentiu, which it was a vendor, and the UN said it could do nothing.  First, what can you say to those who say it’s pretty horrendous to continue to pay a contractor which raped an underage girl in the DRC?

Spokesman Dujarric:  What is…  What is horrendous is what happened to the victim and what was done to the victim by those two employees of UTair.  We go back to a story that was, in fact, reported, I think, when it happened a few years back.  Our understanding is that the contractors have been… at the time, were removed and fired from the company.  Both the DRC judicial authorities and the Russians were informed of the… of our investigation into the case.  As we explained in the article, a procedure was put in place at the time to monitor the vendor and the behaviour of the vendor and its staff.  That monitoring mechanism continues.  Every six months, it is reported to our colleagues in the Department of Management, who review it.

I think…  Again, I think the issue of vendors and contractors is a very legitimate one to explore.  Given the criticality of air support, there was a discussion among the Department of Management.  A system was put in place to ensure that this particular company was monitored and monitored on a regular basis, and that continues to do… we continue to do that.  The behaviour of our vendors and the staff that work for them should be at the same level of ethics and behaviour that we expect of our own staff, as they represent us.

Inner City Press:  And was there any accountability for the victims or victims in the DRC, was there actually any accountability, either criminal or civil?

Spokesman:  Again, those… the findings of the OIOS investigation, the UN investigation, were presented to both the DRC and to the Russian authorities, and I think you’d have to ask for them what happened on the criminal end.  As you know, we have no criminal authority.

Inner City Press: In the South Sudan case, where it was also an alleged rape by an employee of a vendor, was any information given to the authorities of either South Sudan…?

Spokesman:  I think we’re still… what happened to Megan Nobert is being looked into.  As I’ve said, both here and in interviews, she suffered horrendously, and our heart goes out to her.  The… you know, UNICEF [United Nations Children’s Fund], which was the agency that had the contract with the vendor for which her accuser… the alleged attacker worked for, was in contact with the vendor, got him removed.  I know our colleagues at UNICEF are absolutely appalled by what happened to Ms. Nobert.  And when I have more information, I’ll share it with you.

Question:  One final thing.  Do you see this as a pattern?  And two, for example, since it’s a UN system, did UNICEF impose any of these similar rehabilitation and reporting requirements on…

[inaudible]

Spokesman:  Like I said, I don’t have all the facts surrounding this case.  I think, again, I would say that we expect…  I wouldn’t call it a pattern.  I think there are hundreds, if not more, of vendors and contractors that work on behalf of the UN who do a spectacular job, partner agencies, partner humanitarian NGOs [non-governmental organizations].  But we do expect anyone who works on behalf of the United Nations to behave to the same ethical standards.  I will…

Inner City Press: The pattern I was asking about is a pattern of a lack of accountability.  Because the UN is working in places that may have not very good… not… not very developed judicial systems and because the UN itself is immune…

[inaudible - the reference was to the UN shirking responsibility for introducing cholera into Haiti]

Spokesman:  I think it’s obviously something we need… it’s something we need to look at.  Our ability to prosecute people criminally is obviously not there.  It’s up to national… either the authority where the crime took place or the citizenship of where the people worked."

  Shouldn't the UN provide some protection and accountability for aid workers in the employ of non-governmental organizations funded by the UN system, particularly inside UN "protection" camps like that in Bentiu?

 Given the vendor issue in both the DRC and South Sudan cases, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access opines that it would have been better if the Guardian had linked to BuzzFeed on South Sudanin its otherwise good story.

 On July 28, Inner City Press asked the UN's top humanitarian, Emergency Relief Coodinatory Stephen O'Brien, about the case. Video here. O'Brien said he had recently been in the Bentiu camp but, not speaking specifically of the case he said he did not know, to his credit he said that facts should be looked into and investigated. But will they be?

  Minutes later Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric why such an investigation was not done in this case -- did it turn on the fact that the alleged victim did not work for the UN system but for a UN fundee? Video here.

   The UN to its July 27 transcript added, "[The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.]" Compare to actual briefing, video here.

  She worked for Nonviolent Peaceforce, which received a $1 million grant from UNICEF for child protection in South Sudan, click here for that.

  Not only did UN spokesman Dujarric refuse to identify UNICEF, run by former US government official Anthony Lake, as the UN agency which did not act on the alleged rape, except to provide "contact information" of the contractor -- UNICEF, which was in charge of the bore hole drilling in which the alleged rapist was engaged, has not directly responded on the scandal.

   Nonviolent Peaceforce, meanwhile, has simply published anadvertisement for a(nother) "Senior Programme Manager, Nonviolent Peaceforce, South Sudan," here.

  The alleged rapist, named as Amed Asmail, seems to also be called Ahmad Ismail, whose Facebook page here pictures him playing music,listing in his bio working with "South Sudan -Life For Construction."

 Inner City Press on July 27 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what accountability there is when UN agency personnel themselves are raped. Video here, and embedded below.

  Dujarric began by calling it a horrendous act - then said that what the UN system did was give the victim the contact information of the contractor. But, Inner City Press asked, since Sudan-based Life for Construction has let the alleged rapist Amed Asmail's contract expire, how will this "contact information" help the victim?

  Dujarric declined to even identify the agency, which used public funds to contract for water bore holes for the Bentiu camp; when Inner City Press asked if it was UNICEF or IOM, he cut the question off. Video here.

  What we can report is that UNICEF, nearly always in charge of the water cluster for the UN system, said on its website in April 2014, here, that UNICEF

"has maintained staff in Bentiu and is rapidly responding to the urgent needs, drilling new boreholes for water, and today flying in parts for the construction of new latrines. However, UNICEF said it remains hindered by a lack of funding and access."

  UNICEF also sat on reports of the sexual abuse of children in Central African Republic; we'll have more on this.


For now, here's this, and now UN's transcript of briefing - a [parenthetical] was later added, highlighted below in bold:

Question:  Sure.  Questions on Burundi but I wanted to ask you something, you may have anticipated coming.  It was a story which was on Friday on BuzzFeed, quite detailed, about an aid worker in the UNMISS camp (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) in Bentiu, who alleges that she was raped by a UN vendor or contractor working for Life For Construction.  Basically the gist of the article is that the UN did absolutely nothing and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) said they could not investigate and there are no recording or reports of sexual abuse or exploitation by vendors anywhere in the UN, DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) or other systems.  So I wanted to know, what is your response to it?  What does the UN owe people in its protection of civilian camps if they are raped there, and why was nothing done in this case?

     Spokesman:  Well, I think this was clearly a horrendous act and I think people who work, aid workers, humanitarian workers, who work within UN camps are owed the best possible protection, that's clear.  In this particular case, the agency for which Ms. Nobert worked is greatly concerned for the well-being and safety and security of all those working with it to deliver humanitarian assistance anywhere in the world and it took these particular allegations very seriously.  [The Spokesman later clarified that Ms. Nobert did not work directly for the UN. She was employed by an NGO doing contract work for a UN agency.] When it became clear that the person accused of the attack on Ms. Nobert was, in fact, an employee of a company hired to undertake work for the agency and not an UN staff member, the agency concluded it was not a position to conduct an investigation into the alleged actions of that person itself.  All of the agencies private contractors are aware of the high standard of conduct the agency accepts from their staff and the agency gave Ms. Nobert the contact details of the employer of the person accused of attacking her, so that she could take her complaint directly to the company.  The agency also instructed the company to remove the individual immediately from any project involving the agency. 

However, given the highly sensitive nature of the allegations, the agency had to respect both the need for Ms. Nobert to raise her very serious complaint with those who can take actions and the rights of the accused person for due process.  It therefore did not share the specific nature of the complaint with the contractor, allowing Ms. Nobert to decide on how and when she wanted to do that.

The agency concerned believes that in this complex circumstance it did the best it could to support Ms. Nobert, to take her complaint forward.  I think it's clear that, in any of these cases, we also need to take a look how we responded and how we can do better in responding to horrendous cases like this one.

     Question:  Thus seems to imply… obviously, Life for Construction, they have already terminated the individual, so there is no more relationship between them. So is there… what is the UN saying is the accountability mechanism for this alleged rape?  And, two, you keep saying the agency. Was the agency in charge of boring water holes in the Bentiu camp?  Was it UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), was it IOM (International Organization for Migration)?  Which agency are you speaking of?

     Spokesman:  As the article makes clear, Ms. Nobert specifically requested the agencies she had contacts with shall not be named and we will respect her wishes.

     Question:  Who is in charge of boring the water holes?

     Spokesman:  That is what I have to share with you and, if I have, more I will share with you. 

See above - and InnerCityPress.com

   

On Haiti, UNSC Renews Mandate Without Accountability for Cholera, Latin Grumbles

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 14, with a song -- When the UN Security Council renewed the mandate of its mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, on October 14, the vote was unanimous. But afterward Chile and Argentina criticized the resolution and how it was drafted, not listening enough to Latin America and troop contributing countries. 

  Argentina's Permanent Representative Maria Cristina Perceval said that the Argentine Armed Forces will not engage in tasks of repression.

  Chile's Permanent Representative Barros said troop contribution countries should be more adequately consulted, and expressed concern about the draw-down.

  Guatemala, recently but no longer on the Council, said a key is the professionalization of the Haitian National Police.

  Inner City Press immediately put online the draft as adopted by the UNSC, here, and will have more on this.

  Not addressed in the resolution, and actively covered up by the UN Secretariat and UN Peacekeeping at the highest level, was the UNhaving brought cholera to Haiti.

   US Federal Judge J. Paul Oetken has scheduled oral arguments for October 23 on the case against the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moonand UN Peacekeeping's Edmond Mulet.

 After Mulet was quoted -- told France 24 in an on-the-record interview-- that the Nepali peacekeepers were screened for cholera before the UN sent them to Haiti, Inner City Press on October 10 first asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, who had previously made this claim,if it is in fact true. October 10 video here.

  Haq on October 10 didn't deny it - but MINUSTAH spokesman Vincenzo Pugliese when asked about it by Jonathan Katz directly denied Mulet's claim of screening. 

  So on October 13 Inner City Press asked Haq about this direct divergence in UN statements, between Mulet and MINUSTAH's Pugliese. To this, Haq said that given pending litigation he did not want to "prejudice" the case by saying anything. Video here and embedded below. But the UN is saying it is immune from the litigation, won't even confirm it will send anyone to court on October 23.

  The France 24 report, by Jessica Le Masurier, noted that "shortly after the interview, Mulet’s press officer asked FRANCE 24 not to air the recording."

  On Ocober 13, Inner City Press asked Haq if this was true, and if so how it was appropriate for the UN to ask to censor an on the record interview. The new Free UN Coalition for Access has identified and is opposing a range of censorship at and by the UN. Sample Vine here.

  Haq insisted this was not censorship, only that UN Peacekeeping (who's communications chief under Herve Ladsous is Nick Birnback) has understood the interview with Mulet to be about Mali and the Central African Republic and then offered Mulet on Haiti after he had been "prepared."

  But, Inner City Press pointed out, Mulet was the head of MINUSTAH when cholera entered Haiti - isn't that preparation enough?

  Haq said Inner City Press since it has been in journalist should understand what being prepared for an interview is. Video here.

  Frankly, it sounds perilously close to being coached. 

  Haq went on to claim that the France 24 reporter afterward indicated awareness or even agreement that the interview was supposed to be limited to Mali and CAR. We'll await some correction of this: peacekeeping, as a topic, obviously includes the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti which Mulet headed. We'll have more on this.

  The UN still has not answered Inner City Press' repeated question whether the UN will be sending any representative to the October 23 oral argument in Federal court on the topic. This is impunity.

  On October 9, Ban Ki-moon gave a speech at the World Bank about water and cholera in Haiti, without mentioning the question of how cholera was brought to Haiti, much less the litigation against himself.

  So at the October 9 UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci if Ban's statement that his "heart ached at the losses that so many thousands of people have had to suffer and die" was a reference to the UN bringing cholera to Haiti.Video here.

  Maestracci responded about the UN trying to raise money for sanitation in Haiti. Inner City Press waited to re-phrase what it had asked, about accountability. Maestracci said "I can see that you really don't care about my answer, you just want to ask another question."

  But it was the same question, about accountability and the rule of law. And neither it nor the factual question of whether the UN will sent anyone to the October 23 court hearing has been answered. 

 On October 8, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric if the UN, which has dodged service of the legal papers, will at least appear in court. Video here. Dujarric said the UN's legal position remains unchanged. Maestracci repeated this on October 9. One might assume it means the UN will ignore the court hearing. But that would be an assumption.

  Also on October 8, and also on UN impunity, Inner City Press asked spokesman Dujarric about a detailed report of rapes in Haiti by UN peacekeepers, for which the UN also refused to waive immunity. Dujarric said he hadn't heard of it, but would be happy to look for it -- it is here. We'll see. 

  Back on August 28, the plaintiffs in the Haiti cholera case against the UN, Ban and Mulet filed their sur-reply, which Inner City Press put online here.

 On September 17, the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti held a conference call about the status and background of the case. IJDH's executive director Brian Concannon said that cholera was introduced to Haiti in October 2010 by UN peacekeepers.

   Concannon said the UN waited 15 months then called the claims "not receivable" -- the same phrase the UN used as to whistleblowers in a belated answer it sent to Inner City Press during the IJDH call, click here for that.

  He described serving the legal papers on Ban Ki-moon and Edmond Mulet, the head of the MINUSTAH mission (and, also on September 17, briefing the Security Council about peacekeepers giving over their weapons, vehicles and even uniforms to the Jabhat al Nusra rebels in the Golan Heights).

  IJDH Legal Fellow Shannon Jonsson described how the UN failed to provide any out of court process to consider claims, in violation of two treaties (and the UN's Status of Forces Agreement.)

  Finally, IJDH Staff Attorney Beatrice Lindstrom described broader advocacy , in Congress and among UN member states, to get justice for those harmed by the UN's introduction of cholera to Haiti. She quoted Martin Luther King that the arc of history is long but bends toward justice. There will be an upcoming demonstration at the UN's logistics base in Haiti. We'll have more on this. 

   The US' 15-page letter cited in support of UN immunity the case of Cynthia Brzak, regarding sexual harassment by UNHCR's Ruud Lubber, and a letter to US Ambassador Samantha Power from the UN's counsel Miguel de Serpa Soares, which Inner City Press is putting online, here.  The US letter to the court is here.

  Beyond supporting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dodging the service of legal papers -- on which Ban's spokespeople have themselves dodged and more -- the US letter cited the UN - Haiti program on cholera on which the UN's Pedro Medrano has still to take Press questions.

  The US letter says, "The General Convention and the SOFA provide that any dispute between a state party and the UN shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, see General Convention, art. VIII, § 30; SOFA art. VIII, § 58; and the SOFA provides that any dispute between MINUTSAH [sic] and the Government of Haiti shall be submitted to arbitration, see SOFA art. VIII, § 57."

  So much for "we the peoples."

  The sur-reply filed August 28 states that "under the doctrine of unclean hands, the request for immunity should be refused.  The Government fails to present any response to this argument."

   Back on May 15, opposition to the US' first iteration of its position was filed, with amicus support from a bevy of law professors, an ex judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and former UN human rights rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak.

  Nowak said, "the UN needs to understand that immunity cannot mean impunity. If it refuses to provide people alleging harm with a path to justice, courts will refuse to uphold its immunity.”

   But then as now, the UN under  Ban Ki-moon wouldn't even bring its envoy on cholera Pedro Medrano forward for questioning. Inner City Press has asked, for example on April 21:

Inner City Press: … seemed to quote Mr. Medrano as predicting in advance that this panel he would be on with the Government may provide assistance, but he said, like, the word “compensation” won’t be used. So I wanted to know, is that a UN position? Is it his prediction of that the Government doesn’t want the word “compensation” used? And is there some way that we can have by video or otherwise, a kind of, some kind of presentation by Mr. Medrano?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: Sure, on Haiti, over the weekend, the terms of reference on this high level committee on cholera, which would be a UN and Government of Haiti committee, have been officially agreed on. And the aim is really for the joint effort of to fight cholera between the UN and the Government of Haiti. The Committee aims at further improving the coordination response to the epidemic and obviously we expect to have an official announcement in the next couple of days. But this is a very important… the establishment of this committee is a very important one in terms of our efforts, and most importantly the Government of Haiti’s efforts, to address not only cholera but also the associated water and sanitation issues....

Inner City Press: Just on Medrano, I will like to say again if you could do a briefing in this room it would help.

Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you.

  But did he? There has still been no briefing. Members of the US Congress have written to State Department diplomats about this case in the past. Based on this letter, will they do so again?

   As the first 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.

 Now on July 8, these same scribes are offering symbiosis, bread andcircuses, or pretzels and beer, in the large room Ban's UN gives them, usually sitting empty even as the News Agency of Nigeria was evicted due to lack of space. This is today's UN.

  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 this song, 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.