UN in Murky Drone Procurement Throws Out Low Bidder, Dovgolopy Wants EU Sole Source for DRC Drones

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 22 -- In UN Procurement, the lowest bidder doesn't always win. For years the process has been untransparent, and now it is getting worse. Inner City Press is exclusively informed that in the bidding for the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo UAS or Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones) program, the low bidder is being displaced by more favored companies, unilaterally, by UN Procurement chief Dmitry Dovgopoly.

The story, exclusive to Inner City Press, goes like this: out to bid is a $50 million contract to provide Unmanned Aerial Systems services to the UN's MONUSCO in the DRC for a term of five (3 + 1 + 1) years. The present company, Leonardo, has a contract which expires in November. PPI beat out Leonardo, CAE, Thales, Qintetiq, Airbus and Trans Capital.

But shortly after our award, UN Procurement chief Dmitry Dovgopoly refused to approve the agreed upon terms and demanded PPI perform a demonstration flight prior to contract signature. Inner City Press covered Dovgopoly and similar tricks back when he was at the “D-1” level, and received pushback and is currenty still restricted to minders in the UN for pursuing its anti-corruption coverage into the UN Press Briefing Room, its work space purportedly assigned to a no-show Eygptian state corresponent Sanaa Youssef who has not asked a question in ten years.

In this case, Dovgopoly is said to be lobbied by European interests, see the list of bidders above. As Inner City Press reported, the UN drone program was pushed by Herve Ladsous, the fourth of now five Frenchmen in a row to run UN Peacekeeping.

Dovgopoly's “ditch the winner” campaign has included two site inspections and the demand for a demonstration flight prior to deployment, none of which was performed with Leonardo or Thales. PPI tells Inner City Press it agreed to all demands and began manufacturing of aircraft with its contractors. Dovgopoly canceled the demonstration flight a month later. The manufacturing of aircraft has been suspended as a result.

Dovgopoly has reportedly since alleged that PPI misrepresented a relationship with one of its proposed vendors, which PPI denies. Dovgopoly has sent PPI notice rescinding the notice of consideration for award and requested from the UN's Christian Saunders, whom Inner City Press has also covered, permission to directly negotiate with competitors due to the urgent need to provide MONUSCO with airborne ISR capability as soon as possible. He has requested permission to inform vendors of the allocated budget, and allow vendors to revise their technical proposals to “accommodate the financial constraint.”

Inner City Press understands that the UN's Headquarters Committee on Contracts has ruled the losing competitors' bids no longer valid since the Request For Proposals was from October 2016. It seems Dovgopoly wishes to discloses how much money is available and allow vendors to inform the UN services they can perform and dictate the price. Paying more for less! But it has happened before, as Inner City Press. And now, under Antonio Guterres. We'll have more on this.

As UN Stonewalls on French Companies in Mali, France Claims No Economic Interest

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 6 -- Peacekeeping can be big business. On December 4 Inner City Press reported on the French companies vying for pieces of the pie providing logistics to peacekeepers in Mali; on December 5 Inner City Press asked the UN spokesperson about it:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you the Mali mission, MINUSMA, there has been reporting about the lobbying by companies such as Sodexho, Thales, GEOS and others to become the logistic suppliers to the MINUSMA mission. Where does that stand? The logistics contracts that were previously fulfilled by Pacific Architects and Engineers when it was an African Union mission, are they being put up to bid and where does the process stand? What would you say to those who say it seems to be a bunch of French companies now standing in line to get these DPKO contracts?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’d say that there is always an entirely transparent procurement process in any tendering for contractual arrangements with companies in Peacekeeping Operations. And I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Field Support, who would be handling that, as I understand it, would be able to help with any details on that.

  By the next day, no information was provided. That's part of the problem: UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to be placed by France atop the Department, refuses to answer Press questions. Video here, UK coverage here. But still - this is money not only from France.

  In the absence so far of a UN Peacekeeping response, Inner City Press runs this, Google-translated:

"The current negotiations, which should lead to a formal tender, is actually directly between the United Nations and a State, in this case France. Among the companies are well approached Thales, Sodexo, etc. Bolloré... The control of the operation was entrusted to 'France Expertise Internationale,' a public institution with French industrial and commercial, created on April 1, 2011 by Law No. 2010-873 of 27 July 2010 on the external action the state, and promote technical assistance aims to French and international expertise abroad. Its mission? Here is what the Decree 2011-212 of 25 February 2011 on France Expertise Internationale:

'In the framework of the tasks referred to in Article 12 of the Law of 27 July 2010 referred to above, France international expertise is responsible, alone or, by agreement, in cooperation with other public or private operators,: 1 Promoting technical assistance and international expertise to the French international organizations, foreign governments and other foreign organizations to implement any project funded by these entities states; 2 Action with European public operators in the framework of European groupings of economic interest; 3 Run for the part rightful missions on behalf of the European Union; 4 Assist in any client, French or foreign, wishing to lead an international project, 5 ° act as an international operator for the account or at the request of the State or any other public authority; 6 Run the provision of services on behalf of public institutions; 7 ° Conduct or coordinate, at the request of any client, the training of international technical experts. France international expertise operates without prejudice to the tasks of competent private, French or foreign, in expertise and international mobility. It works in close cooperation with all operators, whether public or private. Ensures the needs expressed by the diplomatic network abroad.'

  How is the procurement of logistics for MINUSMA being done? What is the role of France and of "letters of assist"?

Here was French Ambassador Gerard Araud's answer to Inner City Press,about the Central African Republic, on December 5:

Inner City Press: There is some criticism that the African forces today have not come outside of the capital come out of their bases and defended people? How would this resolution change that? Also people look at the intervention in Mali, your presence in Mali and they say we are back to the “françafrique”, the idea of France and its former colonies. How would you say these two actions are different, is there any economic interest of the country behind either of the two?

Araud: As for the mandate, it is simple. The African force needed a stronger mandate. The MICOPAX didn’t have it. Now it has a mandate under chapter VII. The spokesperson of the African Union here said it intends to implement this mandate, I quote him in French “de manière aggressive”, in “an aggressive manner”.

Secondly, they needed personnel. The MICOPAX, the previous force, had around 2,000 troops. Now it should be 4,000. It will be also reinforced in its structure, in its headquarters, in its command structures. It will also be able to rely on the support of the French forces. The French forces will go from 450 to more than 1,200.

As for the action of France, I am not here to give a qualification. I think, and nobody can say that there is any economic interest in the CAR.

I’m proud of my country. Nobody wanted to go there, nobody was really interested by this forgotten crisis in a largely ignored country. So we are doing the job, and I think it is really great. But doing the job means supporting the Africans. It means also that as soon as the African forces are able to monitor, to control the situation, we will withdraw our own forces. We go there because we are needed but we have absolutely no particular thirst to be engaged in the CAR.

Really? And in Mali? Watch this site.

   

After 15-0 Central African Republic Vote in UNSC, France Tells ICP Its Troops in CAR Have No Economic Aspect, US Ambassador Power Agrees

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- After the UN Security Council adopted the French-drafted resolution on Central African Republic 15-0 on Thursday morning, France's Permanent Representative Gerard Araud came out and said the Council was finally shouldering its responsibility.

  In this, he ignored that while other Council members said they'd expected a resolution in August, they were told that since France "has the pen" on its former colony the CAR and was largely on vacation in August, there would be no resolution.

  That was then, and this is now, with France deploying into Bangui. Inner City Press asked Araud why this, and France's intervention in Mali, are somehow not examples of the colonial FrancAfrique.

  Araud responded that France has no economic interest in CAR -- as with Mali, France's and its Areva's interest in low-tax uranium from Niger was ignored -- and that he is proud of his country. He went on, "answering a question you didn't ask," to say that Mali was about organized terrorists while CAR is about thugs who might just melt away, afraid of the French deployment.

  There were of course other questions: what of reports that Cameroon's Paul Biya told France he does not want Chad in the MISCA force? Why is France, in the midst of all this, replacing its ambassador to Bangui Serge Mocetti?

  But these questions weren't possible. Even with the UN microphone in front of Inner City Press and the question started, the French mission spokesman insisted it be moved to the far end of the stakeout to Reuters, "Monsieur Charbonneau" as Araud put it. (It was Araud to his credit and not the spokesman who subsequently relented and took Inner City Press' question on protection of civilians outside of Bangui, and about FrancAfrique.)

  Moments later when US Ambassador Samantha Power came out, she used her opening statement to agree with Araud on Inner City Press' FrancAfrique question, saying that for France this is only about protecting civilians. But Inner City Press was not called on to ask Power any follow up -- that was again the Western go-to Reuters, and Al Jazeera English, not viewable in the UN or, other than AJAM, in the US.

  Power insisted it is not a matter of the color of the helmet, that is, not a matter of whether it is a UN or an African Union mission. But a question left unanswered because not allowed to be asked: what does Power think the US role should be in these operations, in light of her book "A Problem from Hell"?

  What has the US military presence in the region, helping unsuccessfully chase down Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, been doing during this carnage in the CAR? Watch this site.

Footnote: it is not anti-humanitarian to ask economic questions. Yesterday Inner City Press reported on the competition for logistic contracts in Mali between the American firm Pacific Architects & Engineers and French companies Thales, Sodexho, Geos and others. Will Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, play a role in the decision?

  France's economic interests are acknowledged even by French diplomats, in the Financial Times. But Human Rights Watch's UN lobbyist, formerly of Le Monde and France 24, has churned out "analysis" with no mention of this interest. Thursday morning he was at the UNSC stakeout, from which recently another former UN correspondent now with an NGO was ordered to leave. This is how the UN works - or doesn't. The Free UN Coalition for Access is asking at least for some content-neutral rules, that apply to all. Watch this site.

   

Lining Up in Mali for UN Cash Are French Contractors Thales, Bolloré, Geos & Sodexho, As Kids Jailed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 4 -- After France intervened in Mali, it got the UN Security Council and Fifth (Budget) Committee to approve a UN Peacekeeping mission there, MINUSMA.

Now it emerges that French companies are lining up to get the UN money for providing logistics for the MINUSMA mission, run by UN Peacekeeping under its fourth French chief in a row, Herve Ladsous.

While Ladsous refuses to answer Press questions (video here, UK coverage here), those named as lining up at the trough to get paid by Ladsous' MINUSMA are not only US-based Pacific Architects & Engineers but also French companies Thales Communications et Services, Bolloré, Geos and Sodexho, which has been big in private prisons, of interest given the UN's inaction on its Malian partners locking up children.

On December 3, beyond asking French ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud about the Malian Army shooting unarmed protesters in Kidal, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: on Mali, there was a report naming children that are incarcerated by the Malian Army and authorities, saying they should be released and describing exactly how they were imprisoned. Given that MINUSMA (United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali) works with the Malian army and there is a UN presence there, including human rights monitoring, has the UN chimed in on this? Are they seeking the release of these children detainees of the Malian authorities?

Spokesperson: I’ll need to check. I don’t have anything on that, Matthew.

And more than 24 hours later, still nothing. Meanwhile as France dominates UN Peacekeeping through the taciturnLadsous, with his history of arguing for the escape of genocidaires from Rwanda into Eastern Congo over which he now flies a drone, and tries to get UN Peacekeeping deals in Mali for its contractors, Reuters is reporting on the end of FrancAfrique. Hardly. Watch this site.

   

For UN Drones, Ladsous Put Out Bids 7 Weeks Before UNSC Orange Light

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- For months UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has claimed that he would move on his dream of drones once inter-governmental consultations and approvals had taken place.

But now it emerges that even before the first -- but not only required -- limited "case by case" approval was obtained from UN Security Council president Masood Khan on January 22, Ladsous's DPKO had already put out a request "Expressions of Interest" for drones back on November 28, 2012.

 The closing date was January 11 -- before any approval at all.

Inner City Press has identified the UN Procurement document, here.

 Notably, in November 2012 Ladsous was looking for drones in "support of peacekeeping operations in West Africa and/or Central Africa." He initially wanted drones for use in Cote d'Ivoire in West African FrancAfrique.

   How and why would Ladsous start this process before he had even a single approval? In March 2012 when his proposal was met with opposition in a closed door meeting of the C-34 committee on peacekeeping, members told Inner City Press they suspects Ladsous would just get drones from the French contractor Thales, and give the information collected to France.

  Ladsous is the fourth Frenchman in a row to head DPKO, and was foisted on the UN without so much as an interview, as a last minute replacement for Jerome Bonnafont.

  When Inner City Press reported on this last minute surprise, Agence France Presse began a process against Inner City Press in the UN Correspondents Association (a/k/a UN Censorship Alliance), in which UNCA met with "UN officials (very quietly)" to move to dis-accredit Inner City Press.

  After fight-back this didn't work. And on January 25 Inner City Press asked both Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's associate spokesman Farhan Haq and Security Council president Masood Khan about Ladsous' drone plan.

Haq said that consultations with other bodies would continue, but when asked who would get the information, said all fifteen Security Council member.

Less than an hour later, a Security Council member disputed this to Inner City Press, and called Khan's letter not a green but "orange" light, case by case, only the Congo, "a trial."

   When Khan as Council president for January took questions he told Inner City Press he was unaware that the procurement had begun, or at least of Haq's statement.

  (Haq was seen later on Friday going into the Security Council chambers. We note however that this is usually the time when the spokesperson's office meet with the next month's president, and both lead spokesman Martin Nesirky and his Deputy Eduardo Del Buey were out of the office in New York on Friday.)

  Security Council sources tell Inner City Press that this issue of when the procurement began came up in closed door Council consultations. When will Ladsous, despite his reliance on his sponsor the Permanent Five member France, be called on this? 

From the UN's January 25 transcript:

Inner City Press: a letter has been released in which the Security Council apparently gives its blessing to the use of unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles by DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations], but what wasn’t clear to me from this is, it was said earlier by DPKO that they would seek all of the approvals needed, and I had asked Martin [Nesirky], what are the approvals needed? Does DPKO believe that it needs the consent of the Committee on Peacekeeping, C34 [Committee of 34], of the General Assembly? Where does it actually stand in terms of them using drones? Have they begun procurement? Would they accept it from a Member State, and who would get the information feed from these drones?

Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq: Yeah, on that: first of all, the basic point to make is one that we’ve made before, which is that UN peacekeeping assets and resources are used in line with Security Council mandates, force requirements and guidelines. Beyond that, in this particular case, a procurement procedure has been launched. And we have had a formal written consent from the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to deploy these assets, and neighbouring countries in the Great Lakes region have also been notified. And that is part of our response to the Security Council approving the trial use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on a case-by-case basis by the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC.

Inner City Press: When does the procurement end? And again, I have asked this about six times, who gets the information? DPKO collects information, filmed, do all 15 members of the Security Council get it, or 193 Member States get it? Where does the information go?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, obviously, first we’ll have to acquire the information and then see from there about how that is used, because it will go, of course, to the members of the Security Council, because they are the ones who have been… who have requested this, have approved this. Now, in terms of the procurement process, it has been launched. We will provide further details about procurement once that happens, but it has just begun.

Just begun? Watch this site.

On UN Drones, HRW After Refusing to State Position Comes Out in Favor

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13 -- With the UN and its head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous proposing using drones but refusing to answer who would get the video and information feed, Inner City Press twice last week asked Human Rights Watch and its director Ken Roth for HRW's position on the UN using drones.

  HRW, which previously answered Inner City Press' question about its payment of "transport fees" to people willing to testify against the M23 rebels in Eastern Congo,this time did not answer.

  The drone question, as before, was sent by e-mail on January 9 and then January 10 to HRW's UN director, to its press office and to Roth (and to another HRW official)

"Still waiting for HRW response to the Press question below for HRW's position on the proposed used of drones or UAVs, in MONUSCO and/or elsewhere. Please advise. Also, renewed request for disclosure of at least the TOPICS of HRW's / Ken Roth's meeting(s) with Ban Ki-moon and/or Herve Ladsous (if ever), and the dates of such meetings. On deadline."

  The latter question arose when HRW refused to provide the public with even a summary of the issues HRW and Roth raised to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a meeting on Ban's schedule. 

  It seems clear HRW and Roth must tell their (big) donors what they raise to the UN. Why not the public?

   But that may be part of the issue here: under Roth and his current UN director, HRW has gone so "pro UN" that it may not want to openly criticize a UN proposal -- for the same reason HRW gave to Inner City Press for refusing to summarize the topics Roth raised to Ban: to maintain "access."

   In its silence on drones, HRW was ignoring a major UN issue, and the questions raised on January 8 by at least five members of the Security Council including Guatemala, including who would get the information, compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization rules, and how the procurement would be done (several C-34 members told Inner City Press they suspect Ladsous has French military contactor Thales in mind).

   HRW's strange silence on UN drones also seems to have a second explanation. Roth and HRW are "all in" with criticism of Rwanda for supporting the M23 rebels in the Congo. So much so that HRW has had nothing to say about the Congolese Army's 126 rapes in Minova in late November, and the UN's and DPKO's Ladsous inaction on their supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy.

   Human Rights Watch silent on the non-implementation by the UN of a Human Rights Policy? To some, this was proof that HRW has lost its way under Roth.

   To others, the definitive proof came on January 11 when Ken Roth tweeted, regarding the UN's UAV proposal, "Surveillance drones don't shoot people. They watch forces that do the shooting (or supply them). Why would Rwanda object?"

So there IS a HRW position, it appears: in favor of the UN using drones. Watch this site.

In UNSC, Ladsous' Drones Questioned by 5, on Who Gets Info, Tendering, ICAO

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- When the UN's use of drones was proposed to the Security Council Tuesday by Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, many focused on Rwanda being opposed. 

  It was an easy if mechanical plot line: the UN wants to assess cross border arms flows, but Rwanda wants to hide them.

   But inside the Security Council's closed door meeting, Rwanda was far from the only member raising questions.

As Inner City Press first reported in March when Ladsous proposed drones to the UN's C-34, there are doubts about which member states would get the information, and if Ladsous as the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping had already chosen the French company Thales as the provider.

   Tuesday, sources exclusively tell Inner City Press, not only Russia (through co-Deputy Permanent Representative Petr Iliichev) and China but also Azerbaijan and Guatemala, both through their Permanent Representatives, expressed concern about Ladsous' proposed used of drones.

   The concerns ranged from the control of information -- that is, who would get it -- to compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization rules. And, as Inner City Press first reported, concerns were again expressed about the tender process. 

  Which company would Ladsous select? Thales?

Therefore while certainly Ladsous, who has repeatedly refused Inner City Press questions about drones and hisfailure to act on 126 rapes in Minova by the Congolese Army, his partners, would like to portray the opposition as mostly coming from Rwanda, that is not the case.

  More people are taking note that Ladsous was France's Deputy Permanent Representative in the UN Security Council during the Rwanda genocide in 1994, and argued to support the escape of the Hutu genocidaires into Eastern Congo. 

  Now Ladsous wants to return with drones. But he has run into opposition, more widespread than most report it.

 Agence France-Presse, quoting Ladsous, focused on Rwanda's opposition. AFP and Ladsous have previously worked together. In fact, Ladsous has served on one of AFP's boards.

  Reuters' Lou Charbonneau went further, putting Rwanda and its opposition as the first words in the Reuters headline, here.

  Charbonneau and AFP's Tim Witcher previously withdrew into the hall with Ladsous from the stakeout where Ladsous refused Press questions about the rapes in Minova, video here.

   Speaking in favor of drones on Tuesday were, not surprisingly, France though Permanent Representative Gerard Araud, and his counterpart from Luxembourg. Major drone user the United States supported the proposal, through Ambassador Jeffrey de Laurentis.

  But with the questions raised by Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Rwanda and Guatemala, some view this as another failed proposal by Herve Ladsous, following his peacekeepers' failure in Goma, his cover up of his partners' rapes in Minova, and of his mission's introduction of cholera into Haiti.

   What's next for the man some call Herve "The Drone" Ladsous? Watch this site.

After UN's Congo Failure, Ladsous Re-Floats His Drone Plan, Exposed by ICP in March

By Matthew Russell Lee

 

UNITED NATIONS, November 23, updated -- As the M23 mutineers advance past Goma to Bukavu in Eastern Congo, UN Peacekeeping is trying to erase it failure with a technological fix: drones.

  Back in March 2012, Inner City Press exclusively reported that Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in row atop the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, had proposed in a closed-door session of the C-34 the use of drones.

  Several delegations criticized it to Inner City Press, questioning not only "who would get the information," but also Ladsous' motives.

  The representative of a Francophone African country told Inner City Press that Ladsous already had a French company, Thales, in mind.

  Inner City Press after its exclusive report got the Office of the Spokesperson of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on March 27, 2012 to confirm the proposal, click here for the UN's e-mail to Inner City Press.

  Then on May 1, 2012 Inner City Press was able to ask Ladsous himself about his drone proposal. From DPKO's own online transcript:

 

Matthew Lee, Inner City Press: You should set up a time, I think, to take questions on Sudan and Haiti. But here is on Syria, on air assets. I know you proposed in the C34 committee the use by the UN of surveillance drones. Now I wanted to know if that is something that you would consider in this instance and if not, why not? Given the need to monitor a ceasefire. Also, there is a talk about freedom of movement. Can you say what the restrictions have been to date and also how they would compare for example with restrictions that DPKO accepts in MINURSO?

 

USG Ladsous: As far as drones, I think the issue is not here and now. We are conducting a study on the issue because there are numbers of aspects, technical, financial and others. And of course one very strong parameter of any deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles would be to secure the consent of the government concerned. So we are not there yet.

  After that, even more delegations complained to Inner City Press, noting that Ladsous has no approval at all to even proceed and ask "the government concerned" about flying UN drones.

  Inner City Press paraphrased one of the complaints and coined the nickname, Herve "The Drone" Ladsous, which a diplomat said also referred to Ladsous' speaking style.

By late May, Ladsous openly refused to answer any questions from Inner City Press. In this, he was emboldened by other attacks on press freedom in Ban Ki-moon's UN, on which we will have more.

  On drones on June 20, 2012, Inner City Press asked Ladsous about safeguards; Ladsous replied, "I don't talk to you, Mister." Click here for that, and more on Ladsous' DPKO and drones.

  Also on June 20, Inner City Press asked one of Ladsous' DPKO's force commanders Major General Moses Obi about drones; at first he said he didn't get the question. Video here, by Minute 35:22. Then Obi said of course he'd like drones, and any kind of surveilance.

 But, Inner City Press asked, who would get the information? Only the Mission? Troop Contributing Countries? All Security Council members? Only the P-5? Only France?

 Obi said the policy would be made "by the UN" -- Ladsous? Ban Ki-moon? -- and that if he got these resources, he'd be given limitations and guidance. By Ladsous? Ladsous doesn't answer.

   Most recently on November 21, after Goma fell to M23 with no fight back from Ladsous' peacekeepers, giving rise to protests and threats against UN personnel in Bunia, Kisangani and Bukavu, Inner City Press sought to ask Ladsous if UN Peacekeeping would even try to defend Bukavu, and for Ladsous' response to the protests and threats in Bunia, Kisangani and Bukavu. Video here, at Minute 10:13, 13:25 and especially 11:50.

  Ladsous refused to answer; his spokesman Kieran Dwyer told staff to not give Inner City Press the microphone, while "une question en Francais" was sought out.

  Since then UN personnel have been attacked and UN buildings burned down; several Congolese protesters have been shot dead, at least three in Kisangani, click here. In Bunia, at least six were killed, four of them students, click here (all in French, a la Ladsous).

  Now the drone('s) proposal has taken flight again, spun by none other than Kieran Dwyer, Ladsous' censorer in chief. Inner City Press has posed a number of questions to the UN and will be reporting them and all responses (or, if up to Ladsous, non-responses) here.

Update: Inner City Press asked the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General, "How would such [drone] use be consistent with USG Ladsous' statements to the C34, which were never approved or acted on, and USG's Ladsous' statements since?"

 Ladsous' spokesman Kieran Dwyer, saying the questions were referred to him, on this emailed back: "the consideration on utilising unarmed aerial vehicles in eastern DR Congo is one of a set of measures which DPKO is considering in response to the Security Council request for proposals on how to strengthen MONUSCO's capabilities to fulfil its mandate to protect civilians."

  So does Ban Ki-moon's UN believe that only the Security Council would need to approve drones? Or the member states of the General Assembly? Watch this site.