Chile's UN Security Council Month Had 7 Stakeouts, Haiti Trip Without Cholera Accountability, No Palestine Resolution

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- When Chile's Ambassador Cristián Barros Melet held a January 5 press conference on the month's Program of Work of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about a next Palestine resolution, about rapes and expulsions in Sudan and, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access to hold as many question and answer stakeouts as possible.

  Twenty four days later, when Chile held its End of Presidency reception just north of the UN at the River Club, there was still no Palestine resolution -- no fault of Chile, whose Foreign Minister Heraldo Munoz mid-month explained the country's support of, and embassy in, Palestine.

  The mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur had yet to be followed up on by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, whose chief Herve Ladsous refused Press questions, here, unlike Barros.

 On the rapes, the Ambassadors of the UK and Lithuania replied to Inner City Press that they are raising the issue to DPKO, in consultations. Will this bear fruit in February?

  Barros himself held six stakeouts, each time agreeing to take questions even if slightly off camera; Heraldo Munoz held another on January 15, for a Chilean total of seven.

 There were two meetings on Ukraine, and one on Lebanon which a full day later had yet to produce even a press statement. One Ambassador at the end of presidency reception complained to Inner City Press that the killing of peacekeepers should always result in such a Statement, "no matter who is responsible."

 Because we have reviewed other End of Presidency reception, we'll review this one, complete with ceviche on plantains, sliders and one of Ladsous' predecessors, Jean-Marie Guehenno. He was once quoted urging the UN to do more about cholera in Haiti - the failure to raise this issue during the Council's visit to Port au Prince and Cap Haitien is still to be explained.

 There are not enough media questions like this; the head of the old UN Correspondents Association, unquestioning receptor, was seen hailing a taxi for the less than ten block trip to the River Club. What's next, an UNCA faux UN briefing on climate change? But that's another story. For now, hats off to Chile, from which we hope to hear more throughout this year.

   

On Haiti, IMF's 37-Page Report Cites UN Impact But Not Cholera It Brought: Bretton Wouldn't?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 5 -- How can the International Monetary Fund publish a 37-page report on Haiti and not mention cholera once? The IMF report, release here on January 5, does mention the UN Mission MINUSTAH which brought cholera, but not the disease and its impact.

 Is that because the UN brought it?

  The IMF says, of risks, "On the domestic front, governance problems, and political resistance to improving tax administration, as well as renewed spending pressures (including for Petrocaribe-related spending) could worsen an already unsustainable fiscal outlook and reduce the room to react to shocks, such as natural disasters. Reform momentum could also slow if political tensions resume
in the context of long-delayed congressional and municipal elections, and a reduction in the MINUSTAH stabilization force."

  The UN Security Council will visit Haiti on January 23 to 25, Council President for January Christian Barros Melet announced on January 5. We'll have more on this.

  After UN Secretary General dodged legal papers in one of the cases about UN Peacekeeping having brought cholera to Haiti, 77 members of the US Congress wrote to Ban:

"In the interests of securing justice for the victims and impacted communities as well as strengthening the UN’s leadership as a champion for human rights, we urge you to act immediately to establish a settlement mechanism through which victims and their families may seek relief and the country can move forward with the water and sanitation infrastructure it so desperately needs. Unless and until the UN honors the fundamental right to access justice, the issue of UN accountability in Haiti will remain."

  Inner City Press on December 23 asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the December 18 letter. Video here. He said, on camera, he didn't know about it. Inner City Press pointed out it is on Rep. John Conyers' web site - and if UN can't find it, here it is.

 The members of Congress signing the letter to Ban include John Conyers, Barbara Lee, James P. McGovern, Raul Grijalva, Donald Payne, Alan Grayson, John Lewis, Zoe Lofgren, Corrine Brown, Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush, Jose Serrano, Gregory Meeks, Brad Sherman, Eliot Engel, Shiela Jackson Lee, Keith Ellison, Chaka, Fattah, Lloyd Doggett, Carolyn Maloney, Henry Waxman, Elijah Cummings, Al Green, Yvette Clark, Charles Rangell, Alcee Hastings, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, William Lacy Clay, Stephen Lynch and Michael Michaud, among others.
   
When Ban last held a press conference, it seemed clear that he had question(s) in advance, click here and here for that. But Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access will be asking -- and following up on what is now becoming a UN cover up of its peacekeepers shooting at democracy demonstrators on December 12 and blocking the camera of media trying to cover it. Video here, from 0:18; a second video is here. Now who will be help accountable?

  On December 16, for the second day in a row, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, whether the peacekeeper filmed shooting a pistol and pushing back a cameraman -- like his boss Ladsous -- had been interviewed yet.
 
 Dujarric would not answer even this, saying he will only speak when he hears from MINUSTAH. Video here. 


This might be called a cover up, or a hope it goes away -- even as Ban Ki-moon, in tuxedo, goes to the ball of his UN Censorship Alliance where an award about Haiti will be given out, with no answers on shooting protesters there.

  Back on December 15, Inner City Press also asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about the incident, which the UN mission MINUSTAH has said it is investigating itself. Dujarric repeated this, adding that he didn't want to "pre-judge." Video here. But MINUSTAH's short press statement already characterized as "violent" the demonstrators that were shot at.

 Dujarric said they'd have to see if the peacekeeper felt threatened. Video here. After the web-cast UN noon briefing, Inner City Press was contacted by viewers who noted this subjective idea of an armed authority feeling threatened is that invoked in the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner on Staten Island in New York.

  As on its impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti, the UN is on strange and untenable ground in seeking to justify shooting at unarmed people. And the head of UN Peacekeepering Herve Ladsous is conveniently in former French colony Senegal during all this.

 UN Peacekeeping's chief is Herve Ladous, and tellingly he himself tried to block the camera of the Press, right inside the UN, in September 2014. Vine here.


When a subordinate carries out the same act as his or her ultimate supervisor publicly did, it is  case of command responsibility. So who should be held accountable is known - but will it happen?

  Back on December 2, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about MINUSTAH and protests:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about Haiti, since there's the Mission there.  There have been protests about the failure to hold elections and they've been put down by police.  I wanted to know, first, whether there's been any MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti] involvement; and also what the Mission's thinking is as the 12 January deadline imposes when the Government will be dissolved and Mr. [Michel] Martelly will rule by decree.  Is that the fact?  And what’s the UN doing?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't believe there's been… I don't believe there's been any involvement of MINUSTAH in the demonstrations.  Obviously, it's important that people have the right to demonstrate peacefully and it's up to the authorities to ensure that right is respected.  The political situation in Haiti obviously remains a concern.  It is one that we're following closely.

   So what happened December 2 ("no involvement of MINUSTAH") and December 12 - MINUSTAH shooting into the crowd? Inner City Press has asked Dujarric about the UN's rules of engagement, so far without answer.

   With questions unanswered, UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous had the gall on the afternoon of December 13 to rebroadcast MINUSTAH self-congratulations that ignored its filmed shooting at protesters and threatening media. Inner City Press initially asked the UN Spokesman:

"What were the rules of engagement? Who gave the order to use pistol(s) and, separately, tear gas? What is the UN's understanding of injuries caused? What was the role, and is the comment, of the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous?"

  Inner City Press twice, in two media, asked for an explanation or comment from the UN Spokesman, and Saturday afternoon received this:

"The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, (MINUSTAH), has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  Artfully, or inartfully, the MINUSTAH statement does not state that it is the UN's own alleged (filmed) excessive use of force - so is the UN investigating itself? We've asked the UN Spokesperson and weekend duty officer this:

Because the MINUSTAH statement leaves it unclear, can you confirm that it is the UN's own “alleged excessive use of force” that the UN is now investigating?

What is the time frame for the investigation?

Who is doing the investigation? MINUSTAH's human rights unit?

Can to state now that the results of the investigation will be made public?

Since the MINUSTAH statement expresses conclusions about the demonstrators (“violent,” “and causing injuries and destruction of property”) please provide similar preliminary findings as to UN Peacekeepers' action shown on this video:http://youtu.be/38owUZrNHzA

   Hours later, no answer, even as the second video emerged. Others in the UN system have been asked; we'll have more on that.

   Inner City Press has also sought comment from prospective UN-related awardee Andrea Bocelli, slated to accept without reference to the UN bringing cholera or now shooting into crowds there an award from the UN's Censorship Alliance next week -- and continues to await response.

  The MINUSTAH mission has just published this: "MINUSTAH has been informed of an alleged excessive use of force, while responding to violent demonstrators targeting law enforcement personnel supporting the Haitian National Police (HNP) and causing injuries and destruction of property, during the demonstration in Port-au-Prince today. The Mission takes this allegation very seriously and immediately opened an investigation to establish the facts."

  But UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous is already accused of cover-ups. This MINUSTAH statement doesn't even say against whom the allegations are.

  Inner City Press, before the December 12 protests and footage of the UN firing into them, asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson about the failure to hold elections, and if the MINUSTAH mission was involved in cracking down on demonstrations. On the latter, the answer given then was no.

  Now, this video, by Le Nouvelliste. Who will be held accountable? UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat and spokesman during the ouster of Aristide. We will have more on this.

The day after the injustice of the UN's impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti was the subject of a religious service across First Avenue from the UN, photo here, Inner City Press asked the UN's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video here:

Inner City Press:  About Haiti.  There was — yesterday afternoon, almost at the same time as the Ebola press conference, there was a religious ceremony held across the street of the Church Centre by both Haitians that live in New York who have had family members killed by cholera and also UN staff who feel that the UN policy of not directly addressing the claims for the families that were victims of the cholera is unjust.  I wanted to know if you were aware of that, if you have any response to it?

Spokesman:  I personally was not aware.  I think you know that the legal position of the UN as to this case is not, has not changed.  That being said, the UN continues to be very involved jointly with the Government of Haiti to work on the cholera issue in Haiti, to work on rebuilding the sanitation system, and I think the Secretary-General in his visit to Haiti in — over the summer, right?  In July, in mid-July, excuse me, in mid-July, I think, you know, went to one of the impacted village, prayed with the families and showed his empathy to the victims.

Inner City Press:  I understand that.  I don't think — people see the Secretary-General trying to raise funds for water and sanitation going forward.  I guess the question becomes for families that lost their breadwinner and, therefore, have kids who are unable to go to school with school fees, things like that, is there any — what's the UN's thinking?  Is the — the Government apparently has not addressed that problem.  So I'm wondering… I guess…

Spokesman:  I think whenever you have — whenever you have victims of any disaster, the issue of losing the breadwinner is an important one and one that needs to be addressed by national authorities in assistance with the international community.  Masood?

  Up to December 12, a item in the US State Department's public schedule read:

"COUNSELOR TOM SHANNON Counselor Shannon is on travel to Port-au-Prince, Haiti through December 12. He is accompanied by Haiti Special Coordinator Thomas Adams."

  Shannon and Adams have been in Haiti for days, it seemed preparing for a visit by Secretary of State John Kerry on December 12. Protests are planned, not least due to the US arguing in court in support of the UN's immunity, that is, impunity, and refusal to help its victims, families whose bread-winner was killed by the cholera UN Peacekeeping brought.

   Does the US read its own (incomplete) travel warnings?

 But at the UN State Department's December 12 briefing, the Department's spokesperson said "we believe elections are essential for Haiti’s democratic development and to advance progress made in reconstruction and development. The United States and, certainly, Counselor Shannon on his trip and Haiti Special Coordinator Tom Adams are certainly advocating strongly for dialogue and compromise among the parties that will lead to a Haitian solution to permit elections without further delay. Toward that end, we welcome the December 9th recommendations offered by the consultative commission established by President Martelly as a basis for dialogue. We understand he’ll speak today regarding the recommendations.

So our position as the United States is that we broadly support dialogue and compromise leading to a solution in Haiti that will permit elections without further delay, and we think that’s incredibly important to advance progress made there."

  There was no visit by Kerry. But, on Twitter, a photo of the UN's MINUSTAH using a gun to shoot, for which Inner City Press has asked the UN Spokesperson for a response. Watch this site.


 
  MSF Doctors Without Borders said on November 24 that "the population has slowly lost their immunity to the disease. Compared to the same period in 2013, the number of cases handled by MSF has almost doubled. The lack of sanitary infrastructure and of measures to clean water risk aggravating the epidemic."

  Inner City Press asked the UN to respond to this, on November 28, but the UN has refused. The US government has online, also dated November 24, 2014, a Haiti web page that (still) says, under Health, that "Incidents of cholera have declined dramatically  since a major outbreak in 2010." Click here for that.

  While that page was not changed or updated, on December 4 the US State Department put out a travel warning for Haiti which mentioned what MSF called the "lack of sanitary infrastructure" - but NOT that the UN brought cholera to Haiti, much less that the US is supporting the UN's claim of immunity or impunity for it. Click here for the December 4 travel warning.

   The new US Travel Warning does, however, mention the UN, in this way: "The United Nations’ Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) remains in Haiti to support the activities of the Haitian National Police (HNP). The HNP, with assistance from MINUSTAH, is responsible for maintaining order and rendering assistance.  However, given the possibility and unpredictability of spontaneous protests, their ability to assist U.S. citizens during disturbances is very limited."

  It must be said: some of these protests are ABOUT cholera, and are DIRECTED at the UN, having having brought it and for having done nothing for the victims, whole families left without their main breadwinner.

   The US page on Haiti, on Safety and Security, says "Please see ourinformation for victims of crime, including possible victim compensation programs in the United States."

  What about compensation for the victims of the UN in Haiti?

  Inner City Press continues to pursue this question at the UN. On November 20 when Jose Ramos Horta took questions about the UN Peacekeeping review panel he now chairs, he initially said that the UN bringing cholera to Haiti was beyond the panel's mandate.

  When Inner City Press was able to ask him a question, it was to challenge this. How could more than 8,000 people killed, and the continuing impact on the UN's credibility, be beyond the mandate of this panel? Video here.

  Ramos Horta replied that, on reflection, he would raise the issue of cholera in Haiti to the panel's members, which now include Sri Lankan former UN official Radhika Coomaraswamy as well.

   Inner City Press also asked about the cover-up scandals swirling around UN Peacekeeping, about rapes and more in Darfur. Ramos Horta replied about abuses by peacekeepers in Timor Leste, that there must be accountability (he praised Sergio de Mello in this respect.)

UN Peacekeeping has become subject, under Herve Ladsous, to mounting questions about its operations, from crashed drones, selective “neutralization” of some rebels groups and not others, like the FDLR in the DR Congo, covering up attacks in Darfur and lack of accountability fornegligently introducing cholera to Haiti, to name just a few.

While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by Ramos-Horta.

Palestine Slams Israel Tax Withholding as Piracy, UN Security Council Action Next Week?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 5, more here -- Days after the UN Security Council rejected Palestine's draft resolution, Palestinian Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour on January 5 wrote to UN Security Council President Christian Barros Melet of Chile  to complain of Israel's decision to withheld Palestinian tax revenue, calling it piracy.

   Mansour  said “Israel, the Occupying power, has resumed the theft of Palestinian tax revenues in direct retaliation for the legitimate, steps taken by the Palestinian leadership,” including filing to join the International Criminal Court.

  Mansour said “we reiterate such such an action constitutes an act of piracy” and asked the UN Security Council members to “uphold their responsibilities toward addressing this illegal situation in all its manifestations.”

  Inner City Press on January 5 asked Barros about a new Palestine resolution; he said he hadn't been informed of one, formally or informally, but that he'd read media reports there might be a move "next week."

 (At the January 5 US State Department briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki when asked about the tax withholding said the US discourages any actions -- like this one -- which would raise tensions. She also said that the US "obviously" does not want Palestine to proceed at the ICC.)

 Meanwhile in Ramallah Mahmoud Abbas met with Secretary General Madani of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, which on January 5 issued this read-out:

"Madani stated that the OIC is endeavouring action by its contact group of foreign ministers. This includes visits to the capitals of influential countries to convey the message and demands of the OIC vis-à-vis the Palestinian cause and Al-Quds. He further pointed out that the mission of this team has become more urgent in light of the recent vote of the UN Security Council on the draft resolution to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories."

  So do these "influential countries" which have been visited include the five new members of the Security Council -- New Zealand, Spain, Venezuela, Angola and Malaysia -- as well as, for example, Nigeria? Abbas has indicated that preparations are underway for another vote in the Security Council, now with these five new members.

  Abbas on December 31 signed the Rome State to join the International Criminal Court. Inner City Press had asked Palestine's Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour about just this move back on December 11, here. 

  On January 2 just after the UN accepted Palestine's papers to join the ICC, Inner City Press asked Mansour if the decision has been made to ask for action on Israel at the ICC, and about the CRomnibus appropriations bill provision to cut US funding to the Palestinian Authority if it does so. Video here and embedded below.

  Mansour said Palestine has already asked the ICC Registrar for retroactivity to cover the last Gaza war in 2014, and that he would met with a representative of the ICC Registrar, who happened to be in New York, in an hour's time.

  On the threatened funding cut, which Senator Chuck Schumer issued a press release about, Mansour said it was strange to punish the Palestinians for seeking justice.

  Inner City Press also asked Mansour if Nigeria's absention on the Palestine resolution surprised him. He said to focus on the larger power, and that Nigeria's Explanation of Vote sounded like they had voted Yes. 

 So what happened?

  On the afternoon of December 31, the US State Department's Jeff Rathke, Director of Office of Press Relations, put out this statement:

"We are deeply troubled by today’s Palestinian action regarding the ICC. It is an escalatory step that will not achieve any of the outcomes most Palestinians have long hoped to see for their people. Actions like this are not the answer. Hard as it is, all sides need to find a way to work constructively and cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and find a path forward.

"Today’s action is entirely counter-productive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace. 

"As we’ve said before, the United States continues to strongly oppose actions – by both parties – that undermine trust and create doubts about their commitment to a negotiated peace. Our position has not changed.  Such actions only push the parties further apart. 

"Every month that goes by without constructive engagement between the parties only increases polarization and allows more space for destabilizing actions.  Our efforts should focus on creating an environment for meaningful talks. 

"While we are under no illusions regarding the difficult road of negotiations, direct negotiations are ultimately the only realistic path for achieving the aspirations of both peoples. All of us would like to see the day when that effort can resume, and can lead to the peace that we all know is the only real, sustainable answer to the underlying causes of this conflict."

  The document is supposed to be filed or deposited with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is listed as on "annual leave." (Ban's spokespeople have no press briefing scheduled for today.)

  The ICC, of course, is no panacea. Sudan's Omar al Bashir, for example, was been indicted by the ICC for genocide, but still UN officials like Herve Ladsous meet with him without providing explanations. Still, Abbas said he would do something, and now he has.

  The Palestinian resolution which failed on December 30 needed nine "Yes" votes to trigger the expected US veto. It got only eight "Yes" votes, as Nigeria abstained along with the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.

 Afterward, Palestine's Mansour said, "Why have the efforts of the Arab Group, with the full support of the NAM and the OIC and all other friends worldwide, to legislate this consensus through the Council as a contribution towards bringing an end to this conflict through peaceful, political, diplomatic and non-violent means repeatedly blocked?"

 The NAM is the Non-Aligned Movement and as Inner City Press noted contemporaneous with the vote, both Rwanda and Nigeria are members of NAM (list here) -- but both of them abstained.

  Rwanda's abstention was assumed, including in the Arab Group meeting held earlier on December 30. The abstention of Nigeria, which meant that the United States' "No" vote would not be considered a veto, was something else.

  To the surprise of some, Nigeria and its President Goodluck Jonathan were not listed among the calls of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department's spokesperson Jeff Rathke on December 30 said

"In the last 24 to 48 hours the Secretary has made a number of calls to counterparts.  Let me give you a list of them.  He has spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda; he has spoken on a few occasions with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh; he has spoken with the Saudi foreign minister, the Egyptian foreign minister, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, with the UK foreign secretary, with the EU high representative, Chilean Foreign Minister Munoz, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linkevicius.  The – he has spoken, as I mentioned yesterday, with PA President Abbas.  He has spoken with the Luxembourg foreign minister, with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and with French Foreign Minister Fabius. So by my count, that’s 13 different individuals.  Some of them he’s spoken with more than once, so more than 13 calls over the last day or two."

  Despite this, it's said that Kerry called Goodluck Jonathan, and that a State Department spokesperson - Rathke? - said it. Where? We continue to wait.

 It's reported that while Kerry doesn't list a call to Nigeria, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyau did -- for Goodluck, some say.

 Inner City Press after the vote asked Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar if the Arab Group intended to put this or another Palestine resolution in front of the new line up of Security Council members entering in two days, with Angola replacing Rwanda and Malaysia replacing South Korea (and New Zealand replacing Australia, which voted no). She said the Arab Group would keep working, but did not say when another resolution will be put forward.

  So what comes next? Below, we cover the issue of the International Criminal Court.

   A source from inside the Arab Group meeting tells Inner City Press that question - the benefit or not of "making" the US veto - was a major topic in the meeting, but the decision was made by the Arab Group to support the Palestinians' strategy and request for a vote, with the above expectation, at this time.

   On December 30 at around 1 pm, Mansour said, “We are happy that the Arab Group on the basis of previous ministerial meetings has considered in a positive and responsible way the request of the Palestinian leadership to put the draft resolution to a vote, possibly this afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, this is related to the readiness of the Secretariat of the Security Council.”

Referring it seems not only to the US but also to the UK, Palestine's Mansour said on Tuesday, “If one party decides for whatever reason that they do not want to go along with this massive support to find a solution to this conflict, to try to save the two-state solution by asking for an end of the Occupation that started in 1967, so that the State of Palestine could enjoy its independence, if a party is not going to go along with this mood, in Europe and in all corners of the globe... it is not for lack of giving time as Arabs, we have been deliberating for almost three and a half months.”

  At 11:30 am on December 30, another meeting about the amended draft began in UN Conference Room 9. UN Television hastily set up a microphone and stakeout (without formally informing the press corps, which the Free UN Coalition for Access is inquiring into). 

  Down in the UN's first basement diplomats from Jordan paced around; the meeting upstairs in the Security Council about Sudan throwing out two more high UN officials was essentially forgotten. 

   Before the Sudan expulsions meeting on December 30 of the Security Council, for now their last of the year, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the press of the Palestine amended draft, “the new text has been circulated but no negotiations have been scheduled and no vote has yet been scheduled, so we wait to see if there will be a vote this year, or next year or not at all.”

   On the contents of the resolution, Lyall Grant said “there are difficulties with the text, particularly the language on time scales and the language of refugees. We would have some difficulties with the text. We don't know when the vote will be held.”

Palestine met with the Arab Group at the UN about the pending draft Security Council resolution on December 29.  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour and Jordan's Permanent Representative Dina Kawar about US opposition. Video here.

  The text of the amended draft is below; six changes include:

New in PP 3 “and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,”

New PP6 “Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,”

New PP8: “Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,”

New phrasing in OP2: “a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;”

adding the 2 words “and prisoners;”

New 10bis. "Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem."

   Less than an hour before the Arab Group meeting ended, at the US State Department briefing in Washington, the Department's spokesperson said the US opposes the draft, and others oppose the draft as well, in part because it “fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs.” 

Update from US transcript: 

MR. JEFF RATHKE:  "We’ve seen reports regarding Palestinian and Jordanian plans to bring their text to a vote at the Security Council.  There are discussions still taking place in New York and we are – and with the Secretary, who has spoken with some of his counterparts, and we are therefore engaging with all the relevant stakeholders.  As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have."

  Inner City Press asked, and Mansour replied, “There was a telephone conversation between President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and I'm sure they discussed all the issues.”

   Dina Kawar said the amendments concern “the issue of Jerusalem, and others concern prisoners, water, settlements.” She said, “the Arab Group supports, they have now the copy of the new amendments, we are going to submit today to the Secretariat.”

  On timing she said, “If I tell you this week and it happens next week you're going to come back and ask" why.

Dina Kawar and Riyad Mansour on Dec 28, 2104, (c) M.R. Lee

 Mansour said on the timing of a vote, “realistically it could be tomorrow or the day after.”

Watch this site.    

As Chile Takes Over UN Security Council Presidency, Inner City Press Asks of Palestine & Sudan, FUNCA For Q&A Stakeouts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 5 -- When Chile's Ambassador Cristián Barros Melet held a press conferenceon the January Program of Work of the UN Security Council, when he is President, Inner City Press asked him about a next Palestine resolution, and about rapes and expulsions in Sudan.

   Ambassador Barros replied he has not been informed, formally or informally, as President of any new Palestine resolution, but he's read in the media that it might be next week. (That is what Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said.)

   On Sudan, Barros called the government's move to expel the two officials, Yvonne Helle of the UN Development Program and UN Resident Coordinator Ali Al-Za'tari, “negative,” and called the situation of addressing it “fluid.”

  On Syria, in his national capacity, Barros called Russia's work on a Syrian - Syrian dialog important.

  On Ukraine, Barros said that Lithuania and UK pressed the item and he expects a meeting in the month.

 Also in the month is a debate on January 19 with Chilean President Bachelet on inclusive development. We'll be there.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, which as the second question thanked Barros for the briefing and offered hopes for many question and answer stakeouts (Chad in December did more than a dozen), has suggested that naming which Council members press particular agenda items is welcome transparency.

  Barros announced a Council mission to Haiti January 23-25. 

Footnote: Grabbing the first question, returning head of the “UN Correspondents Association” Giampaolo Pioli after having tried to brand even the noon briefing with that UNCA acronym, took the set-aside first question and asked about Haiti -- with no mention of the UN's role in bringing cholera to the Island, much less UN Peacekeeping being filmed shooting at democracy demonstrators. Will his cluster of Italian sites report a word about Haiti? 

  The goal seems only to have been to try to brand. FUNCA says in 2015, UNacceptable - and is ready for the month. Watch this site.

   

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.