On DR Congo, UN Still Won't Say When - Or If - It Will Go After Hutu FDLR Militia, Day After Feingold Testified Should Be "Soon" - Credibility?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 27 -- The day after US Special Envoy on the Great Lakes Russ Feingold called for the UN to "soon" neutralize the Hutu FDLR militia, for its own credibility, Inner City Press asked the UN spokesperson when this will start.

   Spokesperson Martin Nesirky responded that he would not answer about "operational activities that have not yet started and that might not start." Given previous UN statements that it was only a question of "when," this "might not start" line triggered a follow up question.

   Will the UN in fact only go after the FDLR if the Congolese Army does so? Spokesperson Nesirky said that "there is always going to be a level of coordination," and that "this is turning into a little bit of an interview here." But shouldn't the questions be answered? Particularly with Ban Ki-moon attending a "Kwibuka 20" memorial to the Rwanda genocide on the afternoon of February 27?

   Also in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 25,  not only Feingold and Ben Affleck testified -- they were joined by former UN envoy Roger Meece.

  When Meece was in charge of the UN Mission MONUSCO, there were questions including raised by Ambassador Susan Rice about failing to protect the victims of the Walikale mass rapes, following by a failed project Inner City Press dubbed "Meece's mills."

  Affleck on February 26 praised Meece's tenure at MONUSCO, perhaps being diplomatic -- but he also called for MONUSCO to sunset, to at long last finish. It's similar to calls in Haiti that the MINUSTAH mission be dissolved and the funds be devoted to combating the cholera the UN brought to the island.

   Affleck talked up a kind of organic chocolate bar -- for sale at Whole Foods, he added -- calling it the "magic of capitalism." This goes over big in the US Senate; Senator Flake called it bipartisan, and both sides (and Affleck) praised Cindy McCain.

  Back on February 25, "Sexual Violence in Conflict" was the topic of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his UK counterpart William Hague. One hoped for an update on or at least mention of the more than 100 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012.

   Instead the news was Kerry saying that there will be no US visas for those who perpetrate or order sexual violence in conflict zones. 

  OK, here's a place to start: the US-trained 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army FARDC, which took part in the mass rape at Minova.

   That was more than 14 months ago, and yet at today's press conference by the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO, it was reported that in the already delayed interview of victims in Minova, interviewers spoke with barely a quarter of the more than 200 listed victims. Still no justice. So will there be visas? This is a test case -- for outcome if any of the Affleck - Kerry - Russ Feingold talks as well.

  Yesterday's Kerry - Hague transcript mentioned "DRC" five times, and "Congo" three, but there was nothing on Minova. Instead, the implication is that all the rapes in Eastern Congo are by the M23 -- not the FDLR, much less the Congolese Army, which the US supports.

  In fact the 391st Battalion, one of two charged with the Minova rapes, was trained by the United States. (Click here for comment the US Mission to the UN provided to Inner City Press, which also first reported that Ambassador Samantha Power raised Minova to Joseph Kabila in October.) 

  So maybe a Minova update next time? Or on February 26, when Kerry meets Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold as well as Ben Affleck? From the February 25 transcript

Secretary of State Kerry: "In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts."

  Back on January 13, after UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council about "the need to address ill-discipline within the [Congolese Army] FARDC and National Police and to pursue all outstanding cases of misconduct," Inner City Press asked him about the FARDC's mass rapes at Minova in November 2012. 

  Kobler acknowledged that the most recent hearing in the Minova case had been postponed, that witness statements have still not been taken. Video here, from Minute 6:32. 

  Given that the UN says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy of not supporting army units engaged in abuses, how much longer will the UN accept this? Thirteen months and counting.

  Perhaps relatedly, after rumors of the death of Rwanda's Paul Kagame were shot down, across the border in the Eastern Congo, a time-stamped photograph was tweeted of a UN truck full of people on the back, captioned "MONUSCO in Goma celebrating the death of Pres Paul Kagame."

  It seemed worth asking the UN mission chief Martin Kobler to comment on or explain the photograph, and Inner City Press sent this, to Kobler and three MONUSCO spokespeople:

"Please comment on / explain this time-stamped photo, which is being described as a UN truck participating in "celebrations" of the rumor of the Rwandan president's death. Do you dispute that the photo was taken on January 10? To whom is the UN giving a ride in this truck / photo? In what context?"

   After a time, UN envoy Kobler replied:

"@innercitypress Ceci apparait de toute évidence comme une utilisation frauduleuse d'un véhicule de la #Monusco. C'est inacceptable"

  Translated: "This appears clearly as a fraudulent use of a vehicle of the #Monusco. This is unacceptable."

(Translation not by Google, not only because of NSA spying issues but also acquiescence in Digital Millennium Copyright Act abuse by Reuters UN bureau, click here for that.)

  The question became, now what does Kobler, or those above him in New York, do?  

  Inner City Press on January 10 went to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's press conference, 11 am in New York, to ask this question: "in the DRC this morning, after false rumors of Paul Kagame being dead, a MONUSCO truck was photographed in what some call celebrations and Martin Kobler told me is "unacceptable." What do you think your UN should do about this, in terms of the perception of impartiality or bias by the UN?"

  But Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq did not call on Inner City Press, instead automatically giving the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association(a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), then mostly questions soft on the UN about Syria.

  Next came spin from MONUSCO, e-mailed to the Press:

Fraudulent use of MONUSCO truck in Goma

Kinshasa, 10 January 2014 - MONUSCO is aware of a photo being circulated on the internet showing a MONUSCO truck in Goma during a demonstration.

In reality, the truck was taken over by demonstrators while on a regular mission. The driver was alone and unarmed when the incident happened. MONUSCO condemns this agressivity against its assets.

MONUSCO has launched a full investigation to ascertain the circumstances and the context surrounding the incident. 

  But how does the UN explain, then, this UN jeep or Four by Four in this longer video of the anti-Kagame protests, from Minute 1:04 to 1:54? http://youtu.be/L9EPcUOpT1M

 On January 13, Inner City Press asked Kobler about the two vehicles. He said that both had been taken over, which now seems to mean that the UN drivers remained in the vehicles, carrying the protesters, on the single road from Sake to Munigi, through Goma.

  Kobler said the drivers were unarmed, but even if armed would not have tried to get the demonstrators off, at least not be using force. He said the protesters got off or disappeared out by the Uruguayan peacekeepers' base by the airport. There is more than a little skepticism. But that is what Kobler said: video here, from Minute 6:32.

   Watch this site.
   

While Omar al Bashir in DR Congo for COMEX, Ban Ki-moon Speech & Ban Affleck in US Senate Do Not Mention, HRW Doesn't Answer on UN Meeting

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 26 -- Sudan's Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court, is still in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the summit of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. 

    In a long US Senate hearing on February 26 about the DRC, featuring Ben Affleck and Russ Feingold, Bashir did not come up.

  At the UN's February 26 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: I saw the statement by the Secretary-General, delivered by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) to the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) meeting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And there has been, President Omar al Bashir of Sudan is there and he is obviously indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the DRC is a signatory and is, availed itself of the Court. So, I am wondering whether the Secretary-General or MONUSCO or anyone in the UN system has any, has any view of the, the presence of an ICC indictee and an ICC member State where there is a large UN presence.

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply put, there is a Security Council resolution covering this matter, and countries are obliged to adhere to Security Council resolutions. And that’s all I have to say on the matter.

Inner City Press: And is there any contact by either the Secretary-General of UNCTAD or any other UN individual with Mr. [al-]Bashir during the time of the COMESA meeting?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I am not aware of any such contact.

  When Bashir went to Nigeria, Human Rights Watch and others which had said nothing when UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous met with Bashir in July 2013 suddenly leaped into action, saying Nigeria should arrest Bashir. When Bashir left, they said they'd chased him out.

   But other than, so far, a single non-specific reference in an AP story, there's less outcry about Bashir's visit to DRC -- whose Joseph Kabila government has used the ICC to go after its challengers, for example Bemba. Unlike Nigeria, there is a large, longstanding UN Peacekeeping (DPKO) mission in the DRC. So why the relative silence?

  When HRW chief Ken Roth met with Ban Ki-moon, Inner City Press repeatedly asked HRW for a read-out of what topics Roth raised. Eventually HRW responded that "to preserve our ability to have frank discussions with UN officials and advance our advocacy goals, we don't typically communicate on the content of discussions we have with them."

    Where is the transparency? And why the relative lack of noise when Bashir visits a UN-top heavy country like the DRC?

  Why the lack of explanations, for example from the UN about its rules for meeting ICC indictees, and why Ladsous' meeting with Bashir was considered essential or necessary. On February 20 Inner City Press after for a briefing by the UN's head lawyer Manuel de Serpa; on February 25, Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said there will be no such briefing.

   After publication of Inner City Press' February 25 article, and after Bashir was already in the DRC, a press release went out calling on DRC to arrest him. This should be compared to the advocacy around Bashir's visit to Nigeria. Inner City Press asked HRW about the comparison, and for any comment on Ladsous meeting Bashir - none has been received.

   After DPKO's Ladsous met with Bashir last year and Inner City Press repeatedly asked about it, a diplomat supportive of ICC told Inner City Press the new standard was or would be for the UN to check with the ICC before such contacts.

  On December 11, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda toldInner City Press that the ICC had not been told before Ladsous' meeting with Bashir.

   After the Financial Times reported on February 2 from the African Union summit in Addis Ababa that Bashir "met UN deputy secretary-general Jan Eliasson for an hour or so in private," UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was breathlessly asked and said, " I was informed that he followed all the appropriate procedures in terms of having the meeting."

  But what did that mean? There was at first no follow up. So Inner City Press, after asking about US official Victoria Nuland's leaked audio about UN political chief Jeffrey Feltman, asked:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask on this question on the International Criminal Court and the procedures for UN contacts with indictees. Back in July there was a meeting between Under Secretary-General [Hervé] Ladsous and Omer al-Bashir. And I’ve spoken to Fatou Bensouda, and she said that they were not contacted in that case. I wanted to know, just sort of yes or no, is that… In the answer you gave on the Deputy Secretary-General, are you saying that before meeting someone indicted, like Omar al-Bashir, the UN is supposed to check with the ICC or inform them in advance?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: No, what I said is that any such meetings have to be on the basis of operational necessity. And that was the case for both the meeting that was held by the Deputy Secretary-General and also with regard to the meeting by Under-Secretary-General Ladsous.

Inner City Press: Who makes that determination? They ask OLA? Or each individual makes his own-

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The Office for Legal Affairs is routinely consulted on any of these particular meetings, yes.

   So under the new chief of OLA, the UN is saying it does NOT have to check with the ICC. Is this backsliding? What will those ICC proponents do? Seems like it's time for a briefing by OLA, or by DSG Eliasson, since Ladsous has been allowed to refuse to answer questions. We'll have more on this.

  December background: When on Sudan the International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda briefed the UN Security Council on Wednesday, about the need to arrest Sudanese president Omar al Bashir, there was an elephant in the room: UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who met with Bashir in July.

  Actually, Ladsous had been in the Security Council in the morning, but unlike the other two briefers did not speak to or take any questions from the press when he left.

  Bensouda said that either Sudan could come contest the indictment of Bashir (and others including Ahmad Haroon, to whom Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping has given free flights to and from Abyei) -- or, arrests should be made. Ladsous made no arrests in July.

  After Wednesday's meeting, Inner City Press waited and asked Bensouda what she as prosecutor thought of UN official Ladsous having met with Bashir.

  Bensouda said, "we are consistently saying that these non essential meetings should be avoided.... I do not know what was the purpose of that meeting."

  She cited a UN policy -- put out by the Office of Legal Affairs but apparently not respected by Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- of only essential meetings being held with indictees.

  Inner City Press asked her if, as a major / vocal state party to the Rome Statute told it, the UN is now going to give the Court or Association of State Parties prior notice before contacts like Ladsous' with Bashir.

  Bensouda replied that she wouldn't call it notice, but "we have discussed some visits before, why it was essential."

  So, Inner City Press asked, what about Ladsous' July 2013 meeting with Bashir?

  Bensouda said, "the one in July, we have not had any information about it."

  Ladsous has a history, of not answering Press questions.Video here, UK coverage here. But this is one he should still answer. But will he?

  Sudanese previous Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, after harshly criticizing Bensouda in his speech in the Council, agreed to answer a few Inner City Press questions afterward in the so called Turkish Lounge next to the Security Council. 

 While this used to be the media's space, during the UN renovation the UN took money from Turkey for the space. Now, it is said, reporters can only go there if invited by a diplomat. This is challenged by the new Free UN Coalition for Access as a decline in working conditions and access under this UN.

  While disfavored NGOs are told they cannot be at the stakeout, Human Rights Watch's UN lobbyist, a former France 24 and Le Monde journalist, was then at the stakeout spinning Central African Republic, with no mention of its problems' French colonial roots.  Is this part of the access? As Inner City Press says: Ladsous is the elephant in the room. Watch this site.

   

At DR Congo Hearing, Ben Affleck Pitches Chocolate & Meece, Wants MONUSCO Sunset, Russ Feingold on FDLR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 26 -- While Ben Affleck and Russ Feingold were the two who before testifying to the Senate about the Congo met with UN Secretary of State John Kerry, former UN envoy Roger Meece testified as well.

  When Meece was in charge of the UN Mission MONUSCO, there were questions including raised by Ambassador Susan Rice about failing to protect the victims of the Walikale mass rapes, following by a failed project Inner City Press dubbed "Meece's mills."

  Affleck on February 26 praised Meece's tenure at MONUSCO, perhaps being diplomatic -- but he also called for MONUSCO to sunset, to at long last finish. It's similar to calls in Haiti that the MINUSTAH mission be dissolved and the funds be devoted to combating the cholera the UN brought to the island.

  Russ Feingold called for MONUSCO's Force Intervention Brigade to "soon" neutralize the Hutu FDLR militia, as it did the M23. Affleck talked up a kind of organic chocolate bar -- for sale at Whole Foods, he added -- calling it the "magic of capitalism." This goes over big in the US Senate; Senator Flake called it bipartisan, and both sides (and Affleck) praised Cindy McCain.

  Back on February 25, "Sexual Violence in Conflict" was the topic of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his UK counterpart William Hague. One hoped for an update on or at least mention of the more than 100 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012.

   Instead the news was Kerry saying that there will be no US visas for those who perpetrate or order sexual violence in conflict zones. 

  OK, here's a place to start: the US-trained 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army FARDC, which took part in the mass rape at Minova.

   That was more than 14 months ago, and yet at today's press conference by the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO, it was reported that in the already delayed interview of victims in Minova, interviewers spoke with barely a quarter of the more than 200 listed victims. Still no justice. So will there be visas? This is a test case -- for outcome if any of the Affleck - Kerry - Russ Feingold talks as well.

  Yesterday's Kerry - Hague transcript mentioned "DRC" five times, and "Congo" three, but there was nothing on Minova. Instead, the implication is that all the rapes in Eastern Congo are by the M23 -- not the FDLR, much less the Congolese Army, which the US supports.

  In fact the 391st Battalion, one of two charged with the Minova rapes, was trained by the United States. (Click here for comment the US Mission to the UN provided to Inner City Press, which also first reported that Ambassador Samantha Power raised Minova to Joseph Kabila in October.) 

  So maybe a Minova update next time? Or on February 26, when Kerry meets Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold as well as Ben Affleck? From the February 25 transcript

Secretary of State Kerry: "In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts."

  Back on January 13, after UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council about "the need to address ill-discipline within the [Congolese Army] FARDC and National Police and to pursue all outstanding cases of misconduct," Inner City Press asked him about the FARDC's mass rapes at Minova in November 2012. 

  Kobler acknowledged that the most recent hearing in the Minova case had been postponed, that witness statements have still not been taken. Video here, from Minute 6:32. 

  Given that the UN says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy of not supporting army units engaged in abuses, how much longer will the UN accept this? Thirteen months and counting.

  Perhaps relatedly, after rumors of the death of Rwanda's Paul Kagame were shot down, across the border in the Eastern Congo, a time-stamped photograph was tweeted of a UN truck full of people on the back, captioned "MONUSCO in Goma celebrating the death of Pres Paul Kagame."

  It seemed worth asking the UN mission chief Martin Kobler to comment on or explain the photograph, and Inner City Press sent this, to Kobler and three MONUSCO spokespeople:

"Please comment on / explain this time-stamped photo, which is being described as a UN truck participating in "celebrations" of the rumor of the Rwandan president's death. Do you dispute that the photo was taken on January 10? To whom is the UN giving a ride in this truck / photo? In what context?"

   After a time, UN envoy Kobler replied:

"@innercitypress Ceci apparait de toute évidence comme une utilisation frauduleuse d'un véhicule de la #Monusco. C'est inacceptable"

  Translated: "This appears clearly as a fraudulent use of a vehicle of the #Monusco. This is unacceptable."

(Translation not by Google, not only because of NSA spying issues but also acquiescence in Digital Millennium Copyright Act abuse by Reuters UN bureau, click here for that.)

  The question became, now what does Kobler, or those above him in New York, do?  

  Inner City Press on January 10 went to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's press conference, 11 am in New York, to ask this question: "in the DRC this morning, after false rumors of Paul Kagame being dead, a MONUSCO truck was photographed in what some call celebrations and Martin Kobler told me is "unacceptable." What do you think your UN should do about this, in terms of the perception of impartiality or bias by the UN?"

  But Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq did not call on Inner City Press, instead automatically giving the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association(a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), then mostly questions soft on the UN about Syria.

  Next came spin from MONUSCO, e-mailed to the Press:

Fraudulent use of MONUSCO truck in Goma

Kinshasa, 10 January 2014 - MONUSCO is aware of a photo being circulated on the internet showing a MONUSCO truck in Goma during a demonstration.

In reality, the truck was taken over by demonstrators while on a regular mission. The driver was alone and unarmed when the incident happened. MONUSCO condemns this agressivity against its assets.

MONUSCO has launched a full investigation to ascertain the circumstances and the context surrounding the incident. 

  But how does the UN explain, then, this UN jeep or Four by Four in this longer video of the anti-Kagame protests, from Minute 1:04 to 1:54? http://youtu.be/L9EPcUOpT1M

 On January 13, Inner City Press asked Kobler about the two vehicles. He said that both had been taken over, which now seems to mean that the UN drivers remained in the vehicles, carrying the protesters, on the single road from Sake to Munigi, through Goma.

  Kobler said the drivers were unarmed, but even if armed would not have tried to get the demonstrators off, at least not be using force. He said the protesters got off or disappeared out by the Uruguayan peacekeepers' base by the airport. There is more than a little skepticism. But that is what Kobler said: video here, from Minute 6:32.

   Watch this site.
   

As John Kerry Says No Visas for Rapists, What of Minova Rapes by US Trained Unit of Army in DRC, Affleck & Feingold Meeting?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 26 -- With Ben Affleck set to today meet Secretary of State John Kerry about the Congo, the hype comes not from the side of Hollywood but rather the government, or governments.

  On February 25, "Sexual Violence in Conflict" was the topic of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his UK counterpart William Hague. One hoped for an update on or at least mention of the more than 100 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012.

   Instead the news was Kerry saying that there will be no US visas for those who perpetrate or order sexual violence in conflict zones. 

  OK, here's a place to start: the US-trained 391st Battalion of the Congolese Army FARDC, which took part in the mass rape at Minova.

   That was more than 14 months ago, and yet at today's press conference by the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO, it was reported that the already delayed interviews of victims in Minova spoke with barely a quarter of the more than 200 listed victims. Still no justice. So will there be visas? This is a test case -- for the Affleck - Kerry - Russ Feingold talks as well.

  Yesterday's Kerry - Hague transcript mentioned "DRC" five times, and "Congo" three, but there was nothing on Minova. Instead, the implication is that all the rapes in Eastern Congo are by the M23 -- not the FDLR, much less the Congolese Army, which the US supports.

  In fact the 391st Battalion, one of two charged with the Minova rapes, was trained by the United States. (Click here for comment the US Mission to the UN provided to Inner City Press, which also first reported that Ambassador Samantha Power raised Minova to Joseph Kabila in October.) 

  So maybe a Minova update next time? Or on February 26, when Kerry meets Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold as well as Ben Affleck? From the February 25 transcript

Secretary of State Kerry: "In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts."

  Back on January 13, after UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council about "the need to address ill-discipline within the [Congolese Army] FARDC and National Police and to pursue all outstanding cases of misconduct," Inner City Press asked him about the FARDC's mass rapes at Minova in November 2012. 

  Kobler acknowledged that the most recent hearing in the Minova case had been postponed, that witness statements have still not been taken. Video here, from Minute 6:32. 

  Given that the UN says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy of not supporting army units engaged in abuses, how much longer will the UN accept this? Thirteen months and counting.

  Perhaps relatedly, after rumors of the death of Rwanda's Paul Kagame were shot down, across the border in the Eastern Congo, a time-stamped photograph was tweeted of a UN truck full of people on the back, captioned "MONUSCO in Goma celebrating the death of Pres Paul Kagame."

  It seemed worth asking the UN mission chief Martin Kobler to comment on or explain the photograph, and Inner City Press sent this, to Kobler and three MONUSCO spokespeople:

"Please comment on / explain this time-stamped photo, which is being described as a UN truck participating in "celebrations" of the rumor of the Rwandan president's death. Do you dispute that the photo was taken on January 10? To whom is the UN giving a ride in this truck / photo? In what context?"

   After a time, UN envoy Kobler replied:

"@innercitypress Ceci apparait de toute évidence comme une utilisation frauduleuse d'un véhicule de la #Monusco. C'est inacceptable"

  Translated: "This appears clearly as a fraudulent use of a vehicle of the #Monusco. This is unacceptable."

(Translation not by Google, not only because of NSA spying issues but also acquiescence in Digital Millennium Copyright Act abuse by Reuters UN bureau, click here for that.)

  The question became, now what does Kobler, or those above him in New York, do?  

  Inner City Press on January 10 went to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's press conference, 11 am in New York, to ask this question: "in the DRC this morning, after false rumors of Paul Kagame being dead, a MONUSCO truck was photographed in what some call celebrations and Martin Kobler told me is "unacceptable." What do you think your UN should do about this, in terms of the perception of impartiality or bias by the UN?"

  But Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq did not call on Inner City Press, instead automatically giving the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association(a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), then mostly questions soft on the UN about Syria.

  Next came spin from MONUSCO, e-mailed to the Press:

Fraudulent use of MONUSCO truck in Goma

Kinshasa, 10 January 2014 - MONUSCO is aware of a photo being circulated on the internet showing a MONUSCO truck in Goma during a demonstration.

In reality, the truck was taken over by demonstrators while on a regular mission. The driver was alone and unarmed when the incident happened. MONUSCO condemns this agressivity against its assets.

MONUSCO has launched a full investigation to ascertain the circumstances and the context surrounding the incident. 

  But how does the UN explain, then, this UN jeep or Four by Four in this longer video of the anti-Kagame protests, from Minute 1:04 to 1:54? http://youtu.be/L9EPcUOpT1M

 On January 13, Inner City Press asked Kobler about the two vehicles. He said that both had been taken over, which now seems to mean that the UN drivers remained in the vehicles, carrying the protesters, on the single road from Sake to Munigi, through Goma.

  Kobler said the drivers were unarmed, but even if armed would not have tried to get the demonstrators off, at least not be using force. He said the protesters got off or disappeared out by the Uruguayan peacekeepers' base by the airport. There is more than a little skepticism. But that is what Kobler said: video here, from Minute 6:32.

   Watch this site.
   

As US John Kerry Cites Congo Rapes & M23, No Update on Minova Rapes by DRC Army's US Trained 391st Battalion

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 25 -- With "Sexual Violence in Conflict" the topic of US Secretary of State John Kerry and his UK counterpart William Hague on February 25, one hoped for an update on or at least mention of the more than 100 rapes by the Congolese Army in Minova in November 2012.

  But while the transcript mentioned "DRC" five times, and "Congo" three, there is nothing on Minova. Instead, the implication is that all the rapes in Eastern Congo are by the M23 -- not the FDLR, much less the Congolese Army, which the US supports.

  In fact the 391st Battalion, one of two charged with the Minova rapes, was trained by the United States. (Click here for comment the US Mission to the UN provided to Inner City Press, which also first reported that Ambassador Samantha Power raised Minova to Joseph Kabila in October.) 

  So maybe a Minova update next time? Or on February 26, when Kerry meets Great Lakes envoy Russ Feingold as well as Ben Affleck? From the February 25 transcript

Secretary of State Kerry: "In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts."

  Back on January 13, after UN envoy Martin Kobler told the Security Council about "the need to address ill-discipline within the [Congolese Army] FARDC and National Police and to pursue all outstanding cases of misconduct," Inner City Press asked him about the FARDC's mass rapes at Minova in November 2012. 

  Kobler acknowledged that the most recent hearing in the Minova case had been postponed, that witness statements have still not been taken. Video here, from Minute 6:32. 

  Given that the UN says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy of not supporting army units engaged in abuses, how much longer will the UN accept this? Thirteen months and counting.

  Perhaps relatedly, after rumors of the death of Rwanda's Paul Kagame were shot down, across the border in the Eastern Congo, a time-stamped photograph was tweeted of a UN truck full of people on the back, captioned "MONUSCO in Goma celebrating the death of Pres Paul Kagame."

  It seemed worth asking the UN mission chief Martin Kobler to comment on or explain the photograph, and Inner City Press sent this, to Kobler and three MONUSCO spokespeople:

"Please comment on / explain this time-stamped photo, which is being described as a UN truck participating in "celebrations" of the rumor of the Rwandan president's death. Do you dispute that the photo was taken on January 10? To whom is the UN giving a ride in this truck / photo? In what context?"

   After a time, UN envoy Kobler replied:

"@innercitypress Ceci apparait de toute évidence comme une utilisation frauduleuse d'un véhicule de la #Monusco. C'est inacceptable"

  Translated: "This appears clearly as a fraudulent use of a vehicle of the #Monusco. This is unacceptable."

(Translation not by Google, not only because of NSA spying issues but also acquiescence in Digital Millennium Copyright Act abuse by Reuters UN bureau, click here for that.)

  The question became, now what does Kobler, or those above him in New York, do?  

  Inner City Press on January 10 went to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's press conference, 11 am in New York, to ask this question: "in the DRC this morning, after false rumors of Paul Kagame being dead, a MONUSCO truck was photographed in what some call celebrations and Martin Kobler told me is "unacceptable." What do you think your UN should do about this, in terms of the perception of impartiality or bias by the UN?"

  But Ban's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq did not call on Inner City Press, instead automatically giving the first question to the United Nations Correspondents Association(a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), then mostly questions soft on the UN about Syria.

  Next came spin from MONUSCO, e-mailed to the Press:

Fraudulent use of MONUSCO truck in Goma

Kinshasa, 10 January 2014 - MONUSCO is aware of a photo being circulated on the internet showing a MONUSCO truck in Goma during a demonstration.

In reality, the truck was taken over by demonstrators while on a regular mission. The driver was alone and unarmed when the incident happened. MONUSCO condemns this agressivity against its assets.

MONUSCO has launched a full investigation to ascertain the circumstances and the context surrounding the incident. 

  But how does the UN explain, then, this UN jeep or Four by Four in this longer video of the anti-Kagame protests, from Minute 1:04 to 1:54? http://youtu.be/L9EPcUOpT1M

 On January 13, Inner City Press asked Kobler about the two vehicles. He said that both had been taken over, which now seems to mean that the UN drivers remained in the vehicles, carrying the protesters, on the single road from Sake to Munigi, through Goma.

  Kobler said the drivers were unarmed, but even if armed would not have tried to get the demonstrators off, at least not be using force. He said the protesters got off or disappeared out by the Uruguayan peacekeepers' base by the airport. There is more than a little skepticism. But that is what Kobler said: video here, from Minute 6:32.

   Watch this site.