In Child Soldier Spin, Herve Ladsous Leaves Early, Gerard Araud Defers, FSA & Mali UNaddressed at IPI

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 26 -- Child soldiers will be the topic of an open debate in the UN Security Council on March 7, under the upcoming presidency of Luxembourg. There are major topics, among them UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous allowing a UN listed child soldier recruiter into the UN Mission in Mali.

 Inside the UN, Ladsous refuses to answer Press questions, unlike his three French predecessors Miyet, Guehenno and Le Roy. Instead, he appeared briefing on February 26 across First Avenue at the International Peace Institute, and even there stayed for only nine minutes of questions and answer and then left.

  IPI, which tries to provide a highly controlled environment of friendly questions from its own board members, interns and fawning UN staff, didn't say in advance at least publicly that Ladsous would be there. 

 And the questions were mostly speeches -- Ladsous briefly said he is "nuance" on Chad, then left. With no answers, he was photographed re-entering the UN with his new spokesperson Nick Birnback (who must know that Le Roy and Guehenno, unlike Ladsous, answered questions).

  Left on the IPI panel was French Ambassador Gerard Araud, recently but increasingly Ladsous-like. Most recently he was (mis?) quoted in Le Monde about Morocco, which is now called un scandale in the UN. But he wasn't asked about it at IPI.

  In fact, Araud declined to answer even the "Security Council question" that IPI's Warren Hogue referred to him, choosing instead to take an implicit potshot at former Council member Pakistan for having child soldier "problems" on its territory.

  Filling in for him was Luxembourg's Sylvie Lucas, who announced the March 7 open debate. Here's hoping that Ladsous' choices in Mali, and the UN report on child soldiers recruitment and use by the Free Syrian Army -- on which the US has joined the UK in commenting on. What function for this UN is IPI playing?

  Back on February 11 when French Ambassador Gerard Araud emerged from the UN Security Council meeting on Syria, his spokesperson Frederic Jung made sure various forms of friendly state media could be serviced. 

  Inner City Press asked, repeatedly, "Child soldiers?"  This is because the Free Syrian Army, which France supports, has been found by the UN itself to both recruit and use child soldiers.  Here is the UN report (Para 12-13); here is UK comment.

  Since this was ostensibly a French priority under Araud's predecessor Jean-Maurice Ripert and de la Sabliere before that, Inner City Press put the question to Araud.

   But Araud's spokesperson Jung called on France 24, he called on US state media, he called, twice, on Reuters UN bureau chief.  Finally when Inner City Press again said "Child soldiers?" Araud answered as he walked away from the microphone -- pulling a Ladsous, it's called -- saying "O.P. 1," or operative paragraph one, which cites the UN report and condemns recruitment and use.

  But that's not the question: the question is, how can France continue to support a group that is named by the UN as a recruiter and user of child soldiers? We will continue asking.

  When UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi took press questions in Geneva on February 11, he confirmed he'll meet on February 14 with the US' Wendy Sherman and Russia's Gatilov, then return to New York "sometime next week" to tell Secretary General Ban Ki-moon what's going on.

    (Apparently phones and e-mail aren't good enough -- perhaps wise in light of the NSA and Nuland's intercepted call about Jeff Feltman and F- the EU.)

   Just as at the US State Department briefing on February 10, Brahimi was asked, Why wait until Friday? Brahimi said these are important people, it's hard to find a day.  Told that Syria's Mekdad complained his government had not been consulted, Brahimi agreed, saying that's how these trilateral meetings are done.

   Why don't you impose an agenda, Brahimi was asked.  He replied, I can't put a gun to their heads.

  The next question began, since you don't have a gun -- Brahimi cut in, I do have a gun but I don't want to use it. But what's the gUN?

  At the UN on the evening of February 10, at Iran's National Day reception featuring, among others, the Permanent Representatives of France, the UK and China, many references were made to how "delicate" the talks in Geneva are. Some cite this as the reason not to vote on the draft humanitarian resolution Russia's Vitaly Churkin calls "beyond redemption." Could ending the talks be Brahimi's gun?

  Here's Inner City Press tweeted photo of French PR Araud and Iran's PR Khazaee, and here's one of Araud making some point to Ban Ki-moon moments before.

The Syria "humanitarian draft" which French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has vowed to push in UN Security Council this week, while French President Francois Hollande is in Washington and San Francisco, was described by Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on February 10 as "beyond redemption."

  "They were trying to convene a meeting, but we felt that was not necessary," Churkin told the press. "They were insisting that the meeting should be dedicated to discussing a certain text, but we felt the text is beyond redemption." He said Russia wants to be back to "pragmatics."

  "This text is not going to be adopted," Churkin said, coming out of the UN Security Council seconds behind US Ambassador Samantha Power.

  An hour earlier in the US State Department briefing, deputy spokesperson Marie Harf had talked up the humanitarian resolution; she was asked why the US is supposedly deferring to the too-slow UN, after the high level humanitarian meeting in Rome.

  Churkin also said that meeting has been "quite useless" and that it "departed from the original conception." UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos is slated to brief the Security Council about it on February 13, but now one wonders: to what end?

  In Geneva, UN mediator Brahimi met with the Syrian National Coalition and the government's Bashar Ja'afari, usually its ambassador at the UN. Unlike in the last round, Brahimi did not hold a press conference. France 24 showed Ja'afari walking into entrance A13 of the UN in Geneva, then the SNC, in a loop.

  Neither they, nor other ostensibly Syria-focused media have done much follow up, but on January 29 Inner City Pressfirst published quotes from the UN's report on Syria Children and Armed Conflict, specifically that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers: 

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."

  Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN to respond to the report, since Congress in its 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act said the US Government should condemn the use of child soldiers by paramilitaries like the FSA. Inner City Press was told to put the request for comment in writing, and did, to the UK Mission as well.

   The report had already been circulated to Security Council members in English; the UK said it would wait to provide Inner City Press with a comment until the report was made official on February 3, that is to say, when it was translated into the UN's five other official languages and put on the Internet.

   Readers asked Inner City Press where on the UN website to find the Syria child soldiers report. Inner City Press told them it would go online on February 3, and noted that theFree UN Coalition for Access had previously opposed the UN withholding or delaying the release of important document like this.

  In this case, however, the delay affirmatively helped the Syrian opposition. On January 29 they were in Geneva, issuing statements about abuses by the Assad government. They were not asked about the Free Syrian Army's use of child soldiers.

   On February 3, Inner City Press again asked the UK for its comment, and it did arrive the following day on February 4:

"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.

"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.

"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."

    Before publishing the UK's quote, Inner City Press again in writing asked two spokespeople of the US Mission to the UN for their comment -- noting that the UK had provided one. As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that— 

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations; 

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1); 

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked the two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?" 

  The New York Times, saying that the child soldiers report was "quietly presented to the Security Council last week," had a quote from the State Department. Why was the report, and this statement, delayed a full six days until the Geneva II talks were over?

  Even more cynically, Voice of America on whoseBroadcasting Board of Governors US Secretary of State John Kerry serves, also ran a delayed / withheld story on the report; Reuters typically didn't bring up the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act  and claimed that the report was released on February 4, when even the Times said it was February 3 -- and see Inner City Press' January 29 story, here.

 On January 29, Inner City Press published additional quotes from the report, including that:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but what steps will actually be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.

   

Exclusive: At UN, As Ban Ki-moon's Five Year Rule Is Violated at ESCAP in Bangkok, Ladsous Wants to Push Haq There, UNreformed

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 7 -- There should be no more than five years at any one UN position, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced.

  But Inner City Press notes, for example, that the head of the Bangkok-based Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Noeleen Heyzer of Singapore, has been in place more than SIX years now. She was put into the position in August 2007, and it is now October 2013.

  But there's more to this than just another example of the UN not living up to its stated principles, as with its Human Rights Due Diligence Policy with continued aid to the two Congolese Army units implicated in the 135 rapes in Minova in November 2012.

Inner City Press is not the only one who noticed that Heyzer's Under Secretary General position at ESCAP could be freed up. 

  Well placed sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold THAT position, wants to push out his co-equal Under Secretary General for the Department of Field Support, Ameerah Haq.

  While an earlier Ban Ki-moon reform involved splitting Peacekeeping into two separate components, DPKO and DFS, now Ladsous wants to dominate both of them, by pushing Haq out of DFS and installing a person of his own choosing. (More on that in a future story.)

  Singapore is a serious UN country, so another USG post would have to be identified and given to Heyzer or another Singaporean. But Ladsous, or better said France, has this kind of control in the UN system.

  Beyond this abuse of Ban's supposed five year rule, it brings up the need for a more meaningful reform: no COUNTRY should be able to control a UN department for more than five years. France has held onto Peacekeeping, even since demanding it in exchange for not vetoing Kofi Annan becoming Secretary General. Here they are:

Secrétaires généraux adjoints des Nations Unis aux Opérations de Maintien de la Paix :

Kofi Annan : de mars 1993 à décembre 1996

Bernard Miyet : de janvier 1997 à octobre 2000

Jean-Marie Guéhenno : d'octobre 2000 à juillet 2008

Alain Le Roy : du 30 juin 2008 au 2 septembre 2011

Hervé Ladsous : à compter du 2 septembre 2011

This is UNacceptable: over 16 years, 9 months. It should end.

  At the other end of the UN spectrum, it's every UN department for itself. The Publishing Unit faces a zeroing out of jobs, from 150 position not long ago. To save some posts, in order to scan old documents in the basement of the UN library, sources exclusively tell Inner City Press that the UN is turning to its new Daddy Warbucks: Qatar.

  Warbucks because while the UN pleads for Qatar's money, that country's royal family funds war in Syria. But the UN says nothing. At least, then, the UN should create a bidding war to save more staffers' jobs. We are against lay-offs, but also against the UN becoming beholden to particular states, creating under Ban Ki-moon a UN "a la carte," to use another French phrase like faux (but not Pho).

  Meanwhile in the Department of Safety and Security, more security has been gained, commitments from acting Under Secretary General Kevin Kennedy. This emerged at the best "End of General Debate" party of the season, under the (broken) satellite dish over the East River Friday night. Compared to the faux ceremony of the UN Correspondents Association Executive Committee, which after spying for the UN through its first vice president had to beg interns to come via a rare flyer, DSS had steak and an open bar and plenty of good vibes.

  UNCA is given its clubhouse, in which it held a faux UN briefing by Gulf-supported Syria rebel boos Jarba (a/k/a Jarbucks), by the UN Department of Public Information, regarding which we have received a detailed recruitment complaint, regarding which we have publicly requested an explanation. The new Free UN Coalition for Access holds, if the explanation makes sense, it's fine. But to not respond, or to only selectively respond, is not. More on this to follow. Watch this site.

   

On Golan Kidnapping, Syria Today Gave Info to Ladsous' DPKO, Austria Out, Fiji Recce?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- Syria has today submitted to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations information about the kidnapping of a peacekeeper, Inner City Press has learned. See photo of cover letter, here.

In this last kidnapping, DPKO chief Herve Ladsous did not make an announcement in the usual fashion of his predecessors, also French, Alain Le Roy, Jean-Marie Guehenno and Bernard Miyet.

  Rather Ladsous confined the news to a "conversation" with scribes friendly to him, who did not ask or write about the charge, made in the General Assembly on May 14, that senior UN Secretariat officials know of involvement from Qatar in the kidnapping.

  Now, Ladsous' DPKO have been provided with more information, and for now the cover letter is public. Inner City Press on the morning of May 22 asked DPKO spokespeople about what Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari had informed DPKO of.

  The response was one of unawareness of any incident since May 15, and we appreciate it. But of the May 15 incident, which Ladsous confined to friendly scribes, what now?

What now that Austrian defense minister Gerald Klug says his country with withdraw its 380 peacekeepers from the Golan if the EU arms embargo is left to provide weapons to rebels?

   Have the Fijians finished their "recce"? These are questions that Ladsous should be answering: publicly, not only in conversations friendly scribes. Watch this site.

While France Wants Chad in Mali, Deby Rejects MNLA, & UN's Ladsous Refuses to Answer Press Question on MNLA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 27 -- While French Defense Ministere Jean-Yves Le Drian pressures Chad to keep its troops in Mali, the head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row in the post, on April 25 refused to answer the Press on who would disarm the MNLA. 

 Ladsous told Inner City Press, which asked about the MNLA, "I don't respond to you, Mister."  UN Video here

  Meanwhile Chad's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ahmad Allam-mi, told Inner City Press that Chad does not want to stay in northern Mali with the MNLA. So it becomes crucial that the question be answered: who will disarm the MNLA? How can the UN refuse to even take this question?

  A related question, that arose at the UN on April 26, is why isn't Ladsous disciplined or fired for refusing to answer Press questions, for example for four months on the 126 rapes in Minova by the Congolese Army, his partners? Click to see November 27, December 7, and December 18.

  The answer is that Ladsous was put in by France, a Permanent Five member of the Security Council with that power over Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  In fact, the only reason France “owns” UN Peacekeeping is a deal it stuck to remove its veto block on Kofi Annan ascending from Peacekeeping chief to Secretary General. The quid pro quo was France would get Peacekeeping.

  They put in Bernard Miyet, then Jean-Marie Guehenno (after Ladsous was rejected by Annan), then Alain Le Roy. They prepared to put in Jerome Bonnafont in 2001, but he bragged about getting the job (much the way the Brazilian General Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz has bragged of being Congo mission Force Commander before the UN announced it.)

  And so Ladsous was foisted on the UN, a candidate previously rejected. In 1994 records show he defended the flight of genocidaires into Eastern Congo. Now he represents UN Peacekeeping there?

  That, it seems, is why he began refusing to answer any Press questions. But why does Ban Ki-moon accept it? Because Ladsous was put in by France, and France has the veto. So it is up to France to do something, not only for the UN's good, but for its own. Watch this site.

France Uses Veto from World War Two to Control UN Peacekeeping, But Tweeted Mention of #WW2 Triggers UN Threat to Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 19 -- The UN was founded from the ashes of World War Two. Five victors were given permanent seats on its Security Council, each with veto power including over selection of the UN Secretary General.

  How then can the UN Secretariat threaten journalists who link decisions, including on which countries are given which top UN jobs, with World War Two? 

  Is this not censorship, or attempted censorship?

  Twenty four hours ago the UN's media accreditation boss Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press to contact him “urgently.”

  It turned out to be about a single tweet Inner City Press had sent on Thursday afternoon, noting that as the Police Adviser to Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had chosen to replace a Swedish woman with a German man, Stefan Feller.

  Along with a Twitter hashtag it launched earlier this year after Ladsous repeatedly refused to answer Press questions about 126 rapes in the Congo, #LADSOUS2013, Inner City Press added: #WW2.

  Dujarric had already pressured Inner City Press about its coverage of Ban Ki-moon, during Inner City Press' re-accreditation in mid-2012, and more recently about the #LADSOUS2013 hashtag.

But given that the rapes in Minova that Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press about ended up being profiled on BBC News and in the Guardian, it might be unseemly to try to discipline or threaten Inner City Press about#LADSOUS2013.

  So why not about #WW2?

When Inner City Press returned Dujarric's call, he began by saying, “I'm trying to understand why on Earth you make any reference to World War Two?”

  He then said the reference -- three characters and a hashtag -- was “idiotic at best and insulting to Feller before he's German and millions of people victimized in the war.” He demanded an explanation, twice saying, “I'm giving a chance.”

  Or what?

  While Inner City Press as a matter of principle -- and perhaps to save breath -- saw no reason to recount it again to Stephane Dujarric, France only has a permanent seat and veto on the Security Council because it is deemed to have been one of the five victors of World War Two.

  In 1996 France used its veto, while Kofi Annan was seeking to replace Boutros Boutros Ghali as Secretary General, to extract a commitment with regard to the top position in UN Peacekeeping.

  It put Bernard Miyet in the position, then was allowed to replace Miyet with another Frenchman, Jean-Marie Guehenno, in October 2000.

  Then, under Ban Ki-moon who was also subject to veto power(s) to become Secretary General, France has kept UN Peacekeeping twice more, with Alain Le Roy in 2008 and then in 2011 the worst of the four, who was rejected for the position by Kofi Annan in 2000: Herve Ladsous.

  So Inner City Press shouldn't put UN Peacekeeping, Ladsous and now his new Police Adviser in the same tweet with “WW2”? By whose orders? For what purpose?

  Or is it that putting as Ladsous' Police Adviser a man from Germany, as opposed to any other country, makes it actionable to mention World War Two?

  Inner City Press, surprised by Dujarric's demands and threat -- “I'm giving you a chance” -- quickly wrote an article, including Dujarric's written statement, here. 

  It noted that Dujarric's DPI led a raid on Inner City Press' office on March 18, rifled through papers and took photographs; the photographs were leaked on March 21 just after Ban's spokesman was contacted by BuzzFeed about the raid.

  Dujarric refuses to answer simple question: with whom did DPI share the photos that it took during the raid?

  We could also note that Dujarric on April 15 was involved in cutting off a Rwanda genocide survivor's story so that Ban could leave to attend another event, in the UN Tent. 

 Inner City Press wrote about it -- perhaps Dujarric didn't like that. But didn't that pass bounds of decency? Wasn't it insulting?

  The problem here is the UN allow its top media accreditation official to grill smaller media about articles and even tweets, while controlling their continues access to the UN. This is ham-handed censorship. 

  And now the Free UN Coalition for Access will be opposing it, and continuing to press for rules that will better guarantee freedom of speech and of the press at the UN. Watch this site.