Before UN's Population Event, Inner City Press Asks UNFPA of Chibok Kidnappings, #BringBackOurGirls

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 22 -- An hour before the International Conference on Population and Development event of the UN General Assembly on September 22, Inner City Press asked Babatunde Osotimehin of the UN Population Fund to confirm or deny if he could a possible deal between Boko Haram and the government of Nigeria, of which he used to be Minister of Health, to Bring Back Our Girls.

  Rather than confirm or deny, he linked Boko Haram to 9/11/01 in the United States, and ISIL, and Malala in Pakistan and women and girls in India; he said all of these should be taken more seriously. Well, yes. But what about the girls kidnapped in Chibok, on which UNFPA and the UN say they are working.

Back on September 19, Inner City Press asked UN officials Thomas Gass and John Wilmoth of the place of sexual and reproductive health issues in the event.

  Gass said the question goes to the heart of what humanity is, citing gender equality and access to sexual and reproductive health services. Wilmoth emphasized that the Cairo Declaration is not being re-negotiated; the previous position, that abortion should be safe where it is legal, remains.

  Back in April 2014 there was an all-night session of fight over the Commission on Population and Development.Past 11 pm the Permanent Representative of Kenya, that month's chair of the African Group, said there would be nosleight of hand solution. He went into Conference Room A with other Permanent Representatives, including those of Norway and then of Cameroon, who told Inner City Press that "in Africa we don't do Programs of Action, we do Declarations." 

  And after a long and murky night in the basement of the UN, a text was in fact adopted followed by a slew of mostly angry speeches from 6 to 7 am. 

Argentina's Permanent Representative regretted that language about unilateral sanctions, debt was not retained. She was followed by speakers from Jordan and Australia, all Security Council members this year. There are not a lot of 6 am Security Council meetings. But this is another part of the UN.

   Iran, set for a big role in CPD 48, joined with Egypt and Oman in slamming the deletion of language about "foreign occupation." South Africa pointed out paragraphs on which it negotiated in it national capacity, NOT as part of the African Group.

  The US speech was surprisingly upbeat, glad for citations to sexual and reproductive health, eager for the ICPD session in General Assembly. (Here is a John Kerry speech, since.)

  Hungary said it does not take "reproductive rights" to include abortion. The Holy See took this further. The European Union's deputy said that principles agreed to in Cairo 20 years ago are being re-litigated now.
 
  But on September 19, that's not what the UN's John Wilmoth told Inner City Press. And as Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access have asked before, what of Myanmar's anti-Royhinga census and reproduction policies? Speaking of reproductive issues? 

  At the September 19 press conference, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access thanked Gass and Wilmoth. Only two questions were asked: press briefings are being privatized as the UN, by its Censorship Alliance. We will be covering that, and the September 22 event. Watch this site. 

   

On Chibok Girls Kidnapped in Nigeria, ICP Asks UN Status of #BringBackOurGirls, Is Told “Government Is Working On It”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- When the UN announced on very short notice on August 20 that it would at noon host a briefing about the seemingly forgotten girls kidnapped in Chibok, by Ratidza Ndhlovu the head of the United Nations Populations Fund in Nigeria, there was an obvious question to ask.

  What has happened to #BringBackOurGirls, which swept through Hollywood and Nollywood and the White House but has now waned and been superseded, by Islamic State and ebola, suicides and downed airliners?

Inner City Press was called and and prepared to ask the question -- but got cut off (see below). After a softball question about UNFPA's dignity kits and psychological support, Inner City Press thanked Ndhlovu on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access and asked: what is the status of finding or even trying to find the girls?

  Ndhlovu said, “the government is working on it. As for the UN as a family we are pre-positioning for the girls when they come out, this is the role of the UN. The other part is for the government to take care of.”

  Nice role, that. Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman if Ban Ki-moon's envoy on the issue Said Djinnit, since moved to the Great Lakes, has been replaced. “There will be a replacement if there hasn't been one already for the head of the West Africa Office” was the answer. Like we said: forgotten.

This spokesman had called on Inner City Press -- but allow the first question to be taken or “reclaimed” by the UN Correspondents Association, a group whose Executive Board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN. 

  There have been no reforms; in anything UNCA, now the UN's Censorship Alliance, more aggressively demands the first question at such briefings, and then usually offers up a softball question of the type the UN likes. But the turning away from #BringBackOurGirls cannot be disguised, even by censors.

   

Boko Haram Statement of UN Security Council Has No ICC, So How Could Syria?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 9 -- When the UN Security Council belatedly issued a press statement about Boko Haram's "abduction of 276 schoolgirls of 14 April in Chibok, Nigeria" on May 9, it did not include a reference to the International Criminal Court.

  Inner City Press asked the Security Council's president for May, Oh Joon of South Korea, if the phrase "accountable at national or international levels" should be read as a reference to the ICC.

  "ICC is not mentioned in this press statement," Oh Joon replied. Video here.

  With France, the UK and non-ICC member USA all supporting ICC referral for Syria, that they couldn't or just didn't get even a mention of the ICC on the outrages of Boko Haram is telling.

  What will the UN's response to the mass abduction consist of: a mere visit by Said Djinnit, who already covers West African for the UN from an office in Dakar? As is true of so much of the #BringBackOurGirls response, it is too little, too late. 

  On Syria, after breathless reporting on May 7 about the US and France agreeing to a cynically sculpted resolution aiming to refer to the International Criminal Court some of the conflict in some parts of Syria, and even then with an exclusion for nationals of all non ICC members expect Syria, Inner City Press asked questions on May 8.

  Inner City Press is reliably informed that there has as yet been no discussion among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council about the draft; one member exclusively told Inner City Press, I don't think it will be passed.

  The issue also came up at the US State Department's May 8 briefing, where spokesperson Jen Psaki said the US supports the draft. She was asked about the occupied territory of the Golan Heights, but not about the full scope and cynicism of the carve outs.

  In 2011 when the Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, the US demanded and got a similar but narrowed carve-out (Libya has no Golan Heights and therefore no Israel issue). Even so, Brazil threatened to abstain based on the cynicism of the US carve-out, as Inner City Press covered here.

  So is the assumption that the current Elected Ten members of the Security Council are all less principled than Brazil in 2011?

  In the rush to make the US position seem principled or progressive, or newsworthy when a veto by Russia or China would make the whole charade an exercise in P3 feel-good while Assad reclaimed Homs, are these questions not even being asked?

  Needing this level of impunity shows a lack of confidence in the ICC. The message is, the ICC can be sicced on one's enemies, but only if one's friends are protected. The ICC is a tool.

  In terms of sourcing, if it is said that the US and France -- fresh off its stealth and non-admitted opposition to mere human rights monitoring in Western Sahara -- refused to comment on their game, who else could be the source? P3 minutes two equals what?

  Back in 2011, while publicly calling for an end to impunity, the US at a Council experts' meeting on the morning of February 26 demanded the following paragraph:

6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.

  When the resolution was adopted later that day -- after Security Council ambassadors quietly attended a Chinese circus before the 8 pm vote -- Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about the paragraph. (In 2014, Araud who is now slated to leave in July denied ever opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara, a position an African member of the Council during Araud tenure laughed at.)

  Of the Libay carve-out, applicable to the prospective Syria carve-out, Araud said in 2011, “that was for one country, it was absolutely necessary for one country to have that considering its parliamentary constraints, and this country we are in. It was a red line for the United States. It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the Council.”

  That day, Inner City Press was not called on to ask Ambassador Rice about the paragraph, and so wrote a story with Araud's quote and the paragraph.

On March 1, 2011 outside the UN General Assembly, Inner City Press managed to ask Rice:

Inner City Press: Can I ask you a question about the Security Council resolution? (inaudible) On the Security Council resolution that passed Saturday, some have now raised a question about the US asking for that paragraph six, which exempts Americans, and, I guess, others, anyone that's not an ICC member, from referral and prosecution by the ICC. They say it undercuts international law-Brazil said it, now the head of the Rome Statute grouping of member states said it. Why did the US ask for that? And don't you see a downside to saying there's no impunity if you are excluding people from referral?

Ambassador Rice: No, I don't see a downside. As you well know, the United States is not a party and we have thought it important, if we were going to, for the first time, affirmatively support such a resolution, to make sure that is was clear the limitations as to who jurisdiction applied to. That's why we supported that phrase. Your assertion and that of others that somehow this provides a pass for mercenaries, I think, is completely misplaced. I don't think that the International Criminal Court is going to spend its time and effort on foot soldiers that have been paid small amounts of money by Qadhafi. They're going to focus on the big fish, so I think your interest was misplaced.

  Counting on the ICC not to prosecute a certain size of killer seemed and seems a bit strange. Watch this site.