UNITED NATIONS GATE, August 3 – In choosing a replacement for Prince Zeid as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Secretary General Antonio Guterres has typically under-performed, being so slow that who ever is chosen will have a nearly unprecedentedly short time to prepare.
Now on August 3 Inner City Press' sources tell it of a short list of four: Pablo de Greiff of Colombia, Jorge Castañeda of Mexico, Claudia Paz y Paz of Guatemala and Argentinian judge Silvia Fernandez. If the decision is not made soon by Guterres, who has been on vacation location UNdisclosed since July 20 when he refused to answer Inner City Press why he had banned it (and had its reporter roughed up), then Guterres may name as Acting High Commissioner the current Deputy High Commissioner Kate Gilmore, from Australia like Guterres head of Security Peter Drennan. Gilmore has not been supportive of whistleblowers. She apparently continues to defend Rupert Colville and his egregious statements about Anders Kompass and others, with complete impunity (as, so far, Guterres Drennan and Alison Smale have enjoyed for having Inner City Press roughed up, ousted and now banned for 31 days and counting with no end in sight, Fox News story here, GAP blogs Iand II,Independent here - on August 3 while Inner City Press was reporting-out this story on Human Rights Commish short list, it was told by a free press group (not CPJ) that Guterres Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq told it Inner City Press will be told “in the coming days” if it's banned forever from UN for being roughed up covering UN Budget). How can a man who has ousted and banned a critical journalist for a Kafkaesque investigation by the one choosing a High Commissioner for Human Rights? Or deciding on bans for journalists who scrutinize and question him? Overall, the sources say, Bachelet and they say Bokova are out of the running. Traditionally the P5 UK, US and France play an important role in the selection of High Commissioner for Human Rights. But the UK is entirely focused on Brexit and the US is apparently disengaged, in part because of its withdrawal from the HRC and mooted funding cuts to OHCHR. The sources ay neither France nor the EU has a candidate. Nor have they done anything about Guterres' censorship of the Press at the UN. Today's UN system's attacks on whistleblowers extend from New York where Secretary General Antonio Guterres' armed Security officials ousted the Press on June 22 (video, new petition, Q&A) to Geneva where outgoing Human Rights Commissioner Zeid's Deputy Kate Gilmore and spokesman Rupert Colville deploy "hard talk" (and worse) against whistleblowers.
Today in Geneva Deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore - in typical UN fashion, a good friend of Zeid's wife princess Sarah - who Amnesty International decided it was worth paying to leave a few years back because she was so toxic to the organization) had what she terms a “hard talk.” Whistleblower Emma Reilly, of whose case Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN, posed the first question. Reilly noted that the UN's Central African Republic panel found that Zeid went after whistleblowers with a “single minded determination,” and said that her own experience confirmed this. She referred to emails sent by the OHCHR Spokesperson Rupert Colville to journalists that referred to CAR whistleblowers Anders Kompass and Miranda Brown as “dishonest... disgusting... underhanded” and the “sh*ttiest” individuals he had encountered in a 30-year career, and even accused Anders Kompass - Sweden’s ambassador to Guatemala - as being “in the pay of the French.” Reilly noted that journalists reported to her that Colville regularly resorted to personal insults and questioned her sanity when “asked about OHCHR handing over names to the Chinese.”
Reilly then asked if Gilmore agreed with the UN position that these emails, sent from a UN spokesman’s account during UN working hours in response to a request for comment from the UN, were personal. If so, she asked if the UN would lift immunity to allow her to sue the spokesperson in national courts.
Gilmore avoided the question. We'll have more on this - and on Guterres' lead spokesman, who has moved beyond insults and exclusion of Inner City Press to bringing about physical ouster by armed UN Security officers who refused to give their names, and running off the podium as Inner City Press asks about it. On June 29 after publishing the above, Inner City Press asked Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: I have a Human Rights Commissioner question.
Spokesman: Go ahead. Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you. There was a Q and A by Kate Gilmore, the Deputy High Commissioner of Human Rights, today in Geneva, and an issue arose in which… several whistle-blowers raised the fact that they have evidence, they say, that the spokesperson for, for Prince Zeid, Rupert Colville, has, from, on his UN computer during UN time, said that the whistle-blowers are the worst people he’s ever known, used a profanity. And so they wanted to know, since it’s, it’s their understanding that this was then said in a personal capacity by the spokesman, not as a UN statement, whether the UN will, in fact, waive immunity so that they can take some kind of a legal action? They’re very troubled that the spokesperson…
Spokesman: I… I didn’t see the Q and A. What I do know is that Mr. Colville does an outstanding, an outstanding job in promoting and defending human rights.
Inner City Press: Would you say it’s consistent with the whistle-blower protections…?
Spokesman: I’m not going to, I’m not going to talk about things that I don’t know, most of the time." Really. The UN took most of its counter-terrorism money from Saudi Arabia, just as Secretary General Antonio Guterres smiled and took a $930 million check from Saudi's Crown Prince and said nothing about Saudi bombing of Yemen, and now assault on the port of Hodeidah there. On June 18 the UN in New York held a so-called background briefing for only some of the media which cover the UN day to day. On June 19 Inner City Press asked the Office of the Spokesperson, the briefer and the UN's Global Communicator why, with no answer yet in 48 hours. Instead the response has been frivolous complaints about Inner City Press non- or anti-spoonfed coverage. And on June 22, Guterres' UN Security ousted Inner City Press from the UN without even its laptop, during an event at which Guterres gave a bragging speech. Video here, story here, new petition here.
Now Guterres is seeking to exclude civil society from his counter-terrorism conference, just as he excluded the Press from his ghoulishJune 26 river-walk purporting to be committed to free speech, here. On June 27, during a visit to India, US Ambassador Nikki Haley issued a statement that "It is outrageous that the UN’s new Office of Counterterrorism would choose to make blocking civil society participation its first meaningful act. There is no reasonable explanation for why the UN would seek to censor this conference, except that it caved to political pressure from a handful of nefarious countries with no credibility on countering terrorism – like Russia, Syria, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela – and for which restricting access and blocking civil society participation is the norm. This decision is an abuse of the UN’s new counterterrorism office and a stain on the UN’s record on transparency and civil society inclusion. As a result, the United States will downgrade our level of representation at the conference." Some UN sources told the US was never that into it. And when Inner City Press asked at the June 27 noon briefing, Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric claimed that NGOs will be prominent - on the second day. Dujarric said that he personally excluded Inner City Press from the briefing, claiming he has had issues before with Inner City Press and background briefing, saying Inner City Press live tweeted them. False: a recent Chatham House rules sales pitch by Jane's Defence, in the UN library, featured Jane's Defense telling Inner City Press to leave- and then apologizing in the hallway. For actual ouster with guns, no apology or more importantly reversal from those responsible, including Dujarric. We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press was excluded from the background briefing even as the UN's head of Counter-Terrorism Vladimir Voronkov gave an interview about the conference to "UN News" Russian language radio chief Elena Vapnitchnaia, introduced by Omar Musni. He spoke of work with Iraq, and of a speaker from Mali, as well as of Google and Facebook. Why was Inner City Press excluded from the briefing then, and why has none of the three officials asked, including USG Alison Smale who among other things is in charge of "UN News," even purported to offer an explanation?
Inner City Press has criticized Guterres for his silence in taking the Saudi check, and which remains restricted for covering the bribery of the UN by Ng Lap Seng and South South News - which has placed people not only in UNTV but even in UN Department of Public Information - and now by Patrick Ho and the China Energy Fund Committee.
Other than more targeted censorship, the only rationale for excluding Inner City Press which was one of only five media - including one which also works for UN Photo - covering the Small Arms and Light Weapons press conference on June 18, is that it is no longer a “resident correspondent.”
This is due to Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who evicted Inner City Press from the UN Press Briefing Room and from its office, and from DPI's Alison Smale, who still has no content neutral rule while putting in Inner City Press' office a no-show Egypt state media Akhbar al Yom. And so on June 19, Inner City Press wrote to the person who took "RSVPs" for the briefing Ms Soares Pinto - who as it turns out work for Dujarric - as well as to Vladimir Voronkov (then in Russia, photos show) and to Alison Smale: "this is a request to be informed on what basis, or using which criteria, it was decided to invite some but not all journalists who cover the UN and Counter-Terrorism to the June 18 background briefing about the upcoming High Level Conference. I am a journalist who covers the UN closes, asks the Spokesperson many questions including about counter-terrorism. I would like to know why I was not informed of the background briefing about the June 28-29 Conference. Please confirm receipt, on deadline." And... nothing, more than 48 hours later, even from the person in Dujarric's spokesperson's office.
Just as Smale has refused to answer detailed petitions with 5000+ signatures, she did not answer this. She has her husband playing piano at a World Cup event - this is today's UN. On the same June 19, Minutes before US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced the US' withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, the doors to the UN Press Briefing Room opened. But nothing was announced. While many media had asked the UN for response, the spokesman for out of town, World Cup bound Secretary General Antonio Guterres arranged for a private “press conference” with Qatar's Al Jazeera. Inner City Press, evicted from the UN Press Briefing Room and its UN work space by Dujarric, was trying to cover the HRC announcement from a small focus booth on the UN second floor. Click here for Inner City Press' Periscope stream. And when UN Spokesman Dujarric led only Al Jazeera into the UN Press Briefing Room on June 19 for a faux press conference to provide Guterres' response to Trump leaving the Human Rights Council and Inner City Press live-streamed it, Dujarric and the Al Jazeera trio he led in -- James Bays, Whitney Hurst and cameraman Bradley McLennan who went in before Pompeo and Haley made the announcement - are trying to further restrict Inner City Press. How can one journalist, with the now required UN minder, live streaming three correspondents and a spokesman be threatening? It is like the fake injuries in the World Cup. We'll have more on this.
UNITED NATIONS, March 12 -- Even with the deadline for an agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC being pushed back, Germany's Special Envoy on Colombia Tom Koenigs spoke with the Press on March 11.
He had, he said, met with UN Under Secretaries General Feltman, Mulet, Ladsous and Khare, about the upcoming UN mission to be headed by Frenchman Jean Arnault. He noted the history of cultural exchange between Germany and Colombia," saying that "Germans read a lot of Garcia Marquez."
Inner City Press asked Koenigs about the cost of the peace process - and how much Germany would contribute - and about impunity, including in relation to the process, such as it is, in Sri Lanka.
Koenigs among other things said:
To Inner City Press' financial question: "Germany has close relations to Colombia and is ready to support the peace process politically and through technical cooperation in a number of areas. Loan of 300 million Euros by German KfW Development Bank. In addition: 50 million in technical and development cooperation, plus approximately 1 million EUR per year for bilateral demining programs. Also: science and technology transfer through cooperation of universities in the two countries."
To Inner City Press' impunity question: "Those responsible for war crimes have to be brought to justice. Colombia is establishing a transitional justice system and is also a party to the Rome Statute. Impunity is not an option. However, prisons are not the only possible method of corrections. There may be alternatives which could be explored."
Inner City Press had and has some questions about those not part of the FARC negotiations in Cuba - more on that in another story.
Germany is running again for UN Security Council for 2019-20. By the election in 2018, the 2015 Person of the Year award to Chancellor Angela Merkel from TIME Magazine may have faded in memory. Still, its economy is larger than the two other European countries with Permanent seats on the Council; it is about to send 650 peacekeepers to MINUSMA in Mali, on top its current UN peacekeeping contribution of 150 military, 35 police and 60 civilians.
On January 21 Germany's Permanent Representative to the UN Harald Braun held a background briefing on his Mission's 22nd floor. Inner City Press asked three questions and afterward got permission to publish the following responses from Ambassador Braun, on Germany's positions:
On Libya, on which Inner City Press asked whether the recent slew of good-news press statements by the UN Secretary General, the Security Council and many states really mean that the corner has been turned, Ambassador Braun called the situation an“uphill struggle” but said that UN envoy Martin Kobler (who separately told Inner City Press he has a return ticket to the German foreign ministry,video here) has “offered the right instruments.”
On Burundi, Germany's Ambassador Braun said, “It is important to dialogue, especially with countries that have human rights issues. We believe that in the current situation it is right for the Security Council to put pressure on the government in Burundi.”
Harald Braun in UNSC, eye on 2019-20, UN Photo/Loey Felipe
And on North Korea and its nuclear test, Braun said, “I believe that China was just as surprised as other Council members... It is my expectation that China will agree to a targeted set of sanctions.”
On this last, no draft has yet been circulated even to all Permanent Five members of the Security Council, they say. Germany, along with a number of other countries, would like to have such a seat. The above are its positions at the UN, on which we'll have more. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- After the UN Security Council quickly passed a resolution on Colombia for unarmed international observers responsible for the monitoring and verification of the laying down of arms on January 25, Inner City Press asked Colombia's foreign minister María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar two questions.
Are there any names yet for the UN envoy post, should he or she like the observers come from CELAC? And what about the Urabeños, which some call paramilitaries and some call merely a gang?
Holguín said it will be up to Ban Ki-moon to propose names -- and derived the Urabeños as narco-traffickers, to be frontally opposed. Video here.
The resolution, which Inner City Press put on Scribd as soon as it was passed, “decides to establish a political mission to participate for a period of 12 months, as the international component and coordinator of the above-mentioned tripartite mechanism (the Mission), headed by a special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and decides further that the Mission will be a political mission of unarmed international observers, responsible for the monitoring and verification of the laying down of arms, and a part of the tripartite mechanism that will monitor and verify the definitive bilateral ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, consistent with the Joint Communique, beginning all monitoring and verification activities, which will commence the 12 month period, following the signing of the Final Peace Agreement between the Government of Colombia and the FARC-EP."
In its resolution, the Security Council “requests the Secretary-General to initiate preparations now, including on the ground, and to present detailed recommendations to the Security Council for its consideration and approval regarding the size and operational aspects and mandate of the Mission, consistent with the Joint Communique. as soon as possible and then within 30 days of the signature of the ceasefire agreement by the Government of Colombia and the FARC-EP, in light of its provisions and looks forward to the contributions of Member States of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to the Mission.”
The Security Council in conclusion “requests the Secretary-General, based on the reporting of the special representative to the Secretary-General, to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the Mission's mandate every 90 days after the start of its monitoring and verification activities and on completion of the Mission and expresses its willingness to consider extending the Mission upon the joint request of the Government of Colombia and the FARC-EP.”
UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- The day after Pope Francis in his General Assembly speech denounced "usury, especially where developing countries are concerned," Inner City Press on September 26 asked Bolivia's President Evo Morales what the next steps for the sovereign debt restructuring proposals are in the UN General Assembly.Video here.
The Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution on the issue, with opposition from the US and some European countries, but new President of the General Assembly Mogens Lyyketoft of Denmark on September 25 said he didn't think the issue would be dealt with in the walls of the UN, see below. Morales replied that it requires political will, that anti-imperialist leaders see such debt as an aggression. He praised Latin America, Colombian President Santos' talk with the FARC, listing Malvinas Islands and the US embargo on Cuba as issues remaining to be addressed. He praised the BRICS.
Previously the old UN Correspondents Association disrupted a Morales press conference to demand they get the first question. This time, further weakened, they weren't even there; Inner City Press thanked Morales for the press conference on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access.
Background: on September 25 Inner City Press asked new General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft about the comment and the process in the GA, at least in the last session, on sovereign debt restructuring. Video here.
Lykketoft said that he didn't think the issue would be dealt with within the UN's walls -- strange, given that resolutions sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia and the Group of 77 and China on just his have passed by substantial majorities. Perhaps Inner City Press will have the opportunity to ask Lykketoft about this again: getting a question in to him is proving less straight forward that it should be, but we remain optimistic. Watch this site.
The issue of sovereign debt restructuring was taken up at the UN on December 5, 2014 with a resolution on modalities for negotiation sponsored by Bolivia for the Group of 77 and China put to a vote in the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly.
The US spoke against the resolution and in favor of dealing with it through the International Monetary Fund -- note that the US is blocking IMF reform -- and was one of 16 countries to vote "no." 34 countries abstained and fully 128 countries voted yes.
Afterward Bolovia's Permanent Representative Sacha Llorenti and his counterpart from Argentina Maria Cristina Perceval held a press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room.
Llorenti emphasized the greater legitimacy of the UN General Assembly -- one country, one vote -- over the pay to play environment of the IMF. He contrasted the 16 "no" voting countries as a percentage of those in the GA, versus their power in the IMF.
Perceval joined and expanded in this comments, and declined to comment on the company Inner City Press had asked about, Highland Capital. She said this is not about Argentina's problem but the multilateral process. She said that Argentina took a lead on the issue of the disappeared, though it was too late to help Argentina.
While understandable, there's nothing wrong with a particular country's problems being an engine for raising an issue of wider import. This is how things get changed, if they do, says the Free UN Coalition for Access. We'll have more on this.
On October 6 with the dispute between Argentina and hedge or vulture funds more and more discussed, the International Monetary Fund on released a paper and held an embargoed press call on the topic of "Strengthening the Contractual Framework to Address Collective Action Problems in Sovereign Debt Restructuring."
Inner City Press asked the IMF's Sean Hagan, General Counsel and Director of the IMF's Legal Department, how his "market based" approach relates to the vote take last month in the UN General Assembly and to respond to the critique that the lack of quota reform at the IMF undermines the legitimacy of its approach.
Hagan said the UNGA's approach is "treaty based," and that
"There was insufficient support in our members to support that approach, there has been in no change in the attitude of our members when we discussed this last year.”
But in essence the membership of the IMF is the same as the UN General Assembly -- it's just that in the IMF votes are weighed to wealth, measured in the past. The UN is controlled by five permanently veto-wielding Security Council members. At the IMF for now there is one veto: the US.
Hagan made much of Kazakhstan including some of the IMF supported language in its most recent bond issuance. He mentioned copycat litigation, already pending in Grenada. He said it seems the issue will be discussed at the upcoming IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in a session involving "civil society organizations." We'll have more on this.
For now, the IMF on October 6 said "Directors acknowledged that the recent New York court decisions with respect to Argentina may exacerbate collective action problems, although most felt that the extent of their impact on the restructuring process is still unclear. Directors welcomed the recent modification of pari passu clauses in certain sovereign bond issuances to explicitly exclude the obligation to effect ratable payments."
So beyond the cited Kakastan, how prevalent is this?
The IMF also on October 6 discussed "the inclusion of an enhanced collective action clause (CAC) that includes a more robust 'aggregation' feature to address collective action problems more effectively."
Back on September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."
At the IMF's embargoed briefing that day, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.
Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. But it's a power game.
When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia.
They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents.
He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.
Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.
Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.
But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site.
UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- When UNICEF held a press conference about early childhood development on September 22, one expected to hear and even ask about interventions like Universal Pre-K in the UN's host city, and variations in other, less developed countries. Even with Shakira appearing along with UNICEF's Tony Lake, she spoke of her foundation's work with children in Colombia. Periscope video here.
But UNICEF set aside the first question for the old UN Correspondents Association, which did not ask anything about early childhood development, or even Colombia, but instead about Syria and Shakira's children, mis-named. The second question was given to UNCA's past president, about what else, the Pope.
For the Pope's UN day on September 25, it turns out, UNCA has wrangled itself six set-aside positions, which it calls “pool” although it has never provided pooled coverage, at least not to those who don't pay money to it. After this set aside, the UN doggedly tried to hold a lottery for the remaining spots, inviting the Free UN Coalition for Access to observe, which was appreciated. But even this turned into an exercise in exclusion, with an UNCA representative opining that Inner City Press, or perhaps any New Media is “not a photographer” - then taking the contested Staff Meeting position for herself.
When French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly sexually abused children, as exposed in a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNICEF report given to the French government by longtime OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass.
Kompass was urged to resign -- according to a UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating him, by French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who has since tersely denied it -- and Miranda Brown who worked with him did in fact have her UN service ended, see below.
Since UNICEF had said very little about what it did after it learned of the alleged child rapes in CAR, when on June 30 UNICEF's Policy Director Jeffrey O'Malley held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him not only a question about water privatization, but also about UNICEF's response to child rape allegations in CAR, specificaly if it is UNICEF policy to at least give host government such information. Video here.
After non-response, Inner City Press emailed questions - now replied to by Sarah Crowe, UNICEF's Global Spokesperson:
Dear Mathew, here is our response to the questions you sent to my colleagues on CAR:
1) Is it UNICEF's policy to tell host governments when it becomes aware of such abuse? 2) Did it do so in this case?
This was a complex situation because of the status of the troops involved. UNICEF assisted MINUSCA with its interviews of the children affected and also helped to bring the issue to the attention of the Head of MINUSCA.
3) What if anything did UNICEF do for the “alleged” child victims once it learned of the allegations?
From the day the interviews with the children began, until the present, UNICEF has been working through local partners to help the affected children have access to medical assistance, psychosocial and legal support and the help of social workers, and to try to protect their identities.
4) When did Tony Lake become aware of the allegations of child sexual abuse by “peacekeepers” from France in the CAR? What did he do?
One of the Deputy Executive Directors was informed of these reports of abuse in mid July 2014 and then shared that information with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, as was UNICEF’s responsibility.
5) Will UNICEF hold a press conference to answer questions about its and its staff and officials actions in this case?
The UN Secretary-General has established an independent review into the process and the actions of the UN in relation to the CAR cases. To support the integrity of that independent process UNICEF does not plan any press conference on the issue.
While appreciating the responses, the first one about apparently not telling CAR authorities about the allegations due to the "status" of the troops involved is noteworthy. Does UNICEF have agreements with host countries? And does "status" here mean "nationality" -- French?
In any event, Ms. Crowe's answers are much better than the UN Office of the Spokesperson's two responses, and UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous' refusal to respond to Press questions.
On June 30, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said it wasn't an appropriate question -- Inner City Press, and the new Free UN Coalition for Access, disagree. Haq and O'Malley, after saying he was't dodging the question, said to ask UNICEF's communications team. Which was done.
On July 1, having received no substantive response, Inner City Pressasked Haq:
Sure. I wanted to ask kind of two interrelated questions. It's been announced by the French Defence Ministry that two of its soldiers in the Burkina Faso have been suspended on allegations of sexual abuse of a 5-year-old girl. So I wanted to know, given these pending allegations in CAR [Central African Republic], which the UN was aware last year, first, do you have any comment on that? Second, is there any update on the panel, now that we're in July? And third, yesterday you told me to write to UNICEF for their position on their role in the non… seeming non-action on this, and I did immediately from this very room. And I just… I guess I want to tell you I still don't have an answer. So I'd like to ask you…
Deputy Spokesman: On the last one, luckily, UNICEF has conveyed to me something to share with you, which is the following: What they're saying is that the Secretary-General has established an independent review into the process and the actions of the United Nations in relation to the Central African Republic cases. To support the integrity of that independent process, UNICEF does not plan any press conference on the issue. UNICEF continues to focus on the protection and care for the children who reported abuse, to monitor that they are receiving necessary support, and to protect the children from exposure to further traumatic experiences.
So that is for that. You've asked several questions. So please repeat those.
Question: A follow-up to that one.
Deputy Spokesman: That's what I have.
Question: It seems like the panel is now an opportunity to not answer questions. One of the questions that I asked them was, simply, does UNICEF have a policy of telling host country Governments when they become aware of allegations of sexual abuse against their own nationals? This seems like they shouldn't be able to say that.
Deputy Spokesman: This is the response of UNICEF and that's where they stand. Regarding the activities of the panel, I don't have any further updates to provide. Right now, the panel is in the process of gathering information. I know that a number of UN offices are sharing whatever relevant information they have, and we'll have to see what they do with that.
Question: Are the three panellists in New York?
Deputy Spokesman: I don't believe that they are in New York right now. But certainly we will share with them whatever information we can and they'll take it upon them.
Question: Has the ten weeks begun? Has the clock begun of the ten weeks?
Deputy Spokesman: Yes, the clock has begun. They're gathering information from… as I just said. And you had some other question?
Question: Burkina Faso, whether there’s any comments on the peacekeepers there…
[overlapping talking]
Deputy Spokesman: Those are not UN peacekeepers. That's a separate French force that has nothing to do with the United Nations.
Ah, the "status of the troops involved" again. But what does UNICEF say or do about the rape of a five year old girl? We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press: This has to do with the panel on the Central African Republic sexual abuse allegations. The Government Accountability Project, watchdog of whistle-blower protections, has identified Article 5 of the terms of reference, where it says that information will be provided… I remember it was said from here the panel can get all the information. But it seems to say it will only be provided with the information to the extent consistent with OIOS’s (Office of Internal Oversight Services) mandate. Since the mandate of OIOS is always described as being independent from the Secretariat, etc., does this, can you clarify what this means in terms of them actually getting information and address the concern that, if… if Carman Lapointe’s decision to meet with Flavia Pansieri and the Ethics Office in Italy in March is one of the issues that people are most concerned about in terms of independence, how can she be the one to decide what information to give and not give to the panel?
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Well, regarding the mandate, I mean, ultimately, the panel itself is operationally independent. They’ll have access to any UN documents or communications that they want to examine and they have access to personnel and all UN staff will be required to cooperate with the panel. So they have a very broad range of powers in order to carry out their work. But how they will go about that, that’s their decision.
Inner City Press: But this limitation on consistent with OIOS’s mandate does seem to provide… it doesn’t seem to say that they’re going to have access to every document they want.
Deputy Spokesman Haq: Ultimately, let’s see how the panel works within this. Like I said, they have a wide range of powers and ability to get information across the UN system and they will be operationally independent.
This doesn't resolve the conflict(s) of interest.
On June 24, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric not only of Penel member Jallow working for the ICTR, but being subject to an OIOS investigation:
Inner City Press: on Central African Republic, I wanted to ask, you'd said that Mr. [Hassan Bubacar] Jallow is going to step back from the ICTR [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] during the ten weeks. But it's been — it's — OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] has had — has jurisdiction over ICTR and has during his tenure there and it's my understanding that there were at least two OIOS inquiries into — you know, without casting aspersion on it only, to say to some it's sort of — it's not an independent inquiry. You have somebody that's worked for a long time for something subject to OIOS and had investigations by OIOS — OIOS now investigating OIOS and so what would you —
Spokesman: I think the panel, taken as a whole, is a first-rate panel. It has human rights experts. It has in — the panel member from South Africa served on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who's been an active voice for human rights in Africa. It has a former Supreme Court Justice of Canada who has led the independent investigation into sexual abuses, into the Canadian Armed Forces, that was done some years ago. And it has Mr. Jallow, who has knowledge of the UN system, who is an independent prosecutor, who is a first-rate jurist. And I think, you know, people are free to question the composition of the panel. And whatever the composition of the panel will be, people would have questioned it. I think we stand by this panel. We're very proud of it. It will do its work independently. It will choose its own staff. And it will work under the, I think, fairly broad terms of reference.
Inner City Press: Can you just get a statement on whether in fact Mr. Jallow has had — has been the respondent in OIOS cases, given that OIOS is being investigated by this panel?
Spokesman: First of all, OIOS is not being investigated by this panel.
Inner City Press: They're not?
Spokesman: I think they will look — the panel will look how the issues were handled, but I think to say that OIOS will be investigated by the panel is a jump.
Inner CIty Prss: But is it…
Spokesman: I — you know, if the — you know, the proceedings of any administrative tribunals are public, you're free to look; but, again, I'm not going to go on a witch hunt against Mr. Jallow and we're very proud to have him on the panel.
We'll have more on this.
On June 23 Inner City Press asked Dujarric why the investigation of Kompass would continue alongside Ban's new panel - and why Ban was refusing to disclose the country of origin of a new set of accused child sexual abusers, this time directly in the MINUSCA mission.
Dujarric on the latter replied that Ban will wait until (at least) his next report to begin naming names. In response, Inner City Press can report that senior UN sources have exclusively told it that in CAR the allegation is of two peacekeepers having sex with a 12 year old girl for less than one dollar - and these these peacekeepers are from Burundi.
That Ban would refuse to disclose this is particularly troubling in light of questions raised by Burundi civil society, and the Free UN Coalition for Access, about Ladsous' Peacekeeping still using abusive Burundi security forces. We'll have more on this.
On June 24 the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee adopted a resolution (in advance we put it online here and embedded below) which, on these issues, says that
Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
42. Recalls section IV of its resolution 66/264 and reaffirms the collective and unanimous position that one substantiated case of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is one case too many;
43. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of the United Nations policy of zero-tolerance of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in peacekeeping operations;
44. Welcomes the Secretary-General’s determination to strengthen measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in the areas of prevention, enforcement and remedial action;
45. Notes the declining number of reported allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse cases during this reporting period, and reiterates its concern at the number of cases, particularly those involving the most egregious forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse;
46. Expresses concern about the response of the United Nations to the recent allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in the Central African Republic;
47. Welcomes the establishment of an External Independent Review by the Secretary-General to review and assess the response of the United Nations to recent allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including in the Central African Republic, as well as a broad range of systemic issues related to how the United Nations responds to serious information of this kind, and encourages the Review to give due consideration to decision-making processes in all involved departments and offices and at all levels of the Organisation, including senior management;
48. Requests the Secretary-General to report expeditiously to the General Assembly on the findings of the Review, and further requests him to report on the lessons learned and measures for improvement no later than the main part of its seventieth session; 49. Recalls the Secretary-General’s Bulletin ST/SGB/2005/21 on protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations, and welcomes the prompt reporting in good faith of any misconduct, including sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in peacekeeping operations;
50. Recalls paragraph 21 of its resolution 69/272, encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to strengthen accountability in all sectors of field missions, and, to this end, urges the Secretary-General and Member States to undertake all relevant actions within their respective areas of competence, including holding perpetrators accountable; 51. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure the availability of easily accessible reporting mechanisms for victims of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse;
52. Also requests the Secretary-General to improve the timeliness and quality of investigations;
53. Stresses the importance of responsibility and accountability of the most senior managers in HQ and missions in determining organisational behaviour and leading by example for the conduct of both uniformed personnel and civilian staff in peacekeeping operations;
54. Requests the Secretary-General to make further efforts to ensure that all personnel are made fully aware of, and remain compliant with, their personal responsibilities regarding the zero-tolerance policy of the Organisation, upon their arrival in the mission and throughout their deployment;
55. Stresses the importance of training all personnel for the prevention of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and requests the Secretary-General to expedite the development of the e-learning programme and deploy it as soon as possible; 56. Recognizes the commitment of the troop-contributing countries to the United Nations zero tolerance policy against sexual exploitation and abuse;
57. Recalls paragraph 55 of the report of the Secretary-General (A/69/779) and requests the Secretary-General to engage in consultations with MS, in particular TCCS, on the reporting methodology on SEA cases, and to update the relevant Committees on the results of his efforts in this regard in his future reports;
58. Reiterates the importance of improving the collaboration between the SG and the TCCs and PCCs with regard to allegations of SEA, emphasizing the need to maintain a frequent exchange of information on the ongoing processes;
The UN tried to forestall questions by saying Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would name an independent panel to investigate. On June 5, Inner City Press exclusively reported that Ban himself told a group of states his panel would include at least one African, and one woman. The slower FP Turtle re-reported this, days later, as if heard for the first time; later it said Sweden is on the group, which is not the case.
On June 22 Ban belatedly named his three member panel. While it's called independent, one of the three members currently works for the UN's International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), Hassan Jallow.
Inner City Press at the June 22 UN noon briefing asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric how then it could be considered independent. He insisted it should be seen that way, while separately stating that everyone who works for the UN is paid by the UN.
On June 23, Dujarric returned to say Jallow will be stepping away in some fashion from the ICTR.
The other two members are Yasmin Sooka of South Africa, previously on a UN panel on Sri Lanka, and Marie Deschamps, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. “No Volcker,” one observer remarked.
Inner City Press asked Dujarric to confirm that Ban's deputy Jan Eliasson met on June 19 with concerned member states -- he did -- and to explain why this was not on Eliasson's public schedule (he did not). Inner City Press asked about Spokesman Dujarric about a UN spokesperson calling whistleblower Kompass a “sleaze-bag.” Video here.
On June 11 Miranda Brown wrote a second letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, stating that Ban's Executive Office and presumably his Deputy Jan Eliasson knew back on August 8, 2014 of the evidence of child rape in CAR by French "peacekeepers" - and did nothing except months later try to get Kompass to resign.
On June 12, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about this and he denied that Deputy Secretary General Eliasson knew anything about the CAR sexual abuse allegations in August 2014, saying he only learned of them in April 2015.
Inner City Press asked if this meant the UN was denying the existence of an April 8, 2015 email from Ban's executive office saying that Eliasson would be briefed.
Dujarric responded by saying "categorically" that Eliasson was not told of the CAR allegations until April 2015. See transcript below.
In light of this response, Inner City Press now reports it is informed that the August 8, 2014 response from Ban's Executive Office was not from any clerical or scheduling staff, but high official Andrew Gilmour, whose influence spreads to Syria and elsewhere, who said DSG Eliasson would be briefed that afternoon." If he wasn't, why not? And who was briefed? We'll have more on this.
Inner City Press: Two interrelated questions. One has to do with Miranda Brown, who I have asked you about before, whistle-blower, has put in writing that the Office of Ban Ki-Moon was told about the sexual allegations and evidence of sexual abuse in Central Africa Republic on, at latest, 8 August 2014. She says there was a response by that office to Mr. [Anders] Kompass's assistant saying that Jan Eliasson had been put in charge of it. I'd like to know what’s your response to that? It's very different than hearing what they heard about it in the spring. How would you explain the lack of action, given that? The inter-related question is that on the report that you insist on calling a draft, when it was given to the DFS [Department of Field Support], but actually it was finished, it was just withheld for a month. It says clearly in the report that victims are not… that there's a problem. United Nations have performed very poorly in assisting victims of sexual abuse and assault. Only 26 of 217 SEA [sexual exploitation and abuse] victims were even referred for assistance and it's unclear if they received any. So, I'm wondering, on Monday, are you going to have, like, a written response that is available?
Spokesman: I think what… it's hard for me to predict what I'm going to do in the next hour, so I don't know what we'll have on Monday. On your second part, this UN report, this OIOS report is yet another tool to help the system, DFS, DPKO and all the parts of the house to perform better on issues relating to sexual abuse and exploitation. We can always do better and we need to do much better. On the issue of support for the victims and follow-through in support of the victims, one of the big challenges that we have had is the lack of funding, is that what had been proposed by the Secretary-General was not funded by the Member States. We've had to do it with existing resources and we haven't had the funds that we needed. We also need to do better in terms of communications to the population at large in terms of how they can access hot line, what their rights are, what is illegal, how they can protect themselves. There are all sorts of ways we can improve. I think what we have seen since, over the past number of years, is a decrease of cases of sexual abuse while overall the number of peacekeepers has increased. What I would go on to Miss Brown, she makes a number of claims in her letter, which are, you know, claims. Obviously, as to who was told in various offices, when, what and where it will be looked at thoroughly by the external panel, independent panel, which we hope to announce, hopefully next week. What I can tell you categorically is that the Deputy Secretary-General was only made aware of this issue in April. So, that is a fact which I am telling you now. What information was passed onto his office, to whom it was passed on, how that was dealt with, that will be looked at by the review panel, but the Deputy Secretary-General was not made aware of this issue until April of this year.
Inner City Press: So, are you saying an 8 April 2014 email from Executive Office of Ban Ki-Moon to Ms. Linnea Arvidsson, Mr. Kompass's personal assistant, indicating that the Deputy Secretary-General would be briefed on the report that was submitted doesn't exist?
Spokesman: That's not what at all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obviously the panel will have access to e-mails, will look as to who received what documents, who was informed, who was not informed. What I can tell you categorically is that, personally, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations was not informed of this until April.
Inner City Press: In March on the timeline… in March, when it was the staff retreat in Turin and Ms. [Susana] Malcorra asked OIOS and the Ethics Office to get together to speak about Mr. Kompass, who else other than Miss Malcorra was made aware that…?
Spokesman: All these issues will be looked at, but she makes a claim regarding the Deputy Secretary-General, which I counter and which to me is false.
Miranda Brown, regarding whose case Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN in New York and Geneva, writes:
"I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention in Geneva. Mr Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. My testimony to the OIOS investigation would have supported Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the MINUSCA report to the French Government and would have shed light on many elements relating to the disclosure.
"Emails document my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during the period immediately following the disclosure. Following my email to Mr Kompass on 7 August 2014, the Special Assistant to Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri, Ms Linnea Arvidsson, sent an email to the Executive Office of the Secretary General informing the UN leadership about the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic and advising the UN leadership that the unredacted MINUSCA report had been transmitted to the French Government. Ms Arvidsson’s email to your Executive Office included as attachments the unredacted MINUSCA report and the letter of acknowledgement from the French Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Nicolas Niemtchinow. On 8 August 2014, your Executive Office confirmed receipt of Ms Arvidsson’s email and indicated that the Deputy Secretary General was being briefed about the transmittal of the unredacted report to the French Government.
"Thus the UN leadership, including your Executive Office and the Deputy Secretary General as aware that the unredacted MINUSCA report had been transmitted to the French Government. If child victims and witnesses had been put at risk through the transmittal of the unredacted report to the French Government, why did the UN leadership wait until March 2015 to take disciplinary action against Mr Kompass? At the time, in August 2014, the message being conveyed to OHCHR staff in Geneva was that the UN leadership considered Mr Kompass’ disclosure of the unredacted MINUSCA report to the French Government to b appropriate under the circumstances."
Inner City Press asks again: what did Ban and his Office DO after being informed of the evidence of French "peacekeepers" child rape in CAR on August 7-8, 2014? Ban's (French) head of UN Peacekeeping appears in the UNDT ruling asking for Kompass to resign. His UNexplained subsequent denial then (like Ban) long trip out of New York has left these questions unanswered. But the questions must be answered. Watch this site.
On June 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric first about the French forces' non-inclusion in Ban's Children and Armed Conflict list, then about the whistleblowers, video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: it seems like the abuse the UN was aware of in the Central African Republic by the French Sangaris forces, was there any consideration of including them and if so, why not?
Spokesman Dujarric: On the CAR [Central African Republic], the situation in the CAR, part of the CAR was drafted with the information available at the time of the writing of the report. As you know, the… we do hope to announce soon the external independent inquiry which will shed light on the process.
Inner City Press: I'm sorry to reiterate this. I'd sent you these questions but wanted to ask you. I asked the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights who said that Mr. Kompass is going to be extended, although he also said it's not Geneva's decision; it's up to New York. And there are several Member State who believe he's not being extended--
Spokesman: No, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.
Inner City Press: It does apparently expire in one month.
Spokesman: Right. No, as I said, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.
Inner City Press: ]OHCHR] had said something about contracts being automatically extended if a person is under investigation. Is that your understanding?
Spokesman: I think that is very likely a policy but as I said, for Mr. Kompass, I have no indication that his…
Inner City Press: The other thing I asked you is about Miranda Brown who was an… worked with Mr. Kompass and has since been terminated. I know that she wrote a letter to the Secretary-General dated 23 May saying she's willing to participate, but not if she's fired by the UN and has no immunity. Has the Secretary-General’s responded to the letter?
Spokesman: I don't believe there has been a response. I don't know if it was received. I don't believe she was terminated, I think her fixed-term contract was not renewed.
Inner City Press: What would you say to those who say if you actually want to know… this was a person who was number two to Kompass at the time involved. What arrangements were being made to try to get her evidence?
Spokesman: I think we would have to leave that to the panel once it's named.
Miranda Brown wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:
"I am a key witness in the Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) investigation into the disclosure by Mr Anders Kompass, Director at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), of the MINUSCA report Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces in the M’Poko IDP camp in Bangui, Central African Republic to the French authorities.
Despite my appeals to the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, my employment at OHCHR was terminated on 21 May 2015, one day before I was scheduled to provide testimony as a key witness in the OIOS investigation. Please see attached OIOS’ repeated requests to interview me. As a result of my termination, I now have no functional immunity and given this and the punitive termination of my employment, I am scared of testifying in the investigation.
I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention in Geneva. Mr Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. Emails document my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during the period immediately following the disclosure.
My testimony to the OIOS investigation would have supported Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the MINUSCA report to the French Government and would have shed light on many elements relating to the disclosure. As such, my testimony would also have been very embarrassing and potentially problematic for High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and others in the UN leadership, who have publicly denounced Mr Kompass for wrongdoing and placing victims, investigators and witnesses at risk.
The stated reason for the termination of my employment at OHCHR is that there is no position available for me at OHCHR headquarters in Geneva, where half of the roughly one thousand OHCHR staff work. This explanation is implausible, deeply suspicious, bears all the hallmarks of retaliation, and is, at best, an abject failure to protect a key witness and, at worst, constitutes possible witness tampering. I have requested an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of my employment at OHCHR.
I understand there may have been a second disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authorities by a female staff member at OHCHR, and that because of my prior history as a whistleblower at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), suspicions may have fallen on me as the source of the second disclosure. This is false. While I agree with Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the report to the French authorities and enjoy good relations with the French Permanent Mission in Geneva, I have had no contact with the French Government on the MINUSCA report. The French Government would be able to confirm this. I believe that I know the female OHCHR staff member who made the second disclosure to the French Permanent Mission in Geneva. I do not expect her identity will be revealed as she would then herself become at risk of reprisal.
Secretary General, if you would like my testimony in the OIOS investigation and for this investigation to have any credibility at all, you will need to immediately reinstate me in a P5 level position in Geneva, if necessary in another UN organisation or entity. I shall be willing to testify in this investigation or another inquiry if one is launched, once my functional immunity is restored, my job is safe and I no longer fear retaliation. I am sure you will agree that the Member States of the United Nations expect the investigation into Mr Kompass’ disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authoritiesand any subsequent inquiry into these matters to be thorough, fair, transparent and impartial.
This will not be the case without my testimony, however inconvenient this might prove to some in the UN leadership."
What will Ban do, now that he has belatedly said he will appoint an “independent” Panel?
Meanwhile, amid reports that OHCHR would not extend Kompass' contract, Inner City Press asked OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville to “confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract.”
Colville has, in fact, denied, writing to Inner City Press that
“It is not true. Like all the rest of us, Anders's contract has an end date (which is indeed some time in July). The High Commissioner will request that it be extended (the final decision for someone at Anders's very senior D2 level is in fact made in New York not Geneva). However, when someone's contract ends while they are under investigation, an extension is automatically granted anyway.”
The answer is appreciate. But why didn't that policy apply to Miranda Brown? Watch this site.
On June 3, after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced an intention to name an independent panel at least 14 UN member statesmet about its terms of reference and to whom beyond Ban it should report, as Inner City Press exclusively details below.
Now Inner City Press reports on the June 5 meeting between four of those states -- minus South Africa - which met on June 5 with Ban Ki-moon and more than a half dozen other officials, including Deputy Eliasson, DFS' Atule Khare, Herve Ladsous' fill-in and others.
The states -- the UN identified them as Australia, Guatemala, Japan and Finland, though the last was Norway -- went in with a series of positions and questions, including:
"We are concerned by the damage that these incidents, and their follow-up, have done to the UN’s reputation and credibility in an area where the UN is expected to uphold the highest standards and values.
The review must be conducted in an expeditious manner and the results must be fully transparent.
It is crucial that the review looks at the whole chain of events, including the senior management’s decisions leading to disciplinary action against Mr. Anders Kompass. This has cast doubt about the credibility of the UN’s human rights commitments in field missions and about the integrity of its whistleblower policy.
It is crucial to remove any doubts that the UN is fully committed to preventing sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensure effective investigation of any such allegations in field missions. In addition, accountability for perpetrators, and protection and assistance to victims, must be ensured.
Questions: What will be the scope of the Independent External Review (CAR only? The UN’s handling of the investigation, SEA more broadly?)
To what extent has the Human Rights Up Front approach been applied?
Will the review look at institutional reforms to better address cases of SEA, including timely reporting and action in cases of abuse?
Will the review look at the protection of whistleblowers? What is the status regarding the pending case against Mr. Anders Kompass – in light of doubts that have been raised about this process?"
In fact, Inner City Press is informed that OHCHR and Zeid personally are poised to not renew Kompass' fixed term contract, set to expire on July 8, 2015, and to give the required one month notice by June 8.
Inner City Press in response to the UN read-out on the evening of June 5 formally asked the UN Spokesman: "I have heard that UN OHCHR has decided not to extend Anders Kompass' fixed term contract, which is set to expire on July 8, 2015. I understand that under UN rules, he must be given one month's notice and will thus need to receive notification by no later than Monday June 8, 2015.
"Given the allegations of retaliation (and the UNDT ruling), please confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract."
This retaliation, despite US Mission attempts to protect the UN, could result in funding cuts or at least damaging hearings. But as with Ladsous, high UN officials are allowed to operate out of control in their fiefdoms.
In response to the above, Inner City Press can exclusively report these UN responses:
The Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights is sending a team to the Central African Republic.
Regarding the External Independent Review, it was assured that it will be done by someone completely outside the UN, also excluding the UN’s own investigative capacity. It was still not decided who would lead the panel, but it would consist of at least one woman and one African. It would examine the specific case of allegations in the Central African Republic, but also look at the broad range of systemic issues being raised.
Regarding the time-frame and further ToR’s of the Review, this would be discussed after the meeting and be determined shortly.
Regarding the case of Anders Kompass, it was pointed out that the separate investigation was ongoing, and the outcome must be awaited before further comments.
But if Zeid intends to not extend Kompas' fixed term contract, that part of it is moot. And Ban is heading off on another long trip. Watch this site.
Note: three days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Ban told the ambassadors he would name an African and a woman, slower others are repeating it, citing "diplomats." That's the UN beat.
An emerging and damaging question for the UN is who knew what, when. Inner City Press asked when Ban knew of the alleged child rapes -- "March" is now the answer.
There was a retreat of all senior UN officials in Turin, Italy on March 18-19, 2015. This was days after Kompass says he was told the French Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous wanted him to resign. (Ladsous now denies this, see below.)
In Turin, Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra put together the ostensibly independent Ethics Office and Office of Internal Oversight Services, calling into further question the UN's claimed whistleblower protections.
If Ban's chief of staff knew of the alleged child rapes, it is difficult to believe Ban didn't know. But what did he do?
Which of the other high UN officials present in Turin learned there or before about the alleged child rapes, by then already covered up for months? There is a photo of the participants.
UN in Turin, March 19, 2015 UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe ICP: Who knew?
These include some who want to run to replace Ban, or for other high positions. We will have more on this.
The UN did not give the report to the host country authorities in CAR. And according to UN documents -- on May 29 released in more detail by Code Blue naming Ladsous directly, here -- UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous then urged that the whistleblower Kompass be forced to resign.
The documents also implicate a number of other UN officials, and French government inaction, see below. After Press questioning turned to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, what he knew and when he knew it, Ban on June 3 announced an intention to set up an "independent" Panel. Inner City Press asked if it will report only to Ban -- yes. This is a problem. Video here.
On June 3 a meeting was convened to seek answers and improvement on the UN's response, by Guatemala and Norway, with attendees from all UN Regional Groups, see below. Inner City Press has spoken with several members; Norway will be requesting a meeting for the group with Ban Ki-moon, on topics ranging from to whom the Panel will report to its Terms of Reference to the actions of OIOS and the Ethics Office.
As Inner City Press analyzed below, there is a history of UN panels being used to cover up.
Now Code Blue has these three recommendations:
"First, this must be a truly external and independent inquiry. No member of existing UN staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat.
"Second, it must be understood that top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff will have to be subject to investigation. This must go right up to the level of Under-Secretaries General. No one can be excluded, whether the Director of the Ethics Office or the USG of the Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Secretary-General’s own Chef de Cabinet. It would appear that all of them and more acted inappropriately in response to the dreadful events in CAR.
"Third, the reference in the Secretary-General’s announcement of a review to ‘the broad range of systemic issues’ is crucial to the inquiry. What happened in the Central African Republic was an atrocity, but the fact that the UN stood silent for nearly a year after its own discovery of widespread peacekeeper sexual abuse (even if by non-UN troops) is itself a bitter commentary on the Secretary-General’s declared policy of ‘zero tolerance’."
Inner City Press would add, past UN staff and offiicals as well. Consider these past panels, as put together and at the end analyzed by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:
On 22 September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, to chair an Independent Panel on the Safety and Security of UN Personnel in Iraq.
The priority of the Independent Panel’s investigation of the “oil-for-food” programme was to “get after” allegations of corruption and misconduct within the United Nations itself and, more broadly, the question of the maladministration of the “oil-for-food” programme, stated Paul A. Volcker, Chairman of the Independent Panel, in a press conference at UNHQ.
The UN Commission of Inquiry, appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the request of the Pakistani Government, reached no conclusion as to the organizers and sponsors behind the attack in which a 15-year-old suicide bomber blew up Ms. Bhutto’s vehicle in the city of Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. The three-member panel, which was headed by Chilean Ambassador to UN Heraldo Muñoz and included Marzuki Darusman, former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran official of the Irish National Police, urged the Government to undertake police reform in view of its “deeply flawed performance and conduct.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010. The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel.
On 22 June 2010, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the implementation of the joint commitment included in the statement issued by the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary-General at the conclusion of the Secretary-General's visit to Sri Lanka on 23 March 2009.
Meanwhile UN staff advocates have written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, his chief of staff and Ladsous, among others, demanding resignations. On June 2 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who Banned any Inner City Press question to Ladsous on May 29, what Ban Ki-moon DID, once he learned in March about the rapes.Video here and embedded below.
Dujarric said he had nothing to add to his previous answers. Huh?
Inner City Press asked Dujarric, in light of OHCHR Zeid using a private email address for UN business, what the UN's record retention policy is. Dujarric said the policy must be available somewhere. To this has the UN descended.
Dujarric said the investigation by Lapointe's OIOS, discredited in the leaked emails, will "lead where it will lead." But Lapointe has told OIOS invstigators to not go beyond what they are asked to look at -- in this case, only the whistleblower. This is called a cover up.
When Hillary Clinton used the UN Security Council stakeout to belatedly answer questions about her own use of private email while US Secretary of State, it was described as an accident of scheduling, or attempt to use the UNSC backdrop to convey gravitas. But the echo now with Prince Zeid also using private email for presumably public business raises similar questions.
Anders Kompass was asked to send his side of the story -- to a private email address, but wisely declined.
Beyond the treatment of Kompass himself, the documents show pressure brought to bear on lower-level staff to make and thereby launder the high officials' desire for an investigation of Kompass.
Most directly, it is asked, what UN staff member will now report fraud or misconduct, knowing that OIOS and the Ethics Office will then discuss the accusations with their boss? This is a question Inner City Press on May 29 asked UN Spokesman Staphen Dujarric, who BannedInner City Press from putting a single question to Ladsous - the question has yet to be answered.
UN staff advocates have written directly to Ban Ki-moon and his deputy, Ladsous and Atul Khare and others, demanding resignations. They are offended by the exposure of lack of independence at the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services and UN Ethics Office, and question whether the US should cut off funding under the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriation Act, section 7048(a)(1)(B). After reading those leaked documents, how exactly can the U.S. Secretary of State (or anybody else) certify that the UN's whistle-blower policy fulfils the Act's requirements? Is there any "independent adjudicative body" in this chain? Evidently the Ethics Office and OIOS are not."
The staff notice Ban's appearance at another softball soccer game, among those who are supposed to hold him and the UN accountable. The call for Ladsous to resign out be fired has spread from the African Group to Latin America and GRULAC.
On May 30, OHCHR for Prince Zeid issued a statement beginning, "In the wake of the revelations of alleged serious sexual abuse of children."
But Zeid was told of the allegations long before their "revelation" via leaks. And tellingly, he continued to mistakenly think and say the rapes were in Mali and not CAR.
Likewise, both UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous -- listed as urging the whistleblower to resign, which he denies while refusing to take questions on -- and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon both knew of the alleged child rapes by "the Spring," but did nothing.
This requires an investigation, and not by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services, shown to not be independent, told to meet Zeid and the UN Ethics Office by Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra.
Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions. Video here.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So Inner City Press objected, on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access (the old UNCA has become part of the problem) and asked questions, video here, transcript here.
The documents also call into serious question the claims of "independence" from the office of Ban Ki-moon of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the UN Ethics Office.
Consider this: OIOS head Carman Lapointe, writing to James Finness (still in charge of the "investigation" spokesman Stephane Dujarric continues to use as an excuse to not answer question), noted that at the UN staff retreat in March "I received an urgent email from the CdC [Ban's Chef de Cabinet Susana Malcorra] to meet with Zeid, Flavia and Joan."
So OIOS is not independent - it can to told, by Ban's chief of staff, to meet with collaborate with the Ethics Office as well as OHCHR's Zeid and Pansieri.
Inner City Press previously reported on and asked Dujarric about OIOS' flawed process and a high profile recusal, see below.
As noted, Inner City Press reported on some of the documents and went to Ladsous' rare press conference on May 29 (International Day of UN Peacekeepers) in order to ask some questions.
But Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, choosing who could ask questions, refused to call on Inner City Press, even for Ladsous to say, as he did under Dujarric's predecessor Martin Nesirky, "I don't respond to you, Mister."
So why did Nesirky allow Press questions to Ladsous, and Dujarric didn't?
Dujarric set the first question aside for "UNCA" -- but called on an individual who was not elected to their board, who lost the election; her question was a vague softball offering Ladsous a chance to comment on Central African Republic. He said, it was one nation, not under blue helmet.
But Ladsous' MINUSCA mission knew of the sexual abuse since at latest August 5, 2014. Inner City Press said, "Follow up on CAR?" Dujarric called on Reuters, which previously wrote to him trying to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN (then filed to get his leaked complaint blocked or Banned from Google's Search, here.) Reuters did not even aske about the CAR sexual abuse.
What emerged is that both Ladsous -- and, troublingly, Ban Ki-moon -- were formally informed of the sexual abuse of children in CAR "in the spring." What date? And what did they do?
Dujarric said, "last question;" as Ladsous left the room Inner City Press asked Ladsous about him speaking about the whistleblower Kompass with OHCHR's Zeid, also a subject of the new documents -- no answer.
Inner City Press objected to Dujarric, who has fielded or dodged a dozen Inner City Press questions about the CAR rapes and Ladsous' role, not even being allowed to ask a question. Dujarric said, "Noted."Video here.
And what? Again, Dujarric's predecessor Nesirky, and his deputy Del Buey, allowed Inner City Press to put questions to Ladsous. What if the difference? We'll have more on this.
On July 30, 2014, Ambassador Nicolas Niemtchinow, Permanent Representative of France to the UN in Geneva wrote to Kompass that action was being taken. But then, nothing.
On August 5, 2014 the Human Rights Officer in CAR of OHCHR wrote to Renner Onana of the already-then UN mission MINUSCA; DPKO's SRSG Babacar Gaye was referenced.
So when did Gaye or MINUSCA tell DPKO chief Ladsous?
Tellingly, even the UN's cover up was delayed by High Commissioner Prince Zeid thinking he heard of French troops' sexual abuse in MINUSMA (Mali) and not MINUSCA (CAR).
Zeid asked his predecessor Navi Pillay if she met with French representatives about rapes in Mali -- the answer was no -- then much later asked her if she'd met with the French about CAR (the answer was yes.)
It was Zeid's Deputy Flavia Pansieri who conveyed Ladsous' directive to Kompass to resign. Zeid in his statement makes much of Pansieri meeting with a Swedish diplomat in the street, in casual clothes, after Sweden raised l'affaire Kompass at a dinner in honor of Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Jan Eliasson. THe UN's move now seems to be to try to lay all blame on Pansieri, whose term was expiring anyway. We'll have more on this.
"On 12 March 2015 meeting with the Deputy High Commissioner I was informed that the High Commissioner requested my resignation for the way I dealt with the reports of paedophilia in the Central African Republic. I was told that the High Commissioner had been asked for my resignation by Mr. Ladsous, Under Secretary-General for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York, during a visit of the High Commissioner to New York."
Absent from the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee's May 18 meeting was not only embattled Peacekeeping chief Ladsous,, but also OIOS' Carman Lapointe.
In her stead for OIOS was Michael Stefanovic, who told the Fifth Committee that he has recused himself from the investigation and has written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as to why.
This is highly irregular. If the recusal was made on a personal connection between Stefanovic and the whistleblower Anders Kompass, Stefanovic would have recused himself from the earlier investigation - but he didn't. If it were such a recusal, he would have written to Lapointe, and not to the S-G.
For now we add this -- if OIOS Director Stefanovic has a conflict of interest, how can the UN be asking others to rely on an OIOS investigation? Inner City Press has asked a Permanent Member of the Security Council -- not France -- if an OIOS investigation would be sufficient, and has been told "No."
Now we have this, from the Fifth Committee's May 20 meeting:
Lapointe, summoned to the meeting via her Byun-kun Min, was asked
-When did OIOS/ID start the investigation into Anders Kompass?
-Why did Mr. Stefanovic recuse himself from the Kompass investigation?
-In view of Mr. Stefanovic recusing himself, did Ms. Lapointe see any impediments for the scope of the investigation, especially as it appeared to implicate an ASG or USG in misconduct?
Note - this is a reference to UN Peacekeeping USG Ladsous.
