On South Sudan, US, Norway & UK Urges Release of Commission of Inquiry's Findings

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February -- On South Sudan, the US, UK and Norway had expressed hopes before the January 29 talks involving Salva Kiir and Riek Machar. But on February 6, this Troika issued the following statement:

"The members of the Troika are profoundly disappointed by South Sudan’s leaders’ failure to reach a comprehensive peace deal at recent talks. After the last round of Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)-led peace talks ended in only a partial agreement, the Troika expresses its disappointment that South Sudan’s leaders failed to achieve significant progress toward a peace agreement.

"Over a year since the conflict began millions remain displaced, thousands are dead and the country is in ruins despite the commendable efforts of IGAD and its mediation team to achieve a peace agreement.  Ignoring the untold suffering of their people, South Sudan’s leaders have refused to make the necessary compromises to reach a peace agreement for the people of South Sudan who deserve and expect nothing less.  We call on the parties to fully respect the Cessation of Hostilities agreement of January 23, 2014, and avoid all further violence.  We urge the parties return to negotiations on February 19, 2015 prepared to compromise to achieve a peace agreement by March 5, 2015 and form a transitional government by July 1, 2015.

"The Troika believes that the publication of the Commission of Inquiry’s findings and its recommendations on accountability are necessary to ensure that such violence against civilians cannot be undertaken with impunity."

  So when will this be released? Will it be?

Back on January 23, the US, UK and Norway today -- one month after US President Barack Obama declared South Sudan ineligible for continuing benefits under the African Growth and Opportunities Act  -- issued the following statement:

"The members of the Troika (the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway) are gravely concerned with the continued lack of progress in the South Sudan peace negotiations.

"We commend the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the IGAD Special Envoys for their steadfast commitment to the peace process, and welcome the strong message from People’s Republic of China Foreign Minister Wang Yi calling on the parties to make peace.  We recall IGAD’s determination, as articulated in its summit communiqué of January 31, 2014, to inclusive negotiations toward an agreement that addresses necessary reforms to the security sector and economic governance, creates institutions for justice and accountability, catalyzes a revived permanent constitutional process, and forms a transitional government leading to credible elections.

"IGAD has made every effort to realize these goals despite obstruction from both the government of South Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – In Opposition (SPLM-IO).  We are deeply disappointed in the continued unwillingness of either party to make the compromises needed to achieve a viable peace agreement.  Over the past two months, statements by both parties have suggested they have distanced themselves from previous commitments, and violations of the cessation of hostilities agreement have continued.  We call on both parties to recommit to negotiate with a spirit of urgency and compromise, refrain from all further military action immediately and form a Transitional Government of National Unity.

"We look forward to guidance from the African Union Peace and Security Council, convened on the margins of the African Union Summit in January, on how the report of the AU Commission of Inquiry will be used to support the peace process and inform the development of mechanisms for accountability and reconciliation in South Sudan.

"Furthermore, we reiterate our determination to address the grave humanitarian situation in South Sudan.  Today, over a year after the beginning of the conflict, nearly 2 million South Sudanese have been displaced, over 100,000 are under the direct protection of the UN Mission in South Sudan, and the country remains at risk of a food security crisis.  Along with other international donors, we will continue to stand with the people of South Sudan who are needlessly suffering as a result of this conflict.

"We recognize the recent agreement in Arusha, Tanzania to reconcile the SPLM and encourage the parties to use the upcoming IGAD summit of 29 January to secure peace for the people of South Sudan.  In the face of this deplorable humanitarian crisis, there can be no excuse for further delay in negotiations or for continued violence."

  Back on December 23, one year into the new civil conflict in South Sudan, US President Barack Obama on December 23 issued a statement declaring the country, along with The Gambia, ineligible for continuing benefits under the African Growth and Opportunities Act, starting January 1, 2015:

"4. In Proclamation 8921 of December 20, 2012, I designated the Republic of South Sudan (South Sudan) as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of section 506A(a)(1) of the 1974 Act. In Proclamation 7657 of March 28, 2003, the President designated the Republic of The Gambia (The Gambia) as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of section 506A(a)(1) of the 1974 Act.

"5. Section 506A(a)(3) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(3)), authorizes the President to terminate the designation of a country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for purposes of section 506A, if he determines that the country is not making continual progress in meeting the requirements described in section 506A(a)(1) of the 1974 Act.

"6. Pursuant to section 506A(a)(3) of the 1974 Act, I have determined that South Sudan and The Gambia are not making continual progress in meeting the requirements described in section 506A(a)(1) of the 1974 Act. Accordingly, I have decided to terminate the designation of South Sudan and The Gambia as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries for purposes of section 506A of the 1974 Act, effective on January 1, 2015."

  Ouch.

 When the UN's Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator Kyung-wha Kang took questions about South Sudan on December 4, Inner City Press asked her about Juba's role in restricting humanitarian flights, in challenging the flow of funds from Oslo to aid groups.

  Kyung-wha Kang acknowledged some restrictions and some talk that the SPLA-Juba has a right to control the funds committed to in Oslo.

  After the briefing Inner City Press provided her office with such a report and was told it might be better to asked the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. But that is dubious, given that its chief Herve Ladsous on the same December 4 would not answer a simple question about the UNAMID mission covering up rapes in Darfur. YouTube video here.

  Still, Kyung-wha Kang is better in that she answers questions and seems genuinely interested in hearing where the UN could do better. This makes reports that the top job in OCHA could go to a FOC - Friend of Cameron - Andrew Lansley all the more troubling. Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, which push for transparency, are on this. Watch this site.

 Back on October 22 after the UN's envoy to South Sudan Ellen Loj spoke to the Security Council on October 22, she came to take questions from the media.

  Inner City Press asked Loj to explain two separate lines from her statement to the Council, and one thing that was not mentioned: the deadly downing of a UN helicopter on August 26, allegedly after the UN was told by rebel Peter Gadet that it would be shot down.

  The first line Inner City Press asked about was Loj's statement that "UNMISS is looking into ways to support the efforts of national authorities to end the violence." Inner City Press asked, would the UN provide the Salva Kiir / SPLA forces military support?

  Loj asked to be shown the line, coming out from behind the UN microphone stand to take a copy of her own statement from Inner City Press. Video here.  Finally she said this might involve UNMISS conducting its own street patrols -- why would that be "supporting the national authorities" as opposed to the opposition, where it controls the streets -- or setting up a rape-help desk in police stations.

   When Inner City Press sought to remind Loj of the second line it has asked about, two national staffers "detained" since August, the moderator attempted to move the questioning on. Loj still replied that the UN doesn't know who has these two national staff members detained. 

    On the helicopter, Loj said that a UN Board of Inquiry was in South Sudan last week and she doesn't know the outcome. The helicopter was shot down on August 26, and transcripts of taped called between Gadet and UN officials have emerged. We'll have more on this.

    (A Voice of America scribe tried to take the first question, and then after a softball question made social banter with Loj to the side of the stakeout.)

      Back on October 20 when Sexual Violence in Conflict expert Zainab Bangura spoke about South Sudan, Inner City Press asked of her meeting with Riek Machar and whether she thinks he controls Peter Gadet, under sanctions by the US and suspected of shooting down a UN helicopter. Video here.

  Bangura called her talks with Machar "decent" including "very detailed information on where he is in command." Apparently, Machar is responsible or accepts responsibility for Gadet. But where are the results of the helicopter probe? Another UN cover-up?

 Inner City Press also asked Bangura of the 130 rapes in Minova by the DR Congo Army in November 2012, after which only two soldiers have been convicted while UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous continues supporting the rapist units.

  Bangura said she couldn't speak to that part of the UN, and linked the lack of justice for Minova to the government's delay in investigating.Video here. But doesn't the government, and Ladsous' DPKO and MONUSCO, know which DRC Army units were in Minova during the rapes, and who was in charge of them? Impunity continues.

  While South Sudan President Salva Kiir was in New York, he did not attend the UN's “High Level” event about his country on September 25.

A Senior US State Department Official, speaking on background, said that “there was a lot of disappointment expressed in the meeting that Salva Kiir who is here in New York did not attend the meeting. He sent his Minister of Foreign Affairs and some of his ministers to the meeting and several of the attendees made a point of noting that Salva Kiir was not at the meeting.”

Inner City Press asked the Senior State Department Official if the US know who was behind the recent shooting down of a UN helicopter, if it could confirm that forces under the control of Peter Gadet, already under US sanctions, did it.

The US official said “we know that the UN is investigating it, we are waiting for the results of that investigation. Gadet has been put on the sanctions list even before that happened.”

The official called the shoot-down “evidence of how difficult it is to work in South Sudan,” and added that South Sudan's foreign minister had said the government is committed to not blocking NGOs and the UN from providing aid. “We have to hold them to that commitment,” the official concluded, “people are suffering.”

Background: back on May 6, 2014, when the US imposed sanctions on Gadet, Inner City Press asked:

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Our next question is from the other Matt Lee, Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks a lot, [Moderator]. I wanted to ask, there was a – it was said that in Security Council consultations at the UN that senior government officials were named in a radio broadcast prior to the attacks in Bor on the UN compound in killing the civilians. I just wonder if you can say are these people – is that the case? Do you know the names of people that sort of called for that attack, and in which case, why aren’t they on this list?

And I also – this might for Senior Administration Official Number Two. Secretary Kerry was talking about a legitimate force to help make peace. And I just wanted to know, is the UN – is the U.S. thinking of that as part of UNMISS mission or as the IGAD force? And if so, would it require a Security Council approval? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the first, I mean, we typically do not comment on actors against whom we are – we have not yet – we have not yet acted, a clunky way of saying we don’t comment on those who are not part of our designation. But anyone who is contributing to the violence, whether that’s by directing violence, whether that’s by funding it, fueling it, contributing arms, can be a subject of designation in the future. And I’ll leave it to my State Department colleague to answer the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. On the question about the regional force and on UNMISS, we – it is something that conversations and discussions are ongoing between countries of IGAD, with New York, with ourselves and others on how best to create this additional force presence that we are working very much with UNMISS and see this as part of the same effort. But we do think it’s very important that the regional forces are able to join this effort in larger numbers and appreciate the efforts of, particularly, the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, who are leading the mediation and who are seeking to work with UNMISS in this regard.

   

UN's Central African Republic Probers Cited MINUSCA & Sangaris, But Human Rights Watch Cites Only African Union Force for Abuse: Selective Vision?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29, more here -- On Central African Republic, today's report by Human Rights Watch tries to limit abuses to the African Union force and not the UN force of French Sangaris - but the UN's own Commission of Inquiry recited complaints against all three.  HRW says:

"Some AU peacekeepers, while providing important civilian protection during their deployment, also committed serious human rights abuses, although according to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, those facing allegations were not integrated into MINUSCA."

  This is going soft on the UN and its head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who as noted undermined the UN's stated "human rights due diligence policy."

Back on January 21 when Philip Alston and Fatimata M'Baye, two of the three members of the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Central African Republic, took questions, Inner City Press asked about alleged abuses in CAR by the MISCA / MINUSCA peacekeepers and French soldiers in Sangaris.

   The report says that complaints were received against all of these, but only MISCA (the African Union force) was looked into. It describes allegations in PK12, Baoli and Bossangoa and proposes that the UN Security Council set up a mechanism. 

  But what about prosecution, Inner City Press asked, and why weren't the allegations against Sangaris and the current MINUSCA even looked into? Report here, Para 542.

   Alston, whom Inner City Press has previously asked about Sri Lanka, for example, emphasized that it may not be realistic or productive to speak of referring these to the International Criminal Court, but that the mechanism proposal is new. (It is; we'll have more on it.)

  Inner City Press asked if this mechanism proposal would apply, for example, to the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. Alston said that problem has “plagued” the UN; in the case of individual peacekeepers, he said, there should be accountability.

And how about this?With UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic guarding prisons, Ladsous on December 9 refused to answer a simple Press question about the practice. Video here, and embedded below.
  

  Ladsous had told the Security Council that "inmates inside the Bangui central prison seized weapons and shot and threw hand grenades at UN peacekeepers providing static guard duty outside the prison. Three UN troops and one UN police officer were injured in the incident."

  But should UN peacekeepers be functioning as prison guards? When Ladsous left the Security Council -- unlike his predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean-Marie Guehenno Ladsous does not to question and answer stakeouts on UNTV -- Inner City Press asked him, Does the UN guard prisons in the Central African Republic?

  Ladsous indicated, as he has before, I do not answer your questions, Mister, and walked to the elevator. But he is paid both to run DPKO and to explain it to the public, including answering questions.

   

On N. Korea, Journalist Jiro Gave Video To UN Commission of Inquiry, Which Briefs UN Security Council April 17

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 14 -- Three days before the UN Security Council hears of the North Korea report of the Human Rights Council, Japanese journalist Ishimaru Jiro screens his hard-won videos of the country at the Korea Society on 57th Street.

  Acknowledging that he had paid North Korean citizen journalists to shoot footage of faux department stores in which nothing on display is for sale, Ishimaru Jiro provided anecdotes from his years covering the issue.

  Inner City Press asked him about the Commission of Inquiry not doing this dogged reporting but rather relying only on public public hearing outside of the country. He replied that he testifying to the CoI in Tokyo, but that most of its findings are by now out of date. Video here. Just like the video, of this we can say: through a glass, darkly.

  Back on February 17,  there was little question which way the UN Commission of Inquiry would come out at its press conference in Geneva.

  But in the hour before it began, US state media Voice of Americareported that "China has said it will block the report from reaching the International Court of Justice." 

  Update: after publication of this article, VoA made the correction, but never noted that the article had been changed. The original is here.

   The error was obvious, or should have been to VoA or its Broadcasting Board of Governors: the report urges referral to the International Criminal Court -- of which the United States is not a member.

  When CoI chair Michael Kirby began the press conference, the UN gave the first question to Voice of America. Kirby rambled on, including among North Korea's many sins that there is no contact between professional organizations in North and South Korea. Is that a human rights violation?

   Citing the "cult of personality," Kirby said that Kim Jong-un is followed around by scribes with "little books to take note" of everything he says. (Also on February 17, Voice of America breathlessly announced that "VOA correspondent Scott Stearns, who is traveling with Kerry, said the secretary wants the international community to use a break in the talks to figure out how best to pursue a political solution.")

  After Kirby let it be known that in Australia his mother was a member of the Communist Party, he referred to his fellow panel member Marzuki Darusman as being present. Darusman answered no questions until Reuters' contrast with Syria and Darfur. Darusman previously worked on a panel about Sri Lanka, which has yet to lead to any accountability.

Footnote: By contrast to the censors' circus at the UN in New York, there was no branding of the press conference by ACUNA there, unlike theUnited Nations Correspondents Association insistence to say its name even when briefed, like last week, by the spokesperson of the President of the General Assembly. (Only after that did the new Free UN Coalition for Access do so - it opposes censorship.)

  During the webcast Democratic People's Republic of Korea press conference, UNCA president Pamela Falk of CBS sent out tweets with minimal information but containing, as promotion, the name of UNCA. Cult of personality? 

Update II: More than three hours later a CBS story issued, concluding that Ban Ki-moon "has not yet issued a statement but will probably have a response, according to his pokesman [sic] Martin Nesirky." This is called insider, with questions and answer withheld even from other UNCA members, and of course from the public, and no hard questions, click here for that.

Update III: by 10 pm in New York, Ban Ki-moon had NOT sent out any comment; the CBS site without noting it deleted the quote from Ban's spokesperson and added as if the same thing South Korea's ambassadorOh Joon. When things are removed, they should be noted; when UNCA under Falk, backed away from taking the Samsung TV from Oh Joon's mission, they should have explained why. Then again, they didn't even distribute Ban's Q&A to their own members. Watch this site.

   

UN Dodges on Navi Pillay's Finding France Put Muslims at Risk in CAR, Haiti Cholera Echo?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 21 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council on February 20, "I am pleased to announce that the Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry mandated by this Security Council, along with an advance team, will arrive in the Central African Republic to take up their important work."

   Since Ban took only three pre-selected questions afterward, only one of which was on Central African Republic or other African countries like South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo where protesters were shot in Bukavu, the next day February 21 Inner City Press asked its CAR question to Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq.

   Does Ban think that the Commission of Inquiry he's pleased about should be sure to investigate the January 20 finding by High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay that "the disarmament of ex Seleka by the French forces appears to have left Muslim communities vulnerable to anti-Balaka retaliatory attacks"?

  Haq replied that it's up to Commission of Inquiryto determine what specific acts they will look into, what the acts on the ground are that need to be studied." 

   It seems like a no brainer, that the Commission of Inquiry should look into such a charge, even if or especially because against a Permanent Five member of the Security Council. 

  Tellingly, even on the specific incident in which French Sangaris forces reportedly killed ten people weeks ago, which Ban's spokesperson's office told Inner City Press the UN mission would look into, "they have provided no update."

  It is noted that France's Ambassador at the UN Gerard Araud, when Inner City Press was able to ask him about the UN's moral responsibility for cholera in Haiti, said that moral responsibility is a "vague" concept.

   For the UN in Haiti, and now for France in CAR, accountability seems to always be for others.

   As noted, after the Central African Republic meeting of the UN Security Council on the afternoon of February 20, the UN, African Union and France spoke in that order to the media. Video here and embedded below.

   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took three questions, pre-selected by his outgoing spokesperson Martin Nesirky, South African Broadcasting asked if CAR is a genocide -- Ban dodged the question -- and then Al Arabiya asked about Syria. Finally, as foreshadowed at the day's noon briefing, the last of the three questions was on Ukraine. (Ban read from notes).

   That is, even on the Central African Republic's big day at the UN, it was the subject of one-third of the pre-selected questions.

   When the African Union's Smail Chergui came to the microphone, Inner City Press began to ask him about a January 20 finding by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Pillay, that "the disarmament of ex-Séléka carried out by the French forces appears to have left Muslim communities vulnerable to anti-Balaka retaliatory attacks." But a Radio France Internationale reporter jumped in - fine, because this Pillay question would and will not go away.

  Inner City Press asked it again to Chergui, who with Araud standing next to the stakeout listening said that the investigations should be "on every element." Whether than happens, particularly with regard to Security Council Permanent Five member France, remains to be seen.

  And France, as it turns out, won't even take much less answer the question. When French Ambassador Gerard Araud came to the microphone, the first question was give to the same RFI reporter as took it on Chergui. Finally another France 24 reporter was called on -- to ask about Syria.

   So even on former French colony CAR's big day at the UN, it was the subject of only two of the three questions pre-selected for Araud.

  As Araud floated away from the microphone, the special wooden rostrum brought for Ban Ki-moon, Inner City Press asked about Navi Pillay, doesn't France want to respond? There was no response. This is the UN.

Amid the carnage in the Central African Republic, US Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on February 20 announced something of a second plan for the CAR, noting some new contributions and pledges. He said the UN Commission of Inquiry will soon be there. 

  Ban said "I am pleased to announce today Denmark confirmed a contribution of $2 million... Norway has also confirmed today that it will make a donation."

  This gave raise to an obvious question, which Inner City Press posed: how much?

  Norwegian Permanent Representative Geir O. Pedersen answered: "we've already given more than 10 mill USD and will allocate to SG initiative. How much being discussed in Oslo now."

  The International Criminal Court has said it will begin an investigation. The question is whether this will include pursuing what High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay said on January 20, that France left Muslim communities vulnerable to attack by first disarming the ex Seleka militia.

  What were the legal responsibilities of the French Sangaris force when it intervened?  Did it meet or violate these responsibilities, according to what the UN's own Navi Pillay found?

   At the UN's noon briefing on February 7, Inner City Press asked about convoys of trucks leaving Bangui carrying Muslims away. Is this religious cleansing? Does that violate international law and will the ICC investigate -- ALL responsible parties?  

  Back on January 31 Haq said, "I was asked yesterday about alleged killings involving the French troops." The UN Mission "BINUCA is aware, and is in contact with parties allegedly involved." It will "first establish the facts" then "report in due course." Video here, from Minute 8:47.

  What changed? Well, beyond what Inner City Press cited on January 30, since then the Red Cross ICRC has reported that "in one incident this week, marauding gangs with machetes hacked to death a man as French peacekeepers awaited instructions from their base."

   UN acting deputy spokesperson previously on January 30 told Inner City Press, Ask France. Beyond the fact that French Permanent Representative to the UN Gerard Araud refused on January 28 to take the Press' request for France's response to UN High Commission for Human Rights Navi Pillay saying France left Muslim communities vulnerable to attack -- Inner City Press asked, doesn't the UN have a role here?

  On January 30, when Inner City Press cited reports including one from UN (and usually French) favorite Human Rights Watch, Haq said of course if the UN got specific information its office in CAR would look into it. He ended, though, again saying the UN would look to France for the information. Video here.

In any event, here's a link to the HRW report, which says:

"The French Sangaris troops, who are disarming the Seleka, often seem reluctant to intervene and told me they cannot take sides, even when Muslims, now unarmed, are killed in revenge attacks by the anti-balaka."

    On January 28 in front of the Security Council, Araud's spokesperson Frederic Jung ordered the UNTV boom microphone to go first to two correspondents in French. Inner City Press asked about a criticism made in the open Council meeting to the resolution Araud said was presented by France, but Araud said, go ask the critic. But what is France's response to the criticism?

  The European Union's Thomas Mayr-Harting, ever polite, did take the question about France leaving Muslim's vulnerable. Video here and embedded below. But rather obviously, it's not for him or the EU to answer. Perhaps the EU should encourage its member states to answer rather than refuse such human rights questions.

 Mayr-Harting also said he could not confirm the killing in Bangui of the brother of former Seleka #2 Nouredinne Adam. Araud previously pushed back at reports, by Al Jazeera, that Nouredinne Adam was taken into custody by the French Sangaris force. What now of the reported killing of his brother by anti-Balaka?

   Why did Araud, who previously answered even if combatively, now refuse to answer on the critique in the Security Council and before that by Pillay? Absent another explanation, it may be a further attempt to erase thedocument from the NYPD of another French diplomat taken into custody -click here for story and audio; we'll have more, it seems sure, on all this.

  More pressingly on the Central African Republic, what other than spin and trying to get lower UN officials to contradict Pillay is France's response to her critique? 

  France on January 22 selectively promoted one part of what the UN's Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng answered to Inner City Press about the Central African Republic, while ignoring Dieng's admission that after French disarmament, people were killed. 

  Compare UN Video here, from Minute 0:36 to these French tweets, quoting only Dieng's final, face-saving statement.

   That smaller countries under fire from the UN's human rights machinery selectively quote anything that defends them is one thing. But France?

  In the same dynamic through which France today tries to evade the criticism in the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the Central African Republic by focusing on a part of another UN officials response, France had tried to claim that its Operation Turquoise in the Great Lakes region in 1994 saved lives. But it also helped genocidaires escape. Plus ca change.

  

  On January 22, Inner City Press asked Dieng about France and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay's January 20 testimony that "the disarmament of ex-Séléka carried out by the French forces appears to have left Muslim communities vulnerable to anti-Balaka retaliatory attacks."

  Dieng replied among other things that there were killings after the first French disarmament, and "we raised it with the Sangaris," the French force. See UN Video here, from 0:36. Inner City Press mused, is that accountability? Will this question be answered by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon new Commissioners on CAR, Jorge Castañeda of Mexico, Fatimata M’Baye of Mauritania and Bernard Acho Muna of Cameroon? 

  The moderator said one more question could be asked. After a lull, Inner City Press asked about those having to flee the country. The UN's Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zainab Hawa Bangura replied that this is having a regional impact, namign Chad, Sudan and the Congo. She might have added Cameroon and even Senegal. One wanted to ask her about the findings, yet to be disclosed, on rape allegations against UN peacekeepers in Mali.

 Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator Kyung-wha Kang came over and provided additional information, that the the International Organization for Migration is in the lead, at times using airplanes. One wanted to ask her about MSF's critique of the UN in CAR: has it been met? Is the UN really putting Rights Up Front?

  The UN's Special Representative on Children and Armed Conflict Leila Zerrougui also briefed the Council, noting 23 children released on January 17. One wanted to ask her for an update on Chad, part of the UN force in Mali while still on the UN's child soldier recruiters' list. Maybe next time.

  Finally Jordan's Prince Zeid emerged; Inner City Press on CAR asked him of the proposed 500 Moroccan guards, and about the mornings presentation on drones by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous. Prince Zeid said the forthcoming CAR resolution would address the former, and to ask Ladsous about the drones. We'll see.

    On January 14, Pillay's office said it "received credible testimonies of collusion between some Chadian FOMAC elements and ex-Séléka forces."

   At that day's UN noon briefing, Inner City Press sought to pursue this and its implications. From the UN's transcript:

Spokesperson Nesirky: Matthew, last question please? Keep it short.

Inner City Press: I'm sure you've seen the report by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) about human rights abuses in Central African Republic and what I wanted to ask you is that, they say that the disarming, that the French disarming of some left Muslim communities subject to attack and that Chadian FOMAC (Multinational Force of Central Africa) peacekeepers credibly colluded with ex-Séléka forces that they’re accusing of human rights violations. So, I wanted to know how it works. Given that the Chad Army is also a peacekeeper in the UN force in Mali, does, what happens in the Secretariat or DPKO (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) on a finding such as this, that peacekeepers in one country may have colluded with human rights abusers? What’s the next step?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, let's just be clear. This was a team that was deployed, four people who were deployed, to the Central African Republic from the twelfth to twenty-fourth of December. And what they have produced today, and what Ms. Navi Pillay’s office has been talking about today, and she herself has been talking about preliminary findings that describe a cycle of widespread human rights violations and reprisals. And Ms. Pillay has made clear she will give a fuller account of the team’s findings during a special session called by the Human Rights Council, and that’s due to take place in Geneva on 20 January. So, I think I’d rather wait until that and see

  Well, on January 20 Pillay dropped the word "credible." From her statement: "The mission also heard witness accounts alleging the involvement of some FOMAC/ MISCA soldiers in the killing of Christian civilians, which should be further investigated."

  By dropping the word credible and calling for investigations -- note that UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous has allowed Chad to do its own investigation, and then not make public any result -- the can is kicked down the road, so that the UN and France can continue to use Chadian "peacekeepers" in Mali. Rights Up Front?

   That France's military operation in Central African Republic left Muslims to be killed by Christian anti-balaka militia was noted even by the UN Human Rights team that recently visited the country.

   But a dubious wire service quotes the European Union's usually sharp humanitarian chief Kristalina Georgieva that the problem in CAR is "the complicated relations between Chad and Central African Republic."

  That "complication" surely exists. But consider this detailed video report of France and the anti-balaka, here. What does the EU have to say to that? Are these "Rights Up Front," as the UN dubbed its post Sri Lanka failure plan which it now claims to apply to CAR? Disarming one community to be killed by another?

  After the UN's envoy to the Central African Republic Babacar Gaye was asked on January 13 by Inner City Press about Chadian "peacekeepers" and undue influence on CAR from outside, i.e. from France, the UN simply edited it out of its summary.  

 Video here, from Minute 12:06; compare to UN's sanitized summary, here.

  Now on January 14 the UN's own Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that its "mission received multiple reports that the disarmament of ex-Séléka carried out by the French forces left some Muslim communities vulnerable to anti-Balaka retaliatory attacks." 

 This might be called the polar opposite of "Responsibility to Protect" -- the affirmative putting of civilians at risk, on religious lines.

  The OHCHR also notes that "witnesses consistently reported that ex-Séléka, wearing the armbands of Chadian FOMAC peacekeepers, went from house to house searching for anti-Balaka, and shot and killed civilians. The team also said it received credible testimonies of collusion between some Chadian FOMAC elements and ex-Séléka forces."

  The UN Human Rights Council takes up CAR on January 20. Will these UN reports of France and FOMAC be addressed?

  On January 13, Gaye said that the problem was the Chadian component of the Seleka rebels; he acknowledged that there was an intention to assign the troops from Chad outside of Bangui. But he said for now they remain there, patrolling with the Sangaris forces of France, both countries' colonist.

  Of Bozize, he said that Michel Djotodia blames human rights violations -- be to discussed in Geneva January 20 -- on Bozize followers, but said Bozize's name had not come up in the talks in Chad. (The UN had refused, when Inner City Press asked, to even confirm that Gaye and his UN mission had any role in the talks in Chad).

  Now that Michel Djotodia has resigned, after that two-day meeting held in Chad, confirmed along with the disproportionate role of Chad and France in CAR is another point.

  The UN has been marginalized even in the Central African Republic. This UN has allowed itself to become, often, a mere fig leaf for big powers, here the former colonial rulers.

   When Inner City Press on January 8 asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq of any UN role or presence at the next day's meeting in Chad at which France says the country's leadership will be determined, Haq would not directly answer. Video here from Minute 18:50; UN transcript:

Inner City Press: On the Central African Republic, Mr. [Laurent] Fabius and a Defense Minister are both quoted as saying that it will be determined tomorrow at a meeting held in Chad whether the current interim or temporary Prime Minister remains in power, that it will be decided by regional countries. And I wanted to know, given, you know, the UN’s mission and role in the Central African Republic, is the UN attending that meeting? Do they have any… what’s their presence there and what would they say to those who say that there should be more involvement in Central African people in deciding, you know, who the leader is, rather than the neighbouring countries or France?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: I wouldn’t speculate on what the meeting has to accomplish. We’ll actually see what the outcome of the meeting is once it takes place. At this stage, it’s speculative to see what the meeting entails for the leadership of the Central African Republic.

Inner City Press: Is Babacar Gaye going? I just want to know that before it takes place.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll try to monitor the meeting as best we can. I don’t have any details to give you right now, but once the meeting happens, we’ll let you know.

 Now what? On January 6 some noted that UN Department of Political Affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman avoided directly answering on France's lack of impartiality in its intervention in its former colony.  

   Feltman seemed to focus on the UN's role on humanitarian issues -- even on that, the UN has been subject to scathing criticism from Doctors Without Borders -- while leaving the finding of a political solution to others.

    Reuters quotes three French officials, two named and one unnamed, opining about who should lead CAR, including, "Djotodia and us, it's not a love story. The quicker he goes, the better things will be. We are making do with him and holding him back."

   And yet Reuters, now the colonial news wire, did not mention FrancAfrique or this colonial relationship, whether such picking of leaders from outside like France did with Ahmad al Jarba in Syria, is appropriate. This is, to some, "the international community."

  Back on January 6 as the Central African Republic consultations of the UN Security Council stretched past 6 pm, Permanent Representatives then even Deputy Permanent Representatives left, even as new Council member Lithuania spoke.

One departing diplomat told Inner City Press that US Ambassador Samantha Power "gave a moving speech" but "it's not longer a time for speeches but action."

Inner City Press asked the diplomat if the sentiment is to move to a UN peacekeeping mission, or stay with MISCA (in which component contingents have fought each other) and the French SANGARIS force, accused of disarming the Seleka but not anti-balaka militia.

  The answer was UNclear. The briefer was the head of the UN's Department of Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, whose statement during the open meeting said "this is the first case for the Secretary General's new Rights Upfront agenda." That was the UN's belated reaction to its own systemic failure during the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009.

  But last month Doctors Without Borders pilloried the UN for not protecting civilians, even inside its own compounds, and for not deploying despite requests to Yaloke and Bouca. UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos told Inner City Press she was "disappointed" by MSF's letter. What would Feltman say?

  When finally Feltman emerged, Inner City Press asked him about reports of France disarming the Seleka, not the predominantly Christian anti-balaka. Feltman replied that a "non-discriminatory way" is required, all most be disarmed. He said more coordination is needed between the UN, France's Sangaris, and MISCA. 

 Moments later, Inner City Press asked Jordan's Permanent Representative Prince Zeid, the president of the Security Council for January, about perceived (im)partiality. He responded that the situation is complex, as African members pointed out, and that he and other new Council members had material to work through. We'll see.