New Haiti Travel Warning By US State Department Cites UN But Not Cholera and Who Brought It

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- Of the cholera which the UN brought to Haiti, MSF Doctors Without Borders said on November 24 that "the population has slowly lost their immunity to the disease. Compared to the same period in 2013, the number of cases handled by MSF has almost doubled. The lack of sanitary infrastructure and of measures to clean water risk aggravating the epidemic."

  Inner City Press asked the UN to respond to this, on November 28, but the UN has refused. The US government has online, also dated November 24, 2014, a Haiti web page that (still) says, under Health, that "Incidents of cholera have declined dramatically  since a major outbreak in 2010." Click here for that.

  While that page was not changed or updated, on December 4 the US State Department put out a travel warning for Haiti which mentioned what MSF called the "lack of sanitary infrastructure" - but NOT that the UN brought cholera to Haiti, much less that the US is supporting the UN's claim of immunity or impunity for it. Click here for the December 4 travel warning.

   The new US Travel Warning does, however, mention the UN, in this way: "The United Nations’ Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) remains in Haiti to support the activities of the Haitian National Police (HNP). The HNP, with assistance from MINUSTAH, is responsible for maintaining order and rendering assistance.  However, given the possibility and unpredictability of spontaneous protests, their ability to assist U.S. citizens during disturbances is very limited."

  It must be said: some of these protests are ABOUT cholera, and are DIRECTED at the UN, having having brought it and for having done nothing for the victims, whole families left without their main breadwinner.

   The US page on Haiti, on Safety and Security, says "Please see ourinformation for victims of crime, including possible victim compensation programs in the United States."

  What about compensation for the victims of the UN in Haiti?

  Inner City Press continues to pursue this question at the UN. On November 20 when Jose Ramos Horta took questions about the UN Peacekeeping review panel he now chairs, he initially said that the UN bringing cholera to Haiti was beyond the panel's mandate.

  When Inner City Press was able to ask him a question, it was to challenge this. How could more than 8,000 people killed, and the continuing impact on the UN's credibility, be beyond the mandate of this panel? Video here.

  Ramos Horta replied that, on reflection, he would raise the issue of cholera in Haiti to the panel's members, which now include Sri Lankan former UN official Radhika Coomaraswamy as well.

  Inner City Press also asked about the cover-up scandals swirling around UN Peacekeeping, about rapes and more in Darfur. Ramos Horta replied about abuses by peacekeepers in Timor Leste, that there must be accountability (he praised Sergio de Mello in this respect.)

UN Peacekeeping has become subject, under Herve Ladsous, to mounting questions about its operations, from crashed drones, selective “neutralization” of some rebels groups and not others, like the FDLR in the DR Congo, covering up attacks in Darfur and lack of accountability for negligently introducing cholera to Haiti, to name just a few.

While Ladsous refuses and even blocks Press questions about these topics, recently Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has taken to saying that a major “external” panel will be set up to review the issues. On Friday, October 31, Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the 14-member panel, to be chaired by Ramos-Horta.

In a run-on sentence, Ban listed the panel’s topics: “the changing nature of conflict, evolving mandates, good offices and peace-building challenges, managerial and administrative arrangements, planning, partnerships, human rights and protection of civilians, uniformed capabilities for peacekeeping operations and performance.”

Inner City Press asked Dujarric about a word NOT in the list: drones. Earlier on October 31 in the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee, the representative of Ecuador said that UN Peacekeeping’s use of drones should be subject to review by the General Assembly’s C-34 Committee: that is, by member states. (Ladsous evaded the C-34, then deployed more drones than he’d mentioned to the Security Council, and won’t answer on the reasons behind the crashes; DRC envoy Martin Kobler told Inner City Press it was due to “wind.”)

Dujarric cut the question off, saying that it was “too granular” and that drones might fall — as one did in DRC — under “the changing nature of conflict.”

But the question is, should UN Peacekeeping and Ladsous be subject only to review by a panel picked by Ban Ki-moon, or by the member states? Dujarric said Ban’s panel’s report will go the the General Assembly.

It is called an “external” panel, but included not only a number of long-time insiders, but even the current Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, Ameerah Haq. This reporter asked Dujarric if this meant that Haq is leaving, and Dujarric said yes. The Free UN Coalition for Access opines: she is the wrong one to be leaving.

Strikingly, only TWO of Ban’s Panel’s 14 members are from Africa, where the vast majority of UN Peacekeepers are deployed. These members are from Ghana and Tunisia, not from countries with UN Missions like DRC, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Central African Republic if not to say Liberia, where Ladsous is said to be planning “emergency responses” with a government that has quarantined whole neighborhoods like West Point in Monrovia.

Recently during the Security Council proceeding to renew the mandate of the mission in Haiti, many ambassadors from Latin America said Troop Contributing Countries weren’t sufficiently consulted; Argentina said it would not participate in certain policing or repression activities. Will that be reviewed? We’ll have more on this.

Beyond Ramos-Horta, the Panel’s members include Jean Arnault of France — some wonder if he’s there to protect Ladsous — Abhijit Guha of India, Ameerah Haq of Bangladesh, Andrew Hughes of Australia, Wang Xuexian of China, Hilde Johnson of Norway after a troubled stint in South Sudan, Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu of Ghana, Floriano Peixoto Vieira Neto of Brazil, Bruce Jones of Canada, Youssef Mahmoud of Tunisia, B. Lynn Pascoe of the US, whom Inner City Press reported was in the mix to replace Alexander Downer as UN envoy to Cyprus but was said to be blocked from getting it, Alexander Ilitchev of Russia and Ian Martin of the UK, who returned to the UN to mull mediation after starting the ill-fated UN Mission in Libya. Martin’s previous Board of Inquiry report on bombing in Gaza in 2009, Ban Ki-moon undercut with a cover-letter. We’ll have more on this, too.

   

On Haiti Cholera, UN Envoy Medrano Says Word "Compensation" Won't Be Used, FUNCA Asks, No Q&A?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 21, with a song -- On Haiti cholera, the UN in New York has been declining many questions, such as whether Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was served papers. Meanwhile its envoy Pedro Medrano answers questions only selectively. On April 21, Inner City Press asked about one of his reported answers, video here:

Inner City Press: Obviously you’ve seen the quote of Mr. Medrano as predicting in advance that this panel he would be on with the Government may provide assistance, but he said, like, the word “compensation” won’t be used. So I wanted to know, is that a UN position? Is it his prediction of that the Government doesn’t want the word “compensation” used? And is there some way that we can have by video or otherwise, a kind of, some kind of presentation by Mr. Medrano?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: Sure, on Haiti, over the weekend, the terms of reference on this high level committee on cholera, which would be a UN and Government of Haiti committee, have been officially agreed on. And the aim is really for the joint effort of to fight cholera between the UN and the Government of Haiti. The Committee aims at further improving the coordination response to the epidemic and obviously we expect to have an official announcement in the next couple of days. But this is a very important… the establishment of this committee is a very important one in terms of our efforts, and most importantly the Government of Haiti’s efforts, to address not only cholera but also the associated water and sanitation issues...

Inner City Press: on Medrano, I will like to say again if you could do a briefing in this room it would help--

Spokesman Dujarric: I hear you.

We'll see. The Free UN Coalition for Access will follow up.

 The UN report on Haiti which was debated in the Security Council on March 24 has two paragraphs about cholera, but no mention of the UN's role in bringing it to the country.

  After the Council meeting, Inner City Press asked UN envoy Sandra Honore about the recommendation by UN expert Gustavo Gallon that compensation be paid to the victims, and about the litigation pending against the UN. Video here, from Minute 0:45.

  Honore gave a long answer, about UN support to the Haiti government and about the UN's Pedro Medrano traveling in search of contributions. She said Gallon's recommendations are directed to the UN Human Rights Council and it would be improper for her to comment. But what about the litigation? 

  Back on February 28 Inner City Press, having twice asked asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to confirm Ban has been served with legal papers, on February 28 asked about Gallon's report:

Inner City Press: on Haiti, there is a recent report just out by Gustavo Gallón, who is the UN independent expert on human rights in Haiti, and he says, as a direct quote, that full compensation for the damage suffered by the Haitian people by the introduction of cholera to the island should be paid as quickly as possible. So, I understand that he is an independent expert and doesn’t work for the Secretariat; at the same time, it’s a respected position and a mandate formed by the Human Rights Council, so I wanted to know what in the face of this sort of either intra-UN or intra-UN system critique, what is the response of the United Nations?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, simply, that you answered the question yourself. The Human Rights Council-appointed special rapporteurs and other special advisers of various kinds are independent and they are not appointed by the Secretary-General and I don’t have anything further to say on that.

Inner City Press: But does the UN system expect, for example, countries when when they are subject to these type recommendations or criticism by an independent experts of the Human Rights Council to respond in some way to them to say: we agree or disagree, or that is why we disagree?

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s for each individual Member State to decide.

Ah, leadership. Meanwhile, while the UN has refused to answer if Ban was served the court papers, beyond this song, Inner City Press will now publish the sad litany of attempts to serve what could be described as a scoff law:

On December 19, 2013, at approximately 3:11 PM, a paralegal for Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted OLA by telephone and spoke to a woman who identified herself as “Mae” (who, upon information and belief, is Mae Arkoncel, Assistant to the UN Legal Counsel). Mae confirmed that OLA had received the faxed documents from Plaintiffs’ counsel and stated that the UN was currently 'reviewing the documents'...

Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was attempted again on January 20, 2014, at approximately 10:05 AM, at Defendant Ban’s residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A security guard informed the server that Defendant Ban was not present, and refused to open the door or accept service.

8. Service of process by delivery to Defendant Ban personally through the use of a private process server... was perfected on January 20, 2014, at approximately 2:00 PM, at Defendant’s Ban residence located at [redacted by ICP]. A male who identified himself as 'security' answered the door and informed the server that he would not accept service and that Defendant Ban was not present. The server affixed the process to the front door with masking tape and informed the security guard that he was doing so with the intention that the documents would be forwarded to Defendant Ban. The server then mailed another copy of the process to Defendant Ban at the same address.

That's called "nail-and-mail," and it's what's used with a fugitive or scoff law. Is that what this UN has become? It's the basis of this lyric, can't serve the papers up in the townhouse, song here. Watch this site.