On DRC, Failure of 8+1 Leads to Grander Dream of 11+1, Of Kabila's Caving, Ladsous' Drones

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- After the failure in Addis Ababa of the UN's political framework for Eastern Congo, one expected some public explanation and even question and answer from the UN Tuesday in connection with the Security Council meeting on the topic.

  But despite the presence of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's personal envoy Susana Malcorra and head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, neither did a UNTV stakeout.Here was Ladsous' last stakeout, on video.

  It was left to Security Council members to explain what went wrong in Addis, and what the next steps are.

  Inner City Press is informed by a country in the region that even after Ban's Eight Plus One format fell apart, there was a move to have a smaller group sign. 

  Rwanda's President Paul Kagame said he would sign. But Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, this read out goes, said it would have to be a larger group.

  Now the group has gotten "absurdly large," in the analysis of another Security Council member, to "Eleven Plus One." Of what benefit can such a large group be? 

   And why would those who rejected Eight Plus One agree on Eleven? "Look into what they got in the interim," it was suggested.

  What is the relation between this Eleven Plus One dream, which many said will be signed by the end of the month, and the Kampala talks with the M23? Little, apparently. 

  Might the M23 end up regretting being talked into leaving Goma when they did? Another Security Council member said, "Kabila caved too quickly, and now he's breaking his word."

  This leaves the issue of the intervention battalion, to engage in "peace enforcement," on which UN officials have given selective anonymous briefings -- which as reported caused anger in Addis, at the UN and its embedded and compliant correspondents.

  This is now separated from the Eleven Plus One political framework, tied to the wider mandate of the MONUSCO mission and to the drone that Herve Ladsous has pursued since last year, before he had any approval at all. Watch this site.

After DRC Deal Failed In Addis, UN Slammed for Blind Quotes to Its Embedded Media

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- It was a week ago that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's promised framework agreement for "peace enforcement" in the Eastern Congo failed at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa.

  On February 2 a diplomat who was centrally involved in Addis explained to Inner City Press, it was ridiculous, they showed us a two page plan at the last minute but they told BBC and the wires that we were going to agree to it. Well, we didn't.

  The diplomat constrasted the "arrogant" attempted closing of the deal by Ban and UN Peacekeeping and its chief, through (anonymous) quotes to the "embedded" media, to work that an official lower down in UN Peacekeeping, Babacar Gaye, did in traveling around Africa prior to the AU Summit. 

  "All that got wasted," the diplomat said.

  On January 25 Reuters from the UN in New York ran a quote that "'It is not simply peacekeeping, this is peace enforcement. It's a much more robust stance,' said the official, who declined to be named."

  Inner City Press asked on January 26: why did Reuters accept this request for anonymity from a UN official on a concept -- "peace enforcement" -- that not all UN member states, particularly troop contributing countries, have agreed to? 

  And where's the accountability now? Reuters story on the promoted deal's failure didn't use or mention the January 25 blind quote, or even use the term peace "enforcement."

   Agence France Presse went further, or lower, allowing a "second UN official" to also go unnamed.

   But AFP then named the associate spokesperson who announced the failure of the deal half an hour before it was to be signed. 

   What are AFP's policies for allowing anonymous declarations of war by the UN, which is ostensibly controlled by the member states who now say they were not consulted? 

  Again, what are Reuters' policies on granting anonymity in cases like this for Reuters editors like Stephen J. Adler, Walden Siew, and Paul Ingrassia, for Agence France Presse, for BBC?

Some of the media identified as running the blind quotes from "UN officials" about what would happen in Addis responded not on the record but by setting up an anonymous social media account to try to tie the critic to terrorist funding. 

 Of the first 21 on the account, at least three are Reuters: the current UN reporter and the bureau chief, and the former bureau chief. The latter two control the UN Correspondents Association and its affiliate.

  They also purported and purport not to see the difference between granting anonymity as they did and do to UN officials to announce war plans as opposed to countries, particularly non Permanent Five members of the Security Council, to explain why they disagree, while not being retaliated against by the P5 or UN. 

  By what right does the UN, ostensibly owned and controlled by its 193 member states, have to develop and anonymously promote war plans? And where are the corrections for having mis-reported what would happen in Addis? 

Here's the inital video #LADSOUS2013, soft launched Jan 27.

  After the UN failed in the Democratic Republic of Congo to protect civilians first in Goma then in Minova, where the DRC Army raped at least 126 women in late November 2012, a reserve spin war began.

  UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous refused to answer Press questions about the Minova rapes, instead taking favored and compliant media out into the hall for a private briefing. Video here. These media included Reuters, Agence France-Presse and Voice of America.

  In terms of the UN, isn't this "inter-governmental organization" owned and supposedly by its member states? Many of them, particularly troop contributing countries, have not agreed to Ladsous' "peace enforcement" push, nor in the C-34 committee on peacekeeping have they signed off on his proposal to use drones.

  But Ladsous, Inner City Press reported on January 25, ran a procurement for drones from November 28, 2012 to January 11, 2013, before he had any approval at all.  Then last week, Inner City Press showed that the re-vamped RFP will not even be opened until the second half of March.

  Ladsous is now slated to hold a press conference on February 6. One would think these questions would up, could be raised. But the UN (and the above identified media, who dominate UNCA a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance) have enabled Ladsous to pick and choose which media's questions he will take. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

Footnote: Another UN official in the mix is Susana Malcorra, sent to the region as the Personal Envoy of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But Malcorra promised to be more transparent, after defending the UN's blacking out of material about war crimes. We'll see.

In Addis, Ban Ki-moon Is Selective on Mali, Shows Ladsous Gun-Jumped on Drones, War: French Connections

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 27 -- At the African Union summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's speech on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Cote d'Ivoire was tell.

  In French, Ban said "We are considering establishing a peace enforcement capacity within the Mission to address the threat of armed groups in eastern DRC."

  Back in New York, as a sort of pre AU summit sales pitch using the embedded media (AFP, Reuters, BBC), a UN official left unnamed on January 25 was more specific, serving up to friendly media more details: three battalions of 850 soldiers each, and tellingly three drones.

  The head of Ban's UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold that post, has been moving forward on UN drones even before receiving even limited approval.

  As Inner City Press exposed on January 25, Ladsous' DPKO launched a procurement for drones back on November 28 -- the day after he refused to answer Press questions on the Congo, and took the same media out into the hall for a private briefing, video here.

  So did Ladsous' DPKO similarly jump the gun declaring war in the DRC? In any event, it seems no matter what Ladsous does or doesn't do, Ban Ki-moon would not and could not replace him. UN Peacekeeping "belongs" to France. And that is part of the problem.

  The UN read-out of Ban's meeting with Alassane Ouattara of former French colony Cote d'Ivoire had not a word about Ouattara supporters killing perceived Laurent Gbagbo supporters in a camp for Internally Displaced People.

   While the UN peacekeepers there, who "work with" the the French Force Licorne, are accused of pushing IDPs off their UN trucks and into the mob to be beaten to death, Ban's and Ladsous' envoy to Cote d'Ivoire Bert Koenders has twice self-exonerated the UN.

  On Mali, where France has been bombing Timbuktu, Ban cited the "bilateral support" received by the Malian authorities -- without saying the word France. 

  Ban did not mention that these Malian authorities including coup leader Amadou Sanogo, nor about the Malian Army's executions in Sevare and elsewhere. Even Ban's description of the UN's deployment did not mention human rights. But Ban spoke in French.

   To be fair, the non-enforcement of the UN's supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy is not limited to Ladsous' ongoing cover up (video here) of 126 rapes in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army, or looking the other way while the Malian Army is, well, the Malian Army.

   In Somalia, with no French connection, the UN and its Department of Field Support have had little to say or follow up with the recent killing of seven civilians, five of them children, by the AMISOM forces that the UN through DFS supports.

  The UN Security Council is supposed to provide some oversight on all this. But today they are belatedly in Yemen, where even motorbike traffic has been Banned. Back in New York, the UN Staff Union last week adopted by 186 to 45 a resolution that they have "no confidence" in Ban. We'll have more on all this. Watch this site.