At UN, UK Ambassador Lyall Grant's Successor Will Be Rycroft, But Not For Five Months, Of Palestine's Mansour & France's Delattre

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- As the East Jerusalem meeting of the UN Security Council started up on Thursday afternoon, a noteworthy small moment occurred at the Council's press stakeout. Palestine's Riyad Mansour was telling a half-dozen reporters that Security Council members should shoulder their responsibility -- and just then, UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant walked by.

  "Hello, Mark,” Mansour said, and Lyall Grant, a flower on his label, laughed and continued on. Recently the House of Commons voted, with many abstentions, to recognize the state of Palestine. Other Council sources told Inner City Press it may have “softened” the UK's or Lyall Grant's approach to the issue. Perhaps these questions are answered elsewhere.

  Others have asked, what about Lyall Grant moving on from the Council? The answer is yes, but not until April 15, 2015. His replacement is Matthew Rycroft, most recently the “chief operating officer” of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (Rycroft's replacement Deborah Bronnert, already interviewed as such, has said all British diplomats should be on Twitter, with Lyall Grant had no problem with.)

  And so to Lyall Grant, even with five and a half months to go, this insider-football joke: what team is made up of two things ISIS or Da'esh hates? West Ham.

  Meanwhile, while France's Gerard Araud was replaced by Francois Delattre and Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access taken a break from writing about press freedom issues that arose with the French mission, from French-only sessions in the UN Press Briefing Room to Araud calling a Lebanese correspondent not a journalist but “an agent,” still little has been heard from Delattre (for now we keep an open mind).

  Some say it's because he came to the UN not during the summer but right in September. Will Rycroft start shadowing Lyall Grant and Peter Wilson between now and April 15?

  Rycroft it is clear has recently toured the DR Congo. What are his views on the UN not suspending any support to the Congolese Army after their 130 rapes in Minova for which only two soldiers were convicted? By April 2015, will the FDLR militia have actually been neutralized, as the M23 was by the UN and its Force Intervention Brigade? 

 What about the UN Secretariat, on Darfur, only giving Security Council members the executive summary of its (whitewash) report into covering-up attacks on civilians, and not the whole report? That'll be for Lyall Grant to address -- and some others on the Council. Watch this site.

   

Take 2: Obama Taps Clooney Colleague for UNSC Post, Barks Ruggles for Rwanda In French Eyes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 14 -- Two nominations announced on June 13 by the Obama administration andquickly reported by Inner City Press have given rise to questions. Inner City Press identified David Pressman, slated for a US Mission to the UN position in the Security Council, as co-founder of "Not On Our Watch," thinking that wasEnough. 

   But based on feedback we add... with George Clooney! One could add: UNSC-bound Pressman worked with Ron Kuby, mentee of progressive defense lawyer William Kunstler, while Clooney's engagement to international lawyer Amal Alamuddin had him relinquish his UN post. ICP as TMZ? Anyway. So this follow up is in blog / TMZ style.

   Also, after Inner City Press reported that Obama intends to nominate  Erica J. Barks Ruggles as US Ambassador to Rwanda, a French reporter on the region opined, "If true, interesting move." 

  If true? Is this like saying the departure of French Ambassador Gerard Araud from the UN on July 15 will be "if true, an interesting move"?

  Of Pressman, this is of interest to us:  will he help hold UN Peacekeeping accountable?

   Since 2013 Pressman has been at the US Mission to the UN, and is now slated to replace Jeffrey DeLaurentis. The post involves frequent Council consultations on the UNAMID and UNMISS peacekeeping missions, among others.

  Just this year, mis-reporting of government abuse in Darfur by UNAMID and UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous has been exposed. On South Sudan, Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ladsous open refuses to answer Press questions. Might Pressman help bring accountability, or at least increased transparency?

   Ladsous also refused to answer on the FDLR, understandably of much concern to Rwanda. As new US Ambassador to Rwanda, President Barack Obama on June 13 nominated Erica J. Barks Ruggles, a career member of the Foreign Service, currently  Consul General at the U.S. Consulate in Cape Town, South Africa. What is her position on these issues? UNfortunately, on Ladsous there were no confirmation hearings.

On Sudan and South Sudan: After a June 4 briefing by UN Humanitarian chief Valerie Amos, Inner City Press asked her if any aid is getting into Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. 

  She told Inner City Press yes, in areas controlled by the Sudan government. She said, not for the first time, that the SPLM-North insists that aid come in from the South: that is, cross-border.

  Inner City Press asked Amos about reports of bombing of Kauda, including of a hospital. She said she has heard the reports, and that she met on June 3 with Sudan's new Permanent Representative to the UN, with whom she has previously worked.

  Amos is slated to brief the UN Security Council about Somalia later on June 4. We'll be there.

  At the June 4 briefing, it was not possible for Inner City Press to ask Amos about South Sudan, or about "access fees."

   Four weeks after the United States announced South Sudan sanctions on Marial Chanuong and Peter Gadet on May 6, on June 2 it clarified that paying "taxes" to Gadet's militia wouldn't necessarily violate the sanctions:

Q: Are humanitarian aid groups prohibited from making payments to or otherwise transacting with non-designated individuals or entities in South Sudan, including militias and armed groups under the command or control of a designated individual?

A: An entity in South Sudan that is commanded or controlled by an individual designated under Executive Order 13664 is not considered blocked by operation of law. Payments, including “taxes” or “access payments,” made to non-designated individuals or entities under the command or control of an individual designated under E.O. 13664 do not, in and of themselves, constitute prohibited activity. U.S. persons should employ due diligence, however, to ensure that an SDN is not, for example, profiting from such transactions

   One wonders about the timing of the Q&A - was this really a "frequently" asked question?

  (Inner City Press also wonders whether US State Department envoy Russ Feingold has inquired with Burundi into the jailing of human rights defender Mbonimpa. Sanctions on that, or on arming the CNDD youth wing, in camps in Eastern Congo which the UN mission MONUSCO won't even go and check?)

  On May 6 a US Senior Administration Official, when asked by Inner City Press if thought had been or will be given to sanctioning the Kiir government officials who took to the radio waves prior to the deadly attack on the UN compound of UNMISS in Bor, resisted discussing anyone not yet on the list.

   But it would seem clear that there could be at least one further intermediary step of sanctions before reaching Kiir and his former Vice President.

  Gadet was previously used by the government for disarmament. Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about it on March 15, 2012 and Johnson replied that to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant. Now Gadet is under US sanctions.

  Beyond the sanctions, Inner City Press asked the US Senior Administration Officials about Secretary of State John Kerry's emphasis in Addis Ababa on the need for a legitimate force to help make peace: in the US' thinking, would this force be part of UNMISS?

  A second Senior Administration Official replied that conversations are ongoing, that the regional force would be related but, it seems, might be separate. 

  Now it seems the force, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda, will be related and technically a part of UNMISS - but Hilde Johnson is leaving as envoy in July. Watch this site.

Footnote: When the US Treasury Department put online the specifics, it appeared that Peter Gadet, now subject to a travel ban, has no passport.

US Transcript:

MODERATOR: Our next question is from.. 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.

   

On UN Eviction of News Agency of Nigeria, NAN Says UN Never Told It, FUNCA Asks UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- The UN, which since its founding has assigned office space to media to cover it, threw out the News Agency of Nigeria. Its official say they were never contacted, see below. Its name was simply cut off the door to what had been its office space. Photo here, by FUNCA member Luiz Rampelotto. 

  The old UN Correspondents Association did nothing about it, just as they have "dragged their feet" when French Ambassador Gerard Araud told one of their members, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent," here.

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access opposed and has continued to oppose and look into these move, particularly since other privileged media have been allowed to leave their assigned offices empty and unused for long periods - the rationale used by the UN.

  Inner City Press on behalf of FUNCA asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it at the June 4 noon briefing, video here, and embedded below. 

  FUNCA also put questions to the UN in writing. The UN responded to FUNCA that "if a new correspondent is accredited to the UN, the Agency will have a space in the building."  

  That correspondent, FUNCA is informed, has already been named. But the News Agency of Nigeria's Managing Director says "nobody from the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit (MALU) had communicated to the news agency on the shutdown of the office space allocated to NAN."

  FUNCA has put this question to MALU and above and will publish the answer.

  A flier FUNCA posted was torn down, but the UN says it didn't remove it. So who did? The UN's Censorship Alliance, whose president puff-tweeted an event in the UN on June 9 which banned the press? 

  UNCA said nothing about NAN's eviction, instead concerned with demanding first questions they do not report upon, and celebrating the large space the UN gives them as actual media are thrown out.

  That space will be subject to a scan re-opening which the UN is deputizing.

   If the reason for throwing out the News Agency of Nigeria is lack of space, there is a growing call that the large space mis-allocated to UNCA, which does not represent all correspondents resident at the UN, far front it, should be subdivided and given to real journalists to actually use for work.

  From the June 4 UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: it seems that in the Central African Republic, where there is a UN Mission, there has been a ban on SMS or text messages directed at seeming a non-violent organization of a protest, so does the UN have any comment or reaction to that? And also, this is in-house, but I wanted to ask if you can explain the loss by the news agency of Nigeria of its office and workspace at the UN given that it’s a major country, they’re on the Security Council. Was there sort of notice given? What’s the process? What’s the reasoning?

Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t know. The process for offices and accreditation is clear, it’s on the website. And you know, you can ask MALU [Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit]. I’m happy to ask for you.

Inner City Press: I know there’s been previous request of sort of due process. Do you believe that that’s been provided in this case?

Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t know the specifics of this case but I have full trust in MALU that due process is followed.

Inner City Press: [UN says “inaudible,” but what was asked was “double standards?”]

Spokesman Dujarric: What is your question Matthew?

Inner City Press: Okay, I guess my question is that it seems that without --

Spokesman Dujarric: No, I think I’ve answered the Nigeria question. If you have another one, I’m happy to…

Inner City Press: The CAR question. Do you have any comment on…

Spokesman Dujarric: No, I’ll check with the Mission. I’ll see if they have said anything on this.

   Nine hours later, despite Dujarric's statement that he was happy to "ask MALU" -- which he previously supervised -- no explanation had received. So FUNCA submitted the question to MALU / DPI - and the response above was received.

  Since the old UN Correspondents Association board, rather than defend media, have shown a willingness to try to get other media thrown out, FUNCA soon after its founding asked the UN to at least be more transparent in its decisions that impact media, including not only accreditation but loss of work space.

  The New York Civil Liberties Union asked the UN to publicly implement due process rights for the journalists which cover it -- but the UN has yet to do so. 

  FUNCA continues to push for this, and for example for the UN to belatedly take some action on French Ambassador Gerard Araud, in the middle of a UN press conference in the UN Press Briefing Room, telling a correspondent, “You are not a journalist, you are an agent.” 

  But the UN would not convey, even in its typically wan fashion, the stated position that correspondents should be treated with respect to Araud or the French Mission to the UN. And UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance, "dragged its feet," according to the correspondent to whom Araud said, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."

  Nigeria is a member of the Security Council; its Permanent RepresentativeJoy Ogwu held ten question and answer stakeouts during her presidency of the Security Council in April. (South Korea held only three stakeouts during its May presidency, by contrast.) So why is the News Agency of Nigeria having its UN work space taken away?

News Agency of Nigeria cut off UN office sign, photo by FUNCA's Luiz Rampelotto of Europa Newswire

  Here is a flier the Free UN Coalition for Access put out, soon after its founding, about double standards (it referred to a previous configuration of offices, over the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library)

FUNCA Asks a Question: Double Standards Much?

The New York Times has an office inside of UN Headquarters. But its door has been closed, without opening, for months. A thick pile of fliers, months old, clogs the doorway. There’s dust everywhere.

But the UN is doing nothing, because it won’t apply its rules equally to all.

In fact, reporters who want to cover the UN are being denied access to UN Headquarters – on the grounds that there’s just not enough space to go around. And Big Media gets handed big offices that some of them never even use.

The UN’s media guidelines say that reporters need to come in the UNHQ three times a week in order to keep their office space. It’s a catch-22: if you don’t have an office, you also can’t get the right kind of press pass that lets you move freely in and out of Headquarters.

And plenty of small newspapers have lost their desks because they couldn’t keep up with the attendance requirement. But of course, these standards aren’t applied across the board: the New York Times hasn’t even opened the door to their space since October.

What kinds of conditions are these? Is it any wonder that we see less and less reporting on international affairs, or that newspapers increasingly rely on wire services for their news? What other options are open to small media?

UN correspondents have launched the Free United Nations Coalition for Access, a group dedicated to guaranteeing equal access for all reporters looking to cover the UN.

We formed FUNCA after a small group of big media – the UN reporters fromReuters, AFP, and Voice of America — banded together to try and dis-accredit Inner City Press, an independent news site that produces tough, watchdog reporting on the UN.

Then the head of the UN’s Peacekeeping Department, Herve Ladsous, announced that he was no longer taking questions from Inner City Press – a policy which he has bizarrely, blithely kept going for months. This means he hasn’t had to answer questions about, say, the UN’s role in allowing rapes in the Congo, or working with the rapists, or in bringing cholera to Haiti. Far from putting pressure on him, most of the UN press corps has sat by silently and let Mr. Ladsous turn a deaf ear to all the tough questions.

FUNCA wants to fill the press freedom vacuum. Right now, we’re advocating along other things for the rights of freelancers who have been denied UN credentials (even as other freelancers have credentials and big offices). We’re pushing more UN officials to give on the record briefings to the press corps. And we now work with journalists around the world, from Somaliland to Colombia to Burundi - and Nigeria.

   Note that despite a commitment that while UNCA maintains a glassed in bulletin board in front of the large office the UN gives it -- while News Agency of Nigeria is thrown out -- FUNCA can post fliers on a separate board, not glassed in, recently these have been torn down, including one about the need for the UN to take action after French Ambassador Araud told a correspondent, “You are not a journalist, your are an agent.” 

  We are inquiring into these flier tear-down, just another form of censorship at the UN. Watch this site.

   

With Press UNprotected in Ethiopia, Burundi & Inside the UN, Hypocrisy of UNCA President Pamela Falk of CBS

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 1 -- When the UN "celebrated" World Press Freedom Day on May 1, the speeches all sounded good. But there were inconsistencies large and small. 

  In Ethiopia, for example, the government has arrested nine journalists including six Zone 9 bloggers. Inner City Press, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, has twice asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric for any UN comment. There has been none. The UN has a big office in Addis Ababa and wants to stay there.

In Burundi, two journalists are being hauled before the courts for publishing a UN cable, which Inner City Press put online here, which warned of the governing party arming its youth wing. Inner City Press and FUNCA asked Dujarric for any comment: there was none.

But right inside the UN, journalism in under fire. For example on April 15, Ambassador Gerard Araud of Permanent Security Council member France told a reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric to convey to Araud (and to his forthcoming successor Jacques Audibert) the stated position that correspondents should be respected. But this has not happened.

  The attacked correspondent tells FUNCA that the old UN Correspondents Association, to which he pays dues and on whose Executive Committee he and Inner City Press used to serve (Inner City Press, disgusted, quit) that UNCA is "dragging its feet."

  It's a pattern: UNCA executive committee members angered at an Inner City Press reporting about Sri Lanka and conflicts of interest tried to get Inner City Press thrown out, including of the UN. Then UNCA executive committee Louis Charbonneau of Reuters got a leaked copy of his "for the record" complaint to the UN blocked from Google's Search, claiming it was private under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, here. This is outright censorship.

  And so it was particularly hypocritical, but typically UN, that UNCA's 2013-2014 president Pamela Falk of CBS sat on the UN's #WPFD panel, speechifying about freedom of information even after she and her board withheld the tape and transcript of a one hour Q&A session with Ban Ki-moon from which they used quotes. 

  No new hashtag can make up for this. These are insiders; this is not freedom of the press. This is the problem, and the new Free UN Coalition for Access will continue to confront it, inside the UN and beyond. Watch this site, and this one.

   

On Western Sahara, Gerard Araud Claims on Human Rights Belied by Acts in 2012 MINURSO Renewal

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 20, more here -- In the untransparent annual UN cat and mouse process around Western Sahara, French Ambassador Gerard Araud has repeatedly been asked by usual-friend Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch but continues denying any French role, this year or before, in blocking a human rights monitoring mechanism in the MINURSO mission. 

 Araud claimed, "there is not, there has not been, this year or last year or previous years, any French veto threat! It is a fact."  He added, "my 'word' is simply that, contrary to your assertions, France never threatened to veto any proposal. Nothing more, nothing less."

  This stands in contrast below to 2010, when Uganda, Mexico and as now Nigeria were serving on the Council along with Araud, who is now slated to leave in July -- and to April 2011, also touched on below.

 On April 17, 2012, Inner City Press directly asked Gerard Araud about human rights and MINURSO and the then still withheld (Africa-less) "Group of Friends of Western Sahara" draft resolution.

   Araud replied, "There is still I guess one of the Friends that has problems. But I think we are close to an agreement."

  Multiple sources told Inner City Press that France, represented at that stage on the Group of Friends by its expert Mariam Diallo, had been opposing the resolution trying to ensure the MINURSO mission's "effectiveness" and, as before, human rights monitoring of the type other UN peacekeeping missions have. In terms of Araud's assessment that only "one of the Friends.. has problems," Inner City Press was told that there at least two.

 A Security Council member excluded from the Group of Friends, South Africa, said that the Friends have promised to circulate a draft "later today," whether it's agreed to by all the Friends of not. South African Permanent Representative Baso Sangqu told Inner City Press, "Our issue was that the earlier we all get involved,the better for everybody."  And this year?

  An aside on Human Rights Watch: while Ken Roth has tw-asked, HRW's representative at the UN, former of state-owned France 24, has been notably silent on the issue. His last two tweets some from April 17, one passing on a story quoting his boss Ken Roth about North Korea, then other quoting Araud -- on North Korea. (On this topic, the HRW lobbyist purported to be inside or "at" in the closed-door Arria meeting, engaged in trademark selective distribution of information.) How can HRW question UN Ambassador Araud and HRW's "UN Director" stays entirely out of it. Why?

  Back on April 18, 2011, multiple sources told Inner City Press that France opposed any MINURSO human rights monitoring mechanism, counter-proposing only cooperation with the special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council. 

  On April 27, 2011, Inner City Press aske Araud about the High Commissioner for Human Rights' recommendation that a right monitoring mechanism be included in MINURSO. Araud replies that "Ban Ki-moon's" final report, into which the French chief of UN Peacekeeping had input, hadn't adopted the OHCHR's recommend. That is where the lobbying is -- and it is attributable to France, with refusals to answer questions playing their role.

   Araud opposed a human rights monitoring mechanism in 2010 as well:

  On April 30, 2010, six hours into Western Sahara negotiations in the Security Council, the threat to call the vote was made. There would be three abstentions against the resolution drafted by the so-called Group of Friends: Uganda, Nigeria and Mexico.

A compromise that was apparently acceptable to all 15 members, but was opposed by Morocco, would refer to UN "mechanisms" as a euphemism for human rights.

  Frente Polisario says it could live with this language, and is angry that Morocco has become on this issue the one in "P-5 Plus One." Others wondered if France only agreed to put this language to Morocco because it knew Morocco would shoot it down.

Inside the consultations, Inner City Press was informed, Austria's Ambassador wondered out loud how France, so important in forming the concept of human rights, could be so vehemently opposing the inclusion of the term in the Western Sahara resolution.

French Ambassador Araud responded angrily that no one can teach human rights lessons to France.  

 Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- surtout avec Araud.

  Back on on April 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm, Araud noted he should have left for Greentree for the Council's annual retreat with the Secretary General 10 minutes before. This year in 2014, the retreat is earlier in April, before the MINURSO vote. So there will be no excuses. We'll have more on this.

  This year in a multiple French farce, a wire service reporter usually of use to France, Reuters' Louis Charbonneau, has now purported to cover as news his being accused of misinformation by his often-source France. Trying to serve two of the P3 Conuncil members on this issue - and some others -- doesn't work. 

  The threat of a French veto was cited by Charbonneau as the reason for the "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" draft resolution not including a human rights monitoring mechanism.

   Based on that, Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth did what he rarely does: criticize France. 

   Then French Ambassador Gerard Araud did what he rarely does: actually respond to a critique. He tweeted, "Ken Roth your message is wrong! France has not threatened to veto anything! The negotiation has not even started... How can we veto something which is not proposed by the pen holder (which in not France)? You rely on rumors and disinformation."

    The "rumors and disinformation" are those repeated by Reuters' Lou Charbonneau, on whom the French mission often relies to get out its message.  Inner City Press asked, and asks: so who is not telling the truth?

  Meanwhile from Paris the French foreign services "social media" team issues a blog by Anne Chounet-Cambas singing its own praises, citing Williamsburg, Brooklyn and hard rock. If they are the ones staffing Araud's twitter feed, is this what they had in mind?

   This French foreign ministry social media teams map of Morocco and Western Sahara, here, has been noted -- particularly in light of France's recent statements about UN maps and Crimea. We'll have more on this.

   Obscured is all this is why "Ban Ki-moon's" report's recommendation was changed to drop the word "mechanism." UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat during the Rwanda genocide who is the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping. This has not been mentioned by Reuters. 

     Another irony is that on April 17 after a French, US and Australia sponsored Arria formula meeting with Michael Kirby, chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, Kirby said threats of veto should not be allowed to bury human rights proposals. He said a formal meeting (and vote) should be called on referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court.

  But this logic apparently doesn't apply to Western Sahara, or to France as the veto-wielder.  None of this is noted, of course, in pass-through account by Reuters' Charbonneau, demonstrably engaged in censorship, here. Reuters' Charbonneau, who last time quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud denying any role, this time didn't mention him at all.

   On April 15, Araud told another reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." While UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric has been asked to convey to Araud and the French Mission the UN position that accredited correspondents should be treated with respect, here, we note that this servile wire by Araud logic is just as much an agent. 

  Araud's anti-press moves on April 15 were of course not reported by this wire -- nor on Western Sahara was the African Union position with which Nigeria's Joy Ogwu answered Inner City Press --rights mechanism needed,video here and embedded below -- in the wire's story.

  Africa is not represented in the Council's "Group of Friends on Western Sahara." Changing that is not a reform you'll hear France talking about, including prospectively at the Council's retreat with Ban Ki-moon on which we'll have more.  Nor is Africa represented or even recognized, it is increasingly clear, on this servile wire. This is how the UN works, or doesn't.

  On April 17, the day of the Security Council first formal consultation on Western Sahara, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Dujarric about a reported crack down on peaceful demonstrators in El Aaiun, then asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, Council president for April, about the consultations.

   Dujarric said he had no information about the demonstration or crackdown or any letter received; when Inner City Press asked if envoy Christopher Ross would hold a question and answer stakeout, he said probably not. (None happened.) Video here.

  But Inner City Press asked the Security Council's president for April, Nigeria's Joy Ogwu, if human rights monitoring came up. She said in her national capacity she raised it, saying that a human rights monitoring mechanism should be (belatedly) put in the MINURSO mission's mandate, as it is in the mandate of other UN peacekeeping missions. Video here.

  Before the consultations, French Ambassador Gerard Araud engaged in a long discussion with Morocco's new Ambassador to the UN Omar Hilale. Inner City Press, at the stakeout, took and tweeted a few photographs -- Morocco supporters replied with Araud's anti-press phrase of April 15, that anyone they disagree with is "not a journalist;" one even called photographing from the UN stakeout "spying." 

  (That Araud was quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" was in the air. Araud talked about suing Bardem, but has not.)

   Another replied to Inner City Press that Ambassador Ogwu shouldn't have said what she said. We're left wondering if Gerard Araud, before he leaves in July, will say in a Security Council consultation, "You're not a diplomat." And what would happen next. Here is what has been requested: that Dujarric convey to the French mission that position that accredited correspondents should be respected, before the arrival of Jacques Audibert.

  The Security Council is scheduled to vote on the MINURSO mandate on April 23, but it could go until the end of the month, when the old mandate with no right monitoring mandate expires. Watch this site.

  Back on April 16 Dujarric refused to explain, when Inner City Press asked, why Ban dropped a rights "mechanism" from the advance copy of his report. Dujarric refused to say with whom, other than Morocco's King, Ban spoke about the matter between April 10 and April 15, when a new draft without "mechanism" went on the UN's website. Video here.

  Moments later, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, April's Security Council president and an African Union member, about the drop of the word "mechanism." She said it will be discussed in consultations on April 17. Video here.

  On April 10, Inner City Press published what was called the advance copy of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on Western Sahara, saying that the goal is a human rights monitoring MECHANISM, see here at Paragraph 100.

  Now, the revised report is on the UN's website, with the mechanism dropped. Click here, at Paragraph 100. Earlier on April 17, despite a slew of questions about Western Sahara coming in to French Ambassador Gerard Araud as he held a press conference on human rights, he did not answer those questions nor take any question from Inner City Press. The only critical question Araud took, perhaps by mistake, he replied to, You are not a journalist, you are an agent.  Video here.

  (Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric on April 16 if this was appropriate. Video here. He said accredited correspondents should be treated with respect, but declined even when Inner City Press noted that French foreign minister Laurent Fabius did the same thing to say he will convey this "respect" position to the French Mission, or Araud's replacement Jacques Audibert, click here for that)

  On April 15, Araud called on France 24 and a Reuters reporter who quoted Araud without mentioning that Javier Barden reported Araud as calling Morocco France's mistress. (Araud talked of suing, but never did.) Nor did Reuters mention that the head of UN Peacekeeping, atop the Western Sahara mission MINURSO, is Herve Ladsous, a long-time French diplomat including at the UN during the Rwanda genocide of 1994.

  So a human rights monitoring mechanism is out, at least from Ban Ki-moon report.

   Morocco's King, after in essence threatening to end the UN mission if human rights monitoring mechanism is included, is now reportedly slated to visit Dakhla, as early as tomorrow. Click here. 

   And as the pace picks up, here is another letter going in to Security Council members, this time from humanitarian groups working in Western Sahara, here.

   This comes just after the King announced a new Ambassador to the UN, replacing (and some say blaming) Ambassador Loulichki.

   The new Ambassador will be Omar Hilale, most recently a hardliner on the human rights issue at the UN in Geneva. This comes as France is slated to replace its Ambassador Gerard Araud with Jacques Audibert in July. So for both Araud and Loulichki, this month is a last campaign against a rights monitoring mechanism.

  Araud was slated to give a press conference on April 15, ironically on human rights, on topic on which he convened a closed door meeting at 10 am on April 15, from which even some UN member states were banned.  Araud should have been expected to address these issues -- but he and his spokesman Frederic Jung did not take any question from Inner City Press, and Araud attacked the lone critical question he selected.

   Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access on the morning of April 11 put online the first advance copy of the "Report of the Secretary General on the situation concerning Western Sahara," to be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/2014/258, here.

  On April 12, the Moroccan government -- but not the UN -- issued a read out of a call by the King of Morocco to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier in the day on the topic of "the Moroccan Sahara," emphasis added:

Tetouan - HM King Mohammed VI held on Saturday a phone conversation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, says a release of the Royal office.

The talks covered latest developments and the present timetable related to the Moroccan Sahara issue, says the release. On this occasion, HM the King reiterated Morocco's constant commitment and constructive cooperation to reach a final political settlement to this regional dispute, within Moroccan sovereignty.

HM The King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative need to preserve the negotiations parameters as they were defined by the Security Council, safeguard the presence framework and modalities of the UN involvement and avoid biased approaches and risky options, the statement goes on.

Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue. The conversation also covered HM the King's sustained actions and laudable initiatives for the stability and development of the African continent.

   Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN:

"The Moroccan government has issued its own read-out of their King's telephone call to the Secretary General, this is a request for a UN readout of the SG's call, in light of what Inner City Press asked at the April 11 noon briefing... There are other questions outstanding, as you know, and I have others, but asking this after the Moroccan government's readout, for the UN's read-out."

    Without providing any UN read-out, Ban's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric replied, "I can confirm that the call took place."

  Inner City Press and FUNCA asked Dujarric and his deputy Farhan Haq more pointedly:

"If not the still requested UN read-out, will you comment on Morocco's statement that the "King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative [to] risky options... Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue" -- since this seems to be a threat to try to terminate "UN involvement" in Western Sahara if an option such as a human rights monitoring mechanism were included in MINURSO, do you have any comment? And, can you state which side initiated the call, and if the advance copy of the Secretary General's report on Western Sahara which I asked about at Friday's noon briefing was discussed?"

    Ban's spokesman Dujarric an hour later replied: "No further comment."

   At noon on April 11, Inner City Press asked Dujarric who has input into Ban Ki-moon's reports, for example if not only the first but the final "Ban" report on Western Sahara will urge a human rights monitoring mechanism. Dujarric refused to explain the process, saying wait until it's over, it is not final until it is final -- not a good sign, some say. Who wrote the first report? Who is changing it? Who CAN change it? Inner City Press asked, without answer. Video here, and embedded below. UN transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about the Secretary-General’s position on Western Sahara. There’s an advanced copy of the report, the Secretary-General’s report that was circulated that would be ultimately a more formal document, but it seems to say the goal is a human rights monitoring mechanism, and now there are reports that that’s going be changed. The word mechanism will drop, can you describe what the process is on reports such as this that are ascribed to the Secretary-General. Who has input into them? Once they are sent around are they final, and if they are not, who has input in this case to change them?

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: All Secretary-General’s reports are ultimately signed off by the Secretary-General’s Office. Any relevant department or mission would have input into it but a report is a final report once it’s final. So I would ask you to wait a day or two until the report is issued, and then we can... you know nothing is final until it’s final.

Inner City Press: Because the consultations would be on the 17th, everything is moving, this is the month to do it. So I wanted to know, since there is a document that’s ascribed to the Secretary-General that says monitoring mechanisms, I just wanted to ask you, does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon favour human rights monitoring mechanisms?

Spokesman Dujarric: Again, once the report is out, and it’s final, it would be the Secretary-General’s report. Until the report is out, we are not going to comment on it. And once it’s out, it is the Secretary-General’s word, so there’s really nothing to add

  That's called stonewalling in advance, that there will be nothing to add. On April 14, Dujarric not only refused Inner City Press' request for further information about Ban's call with the King: he would not explain why a UN read-out of Ban's call with the acting President of Ukraine was provided, but not with Morocco's King.

   In Paragraph 100 on Page 20 Ban's (first) report says, or said, that the goal is "a sustained, independent and impartial human rights monitoring mechanism." 

  Amid changes, a Western wire -- which has engaged in censorship at the UN, here -- quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud that "France formally denies any interference with the UN Secretariat."
 
   This servile wire did not even mention that it can be done within the UN Secretariat, where the Department of Peacekeeping which runs MINURSO is headed by Herve Ladsous, a long time French diplomat. Nor does it mention Araud being quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" - if only to run Araud's denial and litigation threat. We will be watching for that.

  As a part of this watchfulness, Inner City Press had published a letter just submitted to the President of the Security Council by "a number of Nordic organisations, from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden," urging the inclusion of human rights monitoring in MINURSO's mandate.

  Even former UN envoy on Western Sahara Peter van Walson has written to French president Francois Hollande urging France to stop opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 

  Also new this year is the discomfort caused by Spanish actor Javier Bardem asserting that French Ambassador Gerard Araud told him that Morocco is like France's mistress. 

  French foreign ministry spokesperson Romain Nadal has reportedly confirmed that Araud met with Bardem in 2011; Araud has said he would seek permission to sue Bardem. (There is a pattern here.) Now, Jacques Audibert is said slated to take over for Araud by July.

  So this will be Araud's last campaign opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. Earlier on April 10 Araud spoke at the Security Council stakeout about Central African Republic but when Inner City Press asked about the Chadian troops there, charged by the High Commissioner for Human Rights with killing 30 civilians, Araud told Inner City Press to Ask Chad's Ambassador.

  US Ambassador Samantha Power moments later answered Inner City Press' question about the withdrawal of Chad's troops from CAR, video here.

  The April 10 advance copy of the "Report of the Secretary General on the situation concerning Western Sahara" consists of 104 paragraphs and a map.

  To begin with -- Inner City Press will have more than one report on this Report -- there is a recognition of "demostrations aimed at drawing attention to human rights concerns, socio-economic issues and political demands, including the right to self-determination. These were swiftly dispersed by Moroccan security forces. On most such occasions, there were credible reports of heavy-handedness on the part of security forces as well as violence, such as stone-throwing, on the part of the demonstrators."

  The Report says "of particular note was a demonstration that took place in Laayoune on 5 May 2013... Protesters expressed dissatisfaction that Security Council resolution 2099 (2013) did not include provisions to include human rights monitoring in MINURSO's mandate."

Will it be different this year? Watch this site.