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 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.

   

UN Spins on Myanmar & UN Peacekeeping, Ladsous Accepted a Child Soldier Recruiter in Mali and Soon Central African Republic, Stonewalls

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 13 -- Last month Inner City Press reported that the UN is inviting Myanmar to contribute troops to UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous. This was confirmed to Inner City Press on February 27 by the office of then-spokesperson Martin Nesirky.

  On March 13 Nesirky's replacement Stephane Dujarric was asked about Human Rights Watch belatedly opposing the UN's invitation to Myanmar, given the issue of child soldiers. Myanmar is still on the UN's list of child soldier recruiters.

  Dujarric read out a statement, that Myanmar would still have to hold discussions with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, run by Ladsous.

  But Ladsous' DPKO already accepted a UN listed child soldier recruiter, Chad, into the Mali mission. Ladsousrefused to answer Press questions about child soldiers (and including the recruiter in the CAR mission) when he last did a UNTV stakeout.

  Did Human Rights Watch speak up when Ladsous included a listed child soldier recruiter in the UN's Mali mission?

    On February 26, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: I've been meaning to ask about Myanmar, there is a report that Vijay Nambiar, when he was there, met with a defence services commander-in-chief and, the quote goes, said that Myanmar could contribute to United Nations peacekeeping operations, if interested. He essentially either solicited or left the door open for Myanmar to contribute UN peacekeepers. Since many people remain concerned, including Mr. [Tomas] Ojea Quintana, about a lack of rule of law and some abuses by the army and there is still [a United States] arms embargo on the country, is it possible to know whether Mr. Nambiar said that or maybe some variation on that and what the UN’s position is on Myanmar contributing troops?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Well, troop contributing is a conversation that would be had with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. So, I would need to check with them, and also with Mr. Nambiar on precisely what was said with that, in that meeting unless, bear in mind, that Mr. Nambiar on his trip had any number of troops with different officials.

 Twenty four hours later, Nesirky and DPKO had provided no answer. So, even limited to a mere two questions -- no Sri Lanka -- by Nesirky, Inner City Press on February 27 asked again about Myanmar. 

   Along with asking again if Nambiar invited Myanmar "peacekeepers," Inner City Press asked about president

"Thein Sein expressed his support on Thursday for four controversial laws on religion due to be considered by the country's parliament, including one that restricts interfaith marriages for Buddhists, a parliamentary official said. In a letter to lawmakers, Thein Sein urged the lower house to pass the bills aimed at protecting Buddhism, the predominant religion among Myanmar's estimated 60 million population, a lower house spokesman said. The interfaith marriage bill, if enacted, would mean a non-Buddhist man who wants to marry a Buddhist must convert to her faith, or face a 10-year jail sentence. The text would not apply restrictions to marriages between Buddhist men and non-Buddhist women. The draft laws could be presented to parliament for a vote as early as next month, sources said."

   Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Nesirky said he wouldn't comment even this law while it is pending. Next month? After peacekeepers?

  Later on February 27, Nesirky's office sent this to Inner City Press: 

Subject: On your question on Myanmar.
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:59 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

"During his recent meeting with the Commander-in-Chief of Myanmar’s Defence Services, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the question of Myanmar’s cooperation with the UN on peacekeeping was discussed. The Special Adviser explained that, like any Member State, Myanmar was invited to discuss its interest in specific terms with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations which would consider such a request in accordance with its regular parameters."

   Under Ban and Ladsous, UN Peacekeeping has been advised by controversial Sri Lanka military figure Shavendra Silva; Ladsous has accepted a child soldier recruiter and user into "his" mission in Mali. Myanmar may be next.

   Is the UN still in denial about the exclusionary census it is supporting in Myanmar? Back on January 24, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: another Myanmar question. There is a census coming up. It seems that the United Nations system is involved in funding and maybe even participating in it. Both Kachin and Rohingya groups have expressed a lot of concerns. One, there is no box in the census thus far to check Rohingya, meaning… implying that they are not citizens. Also, Kachin, they have other complaints. I wanted to know: is UN aware of these? What steps are they taking, and will they fund a census that many groups think makes things worse rather than better?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, we will look into what we are doing on that question. We need some details about that.

  It was 19 days later, on February 12, that the UN Spokesperson's Office finally sent this response:

Subject: In response to your question on the Myanmar census.
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:02 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is the focal UN agency for providing technical and programmatic assistance to the Government for the census. It says that everyone in Myanmar will be counted in the census. UNFPA is supporting the Government to ensure that the census is fully inclusive and conducted according to international standards. Respondents will be asked to identify their ethnicity, with the option of selecting one of the categories used in the 1983 census or selecting "other" and writing in the name of another group. All of the responses will be coded and tabulated.

  Compare this belated Pollyanna answer by the UN and UNFPA to what the Myanmar government Minister for Immigration and Population U Khin Yi openly says:

"They say that their race is Rohingya. When a person says that his race is “B”, because he doesn’t want to mention his race as “A”, that means that race “A” no longer exists, but the race “B” is a new race. Since race “B” is a new race, there will be questions, such as “how did the race enter (the country)?” or “are they encroaching here?” When things become radical, I worry that it could harm peace and stability...We will record what the person says. If he says “A” then we will fill the form as “A”. The result will be, like I said before, that even if that term “A” is Rohingya, we will not recognize Rohingya as one of the 135 ethnic groups in Myanmar."

So this is "fully inclusive and conducted according to international standards"? The UN is at best in denial. Watch this site.

Footnote: It appears that on-again, off-again UN official Charles Petrie is about to set sail from Myanmar. He was quoted earlier this year: "In terms of MPSI we want to make sure whatever we do adds value, and there’s a clear sense that if there isn’t we won’t continue." Watch this site.

   

As Sudan Ejects 20 UN Staff from Darfur, What Did UN's Ladsous' Meeting with ICC Indictee Bashir Accomplish?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 6 -- Now that Sudan has blocked the visas of, and "ejected," 20 UN staff from Darfur, additional questions are raised about what was accomplished by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous meeting with the country's International Criminal Court indicted president Omar al Bashir.

  The UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says it has apolicy of only meeting with ICC indictees on a "strictly necessary" basis. But little was said of the goals or "accomplishments" of Ladsous' meeting with Bashir.

  There is a breakdown in the system here. Human Rights Watch, which continues to brag about Bashir having left Nigeria, while citing the blocking of Bashir's airplane by Saudi Arabia, has said nothing about Ladsous' face time with Bashir.

  HRW chief Ken Roth characterized Bashir's trip to Nigeria as an attempt to "rehabilitate" himself. But doesn't face time with a UN official, even this one, similarly represent a rehabilitation attempt? How can HRW have nothing to say about it?

  Some say that, beyond the HRW's more and more obvious softness on the UN, which its UN lobbyist Philippe Bolopion previously of Le Monde and France 24 has admitted is in order to maintain "access" to the UN, the silence on Ladsous is related to HRW's Roth's support for his position on Eastern Congo and Rwanda.

  Inner City Press on Tuesday at the UN noon briefing asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky if the UN say any comment about Bashir's plane being blocked by Saudi Arabia. Ban tried to assuage Latin countries, which met with him yesterday, with a statement about the plane of Evo Morales. But there was no comment Tuesday at noon.

  Amid reports of at least one Sudanese soldier killed in Heglig, Inner City Press asked for whatever the UN knew about the clash. They're read the reports; they might have more. Inner City Press asked a Sudan Mission to the UN diplomat about it Tuesday morning, he called it a one time occurrence. Watch this site.

   

Congo War Machine of Ladsous, Reuters & UN's Radio Okapi, Bangura Like Human Rights Watch Ignores Post-Rape Desecration?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 24 -- The UN claims to be impartial, to care equally about all victims, to not be a tool of Permanent members of the UN Security Council like France and the US. In and on the Democratic Republic of the Congo recently, and at UN Peacekeeping generally, this has not been the case.

  Consider just the past two days. The UN's office on Sexual Violence in Conflict, run by Zainab Bangura, which has been surprisingly quiet as UN Peacekeeping has continued to support the US-trained Congolese Army's 391st Battalion after it was implicated in 135 rapes in Minova, belatedly decided to tweet about rape in the Congo.

  But it was not about Minova, nor about the newer implication of the 391st Battalion in the desecration of corpses. No, it was a straight re-tweet of a Human Rights Watch report that even HRW belated appended a correction to. Neither HRW or Bangura's UN office mentioned the correction. The Free UN Coalition for Access, through@FUNCA_Questions, has asked Bangura's office about it, so far without response.

  Inner City Press asked Bangura on July 24 about the dearth of arrests -- only two -- for the rapes in Minova, and about the new charges of corpse desecration against the same 391st Battalion. She said she hadn't heard of the latter -- strange, since a statement said Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was deeply concerned about them -- but on the rapes, said she had "spoken with Herve Ladsous" about them earlier in the day.

  But spoke about what? It was Ladsous who essentially waved Ban's claimed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy and decided to continue to support the 391st Battalion after the Minova rapes. 

 Now it seems that rather than answer any Press questions about this decision, he is trying to implicate other UN officials like Leila Zerrougui in his decision. She and Bangura have potential, but there is the Ladsousification of the UN.

  In the DRC itself, the UN's Radio Okapi broadcast the UN Mission MONUSCO's weekly press conference Wednesday morning. Okapi itself asked a question -- based on the HRW report, without noting the correction.

  In Washington on Tuesday, the State Department's ownVoice of America asked a planted question about the DRC, also about the HRW report without noting the correction, and got a canned answer. This was reported, for example, by Reuters without at first included anything about the correction.

  Later Reuters UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, who has been shown to have leaked to the UN internal documents of the ostensibly independent United Nations Correspondents Association to the UN's chief accreditation official, typed up a fast and sloppy piece on Rwanda's anger at HRW blatant error of using the testimony of an unnamed "witness" who falsely said Rwanda has peacekeeping forces in Somalia. But this piece has HRW flatly denying it pays in connection with its studies.

  HRW has already admitted this, in December 2012. Reuters does not mention it. As on the Eritrea sanctions report -- click here for that -- the Reuters UN bureau is part of a machine. Watch this site.