With Questions Banned, ICRC Takes Syria Story Into UN Corruption Association

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13 -- The UN has canceled its noon briefing for January 14, deferring to or promoting Secretary General Ban Ki-moon taking a few handpicked questions in the hallway. The Free UN Coalition for Access opposes what is essentially a cult of personality -- a whole worlds worth of news traded for the utterances of a single individual -- and has questions to ask about Bururndi, Yemen, Ethiopia and yes, Syria.

  But when the International Committee of the Red Cross' Dominik Stillhart comes to speak about Syria on January 14, instead of doing so in the UN Press Briefing Room which is UNused due to deference to Ban, it will instead be in the clubhouse of UNCA, the UN Corruption Association, a group which last month sold seats with Ban Ki-moon for $6,000.

  Why didn't ICRC simply ask any UN member state to book the UN Press Briefing Room for them? 

(Notably, the cancellation of open noon briefings and shrinking of access under Ban have not been protested by UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance which has tried to get investigative media thrown out of the UN, including in connection with reporting on siege and yes, starvation, in Sri Lanka. UNCA's self-promotional "offer" of ICRC's Stillhart was send only to those who pay UNCA money.)

  UNCA was used in December to promote the campaign for a Security Council seat by Italy -- ironically, with the handing out of free meats. Amid a UN scandal of Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng having bought the UN through former President of the General Assembly John Ashe and South South News honcho Frank Lorenzo, there is some talk of reforming the ways in which campaigning to replace Ban Ki-moon as Secretary General can be done. 

 But campaigning for Security Council seats remains entirely unreformed.

 With the collusion of the UN Correspondents Association, which after taking money from Lorenzo's South South News gave Ng a photo op with Ban at Cipriani, the Italy Mission which is running against Sweden and the Netherlands for a Council seat not only handed out free food on December for in the clubhouse the UN gives to UNCA: it posted its Security Council campaign banner inside UNCA, facing out. Photo here.

  Italy's “in” was that not only is one Giampaolo Pioli, without any term limits, still head of UNCA: he now has his former protege, now with ANSA, as a Vice President. 

 This is the same Pioli who not only tried to get the investigative Press thrown out for reporting on his favor to the Sri Lankan ambassador who rented one of Pioli's apartments but also made campaign contributions in a race he was ostensibly covering for his media in Italy, Quotiadiano Nazionale.

   Should journalists give money to politicians they are “covering”? Should a group of correspondents given a room by the UN use it for their country's campaign for a Security Council seat? This is today's UN, and its UN Corruption Association.

  They say there's no free lunch. In today's UN there is Italian food given to scribes to promote a week of for-pay lunches, consonant with Italy's run for a Security Council seat against Sweden and the Netherlands.

  The hosts, the UN Corruption Association UNCA -- now selling seats with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for $6000, see below -- just anointed two Italian journalists among its top five officials, including hold-over president Giampaolo Pioli who has tried to censor and eject the investigative Press, here.

 Absurdly, Pioli's derivative invitation to those who pay UNCA money calls it an “exclusive aperitivo.” Pioli's tenure is marked not only with censorship but also bread and circuses, and events having little to do with the UN, such as the launch of a kid's book by a hedge fund executive. (This on top of screening war crimes denial films for the Sri Lankan ambassador, to whom Pioli rented one of his Manhattan apartments, here.)

  But why would Italy, or separately the three chefs Sonia Balacchi, Filippo La Mantia and Michele Biagiola, think it benefits them to go behind closed doors with a group that has engaged in censorship, and is now selling access to Ban Ki-moon?  Such an event could easily be held in the mission, the UN's Ex-Press Bar, or any number of other locations. It's a (bad) choice, or as some say, an Italian thing. We'll have more on this.

  With the UN embroiled in scandals including the indictments of former President of the General Assembly and Macau businessman Ng Lap Seng and Frank Lorenzo and their South South News, one would expect the UN press corps, even the entity the UN itself chooses to set aside first questions for, to be pursuing rather than be involved in the scandals.

  But with the UN Correspondents Association, this year more than ever, that is not the case. UNCA's just completed"elections" had no competition at all for the officer seats, now doled out to AFP, France 24, the US Broadcasting Board of Governors and ANSA fromholdover president Giampaolo Pioli's native Italy.

  This UNCA "leadership" represents Italy and France, and old media -- tellingly, those new media which chose to run (Inner City Press quit UNCA after its censorship bid) for lesser UNCA seats were not selected. Also tellingly, the UN Spokesperson's office promoted the scam election, using its loudspeaker to try to get out the vote (for candidates who had no opponents.)

 The ringmaster, Giampaolo Pioli, came through the UN Security Council stakeout not to ask any question or even listen to answers on South Sudan or Syria; he glad handed his unopposed slate and then headed to the UN bar. He has arranged more Italian toasting, seeingly part of Italy's actually-opposed campaign for a Security Council seat (more on this in future dispatches).

  It's become the UN's Censorship Alliance - having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN - and the UN Corruption Association, selling photo ops and seats with Ban Ki-moon.  Call them Ban Ki-moon shots.

  While calling for an audit of sale of UN access under John Ashe, should Ban openly allow access to him to be sold? He appears intent on doing so, or operating by inertia, on automatic pilot. Inner City Press now learns that Ban's twice delayed report on the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic will be pushed further back, after the sell-out, buried. We'll have more on this.

 UNCA's awards, such as they gave to South South Newsfor money, include awards and payments to entities who've served on their own Board.

  In 2011 under then (and now) president Giampaolo Pioli, UNCA took money from the South South News of now-indicted Ng Lap Seng, then gave South South News an UNCA award and gave Ng Lap Seng a photo op with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  Now in November 2015, Pioli has solicited $6000 from UN Ambassadors for seats at the “VIP” table at the UNCA “Ball” on Wall Street: to sit with Ban Ki-moon. Here is UNCA's pitch:

"Dear Ambassador,

The United Nations Correspondents Association is honored to invite you to participate and contribute to the 20th annual UNCA Awards event with guest of honor U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, recipient of the 2015 Global Advocate of the Year Award for climate change.  Exclusive raffle prizes include business class airline tickets around the world with hotel accommodations and a grand prize FIAT 500X car. As your esteemed presence will ensure the success of this event, we are pleased to send you the below opportunities to attend the gala dinner:

Mission Table Special Price / $6000 (half-table) 5 seats at VIP table at the gala event
                                      
Special Ambassador Contribution / $2,000 -1 VIP ticket for Ambassador with premium seating to dinner + 1 complimentary VIP ticket for spouse or guest -Special acknowledgement of the Ambassador and the Mission in the UNCA Awards Journal of the evening -Additional tickets for UN Diplomats of the Mission can be purchased at the special price of $750 each

Giampaolo Pioli, UNCA President
Please make all checks payable to 'UNCA Awards Committee'
Contributions to the UNCA Awards Committee are tax deductible.
The UNCA Awards Committee is a 501-c(3)"

 This is precisely the type of sale of access involved in the indictments of Ng, Sheri Yan and Frank Lorenzo.

  While others are announcing audits and freezing such contacts, UNCA under Pioli is bulling forward, charging ever more money, getting ever further from journalistic purposes.

  On November 20, Pioli's UNCA circulated a list of candidates with no competition for any of the six officer positions. It also pre-announced its awards, including to Reuters (on its Board) and others. We'll have more on this.

    For the three running unopposed for five president slots, two were already on the UNCA board during the relevant time period; the other is Pioli's former protege at Quotidiano Nazionale. It's an Italian thing.

   Running for Treasurer? It's Agence France Presse, whose previous correspondent tried to use a position on the UNCA board to censor Press coverage of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping.

  Reuters is in the mix, too, and another which joined Pioli in trying to censor coverage of Pioli unilaterally approving a Sri Lankan government war crimes denial film for a “UN” screening, after Pioli rented one of his apartments to Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN. This is UN. But amid the new scandals at the UN, this is something new: watch this site.



Footnote: Inner City Press after Pioli's and others censorship bid, and attempt to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN (uncovered along with documents still to be published by a Freedom of Information Act request, here, and questioned by the New York Civil Liberties Union), quit the UNCA board and co-founded, with another who'd quit UNCA as corrupt, the Free UN Coalition for Access.

 FUNCA does not seek any automatic first questions, butopposes the UN setting aside first questions for an entity which, as now shown, is enmeshed in the very UN scandals that must be asked about. Watch this site.

On Yemen, UK Supports Saudi-Led Action, Blames Houthis, Cites International Law at UNSC As ICRC Asks In

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 4, with video -- Amid complaints by Doctors Without Borders and the International Committee of the Red Cross that they can't get medical aid into Yemen, an urgent UN Security Council meeting began on Saturday April 4 at 11 am, on proposal for "humanitarian pauses."

  UK Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson on his way into the Security Council said, "we continue to support the Saudi-led action in Yemen... in response to a legitimate request.”

  Wilson said the UK regrets all casualties and is committed to international humanitarian law including access by agencies to deliver aid.

  But, Wilson said, “it is extremely important” to note “how we got to this position.” He said the Houthis took military action, took action by force instead of engage in talks and called for a return to “genuine political talks on an equal basis.”

   Despite being called "urgent," things were surprisingly low key. Speaking on the way into the Council's closed door meeting were the Permanent Representatives of Chad and Nigeria, and the Deputy Permanent Representatives of Russia and, as noted and quoted above, of the UK.

  The Saudis, it should be noted, have been air-dropping weapons and ammunition into Yemen. One might think the Security Council would want to get a briefing from the ICRC. But they were not here.

  Soon it was leaked -- presumably by a Western Permanent Three members of the Security Council -- that Russia had tabled a resolution.  This is how it works, or doesn't, at the UN Security Council.

   Beyond aid getting in, how might this impact people's desire and need to get out?

   Back on March 30  Inner City Press asked the US State Department if any steps are being taken to evacuated Yemeni Americans.

  On March 31 a State Department official provided Inner City Press on background with this answer:

"We have no current plans to evacuate private U.S. citizens from Yemen. We continue to watch the situation closely. The protection and safety of U.S. citizens overseas are among our top priorities."

  Some of those impacted, including Yemeni Americans, pointed out to Inner City Press that other countries, as simply one example Pakistan which is part of the Saudi-led coalition, have done evacuations. This has been followed by India, China and others.  But not (yet?) the US, leading to a campaign: #StuckInYemen. We'll haver more on this.

   

In Yemen, New US Travel Warning, "Humanitarian Pause" Raised to UN Security Council

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 3, with video -- Amid complaints by Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross that they can't get medical aid into Yemen, an urgent UN Security Council meeting has been scheduled for Saturday, April 4 at 11 am, on proposal for "humanitarian pauses."

   Beyond aid getting in, how might this impact people's desire and need to get out?

   Back on March 30  Inner City Press asked the US State Department if any steps are being taken to evacuated Yemeni Americans.

  On March 31 a State Department official provided Inner City Press on background with this answer:

"We have no current plans to evacuate private U.S. citizens from Yemen. We continue to watch the situation closely. The protection and safety of U.S. citizens overseas are among our top priorities."

  Some of those impacted, including Yemeni Americans, pointed out to Inner City Press that other countries, as simply one example Pakistan which is part of the Saudi-led coalition, have done evacuations. This has been followed by India, China and others.

  Now on April 3 the US has issued this Travel Warning:

"The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the high  security threat level in Yemen due to terrorist activities and civil unrest. On February 11, 2015 due to the deteriorating security situation in Sanaa, the Department of State suspended embassy operations and U.S. Embassy Sanaa American staff have been relocated out of the country. All consular services, routine and/or emergency, have been suspended until further notice. The Department urges U.S. citizens to defer travel to Yemen and those U.S. citizens currently living in Yemen to depart when you are able to safely do so. This supersedes the Travel Warning for Yemen issued on February 11, 2015.

"The level of instability and ongoing threats in Yemen remain severe.  There are no plans for a U.S. government-coordinated evacuation of U.S. citizens at this time. We encourage all U.S. citizens to shelter in a secure location until they are able to depart safely. U.S. citizens wishing to depart should do so via commercial transportation options when they become available. Keep vital records and travel documents close at hand; U.S. citizens should be prepared to depart at a moment’s notice.  The airports are currently closed, but may open unexpectedly; other unforeseen opportunities to depart may also suddenly arise.

"Additionally, some foreign governments may arrange transportation for their nationals and may be willing to offer assistance to others.  There is no guarantee that foreign governments will assist U.S. citizens in leaving Yemen.  U.S. citizens who choose to seek foreign government assistance in leaving Yemen should only do so if they can safely make their way to the point of embarkation and have received confirmation that there is space available.  Even if assured there is space aboard transportation, U.S. citizens should be aware that there is no guarantee that they will be permitted to board the transport, or may have to wait an indefinite period until they can do so.  There is also no guarantee of where travelers will go."

  Some continue to wonder: how could the US not do an evacuation when others have? We'll have more on this.

   

On Ukraine, Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Debaltseve, But Not Hospital in Donetsk Shelled: UNbalanced

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- News from Eastern Ukraine on February 4 included the shelling of a hospital in rebel-held Donetsk, as well as fighting around Debaltseve, not held by rebels.

 But when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement on the evening of February 4, it concerned ONLY Debaltseve. Not a word on the shelling of a hospital -- just as the UN was silent, for example, as hospitals were being shelled by the government of Sri Lanka in 2009.

 In this case, ICRC spoke out about the shelling of the Hospital  N27 in Donetsk city's Textilschiki district, calling it appalling. But not Ban Ki-moon.

  Earlier on February 4 Ban Ki-moon held an apparently confidential sit-down with a partial group of correspondents; no transcript has been released. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging this.

  Back on January 26 in the second Ukraine meeting of the UN Security Council since last November, Ban's political adviser - and former US official -- Jeffrey Feltman said “Mariupol lies outside the immediate conflict zone. The conclusion can thus be drawn that the entity which fired these rockets knowingly targeted a civilian population. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.”

  Feltman also said that “on January 22, over a dozen civilians died when rockets hit their trolleybus in Donetsk City.” He did not say if this, too, might violate international law.

Quoting statements from Donetsk, Feltman on Monday said that “on January 23, the leader of the so-called 'Donetsk People's Republic' announced a boycott of future 'consultations' with the Trilateral Contact Group, a unilateral withdrawal from the cease-fire and threatened to seize further territory, with  a plan that includes pushing the front line all the way to the borders of Donetsk oblast.”

   Feltman said, “We also urge the leadership of the Russian Federation to use their influence to call on the rebels to cease hostilities immediately.”

  As Inner City Press reported on January 24, the Russian mission already issued a statement about the focus on the DPR leader's quote (report here.) Russia's Vitaly Churkin, speaking after Feltman on January 26, was more specific, asking where the condemnation was of Kiev statements about punching Donbas in the nose to "Ukrainize" it, and Poroshenko having announced a resumption of military operations. 

 The meeting began at 1:30 pm, with the UN set to close down at 2:30 pm for an impending snow storm. And so it goes at the UN.

US Ambassador Samantha Power said that “at the same time as Russia was flouting its Minsk agreements, President Putin was putting the finishing touches on another set of agreements – the so-called 'treaties of alliance' – with de facto authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”

   In right of reply, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, “the representative of the United States went beyond the Ukrainian topic and made a number of inappropriate insinuations regarding Russia's policies. And that's the reason we're going to have to talk about the US policy.”

  The day after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, upbeat on foreign policy, Churkin on Wednesday said “wherever Washington looks - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine - everywhere we see destabilization, blood, crisis. Maybe the United States thinks that Europe doesn't have enough problems and that in the east of the continent there is to be a long drawn out crisis. It would seem some European capitals have started to understand where things are going. But not all, hardly all, as demonstrated by today's discussion.”

  On Ukraine, Churkin said “over the whole of the Ukrainian crisis the United States has been playing a destructive role. But actually to call a spade a spade, they've been provocative. After every visit of high ranking US officials to Ukraine, the Kiev government has stepped up the confrontational nature of its activities. The current military escalation horrifically coincides with the visit of the commander of the American forces in Europe.”

  UN official Jeffrey Feltman didn't mention, but the IMF did, that Poroshenko also spoke with Christine Lagarde, who then announced that "the Ukrainian authorities have requested a multi-year arrangement with the Fund, supported by the Extended Fund Facility, to replace the existing Stand-By Arrangement."

   In US President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 20, he said the US is "opposing Russian aggression, and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.. Mr. Putin’s aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and strength.  That's what I heard from some folks.  Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters.  That’s how America leads -- not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve."

  Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, speaking in the Security Council on January 21, asked rhetorically "after about thirty times of discussing Ukraine here, the question arises, how much are these declarations in line with the situation in the country? Are they given just for eloquence's sake but can be thrown aside when political suitability takes precedent?”

  The January 21 session was going to be consultations, where members speak less formally (sometimes). But then it was public, just speeches. We'll have more on this.

  On the cut off of pensions, which we've covered since November, Churkin said "Kiev is doing everything so that in essence the South East is isolated. A decision has been made to move out state institutions from that, to stop budgetary expenditures including welfare and pensions.”

   Back on n November 12, UN Assistant Secretary General Jens Toyberg-Frandzen said, among other things, that "on November 5, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk announced that pensions would be halted to areas under rebel control."

  Inner City Press, covering the meeting from just outside the Council chamber, spoke to a range of passing diplomats and was left with this question: isn't the halting of pensions to rebel held areas a form of collective punishment?

 Once posed, with the words "accrued pensions," two defenses of the practice came in. First, that pensions in Ukraine are not accrued but are based on taxes collected and none are being collected in Donbas. Second, that trucks with pension payments were being robbed.  The word "Western Union" was bandied around.

 While the UN spoke about the death of children on a playground on Donetsk on Novmeber 5, they didn't say who did it. Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative Pankin said it was Ukraine's army. Later he stated that an adviser to Poroshenko said on October 24 that "the ceasefire is going to work in our favor, tank factories working around the clock." 

  Ukraine's Sergeyev mentioned this in his reply, neither confirming nor denying the quote. The meeting ended; Sergeyev headed up the escalator to be interviewed by scribes. And so it goes at the UN.

  Last month, Ukraine was scheduled to speak at the UN about its “Committee on Information” on October 21, but as UN speeches usually go longer than allowed, its turn was postponed until October 22.

That didn't stop the “UN Radio” Russian service from reporting on the speech on October 21 as if it had in fact been given that day. As translated, UN Radio on October 21 reported

“The representative of Ukraine accused Russia of using the information strategy of the Cold War

“One of the main prerequisites of violence in Ukraine became a propaganda information. This was stated by the representative of the Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations, speaking at a meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly.”

  The UN's Fourth Committee did meet on October 21 - but Ukraine didn't speak. Instead it was the first speaker on the afternoon of October 22. Its speech, delivered in perfect French including the word “rigolo,” linked Russia to Joseph Goebbels.

  In reply, the Russian mission's spokesman brought up the recent Human Rights Watch report of the Ukrainian government using cluster bombs in and against Donetsk, and the lack of clarity on who called the snipers shots in Maidan Square.

  Later in the Fourth Committee meeting, Bolivia slammed “powers” who use information technology to intervene and violate privacy, bringing to mind USAID's “Cuban Twitter” and, of course, the NSA.

  Then Jordan said it was first among Arab nations to enact an Access to Information law, in 2007. The Free UN Coalition for Access has been pressing for a Freedom of Information Act at the UN, click here and here for that.

  FUNCA covers the Fourth Committee, including on Decolonization, and the Committee on Information, where at least theoretically the UN's descent into censorship could be raised and resolved. The old UN Correspondents Association, a part of this trend toward privatization of briefings and even censorship -- ordering Press articles off the Internet, getting leaked copies of their complaints to the UN's MALU banned from Google's search, here -- was nowhere to be seen. We'll have more on this.

   

On Darfur, UN Covers Up Complaints of Former Spokesperson Aicha Elbasri, Quiet as Red Cross Is Banned by Sudan

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 9 -- Can the UN be believed? Should it? At least as to the current Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the answers appears to be: No.

On February 4, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's lead spokesperson Martin Nesirky about a full-on critique of UN Peacekeeping's Darfur mission by its former spokesperson, Aicha Elbasri:

Inner City Press: On Darfur, maybe you have something on the Government ordering the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) to suspend operations. And I also wanted to know if there’s any response from the UN to former UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] spokesperson Aicha Elbasri. She’s gone public, saying basically that, while serving as spokesperson of UNAMID, she wasn’t given information; that the Mission under-reports abuses of civilians and other developments in Darfur. I wanted to know, what’s the response of the UN to that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I’d have to check with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on both of those.

  So, respecting that, Inner City Press waited. The answers weren't directly provided by e-mail as the UN does with other, but read out at the noon briefing, apparently to see if anyone else might report more positively on them (no one did)

"we were asked about reporting by the African Union–UN Mission on developments in Darfur. UNAMID notes that it reports verified information on the situation in Darfur to the United Nations and to the African Union on a daily basis. This information is then made public in the Secretary-General’s quarterly reports to the Security Council and, as the situation warrants, in press statements."

  To a casual or ill-informed listener, it sounded like a legitimate answer. But as the UN and its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous know, this is part of Aicha Elbasri's critique:

"On 24 April I resigned from UNAMID and wrote my end-of-mission report requesting the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to look into UNAMID’s violations of the UN Public Information policy which calls for open, transparent and honest information-sharing with the media. I didn't receive any response. On past August, I requested the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services to open an investigation into the matter. The information I shared with them should have made anyone who cares about the people of Darfur and the UN values and policies jump, call me and take a quick action. What I received so far is a deafening silence. And I can no longer wait, because every day that goes by, more men, women and children die in Darfur in total impunity and invisibility. So today I will break the UN code of conduct and share with you some confidential photos and information that show the African Union, the United Nations and UNAMID’ conspiracy of silence."

  Surely Ladsous' DPKO (and Carman Lapointe's OIOS) know what Aicha Elbasri submitted. But the public response was as set forth above.

  Ban Ki-moon tried to send his former speechwriter Michael Meyer to Sudan as communications chief of UNAMID; it never happened. Now Meyer is in Nairobi, "dean of the graduate school of media and communications at Aga Khan University." On the ICRC, Inner City Press checked and has found that inquiry was made - by the ICRC, not the UN -- with Sudan's "HAC." We'll have more on all this. Watch this site.

   

On Central African Republic After France Kills 10 & Allow "Hacking to Death," UN "Will Establish Facts" - Talking with French Sangaris

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- The day after the UN told Inner City Press to "ask France" about reports that in Central African Republic the French Sangaris force killed 10 people with cannon fire, and stood by as a Muslim was lynched by Christian anti-balaka militia, a further answer was given.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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