As Cameroon PR Tells ICP "Scissors In Our Hands," UN Fall Echoes on Hate, UN Just Glad It's On

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Series

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 – The day after Cameroon's Paul Biya government belatedly restored the Internet he cut in the two Anglophone regions of the country, on April 21 Inner City Press asked long time Cameroonian Ambassador to the UN Tommo Monthe about it. Monthe, set to chair the UN's Fifth (Budget) Committee next year, told Inner City Press "the scissors are in our hands... we will cut it" if it is used not only for so-called hate speech but for secession talk of any kind. For exclusive audio click here. He said people should be jailed for burning the Cameroon flag, and that it was fine to destroy the businesses of entrepreneurs in Southern Cameroons even if they were not involved in secession talk. On April 24, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: what the head of UNOCA [United Nations Office in Central Africa], Mr. [Francois] Loncény Fall, said about the turning on of the internet in Cameroon.  Some people found it strange that it ends with this urging to avoid using the internet to incite hatred or violence, which is exactly the reason that the Government gave for turning it off for 94 days.  And the Government seems to have even included… according to the Permanent Representative here, to include any call for secession, even nonviolent referendum for secession to be a call for violence and--

Spokesman:  I think we’re taking things one step at a time.  I think we’re encouraged that the internet was restored.

   The UN is a failure. Troublingly, UN official Francois Lonseny Fall has not only overly-praised the Biya government, but also admonished that the Internet not be used to "incite hatred or violence" - precisely the pretext Biya used to cut it off. Today's UN is disgusting - we'll have more on this.

Meanwhile when Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Monthe's comments, the UN had no response, wouldn't even after weeks tell Inner City Press who is in charge of the UN in Cameroon, following Guterres' promotion of Najat Rochdi who said nothing about the Internet and blocke on Twitter Inner City Press which is pursuing the issue. This is today's UN - and today's Cameroon. Watch this platform.

first told Inner City Press that if "they" use the Internet again for hate speech (he used Rwanda's Radio Milles Collines as the analogy), "we will cut it off again." He made a cutting gesture, in the hallways outside the UN Security Council stakeout. He spoke at greater length with Inner City Press on April 21, on which we'll have more. Earlier at the April 21 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the UN's holdover spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it. UN transcript here. Inner City Press: On Cameroon the… after 94 days, the internet was turned on in the regions but the Government has said if there is any further use of the Internet for they say is hate speech, other people say it’s in opposition to the Government, so I wanted to know what is the UN’s comment on how, going forward, the right to Internet in those areas?  You also asked me to ask UNICEF who the resident acting, resident coordinator is and I have and they confirmed receipt but have not stated it.  So I’m wondering shouldn’t there be an online site saying who is in charge of the UN system?

Spokesman:  I’m sure they will get back to you.  You can check with UNDP (United Nations Development Program) as well, but I just don’t have the name in front of me.

Inner City Press:  My other question, there are many people who were arrested during these 94 days who are still in jail in Yaoundé, and I’m wondering who in the UN system is going to follow-up on ensuring that…

Spokesman:  I would refer you back to Mr. [François] Louncény Fall and he said he would be back in Cameroon 

   This is UNacceptable and shows why the UN's shameful silence, from Resident Coordinator Najat Rochdi to the UN 38th floor which promoted her and won't answer simple questions from Inner City Press but prefers to keep it restricted to minders, may portend badly, and empower or embolden Biya to do it again. So too with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Prince Zeid and his spokesman Rupert Colville never answered the Press on the topic, choosing late in the process to send Ahowanou Agbessi and his deputy, quietly - so as not to upset Paul Biya? We'll have more on this.

The UN's shameful role in Cameroon and censorship should not be forgotten. UN Resident Coordinator to Cameroon Najat Rochdi never raised the issues, and on Twitter blocked Inner City Press which did raise it. Then UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric called Inner City Press' criticism of the UN's performance "harassment," and banned Inner City Press from asking Guterres about the issue at a rare Guterres question and answer stakeout on April 19. Still the question was asked and asked again. Now more questions must be asked. On April 19 when UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had a rare Q&A session, with the African Union's Moussa Faki Mahamat, Inner City Press went early, with a UN minder, to stand in the front and ask about Cameroon. But Guterres' holdover spokesman Stephane Dujarric had pre-arranged questions, several not on Africa at all. Inner City Press waited and then three times audibly asked, "Cameroon Internet cut?" Video here. Guterres looked, twice, but did not answer. His Deputy has been asked in writing about it. She has headed, for what it's worth, to the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington, with Guterres to follow on April 20. Meanwhile on April 19 at the UN noon briefing, their holdover spokesman Dujarric dissembled. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: My next question has to do with Cameroon.  In Cameroon, there’s a doctors’ strike, which has left many, many people without any health-care at all.  So I wanted to know if the UN has any response and also, again, back to this question, where does it stand in choosing a new Resident Coordinator, who might address these type of issues?

Spokesman:  Replacement for Resident Coordinators is an ongoing process.  When one is… has been chosen and agreed to by the Government, we’ll announce it, as we do with every country.  In the meantime, the country team is headed by, I believe, the UNICEF representative.

Inner City Press:  I know, and I’ve never… I’ve gone to their website, and it doesn’t list who the person is.  So you say reach them, but it’s not as easy as you seem to say.  I wanted to know whether you think that between the internet still being turned off and this doctor strike and the President having been in power for 35 years and being out of the country, does the UN see this as as these issues as somewhat related, as sort of a prevention of conflict issue given…

Spokesman:  I think the… the… as Mr. [François] Louncény Fall said, he would encourage both the Government and the other communities to engage in a constructive manner.

  The Ban Ki-moon era of the UN, culminating in two separate corruption indictments in the US District Court for the South District of NY, seems to be continuing, along with the restrictions imposed on Inner City Press for covering the corruption cases and their links to the UN Department of Public Information and Dujarric's office and friends. Most recently, on Cameroon, the UN's Dujarric characterized Press criticism of its officials' cover ups to be "harassment" after the Department of Public Information evicted and continues to restrictInner City Press, petition here, update here. On April 18 when the US Mission convened a rare UN Security Council meeting about human rights, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Matthew Rycroft if the UK views the cut off of the Internet to millions of people in Cameroon as a human rights issues. Video here. Rycroft said he had nothing to add to what he'd previously told Inner City Press: that the situation in the Anglophone areas is not a threat to peace and security (although the UN keeps it under review). So what would be required, to make the UK and UNSC take note of it? And what about France, whose Francois Delattre also spoke in front of the Council, but didn't mention Cameroon? We'll have more on this- watch this platform.

On April 17, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres' Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about threats against clergy in Cameroon, the Internet cut and of any attempt by Guterres to reach Paul Biya, who has been president of Cameroon for decades. UN transcript here: Inner City Press: on Cameroon and Louncény Fall, I found his full quote where he said that he trusts that the internet will be gradually or progressively introduced to the rest of the country.  I guess I, many people that were left wondering, is it acceptable to only have it be in institutions?  What’s the expectation of the UN in terms of the timing? And also, since then, the Catholic clergy have received these, these threats of massive fines.  They’ve distributed on Easter to their congregants, basically for taking part in a nonviolent protest of the treatment of Anglophones, they face closure.

Spokesman:  I would refer you to what Mr Louncény Fall said.  I echoed what he said.  Obviously, we would like to see a return of the internet as soon as possible, and that’s the discussions he’s been having with the Government.

Inner City Press:  Did he attempt to talk to Paul Biya?  This is a… because as you… as you may know, Jeune Afrique and other publications have said that António Guterres sought to Paul, to speak to Paul Biya and was unable to, and I’m just wondering [inaudible]…

Spokesman:  I’m not aware, I’m not aware of the level of, whether or not Mr. Louncény Fall attempted to speak to Paul Biya.  He spoke to the highest authorities he was able to speak to.  You’re free to contact his office for more details.

Inner City Press:  I’m asking you about the 38th floor.  Did anyone on the 38th floor, whether Secretary-General or Deputy Secretary-General… [inaudible]

Spokesman:  I’m not going to get into details of people attempting to call one person or another.

   In early April the Office of the Spokesperson run by Dujarric told Inner City Press, we've heard you questions, if we have anything to add we'll let you know. Video here. Even that was a lie: UN envoy Lonseny Fall went again to the country, with this purporting to be his statement, and read-out here. But what has it come to? Consider this court prosecution of clergy, to try to put an end to legitimate protest. The UN so far has issued a weak, late statement then tried to move on, calling any criticism harassment and continuing to hinder coverage of the UN's deeds and misdeeds. We'll have more on this.

 On April 13, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press: can you confirm that the Secretary-General sought to speak with Paul Biya while he was on an extended stay in Geneva, as has been reported? 

Spokesman:  No, I have no confirmation of a call having taken place.
Inner City Press:   I mean, I'm not asking [inaudible]…

Spokesman:  I have no information.
Inner City Press:  Okay.  And I wanted to know, people there saying, even in the wake of the visit of Louncény Fall, that, for example, a Supreme Court Justice, Paul Ayah remains, was only today, you know, remanded to remain in prison.  So they're not seeing much changes.  And I'm wondering, is this something that… that Mr. Louncény Fall looked into while he was there, the continued detention of barristers and those who have advocated for fair treatment of [inaudible]?

Spokesman:  What I just said is, in fact, that, in his contacts with the Government, Mr Louncény Fall advocated for the release of a number of Anglophone leaders and others.  So I think that's clear that's one of the things he was advocating for.
Inner City Press:  And, finally, I wanted to ask you about the Resident Coordinator position.  Given that the previous Resident Coordinator didn't raise any of the issues that you've just mentioned while she was there, is there any progress on naming a new one…

Spokesman:  I don't know that, and I don't know if you know that, but okay.  Anyway, next… what's your question?
Inner City Press:  The people that are there say it, and she also blocked the press…

Spokesman:  I think she blocks you, but…

Question:  Yeah, she does.

Spokesman:  …that's her right.
Inner City Press:   In what capacity does she block it?

Spokesman:  Well, I think anyone who has seen your tweets, I think, sometimes they do cross the line, I think, into harassment, and people block you from time to time.

Inner City Press:  Interesting.

Spokesman:  Indeed.

 How trustworthy is today's UN if they stonewall then withhold information, while continuing to block - a la Najat Rochdi - and restrict the Press which asks about Cameroon and denial of the right to information? On April 12 when there was a press conference at the UN about the death penalty, Inner City Press asked the panelist from Amnesty International about the Paul Biya government's threat of the death penalty against Anglophone advocates, including the UN's own former legal adviser Felix Agbar-Balla. The AI speaker said Inner City Press knew more about Cameroon, but that AI is concerned. We hope so - about the outrageous ongoing Internet cut as well. Watch this site.

On April 5, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson's Office, Associate Spokesperson Eri Kaneko, what if anything the UN has done about the Internet cut. Video here.  From the UN's transcript: 

Inner City Press: there are issues in Cameroon.  There are a number of issues of the Anglophone areas, but there's one in particular, which is now an 80-day cut-off of the internet to two regions of the country.  So, in the answers that have been provided about what [Francois] Loncény Fall has done, there's no reference to this pretty open-and-shut issue.  Is there some way you can either ask DPA [Department of Political Affairs] or his office, like, what's being done on this?  Does the UN… has the UN in any way conveyed to the Government of Cameroon that whatever the other issues are that turning off the internet to whole regions of the country is not a good idea?

Associate Spokesperson:  We heard your question, and if we have anything to add further, we'll let you know.   

   Further? Nothing has been done.

 The day before on April 4, Agnes Marcaillou, Director of the United Nations Mine Action Service, mentioned work in Cameroon so Inner City Press asked about it and the Internet cut. Video here. She replied that "we all read Inner City Press" and for that reason know about the Internet cut, but her answer was about Boko Haram. We'll have more on this. 

On March 31, Inner City Press put a question about the outrage of Cameroon saying it will accede to the UN "electronic communications" treaty while denying such communications to millions of people to  UN Spokesman Farhan Haq, video here, UN transcript here: 

Inner City Press: Given that the internet has been turned off to millions of people for 76 days, I noticed that the Government says that it’s going to be depositing a ratification of something called a UN convention on the use of electronic communications in international contracts.  And I wanted to know, will the Secretariat… do they have any role in… in… in reviewing the sort of legitimacy of ratifications or… or… what would you say about a country that’s turned off the internet to its own population depositing a ratification to an electronic communications convention at that time?

Deputy Spokesman:  Those are separate issues.  Regarding treaties, all treaties are looked at to see whether the instruments… whether the treaties are properly filed as they’re being deposited. 

  How could this one be "properly filed"? But the UN's strategy has been to use Cristina "The Evicter" Gallach to restrict Inner City Press' access to cover the UN on such issues, even now that she has ostensibly left. We'll have more on this. Inner City Press also asked who represents the UN in Cameroon:

Inner City Press: I’d sent you a number of questions about Cameroon.  Now I have those and something else.  First of all, I wanted to know, what’s the… what is the status of having a resident coordinator in the country, given that the internet has been turned off to two regions in the country for 76 days?

Deputy Spokesman:  Right now, there is an officer-in-charge.  There’s no new full-time resident coordinator, but there’s an officer-in-charge there.

Question:  Can you say who that is or which agency it is?

Deputy Spokesman:  I believe it’s the officer for UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) right now.

  But when Inner City Press later on March 31 visited UNICEF's Cameroon website to follow up, the most recent report was from 2012, and the top two press releases were about Nigeria, here. We'll have more on this, and on the UN's failing "Resident Coordinator system." On the afternoon of Friday, March 31 the UN sent Inner City Press this, stating that its UNOCA envoy Francois Lonseny Fall intends to visit Cameroon in early April, and other responses which we immediately publish in full: "Your questions on Cameroon: The United Nations Secretariat continues to follow closely the situation in the Republic of Cameroon through the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa (UNOCA). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has been monitoring the court proceedings and allegations of human rights violations. We are concerned about the trial of civilians by a military court. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has raised these concerns with the Government of Cameroon in a letter dated 24 February 2017.  In our various contacts, we have called on the authorities to address the situation in a measured and peaceful manner, while abiding by their international human rights commitments. SRSG Fall has visited Cameroon several times to address these issues and plans to visit Cameroon in early April, subject to confirmation of meetings, to engage with the Government and reiterate the availability of the United Nations to support national efforts to promote an inclusive dialogue in order to address the root causes of the crisis, while respecting the territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cameroon.  With regard to the two specific cases cited, we have confirmed that Robert Fon was indeed released on bail on 27 March. We understand that Mr. Felix Agbor Nkongho, as his two co-accused (Fontem Afoteka Neba and Mancho Bibixy), is facing trial for various alleged offences in connection with the situation in the Anglophone regions. Their lawyers requested they be freed on bail. The court is reportedly set to examine the request when the case is taken up again on 7 April.  Concerning reports of the closure by the Government of a TV station in Western region of Cameroon, we are continuing our efforts to verify the allegation."

  As reported on March 30 by Inner City Press, Cameroon says it is poised to ratify the UN's Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, adopted on November 23, 2005 in New York. How could the UN accept and deposit such a ratification? Cameroonian Minister of Trade, Lucile Magloire Mbarga Atangana cited the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law or UNCITRAL, one of the entities routinely meeting in UN conference rooms with little notice by the UN-facilitated media. This must change. When Cameroon forced refugees back into Nigeria, the UN rightly complained. Why not, then, of Cameroon's now more than 70-day Internet cut-off in its Anglophone areas, leading to the creation of an "Internet refugee camp" in Bonako? Meanwhile French firms continue pursuing money under Paul Biya, including Sofema selling a patrol boat to Biya's navy, and Tessi ironically moving in the "digitization" market in Francophone Cameroon. The UN on March 28 answered others of Inner City Press' questions, but not the one about former UN legal adviser Felix Agbor Balla. The UN is being asked today again about Agbor Balla, and about the arrested lawyer Robert Fon, former President of Northwest Common Law Lawyers’ Association, arrested and transferred to Yaounde. On March 29 Inner City Press asked the UN: "Because UNanswered, asking again: In Cameroon, former UN legal adviser (in UNAMA and elsewhere) Felix Agbor Balla now, according to a UK-based barristers' organization, faces a military trial with the death penalty on the table for speaking out about conditions in the country's Anglophone areas, where the Internet has been cut for 71 days and counting. Particularly given Agbor-Balla's former position as a UN legal expert, what is not only the UN's comment, but what is the UN doing to attempt to ensure he receives due process? Also, what about the arrest of human rights lawyer Robert Fon and his transfer to Yaounde?" But while the UN responded to other questions from Inner City Press, nothing on this one. Nothing.

With former UN legal adviser Felix Agbor-Balla in Cameroon facing a military trial with the death penalty on the table, a UK-based legal group has written to Cameroonian president Paul Biya (here) while his former employer the UN has done... nothing.  Inner City Press will be asking the UN yet again, while also seeking action and responses from others. With the UN's response to weeks of questions about repression and Internet cut off in Cameroon from Inner City Press being two ambiguous statements about the work of its Francois Lonseny Fall, on the morning of March 27 Inner City Press asked the UN's three top spokespeople: "In Cameroon, on which you've said the UN's Lonseny Fall is working, now the government has acted against TV station CRTV reporting on unrest in Western Cameroon. What is your comment, and what is Lonseny Fall or anyone else in the UN system doing about it? As asked before, what is the status of naming the next Resident Coordinator, and confirm if Najat Rochdi has begun at Deputy SRSG post in CAR." At the day's UN noon briefing, sans UN-restricted Inner City Press, spokesperson Farhan Haq faced only two questions. Afterward his Office sent Inner City Press this, which we publish in full: "Regarding the question you asked about Cameroon, the United Nations Regional Office for Central Africa (UNOCA), and the UN Country Team in Cameroon continue to follow events in the country. Concerning reports of the closure by the Government of a TV station in Western region of Cameroon, our colleagues are looking into the allegations.  We remain concerned about reports of pressure being placed on press organs in Cameroon that are working on the situation in the Anglophone Regions, including reports of arrests and even alleged disappearance of journalists."

Cameroon Anglophone human rights defenders set for show trials on March 23 ran into a new trick: the government trying to join the cases of 25 more defendants with theirs. From collective punishment to collective trials. The ruling on that will now be on April 7. Tellingly, Voice of America's story didn't even mention the Internet cut-off for more than 60 days in Anglophone Cameroon, not that defendant Felix Agbor Balla was a UN legal adviser, for whom today's UN does nothing. VOA and the UN: birds of a feather.

   While the UN first stonewalled then issued misleading statements about Cameroon, where the Internet has been cut off by the government in the Northwest and Southwest (Anglophone) regions for more than 60 days and counting, Inner City Press March 21, Inner City Press asked the UN's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq about the summons against Akere Muna, the lawyer for a former UN legal adviser, Nkongho Felix Agbor-Balla. UN's March 21 Transcript here and below. On March 22, Inner City Press asked the UN about the underlying detention of Agbor-Balla. Video here; UN transcript here: 

Inner City Press:  I wanted to ask you a Cameroon question.  I'd asked you yesterday about this lawyer that's been summoned in, and there's growing outrage about that.  But, actually, he's the lawyer for a person that used to be a UN legal adviser in UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] named Felix Agbor Balla.  He's a lawyer that worked for the UN and now has been detained for months.  Several US Congresspeople have, in fact, raised the issue.  And I'm just wondering, one, particularly in the case of a former UN staff locked up seemingly without any type of due process, locked up only for advocacy, is there any UN role in these cases in actually looking into this individual case of a… of a former UN legal adviser now under detention in Yaoundé?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, we would certainly expect that due process is followed.  We want to make sure that… especially that human rights defenders are not being prosecuted unfairly and those would be key concerns.

   Agbor-Balla's continued detention has triggered protest from, as it happens, the US state of Indiana, where Congress members of both parties have spoken out: Democrat André Carson and Republican Jackie Walorski. But the UN, after two weeks of Press questions, offered only a statement by its Francois Lonseny Fall, largely covering up for the government of Paul Biya, in power for 32 years. What good is the UN? The question is becoming louder: watch this site.

On Burundi, Inner City Press Asks UN of Cameraman Killed, AMISOM Troops UNpaid, Without 'Net

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 11 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on New Year's Eve issued a canned statement praising the Burundi “talks” held in Entebbe, Uganda, multiple sources told Inner City Press not only were these not talks but rather a photo op -- it was also badly and some said self-servingly organized. The January 6 session announced for Arusha did not happen.

On January 11, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the killing over the weekend of cameraman Alfred Baranburiya, and what the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights staff in Burundi are doing. There was no update.

 Nor on Inner City Press' question about Burundian troops in AMISOM in Somalia not getting correctly paid and, it's said, being ordered not to use the Internet. Dujarric called this too “granular” to answer. We'll have more on this, and on the rest of Dujarric's response.

 On January 8, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric for Ban's view, video here from Min 1:07, transcript here:

Inner City Press: On Burundi… there was a press conference by the Ugandan mediation of the Burundi crisis today, and they seen… or they… they… among other things, it appears that the Burundi side, the Government side, is asking for a change of venue, and the real issue seems to be whether anyone that the Government says was in any way involved in the events of May should not be part of the talks.  And I just wondered, is Mr. Benomar involved at all in this process?  It seems like the key point is, who's going to participate?  And also, what, what does the UN know about this desired change of venue?

Spokesman:  Sure.  Let me, I'll check with Mr. Benomar's team.

 Six hours later and counting, nothing. 
 On January 4, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about the threats to peacekeepers, the challenged deployments to the UN mission in the Central African Republic and reports of rapes largely in opposition neighborhoods.

  The UN Spokesman had no comment on the rapes, or the threats; he said "I've mentioned the case of the Lt. Colonel, I have no further update from that, or on the other two officials you've mentioned.... The Secretary General's Special Adviser is in New York and I believe you'll probably hear from the Security Council President that they will hear from him at some point in the coming days."

 On January 7, with the UN still not having responded on the rapes, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric about a Burundian minister's threat against the RFI journalist who compiled the rape report. The minister said, "the authorized government services will take the necessary measures to deal with this journalist’s disruptive activities."

  Inner City Press read this quote to the UN spokesman, who replied the UN is against intimidation. He still had nothing on the rapes. Video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press:  On Burundi.  On Monday I'd asked you about this story about rapes by the Government militia in opposition neighbourhoods by an RFI (Radio France Internationale) reporter.  And now basically the Government has said that they will… will… I'm going to read the direct quote because it's pretty troubling… crack down on or… or take care of this reporter.  They said… they said, the authorized Government services will take the necessary measures to deal with this journalist's disruptive activities.  So many press freedom groups are saying this is a threat by the Government, and I wanted to know, one, what do you think of that?  What does the UN system think or do about that?  And also what about the underlying report of an increase in rapes targeted at opposition neighbourhoods?

Spokesman:  "I don't have anything specific on your second question.  Obviously, those kinds of reports of increases of sexual violence are extremely disturbing and need to be investigated.  On your first part, it is vital, as we've always said from here, that there is… that the media be allowed to report freely and free from harassment and especially free from personal harassment."

  Meanwhile whole parts of the UN system say little to nothing at all. Last week Inner City Press asked for the comment of Ban's Secretariat (UNlikely) or, specifically, UN Women on this cartoon in pro-government media. Nothing. Total silence.

  RFI reports in detail on rapes in Burundi, particularly in "opposition neighborhoods." While government spokespeople -- and wannabe government spokespeople -- attack the messengers, where is UN Women on this? Where is the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights?

  OHCHR has an office and ostensibly a presence in Burundi. But even as High Commissioner Zeid cranks out statements on other topics, OHCHR in Burundi has been unable or unwilling to confirm and speak on, for example, the rounds-ups in Mugamba.

 On January 2, Inner City Press asked four UN spokespeople this Burundi, along with two questions on Saudi Arabia and Yemen:

"On Burundi, does the UN have any knowledge of the rounding up of young men by the government in Mugamba & Matana (Bururi)? Is the UN doing anything?"

 A day later, while the UN issued a statement on Saudi Arabia, there was no answer at all from the UN about Burundi.
  
   Tellingly, sources tell Inner City Press that while at the end of the Entebbe “photo op” it was announced that a next meeting in Arusha on January 6 had been agreed to, in fact this hadn't even been discussed. Some pro-government sources tell Inner City Press their side is therefore “not wrong” to say they never agreed to go to Arusha.
  
   They say that with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni clearly occupied “in yellow t-shirt” with his run for re-re-election, those running the talks “are the same who profited off the M23 talks.” We'll have more on this.

  But this is part of why Inner City Press questioned Ban Ki-moon's canned December 31 statement, issued after Ban's spokespeople refused to answer actual Press questions submitted to them, about deployments to the Central African Republic and Pierre Nkurunziza's threat to peacekeepers.

Amid criticism that Burundi's Pierre Nkurunziza seeks only to negotiate with himself and not the real opposition to his third term, and of the mediation process as a mere photo-op as the UN deploys abusers into its peacekeeping missions, Inner City Press on December 28, 29, 30 and 31 asked the UN questions. See below for (non) answers.

 After refusing to comment or even respond to Press questions about Nkurunziza's threats against peacekeepers and deployment of alleged human rights abusers to UN Peacekeeping missions under Herve Ladsous, who also refuses Press questions, after 4 pm on New Year's Eve Ban issued this.

 Meanwhile here are Inner City Press' December 30 (unanswered) and December 31 questions to four separate spokespeople for Ban Ki-moon:

December 30: "Burundi's Pierre Nkurunziza in a press conference threatened attacks on peacekeepers. What is Ban Ki-moon's response to this?" No answer.

December 31: "On Burundi, beyond the still unresponded to questions, what is the comment of Ban Ki-moon and, separately, of UN Women tothis cartoon in pro-government media this week?

 In response to that question, the UN Office of the Spokesperson sent a press release about another question (Haiti), but nothing at all on Burundi.

 Watch this site.

  On December 30 Nkurunziza threatened to have his forces attack peacekeepers proposed for the country. Inner City Press asked, if attacks on international peacekeepers are called violations of international law by the UN and its Security Council, what will the UNSC or Ban Ki-moon say about this threat?

  Ban's spokespeople have declined Press questions on Burundi for two days, and now Ban is on leave in Vienna. Will the UNSC penholder, France, be proposing any Press Statement or meeting, as some said would happen this week?

  As to next month, incoming UNSC President Uruguay has set its Program of Work press conference for January 4. We'll be there.

 On the morning of December 29, Inner City Press asked three separate UN Spokespeople Burundi questions including these:

"On Burundi, what is the Secretary General's or its Special Adviser's view of the inclusiveness of the CNARED group “representing” the opposition for the talks? In light for example of (1) this civil society critique, here and (2) Alain Nyamitwe statement that 'what happened was that the opposition was given only one slot, and of course we were not happy about the group which was selected, we do not believe that it is a legitimate group'?

"On UN deployments by alleged human rights abusers, beyond Majors Niyonzima and Rusheshe, please state whether the following are or will be deploying: Major / Lt. Col Casimir Nihankura and Captain / Major Eliezer Ndihokubwayo."

  This last is on a documented trend of the Nkurunziza mis-stating the rank of those it tries to deploy ("as rewards") - but the UN as since last week with Niyonzima and Rusheshe offered no answer.

 Of the five questions Inner City Press submitted to three UN Spokespeople on the morning of December 29, a partial response was received only to this one: "On Puerto Rico, please confirm (or deny) receip of the Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla's letter to Ban Ki-moon and response to the position that the US is reversing a decades-old understanding that Puerto Rico, while a U.S. commonwealth, governs through its own constitution."

Near 4 pm on December 29, the UN spokesman answered:

"From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Tues, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Press Qs in lieu of a Dec 29 UN noon briefing: Burundi, South Sudan, Puerto Rico/US, UNHQ, Jordan, still UN scandals / reforms, Yemen; thanks in advance
To: Matthew Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.org

"Matthew--on Puerto Rico, we can confirm that we have received the letter from Governor Garcia Padilla. On the rest, if we have updates, we will share them with you."

 So, nothing at all on the Burundi questions.

  On the morning of December 28, Inner City Press asked the UN four questions, including: "On Burundi, any comment or update on the talks, or demonstrations including militia inside Burundi? And, as ICP asked before Christmas, what is the status of the deployment to MINUSCA for Burundian Majors Niyonzima and Rusheshe?"

 At 2 pm on December 28 the UN Spokesman replies with only this:

"From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Press Qs in lieu of a UN noon briefing: South Sudan, Burundi, UN scandals / reforms, Yemen; thanks in advance
To: Matthew Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.org

"Dear Matthew, On Burundi, Mr Benomar is currently in Entebbe for the ceremony, having been in Bujumbura, Kigali, and Kampala before. On the other issues, if we have an update to share with you, we will."

  So even on the deployment, nothing on the two Majors involved in the hospital killings in Bujumbura in May -- even as the previous answer about (Lt) Col Baratuza is being questioned by some there. Nothing on the militia: just the photo op. And nothing on the other questions.

 By contrast, on December 28 the US State Department said this:

"we think today’s reopening of this dialogue, regionally mediated dialogue between parties to the Burundi crisis, is an important yet preliminary step towards putting Burundi back on the road to peace. I think it’s imperative that all Burundians renounce violence and intimidation and support peaceful, productive engagement and dialogue as a key to reestablishing in Burundi an atmosphere of openness and trust. We certainly appreciate the efforts of the Government of Uganda as well as President Museveni in hosting today’s session in Entebbe."

  So the US had 80+ words, while UN offered only the location(s) of its envoy. This as a time when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, after rejecting Press questions in the run-up to the holiday, did a one on one interview with AP promoting himself for a possible Nobel Prize on climate change. On December 28, Ban issued a statement congratulating South Korea for its agreement with Japan on the comfort women issue. And on Burundi? We'll have more on this.

 Burundi's Pierre Nkurunziza government with the agreement of UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has undertaken to deploy officers allegedly involved in human rights abuses into Ladsous' Central African Republic mission, MINUSCA, see below. Also below, civil society statement in advance of the talks in Kampala on December 28.

  Nkurunziza's Imbonerakure militia was quoted by AP that "We would like to warn African Union troops that the majority of Burundians don't want them and they should not impose themselves on the people of Burundi." Here is a video of the ruling party demonstrations, on Facebook
  - and now, a second video, on Twitter.

  Also on Facebook (but not Twitter), Burundi's Permanent Representative to the UN Albert Shingiro -- who blocks Inner City Press from his Twitter feed -- tried to mock a protest by follow Burundians which Inner City Press covered on December 23, here. (Shingiro, like the presidential adviser and his alter-ego(s) liked to channel Bill Gates.) Some diplomacy: banning the Press from his statements, mocking rather than seeking to dialogue with his countrymen. To this has Burundi sunk.

 And so, we publish today this Statement of the Campaign “Halte au troisième mandat” on the occasion of the official opening of negotiations between  stakeholders in the Burundi conflict:

"On the occasion of the opening ceremonies of the negotiations between stakeholders in the Burundi conflict, in Kampala-Uganda on December 28, 2015, Civil society organizations members of the Campaign “Halte au troisième mandat” release the following statement:

1. They welcome the beginning of negotiations between Burundi stakeholders for their objective is to find a solution to the Burundian crisis since they will now take place outside Burundi; the same allowing stakeholders to negotiate in conditions that guarantee their safety;

2. However, they regret that the mediation has accused a huge delay in the fulfillment of its mission and that prior consultations as well as the official opening of negotiations are conducted under conditions that ignore the Campaign Halte au troisième mandat, yet widely known as leading group in defending the dignity of the people of Burundi through peaceful protests that started on April 26, 2015.

3. They take the opportunity to reaffirm their support to various groups defending the agenda of the restoration and respect for the Arusha Agreement for peace and reconciliation and the constitution; including CNARED;

4. They rejoice that the CNARED received and accepted the invitation to attend the opening ceremonies of the negotiations. Following due assessment of the achievements of the citizenry movement CNARED and bearing in mind the pressing responsibility to focus and limit mainly on the defense of democratic principles and the fight against impunity in the Supreme interest of the people of Burundi, the Campaign “Halte au troisième mandat” decides to withdraw from CNARED. They will from now on defend the positions and proposals of civil society contained in the document entitled " Burundi Crisis: Diagnosis and proposed solutions by civil society" that was made public;

6. They pledge to keep committed to the fight against the violation of the Arusha Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation and the Constitution and reaffirm their determination to continue the struggle until the restoration of citizens' constitutional legality;

7. They reiterated their willingness and readiness to fully participate in the negotiations and that civil society group should be represented on a same basis as the government of Nkurunziza and the political opposition;

8. Finally, they warn all the stakeholders against any attempt to a deal maintaining Nkurunziza in the position he has usurped and any arrangement likely to provide an opportunity for some to enjoy impunity for crimes committed. Done at Bujumbura, December 27, 2015"

  This last has resonance in other mediations: we'll have more on this.

 On December 24, Inner City Press asked for the second time, video here:

Inner City Press: whether you have any... first, any readout of Mr. Benomar's travels and attempts to speak with the Government in the region.  I'm asking you... yesterday there was… you may have seen it; you may not have seen it… there was a protest outside the building by Burundians, and in speaking with them, they judge the performance of the Secretariat as weak.

And I wanted to know, just to get, I guess, your response to that, and if there's any update on the deployment of these two, Pierre Niyonzima and Jimmy Rusheshe, both of whom have been linked to the hospital killings in May…

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  On your second part, no, I have no update than what was given.  I know there are discussions going on.  I don't have an update to share with you.  On your first part, I think we can all agree on the frustration of the Burundian people as they see the violence increase in their country.  The Secretary-General, through the work of his Special Envoy, is very much focused on finding ways to move the political dialogue forward and to obviously see an end to the current violence that we're seeing.  He is currently in Kampala in Uganda meeting with local officials, and I believe there will be talks there early next week.

Inner City Press:  Will your office be sending stuff out during this break?

Spokesman:  Obviously, as I said, we'll be fully staffed.  If there are updates to share, we will share them with you.

   Back on December 17 Inner City Press was told, the third time it asked, that the Burundi's Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza's deployment to the UN mission in CAR had been suspended, and Baratuza was being repatriated. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who has shielded Secretary General Ban Ki-moon from such Press questions, said "it's an example of the [vetting] policy working."

 But Inner City Press has obtained the Burundi government document for the deployment not only of Baratuza but other officers in Ladsous' MINUSCA. Today we focus and ask about Major Pierre Niyonzima.

According to Inner City Press' sources, Niyonzima not only defended extrajudicial executions, he participated in them.  On May 14, they say, Major Niyonzima was the Senior army officer who led the attack on the hospital where those accused of involvement in the attempted coup were slaughtered.  They say Niyonzima reports to Guillaume Bunyoni and has been involved in killings in Musaga, Nyakabiga and Mutakura. We'll have more on this, and on other deployees to Ladsous' MINUSCA, including  Jimmy Rusheshe.

On December 21 Inner City Press asked the UN's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq about these deployments, and the Burundian government's rejection of the African Union's proposed deployment, video here,transcript here:

Inner City Press: on Burundi, as you know, the African Union Peace and Security Council has made this proposal 5,000 peacekeepers and set a 96-hour deadline for the Government to respond.  The assembly has met and rejected it and said it would be a violation of the sovereignty of the country.  So, I wanted to know, what is the Secretariat… Mr. [Jamal] Benomar, what do they… you think of both the [African Union Peace and Security Council] taking a seemingly fairly aggressive protection of civilian stance and the Government rejecting it? 

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, first of all, regarding that, I believe that the discussions will continue with the African Union and the Government of Burundi.  But, we certainly support the efforts by the African Union and its Peace and Security Council to deal with the protection of civilians in Burundi.  We've made clear our alarm at recent developments and the need for there to be additional steps to bring the tensions on the ground to a halt.  As you know, the Security Council itself has been apprised by the Secretary-General of various options for the way forward, and we await their guidance on that.  Meanwhile, Mr. Benomar has started some of his travels.  I believe he was in Washington, D.C., in the last few days, and he is expected to head to the region shortly.

Correspondent:  And then… thanks a lot.  I wanted… something a little more specific.  It has to do with this vetting of troops from Burundi, but I guess you could say elsewhere.  I know it was said last week that Gaspard Baratuza, a Deputy Spokesman of the army, was being repatriated.

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes.

Inner City Press:  But, I've since seen a letter… it was his deployment letter, but it also involved two other majors in the army who are said to have been involved in the… the assault on a hospital in May, right after the coup attempt in which people were killed in their beds, and these involve Mr. Pierre Niyonzima and Jimmy Rusheshe.  And both of them, according to a letter from the Burundian Army, are… were being deployed to the UN in the Central African Republic.  So, I wanted… I guess I want to ask you, like, what does the vetting consist of?  What was the vetting that Mr. Baratuza failed that these two individuals apparently don't fail, given their involvement in extrajudicial executions?

Deputy Spokesman:  As we get information… if any information causes us to have concerns about deployment, it is reviewed in that light.  In that light, Mr. Baratuza, his suspension was first delayed, and then he was repatriated.  And so, depending upon the information, as we get it, we'll act upon it.

Inner City Press:  So, does… I guess what I'm saying is does the… either the human rights presence of the UN in Burundi have information about those who commanded the assault on this hospital, it's called Bumerec Hospital, in May and the connection to the people that were being deployed?

Deputy Spokesman:  Like I said, we… yes, we do have a human rights presence in Burundi.  As we get information, we act upon, and that includes anyone being deployed.


Obtained by Inner City Press

Ladsous' lack of vetting was criticized in the recently released report into the cover up of peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic. Earlier, Inner City Press exclusive reported on Ladsous in his October 1, 2015 meeting with Burundi's vice president saying that he is "pragmatic" on human rights.

 On December 16 Inner City Press was banned from questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but learned from the mission MINUSCA that Baratuza was already in Entebbe. Inner City Press asked several Security Council members, then Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric on December17.

Dujarric told Inner City Press Baratuza's deployment is suspended and he is being repatriated: "based on the information we've received regarding the Lieutenant Colonel, his deployment has been suspended, and he will be repatriated back to Burundi." Video here. Dujarric told Inner City Press this shows the UN system working - on a day when a report on rapes was issued showing UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous not sufficiently vetting for human rights. We'll have more on this.



 Amid the escalating killings in Burundi, last weekend's summary executions in neighborhoods opposed to Pierre Nkurunziza's third term stand out. But Burundi Army spokesman Gaspard Baratuza was quoted on December 12 blaming all of the deaths on attempts to steal weapons to free prisoners.

   Inner City Press had heard that Mr. Baratuza was already in the process of being deployed to the UN Peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) even when he was giving these quotes, issuing statements and speaking to state-owned radio, and so asked MINUSCA's acting spokesperson, “Is Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA job?”

  On December 16, hours before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a rare press conference, MINUSCA's acting spokesperson sent this to Inner City Press:

"To: Matthew.Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
From: Vladimir MONTEIRO [at] UN.org
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2015
Subject: ICP question: Gaspard Baratuza of Burundi's army getting a MINUSCA-related post?
Cc: FUNCA [at] funca.info

"No decision related to Lt Col Baratuza's deployment can be taken before we finish looking into the matter. We can confirm that Lt Col Baratuza is in Entebbe but he has not yet deployed to MINUSCA.  Regards. VNM"

There are some questions about Baratuza, a Colonel in Burundi's Army, being listed by the UN as “Lt. Col.”

  Despite multiple follow-up questions by Inner City Press, Mr. Monteiro - previously a spokesperson for the UN electoral mission in Burundi - replied that “This is what we can say about this issue.”

   But the UN should have to say more. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN how its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous vets those who deploy to UN missions; Inner City Pressexclusively reported on an October 1, 2015 meeting in which Ladsous told Burundi's Vice President Joseph Butare that he is “pragmatic” on human rights.



 Ban Ki-moon and his spokesman declined to take Inner City Press' questions on December 16, as they did on December 14. Vine here. But concerned members of the UN Security Council have now been asked about Baratuza by Inner City Press. Watch this site.

After North Korea Speeches, Dodges on Internet Cut-Off, South Korean Law

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 22 -- When the North Korea agenda item was proposed on December 22, the Security Council president from Chad gave a time for objections.

  China objected and spoke (below), and then in the meeting itself, spoke again, also below.

   After the meeting - seventeen speeches, no replies or request for an outcome - only South Korean ambassador Oh Joon and the UN's Ivan Simonovic came out to take questions at the UNTV stakeout.

 Inner City Press asked each of them the same two questions: about the UN's "field based structure" in Seoul, to open in March 2015, and if the turning off of the Internet in North Korea, some say by the US as its response to the Sony hack, could itself be a human rights violation (even granting how few people in DPRK have access to the Internet).

  This later question, both speakers seemed to dodge. Oh Joon said no one can turn off the entire Internet -- even in North Korea? -- and Simonovic said he wouldn't speculate.

  Nor did he address how South Korea's law restricting speech about North Korea might impact the work or credibility of the coming OHCHR office there.

  Earlier China's Permanent Representative said:

"China has stated its position against the Security Council's involvement in the human rights issues in DPRK. China has been consistent. The Security Council is not the forum to discuss human rights issues. We oppose any outcome document on the situation of human rights in DPRK.

"China is a neighbor to the Korean peninsula. China will never allow any turbulence or war in the Korean peninsula. We hope the members of the Security Council place their interest in denuclearization and maintenance of peace as a priority, exercise restraint, avoid rhetoric and mutual provocation, and refrain from activities that may lead to the escalation of tension. China will work towards the  realization of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the maintenance of peace and stability, and will address issues through peace and dialogue. China hopes the relevant parties will take real actions to create the environment for the relaunch of six party talks."

  Among the speeches, Rwanda recalling the UN Security Council's in- or mal-action during its 1994 genocide (see a 1994 memo here, and a letter to the UN today here.)

  Here is how China objected to the item at the beginning of the meeting:

"China is against using the existence of violation of human rights as a reason to include the agenda of the DPRK in the Security Council. The UN charter stipulates that the purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council is not a forum for getting involved in human rights issues.

"Currently, international peace and security are faced with daunting challenges. The Security Council should focus on addressing issues that really concern peace and security: upholding the goal of denuclearization, maintaining peace, and maintaining dialogue, these are in the common interests of all parties. The Security Council should work more to facilitate dialogue and refrain from doing anything that might cause the escalation of tension."

  Then Australia read into the record the letter which requested the meeting. A vote was called. China and Russia opposed the agenda item; Chad and Nigeria abstained.  It was decided to proceed.

  The first speaker was the UN's Taye-Brook Zerihoun (instead of Jeffrey Feltman), who began with the SONY Pictures hack.

  UN Assistant Secretary General Ivan Simonovic was to briefing the Security Council on DPRK. His office sent his speech to select journalists, embargoed until 3 pm. Inner City Press, despite previous requests to Simonovic's (and before that, Ladsous') spokesperson, was not sent the speech, and was not bound by any embargo agreement...

  Here's DPRK on the UNGA vote:

The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK released the following statement on Saturday:

The efforts of the DPRK government to build the world's best power and a land of bliss for people where they are well-off as the masters under the socialist system have faced a grave challenge of the hostile forces.

The anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" which had been rammed through the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly by the U.S. was finally adopted in a forcible manner at a plenary session of the 69th UN General Assembly on Friday.

The "resolution" contains even the poisonous call for considering the matter of referring the "human rights issue" of the DPRK to the International Criminal Court, not content with malignantly hurting the DPRK's policy for ensuring genuine human rights. It is the most vivid manifestation of the U.S. harsh hostile policy toward the DPRK aimed at isolating and stifling it at any cost.

Washington, in utter disregard of the procedures and regulations of the UN, staged a farce of making the "human rights issue" of the DPRK an official agenda item by instigating its followers at the UN Security Council even before the adoption of the "resolution" at the UN General Assembly. This fact clearly proves its dangerous politically-motivated attempt to invent an excuse for mounting an invasion of the DPRK under the pretext of "human rights".

Under the present serious situation where the human rights issue of an individual country was politicized at the UN to make a dangerous precedent for abusing it for toppling the social system of the country and the human rights issue stands at the crossroads of genuine cooperation or war, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK solemnly clarifies its stand as follows:

First. The DPRK vehemently and categorically rejects the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" rammed through the plenary session of the UN General Assembly by the hostile forces on the basis of plots, lies and fabrications and high-handed and arbitrary practices.

The "resolution", which was fabricated on the basis of the misinformation, a collection of "testimonies" made by human scum bereft of even an iota of conscience and appearance as human beings, failing to witness the actual human rights performance in the DPRK, can never remain valid no matter where and by whom it was "adopted."

Second. As the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK to mount an invasion of it under the excuse of human rights has become clear, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has lost its meaning.

The U.S. has reduced to dead papers all the agreements it made with the DPRK including the Sept. 19 joint statement adopted at the six-party talks in which the DPRK and the U.S. committed themselves to the mutual respect for sovereignty and peaceful co-existence from the moment it launched an all-out human rights showdown with the DPRK.

Third. The DPRK will take all the necessary measures, not bound to anything, to defend its sovereignty and security from the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to stifle it.

The DPRK will put increased spurs to its efforts to bolster up in every way its capability for self-defence including nuclear force.

The service personnel and people of the DPRK will smash the hostile forces' reckless "human rights" racket through unprecedentedly toughest counteractions and firmly defend the socialist system, their life and soul.

  On the Security Council from the EU are permanent members France and the UK, and Luxembourg which leaves in 13 days (Spain will replace it in 2015 and 2016). Ten days after ten UN Security Council members wrote to request a meeting on the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the request was discussed behind closed doors on December 15.

  The day arrived at for the session appears to be December 22 (Inner City Press asked the Chadian President of the Security Council for December), with a moment of drama at the beginning.

 That day, the President of the Council will say, "the provision agenda is the situation in the DPRK," and any Council member has the right to object. There are, however, no veto rights on this procedural matter.

  China's Permanent Representative to the UN Liu Jieyi said China is opposed to putting DPRK on the Council's agenda, calling the situation there complex and sensitive. Will he object on December 22? Wait and see, he said.

  On December 5, ten UN Security Council council members on December 5 asked for a Council meeting on the subject.

  Inner City Press obtained the letter that day and put it online, here.

  The request, by  Australia, Chile, France, Jordan,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the United States of America, is to put DPRK on the Council's agenda. For this, there is no opportunity to veto, unlike on any referral to the International Criminal Court.

  In January, there are five new members on the Council: Venezuela, Angola, Malaysia, Spain and New Zealand.

  Back on November 18 in the UN's Third Committee India said, in the fast transcription Inner City Press published that day, "We have abstained on the vote. We had voted in favor of the Cuban amendment. One of the main reason for India being unable to sign on to the ICC is that this doesn't allow the court to be free from political interference. The Security Council has the power to refer, the power to block, and the power to refer non-state parties. No state can be forced to be bound by a treaty it has not accepted. The Rome Statute violates international law. It gives state parties the power to refer non-state parties. OP 7 and OP 8 represent the very reasons against our joining the statute.It is unfortunate that matters on human rights have been taken to a vote."

 Earlier, after Cuba's proposed amendment was voted down, with 40 in favor, 77 against and 50 abstaining, DPRK itself spoke. Here is a fast transcription:

We express profound to all delegations that supported the amendment this morning.

"Regarding the draft resolution, the DPRK rejects the draft resolution. It is a product of political and military confrontation with no relevance to human rights. The EU and Japan submitted the resolution based on the reports of the Commission of Inquiry, which has never been to the country at all. The reports of the CoI is only based on fabricated testimonies of a handful of people who fled the country, abandoning their loved ones. The report is a compilation of groundless political accusations. We have maintained a position of rejecting confrontation and giving priority to dialogue and cooperation. The EU and Japan chose to provoke confrontation. The draft fails to reflect reality on the ground. Some member states of the EU and Japan hastily included dirty materials as leaflets flown by defectors. We do not feel any need to appeal to anyone to come and see the reality of our country, where politics and social system are all for the people. The Eu and Japan disclosed that the goal was subservience and sycophancy to the US and hostility to the DPRK from the outset, thus closing the door to doalogue. 

  "We shall strongly respond without slightest tolerance to any attempt to abuse the human rights issue as a tool for eliminating the social system of the DPRK. There is a hostile policy pursued by the US against the DPRK with a view to eliminating the social system of the country by means of force. The US instigated its followers to accuse us of crimes against humanity. The US unleashed a war in Yugoslavia, claiming to prevent crimes against humanity. It is now clear that all crimes of aggression committed by the US are linked to the vicious human rights campaign. We need to maintain powerful state capability to defend our people and their human rights. 

"This compels us not to refrain any further from conducting nuclear tests. In light of the human rights campaign we shall keep in our hearts pride and honor about the socialist system which was chosen by our people .The current draft resolution is confrontational in nature and will result in serious consequences. We wish to request a recorded vote and will vote against it. We encourage the representatives of the UN member states to vote against this confrontational resolution."

Before the vote on Cuba's amendment, South Africa spoke in support of the amendment, fast transcription here:

"We take the floor to support the Cuban proposal for the amendments of this res, in matters of principles. We agree with the views expressed, that this resolution is not balanced. The proposal Cuba is making would balance. We support the view Cuba raises about the dangerous precedent, as well as referring matters to the Security Council that do not belong in the realm of the Security Council. 

 "The Security Council can deal with any other matter in the world, without having the General Assembly urge it to do so. We find the res to be contradictory. There is a reference to the DPRK having gone through the UPR, but in the Operative Paragraph, the first OP condemns the longstanding violations in the DPRK. We find that to be a contradiction.... We will support the Cuban proposal."

  Here is a fast transcription of what the Cuba representative said: 

I would like to note that on the webpage there is a text in which we request that only the initial part of our amendment be maintained. The rest of the text will be eliminated. This had been included in the resolution but we wish to maintain only the first part.

This does not necessarily reflect human rights in the DPRK. Cuba has maintained a clear position on this matter and will vote against the resolution. We are not trying to prevent the SC from looking at the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Rather, Cuba is taking a position of principle. A number of delegations referred to the trigger mechanism, whereby the Human Rights Council is turning in to a tool used by some countries to attack others. Countries for which dialogue is not interesting, countries that don't want to promote human rights or uphold economic and social rights.

This resolution has been used to est a pattern which would endanger all developing countries. It creates a procedure under the Human Rights Council whereby there's no debate, the country in question isn't consulted, and has no chance to clarify the situation. It undermines the purpose of the council.

There's been a call to refer to the ICC. All these proposals will undermine the ICC. The ICC is a tool used against some developing countries, being used by more powerful countries. We haven't had time to explain our truth, and we would like to see a greater spirit of cooperation in terms of giving the country in question a chance to clarify.

We're trying to ensure that a precedent isn't being set. This would further damage the credibility of the council. This is political manipulation. We're not looking for confrontation. We believe where there's a will to cooperate, that will must be recognized. We don't want the situation to be exacerbated. We don't want to see people deprived of sovereignty.

Cuba has taken a position of principle. Every time attempts are made to manipulate the process, to use the council as a tool, we will take a stand.

  Here was the full text of Cuba's amendment:

Cuba: amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea

Delete operative paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert a new operative paragraph 7 reading as follows:

Decides to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: (a) the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; (b) the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and (c) the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country;

   In the Third Committee on November 17, others disassociated themselves from the portions of the Human Rights Council's resolution on their country-specific mandates, including Iran and Eritrea, which also argued that Norway had erroneously stated that the African Group supported the mandate against it.

 There was a dispute when Mauritania tried to present as the African Group's statement on the report of the Human Rights Council a text that after challenged it admitted South African had not agreed to. We'll have more on this.

 On North Korea, as Inner City Press reported on November 4, here, a wider range of countries have expressed concern to the European Union and Japan about not only the ICC language, but also a reference to the Responsibility to Protect. 

  While these countries may not constitute the majority to derail the proposal, if an amendment along the lines of their concerns is proposed, the waters will be clouded. This should be next week.

  On November 8 the US announced that the Democratic People Republic of Korea released U.S. citizens Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller, held for two years and seven months, respectively.

  The US State Department said "We also want to thank our international partners, especially our Protecting Power, the Government of Sweden, for their tireless efforts to help secure the freedom of Mr. Bae and Mr. Miller. The Department of State reiterates our strong recommendation against all travel by U.S. citizens to the DPRK."

  This comes amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit. Some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  More recently Inner City Press has heard from sources not sponsoring the resolution that an amendment will be offered to strip out the ICC and other language, but may not pass. And now?

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.