Showing posts with label japan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label japan. Show all posts

Sunday, April 14, 2019

UN Guterres Has Sold to Japan Top Post on Disaster Risk Staff Say Mami Mizutori UNqualified


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive CJR PFT

UNITED NATIONS GATE, April 14 – How corrupt has Antonio Guterres made the UN? Even on "disaster risk reduction," Guterres' UN has been a disaster. With his spokesman Stephane Dujarric and communications chief Alison Smale refusing to answer basic questions from the Press that they have banned, now for 284 days, we publish this account granting the request for anonymity due to the pervasive retaliation in Guterres' UN: "Dear Matthew,   Thanks for your coverage of UN issues, including grievances of staff.  I would like to get your interest to look at the situation of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and its HQ office in Geneva. Similar to UNEP and CBD, it went through a turmoil of reorganization in the past few years (2015-2017) that led to several serious issues with leadership and staff but no one has the will to address them including the UN legal office and the Ombusman.  Below is summary of information:  

The previous head of office Mr. Robert Glasser, under which the reorganization took place, was disengaged and left it all to the Director and mostly focused on representation, traveling to conferences and giving talks and interviews and writing op-ed in journals. He served in the post for only 2 years (2016-2017) in the UN! The shortest many believe…  The re-structuring of the office was led by the newly appointed then Director at D2 level Ms. Kirsi Madi, which consisting of getting rid of all technical staff and managers who had been associated with precedent head and SRSG Ms. Margareta Wahlstrom, who led the office for long time. The affected staff believe they were targeted through the re-organisation process and forced out, some of them simply by using the argument they had UNOPS contracts although legitimate fixed term staff contracts , not consultants or contractors. No one in the UN System was willing to do something about it including the UN Legal Assistance Office and the Ombudsman which many of the staff approached for help citing that the HR process took legal steps…  the HR person of UNISDR who oversaw this process, under the director guidance, even nominated by the office and won the UN SG award on “her efforts in the major organizational change process with the greatest degree of integrity and efficiency” !  In total 25 out of 100 employees where either resigned, took early retirement or were let go in the name of efficiency. While this small secretariat have an ASG, D2, and 3 D1 but that seem efficient use of resources to some in the UN! keeping in mind that UNDP, UNEP and UNFCCC already take care of the issues under this office mandate.   The latest straw was the appointment of the new head of office Ms. Mami Mizutori on 1 March 2018 by the UN SG who has no experience in disaster risk reduction or any related areas. The appointment read that 'Prior to joining UNISDR she was Executive Director of the Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures, University of East Anglia, UK since 2011. https://www.un.org/press/en/ 2018/sga1785.doc.htm  Many say this came about due to the pressure of the Japanese government that is eager to control a UN office with a bargaining chip of donation to its activities. They already managed to appoint a Japanese at D1 level for intergovernmental, inter-agency and partnership branch of the office, who originally seconded from OCHA at P5 level and promoted to D1 within months from a roster without advertising the post properly. They also have a liaison office in Japan, which was suggested to be abolished in the reorganization process then stayed on." This is how Guterres has put the UN up for sale, not only to China (which to him is personally, through CEFC China Energy and the Gulbenkian Foundation) but also to Japan. We'll have more on this. 
  On the environment, Guterres has a Deputy Secretary General who signed thousands of back-dated certificates to try to legalize the illegal export of endangered rosewood to China from Nigeria and China - and who never answered Inner City Press' questions about it, preferring to have it roughed and banned. As Executive Secretary of the UN Biodiversity Convention Guterres has Cristiana Paşca-Palmer; consider this, exclusive to Inner City Press: "Cristiana Pasca-Palmer is more corrupt and abusive than the man who was instrumental for her appointment  When Erik Solheim introduced Cristiana Pasca-Palmer as the new Executive Secretary of the CBD at the high-level segment of the 13th meeting of the Parties to the Convention (COP 13) in Cancun, Mexico, on  1 December 2016, he unwittingly admitted that her appointment was political, not merit based. He proudly declared that her appointment was the Secretary General's response to a wider call to assign a woman from the Eastern European region at a senior UN position.  Two years into her term now, Ms. Pasca-Palmer proved her former benefactor's admission of the absence of merit in her appointment. When he recommended Ms. Pasca-Palmer for the job, Mr. Solheim himself was just few months old on his own post as the Executive Director of UNEP. He was forced out of his job on 22 November last year (in just a two-year time) after thorough investigation which confirmed his contempt to UN rules, abuse of authority and wastage of scarce budgetary resources on excessive travels.  Ms. Pasca-Palmer is a copycat of her former boss in her disregard to the UN rules and her addiction to travelling around the world. But she is worse in exercising her authority in abusive manner.  Ms. Pasca-Palmer lacks aptitude for learning how to adapt to a multicultural environment. After two years, she could not build a cohesive multi-disciplinary team. She shuns a number of staff with good experience and good ideas while she brings few others closer to her for their demonstrated loyalty to her. She has constantly been condescending on many others. She has not yet realized the distinction between an intergovernmental process and a national, or even worse, a privately-run undertaking. She cannot stand people who do not agree with her. Her strong desire to be surrounded by people who show absolute loyalty to her and do not question her actions, has put her in a constant conflict with a number of staff, and with UN rules. Her hawkish personality and impunity brought to endless need to respond to management evaluation review requests, talks with UN ombudsperson, and to UN ethics and dispute tribunal investigations. UNEP seemed to have chosen to stand by the side or to collaborate with her instead of taking appropriate measures to reign in some of the excesses such as constant modifications of job descriptions of some staff members who have trouble with Ms. Pasca-Palmer.  The following are some of the major failures and incidents that illustrate the abusive leadership styles of Ms. Pasca-Palmer that brought fear, anxiety, fragmentation, and low morale to most of the staff of the  secretariat of CBD.  1/ Ms. Pasca-Palmer lacks coherent vision for the biodiversity agenda and for the secretariat that supports it. Whatever ideas she brings to the table are borrowed from experts that she hired as consultants. Even then, the ideas shift constantly as they become tasted to be inapplicable to the CBD situation. She does not appreciate or trust the in-house knowledge and advice that she receives from staff, especially from those who have been with the Secretariat for some longer period of time.  2/ Ms. Pasca-Palmer's adversity to experienced members of staff and her heavy-handedness has led to a string of resignations. The first to leave was the Chief of Administration and Finance who chose to take early retirement after briefly working with her and assessing the difficult times to come. Her successor who has rich experience working with the UN in New York might have already felt the strange taste of working with Ms. Pasca-Palmer. In the last one year alone, more than four, all of them women, senior staff members and program officers left the Secretariat. Her own secretary left due to the harassment  and discrimination that she has felt. From the early days of her arrival, Ms. Pasca-Palmer was trying to transfer her secretary to another work unit in the Secretariat - It was a kind of hate on the first sight: One of the program officers to leave the Secretariat in the last one year, also felt the same. According to the story that she shared with her closest colleagues, renewal of her contract took unusually long, and when she sought explanation from Ms. Pasca-Palmer, she was told that, as an African, she should rather feel proud of herself to have worked in the UN, and not complain about the delay in the renewal of her contract.  Racism, much? Guterres and his spokespeople refuse to answer any Press questions, so corrupt are they. 3/ Ms. Pasca-Palmer takes things personal and her retaliation is immediate and ruthless. She seems to get gratification from humiliating and abusing any staff member who dares to question her actions and stand on her way. For example:  She abolished a division under the cover of restructuring just to punish the head of the division, D1. The D1, who has now lost her post, and eventually her job, had differences of views with regard to some of Ms. Pasca-Palmer's managerial actions that she took against the division and the staff. There was also another hidden motive by Ms. Pasca-Palmer when she abolished the division. Her decision to restructure part of the Secretariat came in September last year. At the same time, she was preparing a budget document to submit to COP 14 held in November last year in Egypt. The budget document included a request for a chief of staff post at a D1 level. She thought that the COP would approve her request as long as she used an existing D1 post. But the COP did not approve her request for a chief of staff. All other new positions she asked for, including a senior communication officer was rejected. Instead, the COP downgraded the D1 post vacated by the head of the defunct division. In the same vein, the senior legal officer who questioned some of Ms. Pasca-Palmer's judgement has now been effectively stripped of his role as the senior legal officer. She decided to abolish the legal unit and to change his reporting line, again, in the name of restructuring. A legal officer at P-3 level who was hired by Ms. Pasca-Palmer herself and who joined the Secretariat at the beginning of this year is now the de facto legal advisor of the Secretariat. He was supposed to report to the senior legal officer. However, as soon as he joined the Secretariat, he was instructed by Ms. Pasca-Palmer that he would report to her directly and he should not have any communication with the senior legal officer. His terms of reference is being revised and his post reclassified, accordingly. Like her former boss and to some extent similar to some of her predecessors, Ms. Pasca Palmer attaches highest priority to communication. The Secretariat has a well-qualified communication officer and a team. However, the officer did not seem to satisfy Ms. Pasca Palmer's wishes. He does not take orders without raising some pertinent questions. She did not like him for that. As a result, she striped him off his responsibility as the head of his team. She assigned her special advisor (who has no expertise on communication) as the head of the communication team and the communication officer is obliged to report to her. Ms. Pasca Palmer hired a communication consultant who is now doing (mostly remotely) much of the work that was traditionally been done by the communication officer and his team. This consultant who claims to be one of the members of the former Obama Administration communication team is now writing every speech that Ms. Pasca-Palmer delivers at different forums and, effectively, he is the de facto supervisor of the communication work of the Secretariat. Perhaps, owing to his experience working in a highly partisan political  environment, the speeches or other "communication materials that the communication consultant prepares lack relevance to biodiversity issues and miss political sensitivities. Last month, he made a presentation, on behalf of the Secretariat, on communication approaches and needs for the biodiversity framework beyond 2020, in a workshop held in Germany. Participants of the workshop were CBD parties and stakeholders from Western Europe and other developed countries. The participants were baffled when the presenter began his presentation by a quote from Winston Churchill's war time statement during Second World War. It was a pure demonstration of ignorance of UN values and arrogance for political sensitivities. One can also see his unfitness from his profanity filled Twitters trashing his political opponents which is antithesis to the values of the UN. Associating herself with such a person is another proof on the poor judgement of Ms. Pasca-Palmer. For Ms. Pasca-Palmer raising the biodiversity agenda means raising her personal and professional profile through flowery speeches and the use of social media to publicize all her high-level engagements. What she sees in the work of a communication officer is just colorful prose. Ms. Pasca-Palmer has been unhappy about the COP 14 budget decision that denied her all her requests for new positions, especially the one of chief of staff for herself. That is why, she is still trying to hire a chief of staff by all means. She is exploring all slant avenues despite the fact that the COP has rejected it and that Secretariat has about 80 regular staff, a size that does not justify the need for a chief of staff.  (iv)  4/ Like her former boss, Mr. Solheim, who allowed one of his senior managers to work (telecommute) from a location in a different continent for no justifiable and administratively defensible reason, Ms. Pasca-Palmer too designated one of her staff members as her special advisor and allowed her, for over a year now, to function from the United Nations office in New York for no clear organizational reason. The Secretariat pays for the frequent travel of the special advisor who shuttles between Montreal and New York. This is a cost on top of part of the salary that the Secretariat pays for one liaison officer placed in New York for the last several years and shared with the Secretariat of UNCCD.  5/ Like her former boss, Ms. Pasca-Palmer does not like to stay grounded in her Montreal office for more than few days and in rare cases, few weeks. She likes traveling. Her travel expenditure is high. She frequently modifies her itineraries at the last minute and as a consequence causing huge financial loss to the Secretariat. Mr. Pasca-Palmer knows also when would be a good time to go to certain places such as the one she had last summer to Southern African countries – the visit to the safaris and the diamond mining sitesil it was all well planned. The results of such travels range from nothing to negligible political visibility, while the costs are in tens of thousands of dollars, especially when accompanied by one or more people.  SCBD is currently in a difficult spot. It is expected to deliver so much during this biennium. Yet, the resignation of experienced staff members is continuing and the moral of the staff is at its lowest. Allowing the mismanagement to continue will be a huge disservice to the Parties of this important treaty which is at an important cross road, and to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Agenda of the UN and to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Urgent rectification is needed!"  This is Guterres' UN.



Saturday, July 2, 2016

Japan's Month Atop UN Security Council Has Next SG Straw Poll But No Burundi, No Yemen, No Prejudging of Western Sahara


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- When Japan's new Ambassador to the UN Koro Bessho held a press conference about the July program of work of the Security Council, which he'll preside over for the month, Inner City Press asked him about the Council's working methods. Video hereTweeted photo here.
Specifically, should non-Council members such as the chairs of Peacebuilding configurations be allowed into consultations? Can the press and public have more access?
   Bessho said the purpose of the debate on working methods on July 19 will be to hear the views of non-Council members. No outcome document is planned.
  Inner City Press also asked Bessho about Western Sahara, on the schedule for July 26, and about Burundi, not on the schedule at all. Bessho called Western Sahara, from which Morocco expelled more than 80 UN staff, sensitive and said he did not want to prejudge what will happen. 
On Burundi, he said he'd like to see progress, for example on the proposal of a UN deployment there, but acknowledged it is not on the schedule. Neither, we note, is Yemen.
   Eritrea is on the schedule, on July 20, but only as a matter of sanctions. Apparently the letters of June 14 and June 23 sent to French Ambassador Delattre when he was president were not acted on.
  On the selection process for the Next SG, Bessho said there will be a first “straw poll” on July 21; he said the results will be confidential. We'll see. For the Free UN Coalition for Access, Inner City Press asked for stakeouts after consultations, and more access and transparency. We'll be reviewing this closely. Watch this site.

Friday, March 18, 2016

US Says It's Seen Reports of North Korea Launch into Sea of Japan, Ready to Defend



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 17 --  Another month, another launch, another statement. The US State Department on the evening of March 17 said:

"We have seen reports that North Korea launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan. We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

"We call again on North Korea to refrain from actions that further raise tensions in the region and focus instead on taking concrete steps toward fulfilling its international commitments and obligations.

"The United States remains steadfast in its commitments to the defense of its allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan.  We will continue to coordinate closely with our allies and partners in the region."

  Back on February 25 in front of the UN Security Council, US Ambassador Samantha Power said, "There must be and there will be accountability for North Korea's actions." (But not for the UN's actions, apparently, see here and here and below).

  After changes were made to the draft -- dropping KOMID's listed representative in Russia, loosening the restrictions on aviation fuel in Paragraph 31 -- it was unanimously approved on March 2.

After the vote, Inner City Press asked Spanish Ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi to explain the amendment on aviation fuel.

Marchesi, who first tried to take no questions, replied to the side of the UNTV stakeout that the new Paragraph 31 is "stronger." Video here.

 But just to check that, here is the new Paragraph 31, which adds an exception:

"decides also that this provision shall not apply with respect to the sale or supply of aviation fuel to civilian passenger aircraft outside the DPRK exclusively for consumption during its flight to the DPRK and its return flight."

  So what to make of the statement that the adopted Paragraph 31 is "stronger" that the original Paragraph 31? We'll have more on this.

Ban rushed out a statement after the unanimous vote on North Korea. He is, wags say, running for President of South Korea. Meanwhile his failures in Sri Lanka are being highlighted again by his USG of DPI Cristina Gallach, Spain's highest UN official, throwing Inner City Press into the street, and trying to seize its desk and Resident Correspondent's accreditation, without any due process. There's been a protest, click here to view.

It is sometimes asked, what is the responsibility of a donor state which places one of its nationals into a politically-appointed job in the UN.  To ensure they answer questions? Non. But at least, to make sure they don't censor, and to do something if they do? We say Si.

 On February 29 (leap year), the following arrived on background:

"The United States has asked that the draft sanctions resolution on the DPRK be put in blue. We have requested that the Angolan presidency schedule the adoption for tomorrow after Security Council consultations on the March program of work, which will start at 3:00 p.m."

But then on March 1, this:

"Subsequent to the United States’ request to place the draft sanctions resolution on DPRK into blue and to schedule a Council vote for this afternoon, Russia invoked a procedural 24-hour review of the resolution, so the vote will be on Wednesday."

  On the afternoon of March 1, when the vote was to have taken place, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press, "Issues to take care of, we discussed them with the US delegation, I think they accommodated some of our concerns. Have they accommodated all of our concerns? not entirely. But you know, we are working for consensus of course.  You never get everything you want. It's very complicated text. It's a resolution that is necessary, which the Security Council need to adopt because of of certain
challenges coming from DRPK. So we'll see what happens tomorrow."

Churkin didn't answer on the coal or fuel provisions; it was unclear but as to one individual he said, “He is not even in Russia. We are surprised he appeared there in the first place.”

   Inner City Press notes, in the annex of the weekend's draft, one Jang Song Chol, listed as KOMID's representative in Russia...

 At a UNSC wrap up session earlier on February 29, Spain as chair of the DPRK sanctions commitee said it hopes for adoption as soon as possible.

 After the February 25 meeting, Power emerged and described the proposed new sanctions. Inner City Press asked, any humanitarian carve-out for example on the aviation fuel ban? No answer. (Japan did answer, below). Power as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

"Today in response to the DPRK’s recent nuclear test and subsequent proscribed missile launch, the United States tabled a draft security council resolution that, if adopted, would break new ground and represent the strongest set of sanctions imposed by the Security Council in more than two decades.

Let me explain some of the resolution’s major provisions. The first time in history, all cargo going in and out of the DPRK would be subjected to mandatory inspection. For the first time, all small arms and other conventional weapons would be prohibited to be sold to the DPRK.

In addition, this resolution would impose financial sanctions targeting DPRK banks and assets, and ban all who use nuclear and missile-related items. Also for the first time, the Security Council would impose sectoral sanctions on the DPRK, limiting and in some instances banning outright exports from the DPRK of coal, iron, gold, titanium, and rare earth minerals, and banning the supply to the DPRK of aviation fuel, including notably rocket fuel. These measures would also ground DPRK flights suspected of carrying contraband; suspicious vessels carrying illicit items would be denied access to ports.

These sanctions, if adopted, would send an unambiguous and unyielding message to the DPRK regime. The world will not accept your proliferation. There will be consequences for your actions. And we will work relentlessly and collectively to stop your nuclear program. If adopted, and implemented fully, these sanctions would constitute a major increase in pressure compared to the Council’s previous actions on DPRK. They have broader scope, and target more of the DPRK’s pressure points. They also have unprecedented interdiction provisions to make sure the other provisions get enforced. Most notable among them is mandatory inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK.

In addition, these sanctions would make it much harder for the DPRK to raise the funds, import the technology, and acquire the know-how to advance its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For more than a decade, in spite of the international community’s efforts, DPRK has taken progressive steps toward its declared goal of developing nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. The international community cannot allow the DPRK regime to achieve that goal. The United States will not allow that to happen."

  Inner City Press asked Japan's PR Motohide Yoshikawa the same question, if any humanitarian carve outs in the case of famine, for example. He said humanitarian concerns are "embedded" in the resolution, which he said he'd just seen.

 Could the US not have shared the draft with its UNSC ally Japan?

 French PR Francois Delattre, when asked on his way in what the strongest element in the draft is, said You will soon see. So he's seen it, but not Japan?

  And what of the pending free press outrage at the UN?

  As the UN Security Council's 11 am Sunday meeting began, French Ambassador Francois Delattre stood on the entrance steps making points in French and English. China's Ambassdor Liu Jieyi squeezed by the stairs and, when almost into the Council, turned and said, "We are greatly concerned, we are working with the Council." Video here.

After UN (formerly US) official Jeffrey Feltman briefed the Security Council behind closed doors, the Council agreed on a Press Statement, read out at the stakeout by Rafael Ramirez of Venezuela, President for February. Inner City Press tweeted a photo of the Press Statement, here; it says “the Security Council will adopt expeditiously a new Security Council resolution.”

  But on his way out, Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, “We haven't seen a text at all.” He said Russia would like to see a re-start of the Six Party Talks abut that “currently the atmosphere is such that the resumption of those talks is unlikely.”

   In a three way stakeout (complete with one question each from US, Japanese and Korean media), US Ambassador Power cited Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping's phone conversation, saying “they agreed on the importance of  a strong and united international response to North Korea’s illegal actions, including through an impactful UN Security Council resolution.”

   South Korea's Ambassador Oh Joon said, “about the missile defense, as you know the Republic of Korea and United States announced yesterday an alliance decision to improve the existing missile defense system. As the terminology first, this is missile defense system, which is defensive in nature. And it shouldn’t worry anyone else because this is focused on North Korea’s provocations and predicated on North Korea’s provocations.”

Before the meeting Japan's Ambassador Yoshikawa said it is time to use the pressure, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

Yoshikawa: Good morning. Thank you for coming on Sunday morning. We were very shocked at the DPRK has launched themissile despite the warning coming from many corners of the world. And thisis a clear violation of the past Security Council resolutions,  whether you call it a satellite or what. Using their missile technology is a clear violation of the UN security council resolutions, and it came after, four weeks after the nuclear test. So we hope that today the Council will make ourselves very clear that we cannot condone the acts, the violation of the Security Council resolutions by DORK. And it went over Japan, it landed near the Philippines. This is a clear threat to the lives of many people.

Q: You must be frustrated with China.

A: China was for more dialogue, I think. What we need is no longer the dialogue, but using the pressure to make understood the DPRK.

Q: What do you expect today?
A: We will be asking for expeditious, adoption of the robust Security Council resolution.

  Inner City Press has put the DPRK position online on Scribd, here.

  What about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon? Last time he met with his senior advisers -- all male -- then issued a statement. Then on February 5 he told a UNA-UK audience in London how important gender empowerment has been to him.

  If Ban is in fact running for President in South Korea, how will this help him? And any shadow over the US Super Bowl? Any (early) question in the GOP debate? We'll be following this.

Back on January 6 after North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

 After 1 pm, Security Council President for January Elbio Rosselli of Uruguay emerged and read out a Press Statement below. Japan's Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa spoke, and Inner City Press asked him of Ban's moves to visit DPRK. He replied that if such a trip emphasized UN resolutions including on human rights, it could be useful. Video here. But what WAS Ban's trip going to be about?

   Earlier, UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Accesscritiqued here.

Back on November 17, 2015 when Ri Hung Sik, Ambassador at-large of the Democratic People's Republic of Korean, held a press conference at the North Korean mission, he said that he had heard nothing, nothing at all, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visiting North Korea, which Yonhap ascribed to a senior UN source.

Even when asked a leading question about a hypothetical Ban trip, Ri Hung Sik said Ban's UN would have to improve its relations with DPRK. Inner City Press is putting the audio online here, and embedded below.

 Inner City Press ran back to the UN and asked Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press: here was just a press conference at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) mission, and there their minister, Ri Hung Sik, asked about the Secretary-General's possible reported trip, said he's heard nothing about it at all and that there are many rumours on the internet.  He also said that this South Korean national security law that makes it illegal for South Korean citizens to speak positively of the DPRK… that's how he described it… should be looked at by the UN.  So I wanted to know, what is the Secretary-General's view of that law?  And if that's an accurate description, is he bound by it?

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the law.  As far as Ban Ki-moon, he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations and is doing his duty as such.

   But why did Team Ban play it so coy on Yonhap's report? Now late on November 17, the UN has issued this more specific denial:

"In response to questions asked about a report from Xinhua and the Korean Central News Agency stating that the Secretary-General would be travelling to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea next week, the Spokesman had the following to say: The Secretary-General will not be travelling to the DPRK next week. He will be in New York most of the week and then travel to Malta for the Commonwealth Summit. From there, he will go to directly to Paris to attend CoP21. The Secretary-General has repeatedly said that he is willing to play any constructive role, including traveling to the DPRK, in an effort to work for peace, stability and dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."

  Before Inner City Press left the DPRK mission on November 17, it asked Ri Hung Sik for his view of UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and when or if UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid will visit North Korea.

  Of Darusman, Ri Hung Sik said he met him only once, and that it seems Darusman does not speak his own words, or think his own thoughts. Of Zeid, he said the discussion is of technical cooperation, but no date was given. Video here.

   During the press conference, there was no question, as at a prior DPRK press conference, about Donald Trump...

Thursday, November 19, 2015

In UN Rights Committee, Syria, Iran and North Korea Resolutions Pass Amid Complaints and Quibbles



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- When the annual Syria human rights resolution was taken up in the UN General Assembly's Third Committee on November 19, Saudi Arabia's new draft had some wrinkles, including citing Iran's IRG and Al Quds Force. Several countries, even some which voted “yes” on the resolution, said they were uncomfortable with this, that it is a bad precedent, and is more politics than human rights. This last was Switzerland; Japan said it was not comfortable with the reference to the IRG and Quds Force, but voted yes.

  Lebanon's Nawaf Salam said he had abstained, and pointed out that Hezbollah is in the parliament, and has a role with regard to Israel. Canada spoke up to say the resolution should have condemn all uses of chlorine gas, not only “indiscriminate” use.

  The final vote was 115 yes, 15 no and 51 abstaining. But before the vote, the Permanent Representatives of Syria and Saudi Arabia traded speeches. Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari mocked the Saudi-drafted paragraph about participation by women, and questioned a quotation of UN enovy Staffan de Mistura that most death are caused by aerial bombardment.

  Earlier on November 19, after a briefing to the General Assembly that was inexplicably closed to the press and public -- previous such briefings, under previous Presidents of the GA, have been open -- de Mistura took three questions from reporters. As selected by the PGA's spokesperson, there were Kurdish media, AP and the New York Times. Inner City Press' shouted out questions, why was this meeting closed, was not answered. At the day's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked, transcript here:

Inner City Press: The meeting that's being held on Syria, the meeting by Mr. de Mistura, I'm just going to ask why it's closed.  I'm thinking you might say because it's an informal meeting.  Then I'm going to say previous informals were open, like when Kofi Annan as envoy briefed under previous PGA; who makes the decision?

Spokesman Dujarric:  That's a question for the organizers of the meeting.

Inner City Press:  Unless, of course, did Mr. de Mistura make the request?  I’m asking.

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not aware that he did.

  But the question was not answered. The North Korea resolution passed 112 yes, 19 no and 50 abstaining. Iran got more support: 76 yes, 35 no and 68 abstaining. We'll have more on these.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

UNcontested, Japan, Uruguay, Senegal, Ukraine & Egypt Get Seats, ICP Qs All 5


By Matthew Russell Lee


UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- In an election without competition for five UN Security Council seats, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay, Senegal and Ukraine all won two year terms of the Security Council on Thursday.

Senegal was the top vote-getter, with 187, followed by Uruguay with 185. Japan got 184 votes and Egypt 179. Ukraine got 177.

   Before the voting, President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft told the media what NOT to photograph. But even avoiding the ballots, there were bags by Uruguay, a small soccer or football, a blue swag bag. Many came to greet Egypt's foreign minister at his seat; Ukraine's Pavlo Klimko was in the front row. Japan stayed calm in the back. DPRK sat alone.

 After the vote at the stakeout, Inner City Press asked Egypt's foreign minister Shoukri about Libya. He said Egypt supports UN Envoy Leon's deal and the legitimate government, the House of Representatives. But what about the GNC in Tripoli? 

  Inner City Press asked Senegal's foreign minister about Burundi -- he cited deference to regional groupings -- and Yemen. Inner City Press asked if Senegal offered troops to Saudi Arabia. Yes, but not deployed to Yemen, he said. Video here, embedded below

  Inner City Press asked Uruguay about Haiti - they are committed - 

and Ukraine's Pavlo Klimkin about MH17 (natch).  


Inner City Press asked Japan's Permanent Representative if changes to his country's military defense law will impact its positions in the Security Council and on Peacekeeping.

More on all this soon.

 
  

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Inner City Press Asks Japan Foreign Ministry Spokesperson of New Defense Law, Is Told of Rescuing NGOs, Tops Posts Wanted



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 --  What is the impact of Japan's new defense law and policy on its participation in UN Peacekeeping? Inner City Press posed the question on September 26 to the spokesperson of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yasuhisa Kawamura. Video here.

 He gave the example of soldiers now being able to rescue NGOs. On a separate question from Inner City Press about whether Japan wants (and feels it deserve) more UN top posts, he replied in the affirmative, but declined to say which one(s). Japan once held UNHCR, the refugee agency. And now?

  Earlier on September 26 Japan, India, Germany and Brazil met about UN Security Council reform. Afterward they said:

"Joint Press Statement at the Meeting of Leaders of the G-4 countries- Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - on United Nations Security Council Reform
September 26, 2015

On 26 September 2015, H.E. Mr. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, invited H.E. Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, H.E. Ms. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and H.E. Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, for a G-4 meeting in New York.

The G-4 leaders stressed that a more representative, legitimate and effective Security Council is needed more than ever to address the global conflicts and crises, which had spiraled in recent years. They shared the view that this can be achieved by reflecting the realities of the international community in the 21st century, where more Member States have the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to maintenance of international peace and security.

In this context, the leaders noted with concern that no substantial progress had been made since the 2005 World Summit where all the Heads of State and Government had unanimously supported the "early reform” of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations. They strongly emphasized that the process underway in the UN to bring about the reform of the Security Council should be conducted, given its urgency, in a fixed time frame.

The leaders paid tribute to the dynamic leadership of the President of the 69th General Assembly and the efforts of the Chair of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) in moving the IGN process towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed the adoption by consensus of the General Assembly Decision 69/560 to use the text presented by the President of the 69th General Assembly in his letter dated 31 July 2015 as the basis for negotiations within the IGN. They also pledged to support and cooperate with the President of the 70th General Assembly.

The leaders also noted with appreciation the efforts of Member States in moving towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed, in particular, the efforts undertaken by the Member States of the African Group, CARICOM and the L.69 Group. They supported Africa’s representation in both the permanent and non-permanent membership in the Security Council. They also noted the importance of adequate and continuing representation of small and medium sized Member States, including the Small Island Developing States, in an expanded and reformed Council.

The leaders emphasized that the G-4 countries are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded and reformed Council and supported each other’s candidature. They also reaffirmed their resolve to continue contributing to the fulfillment of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. They pledged to work together with all Member States and to accelerate outreach towards achieving an early and meaningful reform of the Security Council. They expressed determination to redouble their efforts towards securing concrete outcomes during the 70th session of the General Assembly."

  We'll see.

  Back on September 23, India's Ambassador to the UN Ashoke Mukerje replied that India would like Troop Contributing Countries to be consulted more meaningfully, citing Article 44 of the UN Charter; he emphasized India's skilled personnel and the protection of civilians.  Inner City Press asked about DPKO boss Ladsous' comments linking rapes to “R&R,” Mukerje's earlier response is below. There were questions, then and at a subsequently briefing, about Pakistan.

 On September 25 after Modi met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon -- Modi gave Ban this book, here, by Ashoke Mukurje -- the UN issued a read out that mentioned Sri Lanka and Nepal, but BUT Pakistan:

"The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Republic of India. They focused their discussion on the importance of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular with reference to climate change.   The Secretary-General emphasised the need for climate change finance as a key to building trust between developed and developing countries.  He underlined the tremendous importance of India's role in renewable energy, and encouraged the Prime Minister to continue to show strong global leadership on this issue.  

"The Secretary-General commended India for its indispensable contribution to UN peacekeeping.  He also underlined India's influential role in supporting the democratic transitions in both Nepal and Sri Lanka."

  We'll have more on this.

  (The venue of Modi's meeting with Obama is not yet clear; the G4 Summit will occur Saturday September 26 at 8 am in the Waldorf, after which Modi heads to the West Coast including, yes, Facebook.

The buzz at the Indian press conference was how large the (Empire) room was, and of Modi staying in what used to be Obama's and other US Presidents' suite.)

When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it more than a year ago, theUN and UNICEF did nothing, until French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower Anders Kompass in March of this year, as stated in two UN Dispute Tribunal rulings.

  On September 11, refusing to answer on this, Ladsous instead linked the rapes to soldiers' lack of "distraction" and saying rapes could be avoided by some "relatively cheap R&R," and adding that some "South Asia"Troop Contributing Countries do just that. Video here.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked the Permanent Representative of India, Asoke K Mukerji, and his Deputy Bhagwant Bishnoi about what Ladsous said. Video here. First, Bhagwant Bishnoi distinguished India from what Ladsous said, saying they only rotate troops in the most difficult circumstances. In some, one a year, if more volatile, more often.

  Then Ambassador Mukerji said clear, India's is a professional army, not a part time army, there are no "R&R" trips and that is for whoever said it to explain. Video here.

  That would be Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions. He took no questions as he rushed out of the Security Council on September 17.

 (India's Prime Minister will participate in the high level meeting on peacekeeping on September 28, which we'll cover.)

 On September 17, the UN Mission in CAR, MINUSCA, issued this statement now about a pornographic film involving peacekeepers:

"The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) is deeply concerned at reports of a pornographic film circulating in the city of Batangafo, center-west of the Central African Republic, which allegedly involves peacekeepers.

"MINUSCA immediately took steps to try to verify these disturbing allegations. To this end, MINUSCA met with the Mayor and the Deputy Prefect of the locality, and with representative of the local population.

"A fact finding mission also visited Kabo, about 55 km from Batangafo, to raise the issue with the Mayor and the Deputy Prefect and members of the local community.

"To date, MINUSCA’s contacts with the authorities and local residents have not provided any evidence to substantiate the allegations of a film involving UN personnel.  However, the Mission is committed to establishing the truth and requests that anyone in possession of evidence to substantiate these allegations should submit this to the Mission’s attention. This may be done via any MINUSCA office.

"MINUSCA would like to reiterate its strict adherence to the United Nations’ zero tolerance policy with regard to all acts of misconduct and sexual exploitation and abuse."

  One wag said, once Ladsous linked rapes to recreation, this should not be surprising.

  On September 15 MINUSCA disclosed yet another "allegation of sexual exploitation committed by one of its civilian staff."

  Inner City Press on September 15 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video heretranscript here:

Inner City Press:  Since Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous said that one of the reasons these abuses take place is people don't leave the country and go for R&R elsewhere for recreation, one could say, how long has the person been in the country?

Spokesman:  Matthew, I think… I think you continue to gain great pleasure in distorting what Mr. Ladsous said…

Inner City Press:  You can read the transcript.  He said…

Spokesman:  Listen, I think you raised that issue yesterday.  I answered clearly this is a case… a possible case of sexual abuse, which is to be condemned and which will be pursued as far as we can, both internally and with the relevant judicial authorities.

Inner City Press:  How long has it been since the person left the country?  The reason I ask is that he made the linkage.  He's the one that brought up people traveling…  [Cross talk - actually, talk over, by scribes]

Spokesman:  Matthew, I will say this one last time.  Civilian staff and military staff work under two different regimes.  So you're… to compare soldiers that have been in-country in very difficult circumstances for three years and civilian staff is not to be comparable.  Yes, ma'am?

  Later on September 15, Dujarric declined a Press question about what Ladsous said, ironically during a Reditt "Ask Me Anything" session. Ask Me Anything, except...

  On September 14, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about what Ladsous had said, similar to comment which as noted below have gotten other military officials fired, even after they apologized. (Ladsous has not apologized, clarified, or answered any Press questions.) September 14 video heretranscript here:

Inner City Press: I'd wanted to ask you this on Friday or Mr. Ladsous, but I want to ask you, from this podium, he said, in discussing rapes, he said that peacekeepers there don't have enough recreation, that they don't have enough comfort.  He said that they are looking into getting them flights to get them fresh air, and although he did use the word, he's not excusing it.  I'm going to tell, many people saw this as basically a statement that somehow linking the rapes to a lack of other distractions…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think… I think it's a complete misinterpretation of what Mr. Ladsous said.  He stressed a number of times that there was no excuse...

Inner City Press:  Then what about the flights?  I'm sorry.

Spokesman:  I'm a little over-caffeinated with me today so just bear with me.  He repeatedly said that there was no excuse for rape.  Okay.  That is clear.  That is UN policy, and I think that's everyone's policy.  There is no excuse for rape.  What he said in talking about the case of one contingent that had been deployed in basically a very hardship peacekeeping operation for more than three years.  When troops are not rotated, when troops don't have an opportunity to be rotated out for [rest and recuperation] and that's true for any armed forces, it creates the conditions where there can be all sorts of abuse or other things developing.  It is not an excuse for rape.  And I think it's clear that we have seen rape and horrendous sexual abuse by soldiers in many parts of the world.  Some of them come from very rich armies.  Some come from very poor armies.  There is no excuse.  What he was saying and I think people would agree with it, that three years for any contingent being stationed in very difficult circumstances is too long.

Inner City Press:  I guess what I want to say, US military, an admiral in the Pacific was fired for comments exactly like that for which the person… the person excused himself and apologized… he said distraction, comfort.

Spokesman:  Matthew, Matthew.  I read what you wrote.  I'm aware of the other case.  I think they're complete… they're not comparable.

Inner City Press:  Where are the flights going?  Where are the [rest and recuperation] flights going? 

Spokesman:  I will come back…

  Back in 1995 for similar comments, US Admiral Richard C. Macke was fired, as reported in the LA Times and the New York Times, which said Macke "apologized after members of Congress and Japanese officials complained, but it was too late.... A senior White House official said tonight that Anthony Lake, the national security adviser, had heard of Admiral Macke's remarks and told the Defense Department that the statements were 'not acceptable.'"

  Anthony Lake is now in the UN system, as the head of UNICEF - does he think UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' similar comments in 2015 are acceptable? Or does he, apparently like his and some other major member states, hope no one notices what Ladsous says and, worse, does?

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has yet to act. Nor have Ladsous' French sponsors, who dumped him on the UN after he'd previously beenrejected for the post by Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan, said anything.

 When Inner City Press started asking about this, Ladsous took to saying"I don't respond to you, Mister," right on UNTV. Instead he summoned Agence France Presse, Reuters and others to private briefings, as here in the hall. These media didn't report Ladsous' antics -- nor despite being present at Ladsous' September 11 press conference did they report his linkage of soldiers' rapes to their lack of "comfort" or R&R. This is today's UN.

  It was Senegalese Babacar Gaye, the head of the CAR mission, and not overall Peacekeeping chief Ladsous who was fired by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; Inner City Press obtained and put Gaye's letter online here (credited here and here) citing systemic problems.

  Before Ladsous' carefully controlled four day visit to the country - no questions on the peacekeeper rapes, colonial photographs sent out - UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press, which asked, that Ladsous would take questions when he returned, including about peacekeepers' sexual abuse.

But when Ladsous appeared at the September 11 UN noon briefing, UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric for the second time did not allow Inner City Press to ask Ladsous a single question. 
Dujarric gave the first question to the UN Correspondents Association, which after a perfunctory questions about the number of sexual abuse cases said its “real” question was if Ladsous will meet Obama. (Yes, apparently, and inappropriately, see below). Video here.

  Inner City Press prepared to ask Ladsous an obvious question: what is his response to appearing in at least two UN Dispute Tribunal rulings as having tried to get the whistleblower Kompass fired? But Dujarric gave the second question to a Reuters reporter who has previously channeled Ladsous, then to Agence France Presse, whose UN reporter in 2011 asked UNCA's board to act on Inner City Press' reporting on Ladsous.

Even with the questions allowed, Ladsous' answers should get him fired. First, speaking of sexual abuse, he said he didn't want to “deflower” the subject. Vine here. Then explaining the peacekeepers' rapes he said that a solution would be to get them more “recreation” (translating back and forth with Dujarric, Ladsous began to say “R and R”).

  Ladsous was asked, what do you mean? He said that Asian countries are good at this. We'll have more, but on top of his role in covering up rapes in DR CongoDarfur and now CAR, this should get Ladsous fired. More here.
   

On UN Security Council Reform, G-4 Vows to Redouble Efforts, After Modi-Convened Meeting



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 --  India has been the largest contributor to UN Peacekeeping -- 185,000 troops in 44 of the UN's total of 69 missions -- so Inner City Press on September 23 at the Waldorf Astoria after the arrival of Indian Prime Minister Modi asked what India is looking for from the Peacekeeping summit Modi will attend on September 28.

 But before Peacekeeping, India invited Japan, Germany and Brazil to meet on September 26 about UN Security Council reform. Afterward they said:

"Joint Press Statement at the Meeting of Leaders of the G-4 countries- Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - on United Nations Security Council Reform
September 26, 2015

On 26 September 2015, H.E. Mr. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, invited H.E. Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, H.E. Ms. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and H.E. Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, for a G-4 meeting in New York.

The G-4 leaders stressed that a more representative, legitimate and effective Security Council is needed more than ever to address the global conflicts and crises, which had spiraled in recent years. They shared the view that this can be achieved by reflecting the realities of the international community in the 21st century, where more Member States have the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to maintenance of international peace and security.

In this context, the leaders noted with concern that no substantial progress had been made since the 2005 World Summit where all the Heads of State and Government had unanimously supported the "early reform” of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations. They strongly emphasized that the process underway in the UN to bring about the reform of the Security Council should be conducted, given its urgency, in a fixed time frame.

The leaders paid tribute to the dynamic leadership of the President of the 69th General Assembly and the efforts of the Chair of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) in moving the IGN process towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed the adoption by consensus of the General Assembly Decision 69/560 to use the text presented by the President of the 69th General Assembly in his letter dated 31 July 2015 as the basis for negotiations within the IGN. They also pledged to support and cooperate with the President of the 70th General Assembly.

The leaders also noted with appreciation the efforts of Member States in moving towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed, in particular, the efforts undertaken by the Member States of the African Group, CARICOM and the L.69 Group. They supported Africa’s representation in both the permanent and non-permanent membership in the Security Council. They also noted the importance of adequate and continuing representation of small and medium sized Member States, including the Small Island Developing States, in an expanded and reformed Council.

The leaders emphasized that the G-4 countries are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded and reformed Council and supported each other’s candidature. They also reaffirmed their resolve to continue contributing to the fulfillment of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. They pledged to work together with all Member States and to accelerate outreach towards achieving an early and meaningful reform of the Security Council. They expressed determination to redouble their efforts towards securing concrete outcomes during the 70th session of the General Assembly."

  We'll see.

  Back on September 23, India's Ambassador to the UN Ashoke Mukerje replied that India would like Troop Contributing Countries to be consulted more meaningfully, citing Article 44 of the UN Charter; he emphasized India's skilled personnel and the protection of civilians.  Inner City Press asked about DPKO boss Ladsous' comments linking rapes to “R&R,” Mukerje's earlier response is below. There were questions, then and at a subsequently briefing, about Pakistan.

 On September 25 after Modi met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon -- Modi gave Ban this book, here, by Ashoke Mukurje -- the UN issued a read out that mentioned Sri Lanka and Nepal, but BUT Pakistan:

"The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Republic of India. They focused their discussion on the importance of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular with reference to climate change.   The Secretary-General emphasised the need for climate change finance as a key to building trust between developed and developing countries.  He underlined the tremendous importance of India's role in renewable energy, and encouraged the Prime Minister to continue to show strong global leadership on this issue.  

"The Secretary-General commended India for its indispensable contribution to UN peacekeeping.  He also underlined India's influential role in supporting the democratic transitions in both Nepal and Sri Lanka."

  We'll have more on this.

  (The venue of Modi's meeting with Obama is not yet clear; the G4 Summit will occur Saturday September 26 at 8 am in the Waldorf, after which Modi heads to the West Coast including, yes, Facebook.

The buzz at the Indian press conference was how large the (Empire) room was, and of Modi staying in what used to be Obama's and other US Presidents' suite.)

When peacekeepers from France allegedly raped children in the Central African Republic and the UN learned about it more than a year ago, theUN and UNICEF did nothing, until French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous asked to fire the whistleblower Anders Kompass in March of this year, as stated in two UN Dispute Tribunal rulings.

  On September 11, refusing to answer on this, Ladsous instead linked the rapes to soldiers' lack of "distraction" and saying rapes could be avoided by some "relatively cheap R&R," and adding that some "South Asia"Troop Contributing Countries do just that. Video here.

 On September 17, Inner City Press asked the Permanent Representative of India, Asoke K Mukerji, and his Deputy Bhagwant Bishnoi about what Ladsous said. Video here. First, Bhagwant Bishnoi distinguished India from what Ladsous said, saying they only rotate troops in the most difficult circumstances. In some, one a year, if more volatile, more often.

  Then Ambassador Mukerji said clear, India's is a professional army, not a part time army, there are no "R&R" trips and that is for whoever said it to explain. Video here.

  That would be Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions. He took no questions as he rushed out of the Security Council on September 17.

 (India's Prime Minister will participate in the high level meeting on peacekeeping on September 28, which we'll cover.)

 On September 17, the UN Mission in CAR, MINUSCA, issued this statement now about a pornographic film involving peacekeepers:

"The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) is deeply concerned at reports of a pornographic film circulating in the city of Batangafo, center-west of the Central African Republic, which allegedly involves peacekeepers.

"MINUSCA immediately took steps to try to verify these disturbing allegations. To this end, MINUSCA met with the Mayor and the Deputy Prefect of the locality, and with representative of the local population.

"A fact finding mission also visited Kabo, about 55 km from Batangafo, to raise the issue with the Mayor and the Deputy Prefect and members of the local community.

"To date, MINUSCA’s contacts with the authorities and local residents have not provided any evidence to substantiate the allegations of a film involving UN personnel.  However, the Mission is committed to establishing the truth and requests that anyone in possession of evidence to substantiate these allegations should submit this to the Mission’s attention. This may be done via any MINUSCA office.

"MINUSCA would like to reiterate its strict adherence to the United Nations’ zero tolerance policy with regard to all acts of misconduct and sexual exploitation and abuse."

  One wag said, once Ladsous linked rapes to recreation, this should not be surprising.

  On September 15 MINUSCA disclosed yet another "allegation of sexual exploitation committed by one of its civilian staff."

  Inner City Press on September 15 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, video heretranscript here:

Inner City Press:  Since Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous said that one of the reasons these abuses take place is people don't leave the country and go for R&R elsewhere for recreation, one could say, how long has the person been in the country?

Spokesman:  Matthew, I think… I think you continue to gain great pleasure in distorting what Mr. Ladsous said…

Inner City Press:  You can read the transcript.  He said…

Spokesman:  Listen, I think you raised that issue yesterday.  I answered clearly this is a case… a possible case of sexual abuse, which is to be condemned and which will be pursued as far as we can, both internally and with the relevant judicial authorities.

Inner City Press:  How long has it been since the person left the country?  The reason I ask is that he made the linkage.  He's the one that brought up people traveling…  [Cross talk - actually, talk over, by scribes]

Spokesman:  Matthew, I will say this one last time.  Civilian staff and military staff work under two different regimes.  So you're… to compare soldiers that have been in-country in very difficult circumstances for three years and civilian staff is not to be comparable.  Yes, ma'am?

  Later on September 15, Dujarric declined a Press question about what Ladsous said, ironically during a Reditt "Ask Me Anything" session. Ask Me Anything, except...

  On September 14, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about what Ladsous had said, similar to comment which as noted below have gotten other military officials fired, even after they apologized. (Ladsous has not apologized, clarified, or answered any Press questions.) September 14 video heretranscript here:

Inner City Press: I'd wanted to ask you this on Friday or Mr. Ladsous, but I want to ask you, from this podium, he said, in discussing rapes, he said that peacekeepers there don't have enough recreation, that they don't have enough comfort.  He said that they are looking into getting them flights to get them fresh air, and although he did use the word, he's not excusing it.  I'm going to tell, many people saw this as basically a statement that somehow linking the rapes to a lack of other distractions…

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think… I think it's a complete misinterpretation of what Mr. Ladsous said.  He stressed a number of times that there was no excuse...

Inner City Press:  Then what about the flights?  I'm sorry.

Spokesman:  I'm a little over-caffeinated with me today so just bear with me.  He repeatedly said that there was no excuse for rape.  Okay.  That is clear.  That is UN policy, and I think that's everyone's policy.  There is no excuse for rape.  What he said in talking about the case of one contingent that had been deployed in basically a very hardship peacekeeping operation for more than three years.  When troops are not rotated, when troops don't have an opportunity to be rotated out for [rest and recuperation] and that's true for any armed forces, it creates the conditions where there can be all sorts of abuse or other things developing.  It is not an excuse for rape.  And I think it's clear that we have seen rape and horrendous sexual abuse by soldiers in many parts of the world.  Some of them come from very rich armies.  Some come from very poor armies.  There is no excuse.  What he was saying and I think people would agree with it, that three years for any contingent being stationed in very difficult circumstances is too long.

Inner City Press:  I guess what I want to say, US military, an admiral in the Pacific was fired for comments exactly like that for which the person… the person excused himself and apologized… he said distraction, comfort.

Spokesman:  Matthew, Matthew.  I read what you wrote.  I'm aware of the other case.  I think they're complete… they're not comparable.

Inner City Press:  Where are the flights going?  Where are the [rest and recuperation] flights going? 

Spokesman:  I will come back…

  Back in 1995 for similar comments, US Admiral Richard C. Macke was fired, as reported in the LA Times and the New York Times, which said Macke "apologized after members of Congress and Japanese officials complained, but it was too late.... A senior White House official said tonight that Anthony Lake, the national security adviser, had heard of Admiral Macke's remarks and told the Defense Department that the statements were 'not acceptable.'"

  Anthony Lake is now in the UN system, as the head of UNICEF - does he think UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' similar comments in 2015 are acceptable? Or does he, apparently like his and some other major member states, hope no one notices what Ladsous says and, worse, does?

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has yet to act. Nor have Ladsous' French sponsors, who dumped him on the UN after he'd previously beenrejected for the post by Ban's predecessor Kofi Annan, said anything.

 When Inner City Press started asking about this, Ladsous took to saying"I don't respond to you, Mister," right on UNTV. Instead he summoned Agence France Presse, Reuters and others to private briefings, as here in the hall. These media didn't report Ladsous' antics -- nor despite being present at Ladsous' September 11 press conference did they report his linkage of soldiers' rapes to their lack of "comfort" or R&R. This is today's UN.

  It was Senegalese Babacar Gaye, the head of the CAR mission, and not overall Peacekeeping chief Ladsous who was fired by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; Inner City Press obtained and put Gaye's letter online here (credited here and here) citing systemic problems.

  Before Ladsous' carefully controlled four day visit to the country - no questions on the peacekeeper rapes, colonial photographs sent out - UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press, which asked, that Ladsous would take questions when he returned, including about peacekeepers' sexual abuse.

But when Ladsous appeared at the September 11 UN noon briefing, UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric for the second time did not allow Inner City Press to ask Ladsous a single question. 
Dujarric gave the first question to the UN Correspondents Association, which after a perfunctory questions about the number of sexual abuse cases said its “real” question was if Ladsous will meet Obama. (Yes, apparently, and inappropriately, see below). Video here.

  Inner City Press prepared to ask Ladsous an obvious question: what is his response to appearing in at least two UN Dispute Tribunal rulings as having tried to get the whistleblower Kompass fired? But Dujarric gave the second question to a Reuters reporter who has previously channeled Ladsous, then to Agence France Presse, whose UN reporter in 2011 asked UNCA's board to act on Inner City Press' reporting on Ladsous.

Even with the questions allowed, Ladsous' answers should get him fired. First, speaking of sexual abuse, he said he didn't want to “deflower” the subject. Vine here. Then explaining the peacekeepers' rapes he said that a solution would be to get them more “recreation” (translating back and forth with Dujarric, Ladsous began to say “R and R”).

  Ladsous was asked, what do you mean? He said that Asian countries are good at this. We'll have more, but on top of his role in covering up rapes in DR CongoDarfur and now CAR, this should get Ladsous fired. More here.