On UN Peacekeeping, India's PR Ashoke Mukerji Contrasts DRC Force Intervention Brigade, Ambivalent South Sudan, Defensive Golan: Reform Needed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 25 -- When the UN Committee on Peacekeeping began on February 24, Indian Permanent Representative Asoke Mukerji asked a poignant question: "If there are casualties among the traditional peacekeepers from action by armed groups in MONUSCO, due to this ill-conceived dual mandate approved by the Security Council, who, Madam Chairperson, will be accountable?"

Mukerji was referring to the "Force Intervention Brigade" which deployed attack helicopters in Eastern Congo against the M23 (but not yet the Hutu FDLR militia), and the unanswered question about whether its inclusion inside the MONUSCO mission makes all peacekeepers there "combatants" or parties to an armed conflict for purposes of international law.

  The UN Department of Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous had refused to answer this question; Ladsous himself refuses to answer Press questions after Inner City Press reported on his statements and actions as French Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the Rwanda genocide in 1994, see sample document here.

  Should UN Peacekeeping be run, four times in a row now, by a country with a long colonial history in Africa, where most of the missions are? That type of question should be addressed in this C-34 committee, but isn't.

  Still, Mukerji's speech stood out, contrasting the "robust attack posture advocated in DRC, the ambivalent posture evident in South Sudan, and the defensive posture in the Golan." Ambivalent is a deft word; may the Indian peacekeepers killed in Akobo in South Sudan in December 2013 rest in peace, and have died for something, including needed reforms in UN Peacekeeping. Watch this site.

   

For South Sudan, Ladsous Cited Half Regiment from Haiti, UN Wouldn't Answer, Morocco Follow Ups

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- Even in South Sudan, the lack of transparency by UN Peacekeeping does not serve it. On December 30, Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous admonished South Sudan to not put in "caveat" on accepting troops from any country.

Though Ladsous didn't name the country -- for reasons that soon became obvious -- and later in the week UN spokesperson Farhan Haq declined to specify any country being considered for South Sudan, later on December 30 at the UN Mission of an African (and troop contributing) country Inner City Press was told Ladsous was trying to push into South Sudan peacekeeping from Morocco. Click here for more on that.

  After telling Inner City Press "I don't answer you Mister," Ladsous dodged about the impact of shifting peacekeepers out of Darfur, where two had just been killed, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Then he mentioned, for South Sudan, "half a regiment" from the MINUSTAH mission in Haiti. UN Video here, from Minute 3:09.

  Now, which country's half-regiment could that be? Questions have been asked, particularly in light of UN Peacekeeping's dubious record in Haiti: the introduction of cholera, multiple cases of sexual abuse or exploitation, nearly always followed by mere repatriation and no update on any discipline meted out, for example in the case of repatriated Sri Lanka peacekeepers.

  The website of the UNMISS mission in South Sudan lists fully 55 countries as contributing peacekeepers (Morocco notably is NOT among them) and some additional countries contributing UN Police, including Zimbabwe.

On January 2 Inner City Press asked UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Yes, Farhan. I wanted to ask you two questions about peacekeeping in South Sudan. One is that, it’s reported that India is unhappy with not being consulted in some of the ways their peacekeepers were used and intends to send its own military team to meet with its peacekeepers there. I wanted to know, separately, [Permanent Representative Asoke Kumar] Mukerji has, over the holidays, said that the Force Intervention Brigade may put peacekeepers in danger. What’s your response to that? And also, if you could confirm, I’ve heard that the UN wants to send Moroccan peacekeepers to South Sudan and they’re pushing back. And one of their reasons for pushing back is that Morocco is not a member of the African Union due to the Western Sahara. And I wanted if it’s DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) position that countries don’t have a right to have a sort of principled, political stand on why they wouldn’t take peacekeepers? Or should they take anyone that DPKO sends?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, we wouldn’t comment on the specifics of how we’re trying to bring more peacekeepers in. We, as you know, are in touch with a number of Member States trying to build up the forces, as was approved by the Security Council. And when we have details of which countries are coming in, we’ll provide those details at that point. But, I don’t have any specific names to give up until more arrivals come in.

Inner City Press: I ask that only because Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous at the stakeout made a big point of saying, it’s not… when the house is on fire, anyone must be taken. So, I just wanted to know, can you say… is that the UN’s position? That even if there’s a political, principled stated reason not to take them… that wouldn’t… that should be overridden?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: For us, the priority is to get as many peacekeepers in as we can. They’ve been authorized by the Security Council. We’re trying to get the right numbers in order to stop the bloodshed as soon as we possibly can. So, that’s our priority. But, if we have any specific announcements to make about different countries joining in, we’ll make it at that point. But, that’s not ready at this stage.

Inner City Press: And on India?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: I wouldn’t have any comment on that. Is that it? Okay? Pam?

Correspondent: Hi, Farhan. I’d like to just correct the record that was established at this briefing a few weeks ago that the UN Correspondents’ Association has not… does not have any new Samsung TV sets in the room, never has had and has never accepted any donation or loan from the UN for Samsung TVs. Thank you.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: Yeah, thanks. I’m in receipt of aletter from the United Nations Correspondent’s Association, which says, which does read: “Please be advised that there are no new Samsung TV sets in the UNCA room and have never been. And the UN Correspondents’ Association has not accepted a donation or loan of new Samsung TVs”. Thanks for that update. We’ll try to get any updated guidance about the language that we had earlier received. Yes?

Inner City Press: Because I’m thinking maybe you’ll correct the transcript on the answer that was given to me in writing about the television. If so, do you have any response about the note verbale that was filed by Syria that we previously discussed here?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: No, there’s no response to that at present. But, yes, if there’s any fresh language on the language that was given to you, we’ll try to correct the record here. Yes, Lou?

Watch this site.

   

UN Budget Session Ends With Whimper, No Ban Ki-moon Answers, No Mobility, Little Oversight

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 27, updated three times -- As the UN Budget session came to a close on December 27, after failing to reach the ritual late night agreement just before Christmas, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's proposal for "mobility" in working for the UN was still not approved.

  South Korea took the floor to bemoan the failure to enact Ban's plan. But others noted that since Ban has kept a number of his closest advisers with him in New York well past the promised five year maximum, why should mobility be enforced on other, lower-ranking staff?

  Click here and here for Inner City Press coverage of the UN budget this week, here for the circus of the UN Staff Union election.

  Often the final votes of the Fifth (Budget) Committee take place at dawn directly after a full night of negotiating. This time is was more hum-drum, a normal 10 am meeting with the normal speeches. Syria trashed the UN's envoy on Lebanon, calling him pro-Israel. (The name "Terje Roed-Larsen" was not said, but it was there.)

  Canada and Israel made a point of saying they do not recognize "the State of Palestine," on a resolution allowing Palestine to contribute to the UN budget as does the Vatican or Holy See.

  Cuba called for a vote on an amendment to note that for Responsibility to Protect, as Nicaragua put it, there is no "inter-governmental mandate." Thirteen other countries voted this way, including Sudan; fully 51 abstained, including South Africa, Thailand and Mali. Sri Lanka did not vote at all on this.

  Sri Lanka did, however, lead negotiations on the budget of the UN mission in Mali. Given the country's attempt to use its chairmanship of the UN's Sixth (Legal) Committee to cast the 2009 Bloodbath on the Beach as counter-terrorism, this was perhaps the connection. Or not.

  Qatar, speaking on a Center for Training and Documentation in Southwest Asia, bragged how much it supports human rights. But what about those recent reports on the deaths of migrant worlds building for the World Cup? What about LGBT? About about the poet jailed for his subversive poem?

  Nor does the UN care much for freedom of speech or of the press. Yesterday Inner City Press covered the silence of the UN Mission in South Sudan while Salva Kiir's information minister cracked down on the media, here. 

  This morning, Inner City Press exposed the misuse of the US Millennium Digital Copyright Act to "disappear" from Google a copy of Reuters' bureau chief's complaint to the UN trying to get Inner City Press thrown out. Copyright, indeed.

The session ended with the chairman, Finnish Deputy Permanent Representative Janne Taalas, saying he's ready in a few months to return to his regular seat next to Fiji. 

  The outgoing chair of the Group of 77, Fiji, said using rugby analogies that at first it tried to just not drop the ball, but ended up score a few tries. Bolivia is the next G77 chair -- ready to score the golden goal? After Spy-gate and the take-down of President Evo Morales' plane, thing should heat up.

  While Ban Ki-moon's office of the Spokesperson has not only refused the requests of the Free UN Coalition for Access that it hold a noon briefing this week, but also refused for as long as 144 hours to respond to Inner City Press' questions on South Sudan, Central African Republic and the budget, earlier today Inner City Press asked:

"Please state where the Secretary General *is,* much as other figures such as President Obama and NYC's incoming mayor do, in light of online notice that "26-27 December 2013, Secretary-General is away from Headquarters," or please explain why that is not the SG's / UN's practice. Similarly, where is Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous?"

  The Peacekeeping question is in light not only of Ladsous under-stating the death toll in South Sudan, but of this new question about Central African Republic, then about the loss of neutrality:

On Central African Republic, please state the UN's knowledge of bombing near l'Hotel Ledger Plaza, and confirm or deny grenade and/or bullet exchange between Chadian and Burundian peaacekeepers.

What is the UN's response to the statement by India's PR Mukerji that in UN Peacekeeping, "new brigades could jeopardize the safety of traditional peacekeepers since rebels won’t distinguish between the two when they retaliate and that risks to peacekeepers should be reduced by physically differentiating them from the intervention brigade, through different uniforms." Are there any such plans in DPKO / DFS?

  In light of Ban's response at his last stakeout, on South Sudan, Inner City Press has asked his Spokesperson Martin Nesirky to please provide his / the UN's response to the subsequent report that

"The Korean side is now accusing the Japanese of politically using the emergency faced by Korean troops in South Sudan, with one unnamed official telling the Chosun Ilbo that the Abe government’s linking of the ammo supply to its “active pacifism” initiative was a “clear political provocation.” Another unnamed official said Korea had told the Japanese to handle this quietly out of fear that the locals would turn hostile and attack Korean troops if word got out that they’d received ammo, but the Japanese were instead turning this into a big story. Korean government officials are also saying that they intend to return all the ammo to Japan once Korean ammo arrives from Korea, despite the fact that the Japanese said they could keep it."

  Also posed is another corruption question, and this: "In Bentiu, what medical assistance staff are available now that MSF says it has pulled out?"

  That is the UN's work and responsibility. One thing to be said for the Fifth Committee - it works hard. It may not always function, but the members work. Happy (end of) holidays. Watch this site.

Update: the voting in the full UN General Assembly later on December 27 was largely a rubber stamp, with statements repeated from the morning. Cuba spoke in favor of UN Publishing Section staff, and "hoped" that Ban Ki-moon finds them other posts. 

  But where was Ban Ki-moon, away from Headquarters? Inner City Press, and the Free UN Coalition for Access as a matter of policy, asked but without answer. This is what outgoing NYC Mayor Bloomberg did on the weekends: leave and not say to where. Is that what Ban's UN has come to? 

 And while US Ambassador Joe Torsella in his swansong speech spoke about reforms, where does he stand on that one? (Inner City Press review here). And on, for example, the UN finally having content neutral accreditation rules, freedom of speech and of the press? 

Update II: Diplomats thought that President of the General Assembly John Ashe was the last speaker. But then the State of Palestine had the floor. Afterward, Inner City Press asked departing diplomats about the fate in March 2014 of Ban Ki-moon's mobility and corporate partnerships proposals. "Only with oversight," one said. At the UN? 

Update III: Wire service stories purporting to cover the UN budget session relied on boasting about the cutting of posts, and made no mention of Ban Ki-moon's losses on mobility and corporate partnerships, which not only South Korea but Ban's chief of staff bemoaned in the session. Such is "oversight." Watch this site.

   

On South Sudan, Ban Ki-moon Silent on Kiir's Threat to Re-Take Bor, Takes Softballs from Fashion Partners, Questions UNanswered 49 Hours

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- While the UN pulls out of parts of South Sudan and is now "advised" to get out of Bentiu, as Salva Kiir threatens to re-take Bor by force, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took four questions on December 23 but none on this.

  Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky gave three of four questions to board members of the United Nations Correspondents Association (a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance), a group which most recently gushed about fashion photos it took with Ban last week. One of these three questions was not about South Sudan at all; another tried to blame everything on Khartoum.

  But what is Ban's position on Salva Kiir, which whom his (or Norway's) envoy Hilde Johnson is so close, threatening to re-take Bor by force? Inner City Press asked the question with Ban still in the room. The response was happy holidays and maybe Hilde will speak later in the week. After Bor is assaulted?

  Ban said, you can get answers through my spokesperson. Well, no. That has not been the case.

  Nesirky's office did not answer a single Press question on South Sudan submitted on December 21 and 22, even after they were re-sent to his office's supposed "Weekend Duty Officer" Eri Kaneko. What is the duty? Where are the answers?

 In the room for Ban's four-question presser was Kieran Dwyer, the spokesperson for Herve Ladsous - he has been allowed by his ostensible boss Ban to have a "policy" against answer Press questions. 

  Dwyer and UN Peacekeeping have yet to explain why on the afternoon of December 19 Indian ambassador Mukerji could tell Inner City Press about the killing of two peacekeepers in Akobo while UN Peacekeeping at that time did not know about it. An analysis of UNMISS communications is in preparation.

   Meanwhile Hilde Johnson's deputy envoy Toby Lanzer has issued a press statement, addressing neither issue. It listed two contacts, Tapiwa Gomo and Amanda Wyler, to whom Inner City Press immediately sent questions, three hours ago:

What is the situation in, including humanitarian access to, the Yide / Yida refugee camp?

Please state UNMISS' / OCHA's knowledge of the situation in Yuai. Have all UN peacekeepers been withdrawn? What about the civilians?

What is UNMISS' / OCHA's resonse to Salva Kiir's reported ultimatum on Bentiu, including advising UN and NGO staff to leave? Will OCHA leave (as it did from Kilinochchi in Sri Lanka in 2008)?

What is the situation in Bor? Has the UN evacuated any South Sudanese, or other foreigners?

These questions are directed to you as the contact on Mr. Lanzer's December 23 statement, and cc-ed to Mr. Lanzer as Humanitarian Coordinator.

 Three and a half hours later, no response at all. As to the first question, there's work of killing include of an NGO worker in the Yida camp.

  The UN has now announced that Hilde Johnson will hold a press conference at noon in Juba on December 24 - no word if it'll be webcast; the UN has said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will speak to the media at the UN in New York at 12:20 pm on December 23. Ban's office is in the clouds (photo here); the UN Security Council despite all this isdormant (photo here).

  Will Ban answer questions, including on his UN Mission's reaction to Kiir's ultimatum? His head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, does not. Video here, UK coverage here.  And Ban's Office of the Spokesperson has not, since the morning of December 21.

  IN Sri Lanka in 2008, the government told the UN to get out of Kilinochchi, and the UN did. Years later it has issued a post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" action plan. So does it push back against Kiir's threat to militarily re-take Bentiu? Or is such push back limited to government's the Western Permanent Three members of the Security Council don't like?

  Speaking of the Western P3, when two French journalists were killed in Mali, there was an immediately Security Council press statement. Now, the French NGO Solidarites International says one of its staff in South Sudan was killed, probably"assassinated." 

  But with France holding the Council presidency, still, there is not even a UNSC meeting or briefing yet scheduled. Is this based on the identity of those killed? Or of the killers, or their location?

   Rather than explain or answer questions about the UN's pull out -- and shift of assets away from a promised crackdown on the Hutu militia FDLR in the Eastern Congo -- the UN offers mere sound bytes and fundraising appeals. 

  But how many have been killed so far in Bor?

   With Bor in South Sudan under the control of Peter Gadet, the UN in New York not answered questions for more than a day. There is a history: back on March 15, 2012 Inner City Press asked UN envoy Hilde Johnson about Gadet being given a role in "disarmament" around Bor. Video here, from Minute 9:35.

  Johnson, a vocal supporter of plans by South Sudan's Salva Kir government, told Inner City Press that it didn't much matter WHO did the disarmament. Video here, from Minute 12:55 (to "us in the UN" who did the disarmament, including Gadet, was "less than relevant.")

  Standing next to Johnson was the spokesperson for UN Peaceekping chief Herve Ladsous, Kieran Dwyer, who would later on video defend Ladsous' refusal to answer Press questions about his UN Peacekeeping partnering with Congolese Army units implicated in mass rapes (or here, for disarmament in South Sudan, with Peter Gadet.)

  Now that US aircraft have been fired at from Bor, and President Barack Obama has told Congress he "may take further action," did and does it really not matter? Where is the accountability? Where are the answers? 

  Rather than answer, the UN issues press releases from its envoy Hilde Johnson. Its communications officer for South Sudan Clare Santry has left the country and appeared for asoft two minute piece on BBC, her former employer, appealing for money from donors and insisting, as Johnson did, that the UN is not abandoning anyone in South Sudan.

  Really? Then why did the UN move to pull even its armed peacekeepers out of Yuai? What is the situation in Bentiu, with troubling reports of killings and seemingly a looming battle?

   On the morning of December 22, Inner City Press submitted additional questions to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, to the chief spokesperson Martin Nesirky and the "weekend duty officer" Eri Kaneko to whom actiong deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq's email auto-responder directed questions:

On the South Sudan crisis, while still awaiting any response to the questions submitted yesterday, must for now ask a few more:

What percentage of UNMISS personnel is it who are being moved from Bor to Juba? From Juba to Entebbe? How is this different, for example, from the pull out of UN staff from Kilinochchi in late 2008?

Given that the SG said "we are now actively trying to transfer our assets from other peacekeeping missions, like MONUSCO [the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and some other areas" --

which assets is he / the UN trying to transfer out of the DRC? How does this relate to the UN's pledge to now move to neutralize the FDLR? From what other missions is the UN trying to move assets?

Who in the UN has spoken to - or even reached out to - Riek Machar in the past days? Has the UN visited, or asked to visit, the arrested former ministers?

  No answer in four hours, on top of the then 24 hours of non-response before. The Spokesperson's office on December 22 has only put out a statement by envoy Hilde F. Johnson: “To anyone who wants to threaten us, attack us or put obstacles in our way, our message remains loud and clear: we will not be intimidated.” 

   This in the same statement announcing the pull-out of all "non-critical" UN staff from Juba to Uganda, while the UN and Johnson's deputy Toby Lanzer have not answer what percentage of UN staff are being pulled out. 

  How is this consistent with the UN's recent post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" action plan? In Sri Lanka in 2008, the UN pulled all humanitarian ("non-critical"?) staff out of Kilinochchi -- then concealed its own death counts in 2009.

  As Inner City Press asked on December 19 in the UN Press Briefing Room, is Hilde Johnson too close a supporter of Salva Kiir to mediate? This was not answered. Nor whether in the days since she has spoken with, or even reached out to, Riek Machar.

  As noted from Manila Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he would move "assets" from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to South Sudan.

   Given that the UN has made much of its new focus on "neutralizing" the Hutu FDLR militia in the DRC, Ban's statement cries out for explanation from the UN. Inner City Press was asked, from the Kivus, where Ban said this. It was in his Q&A in Manila, only belated added to the UN website,here.

 But neither the UN, its Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous with his own history in the Great Lakes region or envoy Martin Kobler has answered this question: which assets would be removed from the DRC?

  So too does the UN Mission in South Sudan UNMISS tweeting it is moving "non essential" staff out of the country, to Uganda, STILL cry out for explanation.

  What percentage of UNMISS would that be? And how is this consistent with the UN's ballyhooed post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front Action Plan"?  Rights seen from behind?

  What about the UN decision to try to pull all of peacekeepers out of Yuai? Was a UN helicopter shot down and abandoned on the way? The UN won't answer on this, or the questions below. But BBC has no analysis of the UN, only of "rebel" former vice president Riek Machar.

  BBC on December 21 showed former US official, now Texas A&M professor Andrew Natsios, who said the ICRC and IGAD ministers were blocked from visiting the ministers arrested by Salva Kiir. 

  Natsios suggested the ministers should be turned over to the UN for protection. What -- protection like the abandoned civilians around Yuai? 

  One reason the UN does not improvement is that it is not held accountable. Even on Haiti cholera, people make excuses, and those who don't are barely heard from. Shouldn't the UN at least be expected to answer questions?

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in from Manila cited South Sudan and Riek Machar. But his Office of the Spokesperson has gone twenty hours without answering basic questions about South Sudan.

  After the UN Mission in South Sudan belated acknowledged on its week-old Twitter account that one of its helicopters "came under small arms fire" on the way to try to remove all peacekeepers from Yuai, Inner City Press asked a question.

   Did the UN copter in fact get shot, emergency land and be abandoned -- that is, get shot down?  Saying "came under small arms fire," in that case, would be an understatement.

  But the UN spokesperson's office in New York has left Press questions about South Sudan UNanswered since the morning of December 21.

  The US State Department has summarized John Kerry's call to Salva Kiir, informing him that US envoy Donald Booth is on the way. Will Booth reach out to Riek Machar? Who will tell the UN, which is ostensibly responsive to its member states, that it should answer questions?

  After news that three US military aircraft were fired at while approaching Bor in South Sudan, where some 15,000 people are in the UN base, Inner City Press put questions to US Africom and to the UN's two top spokespeople in New York.

  Africom quickly answered, twice. And the White House sent a statement that President Barack Obama was briefed, including by Susan Rice, and "reaffirmed the importance of continuing to work with the United Nations to secure our citizens in Bor."

  But from the UN came only an auto-response, that acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq will be out of the office until December 30, and to put any questions to the sole weekend duty officer of the Office of the Spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Inner City Press sent these, on the morning of December 21, more than four hours before deadline for first publication:

Now with 3 US aircraft shot over Bor, this is a press request for an update from the UN:

What is the UN's knowledge of military conflict in Bor, impact on civilians?

Is the army aligned with Salva Kiir seeking to re-take Bor? Is it coordinating in any way with UNMISS?

Since the beginning of the unrest in Juba, has UNMISS provided any support to which the UN's Human Rights Due Diligence Policy applies? If so, to which units?

Has any UN official spoken with Riek Machar during this period?

To the UN's knowledge, did Uganda or any other outside country take military action in Bor or elsewhere in South Sudan?

This is a request, including on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, that the Office of the Spokesperson hold (noon) briefings during this phase of crisis in South Sudan, certainly on Monday, December 23.

  On Friday December 20, amid the South Sudan crisis,Farhan Haq announced that the UN would cancel its normal noon briefings, all the way through December 30.

While some information trickles out from UNMISS in Juba, which only started a twitter account last week, it comes late.  

  This is why the UN's Office of the Spokesperson should be providing information, and / or Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping. Their twitter account is blithely promoting itself, with a few re-tweets from UNMISS. Where is Ladsous? He still of of December 2013 says he has a "policy" of not answering Press questions. Video here.

This is a time for the UN to communicate. But it is not. As was jotted during the Security Council's consultations on December 20 -- despite commitment and good work from many in UNMISS which Inner City Press also covers and would like to cover more -- there is a credibility crisis for the UN. And it is getting worse. Watch this site.

   

In South Sudan As Civilians Are Threatened in Yuai, UN Evacuates Its Peacekeepers, Has No Briefings for Week: Rights Up Front?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 20 -- In South Sudan amid UN talk of protecting civilians and rushing to more dangerous locations to do so, UN Peacekeeping is preparing to evacuate "40 UNMISS peacekeepers from a base in the Jonglei state town of Yuai this afternoon."

  Inner City Press on December 20 asked Security Council president Gerard Araud about this plan, what would happen to civilians under threat in Yuai. Video here, from Minute 12:53.

  Araud acknowledged that UN Peacekeeping, led by its fourth Frenchman in a row Herve Ladsous, is trying to pull out of Yuai -- in fact, it would already have done so, except its evacuation helicopters were fired at. Strangely, Araud then insisted quoting Ladsous' deputy Edmond Mulet that the UN is "on" (or in) the way, and not the target.

  As if to minimize the contradiction of claiming to be protecting civilians while evacuating armed personnel from where the civilians are, Araud said he understood there were no civilians inside the UNMISS base in Yuai.

Since all of his, and the UN's, understandings come from communications with its bases, Inner City Press asked about the breakdown in communications with the Akobo base, where two Indian peacekeepers and at least 20 civilians were killed. Araud called this a "detail" and refused to answer, saying "I'm in substantial questions." Video here, from Minute 19:47.

Inner City Press went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the plan to pull out of Yuai. Haq had just claimed that the UN is moving peacekeepers from less dangerous to more dangerous places. Now he doubled back and said it is a matter of concentrating UN forces where they can have an impact.

But what about the civilians in Yuai?

Inner City Press asked Haq about a quote by UNMISS spokesperson Joe Contreras that 27 soldier loyal to Salva Kiir sought refuge with the UN in Rubkona. Haq said he couldn't confirm that -- which is weird, since the UN's spokesperson in South Sudan has already said it.

  Also on (mis?) communications, Inner City Press asked about the 11 hour delay in the UN confirmation the death of two Indian peacekeepers and injuring of another which India's Ambassador Askoke Mukerji told Inner City Press about on the afternoon of December 19.

  Haq said the delay was because the UN must notify families, and implicitly chided anyone who reported the death of two (unnamed) peacekeepers before the UN did. He also chided reports that three peacekeepers had died. While other went this this, apparently not having spoken with Mukerjee but only watched a meeting on UNTV or relied on a tweet, Inner City Press even in its headline said 2 dead, one injured.

But this is how the UN operates -- it does anything it can to discourage real questions by turning then around, then doling out information selectively to journalists who will report positively (and often inaccurately). 

   UN Peacekeeping, after Inner City Press first reported the Akobo deaths based on a direct conversation with Mukerje, sent other media but not Inner City Press information by e-mail. But UN Peacekeeping didn't make this information available to the public and other impacted people. It has become dysfunctional.

  As has the wider UN. Despite claims this week about a new post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" plan, in the midst of this South Sudan crisis spokesperson Haq on Friday announced no more briefings for the week -- just spin on the UN website. (The Free UN Coalition for Access,@FUNCA_info, has protested).

  As was jotted inside the Security Council consultations on December 20, there is a "credibility crisis in the UN." Watch this site.