On Palestine, OIC Talks Up UN Security Council Time-Line Resolution, Kerry Roaming

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.

  On December 17 from Jeddah, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation issued this statement:

OIC CALLS ON SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER STATES TO ADOPT A DRAFT RESOLUTION SETTING A TIMELINE TO END ISRAELI OCCUPATION

Jeddah 17/12/2014

The Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Iyad Ameen Madani, reiterated his support for the decision of the State of Palestine’s to  seek a UN Security Council resolution to set   a timeline to end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Land, establish a Palestinian State with East  Al-Quds as its capital, and bring about a just settlement for the issue of Palestinian refugees in line with  international legality resolutions. He also called on the Council’s Member States to vote in favor of the resolution.
The Secretary General indicated that responding positively to the Palestinian demand would contribute  to, and support international efforts aimed at reaching a comprehensive, just,  and durable peace agreement on the Arab-Israeli conflict  based on the vision of the two-state-solution in line with the relevant international legality resolutions particularly GA resolution no 19/67 of 29/11/2012.

  On December 16 at the UN Security Council itself, Jordanian diplomats were non-committal. On December 16, a Senior State Department official said:

"Today, Secretary Kerry met in London separately with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and with Arab League Secretary General Nabil El Araby and members of the Arab League Special Committee. In both meetings, the Secretary exchanged thoughts about the situation in the region, ongoing deliberations related to possible UN Security Council action, and the United States' interest in finding a path forward to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation on the ground. All the parties agreed to continue their consultations going forward."

  So what does this mean, on the resolution(s)? Inner City Press on December 11 asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour if the US was engaged in any negotiations on the resolutions proffered by Jordan or France. He said no, then added "you are a smart journalist," asking if France would do this work without coordination with or against the interests of the US. Afterward another journalist joked this meant, "French puppet." So what's up?

  Back on December 11, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the International Criminal Court.

  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.

  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:

"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—

"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or

"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

  Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.

  Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.

  At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.

  Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."

  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. But that's it.

  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at the UNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographed by the Free UN Coalition for Access, here. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?

   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.

 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On Palestine, Kerry in Rome Discusses "Possible UN Security Council Action"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UNRiyad Mansour about it. Video here.

  On December 16, a Senior State Department official said:

"Today, Secretary Kerry met in London separately with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and with Arab League Secretary General Nabil El Araby and members of the Arab League Special Committee. In both meetings, the Secretary exchanged thoughts about the situation in the region, ongoing deliberations related to possible UN Security Council action, and the United States' interest in finding a path forward to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation on the ground. All the parties agreed to continue their consultations going forward."

  So what does this mean, on the resolution(s)? Inner City Press on December 11 asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour if the US was engaged in any negotiations on the resolutions proffered by Jordan or France. He said no, then added "you are a smart journalist," asking if France would do this work without coordination with or against the interests of the US. Afterward another journalist joked this meant, "French puppet." So what's up?

  Back on December 11, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the International Criminal Court.

  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.

  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:

"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—

"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or

"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

  Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.

  Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.

  At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.

  Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."

  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. But that's it.

  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at the UNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographed by the Free UN Coalition for Access, here. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?

   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.

 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.

Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.

France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.

The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.

Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

   

On DRC, After UN Misled Press on Flying FDLR Leader, Now Rome Flight Alleged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14, more here -- Amid reports on June 27 that the UN flew a sanctioned militia leader of the FDLR militia on a UN aircraft in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujurric about it at the UN noon briefing on June 27:

Inner City Press: why did MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] fly him to Goma to Kisangani and then to Kinshasa when, in fact, I think there’s an arrest warrant for him?

Spokesman Dujarric: I’m not aware of any other services provided to him by MONUSCO.

  Dujarric that day, and in the subsequent times Inner City Press asked, insisted that not only Mary Robinson (who today left her post as the UN's Great Lakes envoy) but also US envoy Russ Feingold requested the waiver, and that the FDLR leader Gaston Iyamuremye a/k/a Rumuli had not traveled to Rome, arguing that only that was important.

  Inner City Press disagrees -- why would UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous given his history on Rwanda, representing France in the Security Council in 1994 arguing for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo, fly a sanctioned FDLR figure linked to the genocide around? 

 But now the Italian publication L'Indro reports that even after the Security Council sanctions committee stopped Herve Ladsous' request for Rumuli to fly, he nevertheless "embarked on a areo dell'Etiophian Airline landing at Fiumicino airport with regular tourist visa" and staying until June 30. Click here for the L'indro article.

   One would expect to be able to trust answers or denials from the UN spokesperson's office. But of later, not only did that office apparently withhold answers on this situation -- they also doctored transcripts, about Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir and then, for the second time, censoring even the name of the Free UN Coalition for Access from "its" transcript, click here for that.

 In this context we summarize and link to the L'indro article, and will pursue it.

Back on June 30, when other sources indicated to Inner City Press that this flying service WAS provided by MONUSCO, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again at UN noon briefing:

Inner City Press: I asked you on Friday a pretty straightforward question, which is whether MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] used its helicopters to, prior to the denial by the Security Council’s 1533 Sanctions Committee, to transfer this… the FDLR’s [Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda] leader within the [Democratic Republic of the Congo]? And I’m wondering if you have an answer on that?

Spokesman Dujarric: I don’t have anything to add.

Inner City Press: Does that mean --

Spokesman Dujarric: If I had something to add, I would tell you. Yes, in the back?

So Dujarric had nothing to add to his June 27 statement that “I’m not aware of any other services provided to him by MONUSCO.” So did he still think that was true? Had he even asked UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous -- who sitting beside Dujarric had refused Press questions on the DRC, video here -- or MONUSCO under Martin Kobler?

On July 1, Inner City Press asked Dujarric again:

Inner City Press: why did MONUSCO undertake to fly to Goma, to Kisangani and Kinshasa? And the reason why I keep asking about this is it seems like it’s a use of UN resources, just knowing why this flight took place.

Spokesman: Sure, if I have something on that I will share it with you

  For Dujarric to have nothing to supplement his statement ofJune 27 that “I’m not aware of any other services provided to him by MONUSCO,” he either did not ask Ladsous' DPKO or they lied to him.

  On July 2, after Martin Kobler belatedly disclosed that yes, under him MONUSCO flew the FDLR leader, Inner City Press asked Dujarric. Laughably, given Ladsous' refusal to answer Press questions, Dujarric said, you could pick up the phone. UN Video here, from Minute 7.

Dujarric first said he never denied the flight. But he's said, even according to the UN's own transcript, “I’m not aware of any other services provided to him by MONUSCO,” and then said nothing when asked twice more about this.

Inner City Press asked, can we assume that when a question is asked in his briefing room, you at least try to get an answer? When did you get this information? Dujarric did not answer this.

Footnote: Dujarric was asked if he will participate in the softball soccer game of the UN Correspondents Association, to which Dujarric sets aside the first questions in briefings and has defended in meeting(s) with the new Free UN Coalition for Access -- which, to put it mildly, is “deeply concerned” by inaccurate answers in the UN Press Briefing Room. Softballs with scribes? We'll have more on this.

   

Rwanda Formal Complaint Letter to UN Security Council on Ladsous Travel Waiver Bid for FDLR Leader

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 27 -- Rwanda has complained to the UN Security Council that UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous requested and carried out a travel ban waiver for FDLR leader Gaston Iyamuremye / Rumuli Michel. 

  Inner City Press has obtained the complaint letter, on which it first reported yesterday, and puts it online here. 

  The letter recounts irregularities in Ladsous' last-minute request, including that his MONUSCO mission under Martin Kobler effectuated an airlift to Goma and then to Kinshasa on a MONUSCO aircraft even as the request was denied by the 1533 sanctions committee. The accusation is of a "hidden agenda of sanitizing the FDLR genocidaires."

Despite a request to UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric yesterday for the UN's explanation, no response has been received.

  When Herve Ladsous was appointed head of UN Peacekeeping by France and UN Peacekeeping, Inner City Press asked him to address his past as French Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the Rwanda genocide, arguing for the escape into Eastern Congo of thegenocidaires who would become the FDLR.

  Ladsous refused to answer, and then adopted the policy of trying to block Inner City Press questions, going so far as to have his spokesman grab the UN Television microphone to prevent a question. Video here,compilation here.

  Now -- not surprisingly -- a scandal has arisen, with Rwandan officials exclusively complaining to Inner City Press, citing letters, about Ladsous granting a travel ban waiver for FDLR leader Iyamuremye / Rumuli to fly from the DR Congo to Rome -- to meet with UN envoy Mary Robinson.

  Of course, Robinson could have met the FDLR leader without him breaking the travel ban. But in a UN trend, Robinson has been allowed to remained based in Ireland, just as Romano Prodi was allowed to remain based in Italy and to (over) charge the UN for his travel inside Italy.

  Earlier this year, Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' simple question on when UN Peacekeeping under his watch might belatedly go after or “neutralize” the FDLR, video here.

Ladsous (and see Inner City Press video below, Creative Commons)

  Under Ladsous, UN Peacekeeping is involved in other scandals, for example not enforcing Ban Ki-moon's stated “Human Rights Due Diligence Policy” with respect to the 41st and 391st Battalions of the Congolese Army after only two convictions for 130 rapes in Minova in November 2012. 

  The UNAMID mission in Darfur, Sudan, not reporting the killing of civilians has also occurred on Ladsous' watch, but he refuses to answer questions.

We will have yet more on this.

On June 26 Inner City Press, copying the Free UN Coalition for Access, has asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

This is a formal request for the UN's response to allegations, including but not limited to in the letter(s) from the Rwandan government, about a travel ban waiver for FDLR's Gaston Iyamuremye / Rumuli Michel and the involvement of USG Ladsous.

Last Friday Inner City Press' written request and question about legal papers about cholera in Haiti was never answered while it was answered, by email, to other media. That should not be repeated. Please confirm receipt of this request.

  There has still been no answer. Watch this site.

   

Rwanda Complains UN's Herve Ladsous Gave Travel Waiver for FDLR Leader Gaston Iyamuremye

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 26 -- When Herve Ladsous was appointed head of UN Peacekeeping by France and UN Peacekeeping, Inner City Press asked him to address his past as French Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the Rwanda genocide, arguing for the escape into Eastern Congo of the genocidaires who would become the FDLR.

  Ladsous refused to answer, and then adopted the policy of trying to block Inner City Press questions, going so far as to have his spokesman grab the UN Television microphone to prevent a question. Video here, compilation here.

  Now -- not surprisingly -- a scandal has arisen, with Rwandan officials exclusively complaining to Inner City Press about Ladsous granting a travel ban waiver for FDLR leader General Gaston Iyamuremye / Rumuli Michel to fly from the DR Congo to Rome. He is on the UN Security Council travel ban list.

  Earlier this year, Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' simple question on when UN Peacekeeping under his watch might belatedly go after or “neutralize” the FDLR,video here.

  Under Ladsous, UN Peacekeeping is involved in other scandals, for example not enforcing Ban Ki-moon's stated “Human Rights Due Diligence Policy” with respect to the 41st and 391st Battalions of the Congolese Army after only two convictions for 130 rapes in Minova in November 2012. 

  The UNAMID mission in Darfur, Sudan, not reporting the killing of civilians has also occurred on Ladsous' watch, but he refuses to answer questions.

We will have more on this.

   

On Belated Sahel Plan, Is Prodi's UN Gravy Train Leaving the Station?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 26 -- It took Romano Prodi more than eight months to complete the Sahel report he presented to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. 

   During that time, Inner City Press received complaints from within the UN's Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that Prodi was charging $1200 for travel between Bologna and Rome. 

   Diplomats complained about his ideas for a fund, and about the UNOWA operations in Dakar, Senegal.

After Prodi's low key presentation and consultations, June's Security Council president Mark Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, saying among other things that Morocco will prepare a Presidential Statement on the topic.

Inner City Press asked why the report took so long, if Prodi will has a role, and what the role of UNOWA would be in the strategy.

Lyall Grant replied, as transcribed by the UK Mission to the UN:

Lyall Grant: It was explained that there have been very close cooperation between UNDP and DPA in producing this report that, Mr Prodi himself said that, his job was to inject some new thinking, present the report, ensure that implementation began, but then fade away. He was not looking to sustain his role in the longer term. His role was not completed yet, but once the train, I think the expression he used was, once the train had left the station on implementation then he was not looking to do his role, continue his role, and that the next stage would be taken forward by perhaps operating out of the UNOWA office in Dakar. Now there was a recognition that the mandate of UNOWA of course goes much wider than the Sahel countries, but that UNOWA mandate was also on the Security Council’s agenda later this year and there might be some adjustment of that to take account of this fact.

  The “train leaving the station” image brought to mind Prodi's travel and cost: seems he doesn't take the train. Another Council member told Inner City Press it was that Prodi said he wanted to see the train start moving. Would that be the gravy train? Watch this site.

  

Exclusive: Ban Ki-moon's UN Tries to Remove Staff Union's Negotiated Rights, Ends Meeting, No Confidence Redux

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- Labor relations in the UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have hit a new low, with his negotiators abruptly terminating a Staff Management Committee session in Mexico City, accused of trying to eliminate Staff Union negotiating rights.

  This follows the New York Staff Union's resolution of "no confidence" in Ban Ki-moon, and a May Day march in front of UN headquarters, protesting their treatment under Ban.Video here.

  Inner City Press has exclusively covered each of these, and each time when questioned Ban's Office of the Spokesperson has indicated that the rift would be solved. But if anything, things have gotten worse.

  The no-confidence resolution was the result of an amendment from the floor by a sub-set of the Union rooted in the Publishing Section, targeted for 99 job cuts. (There are other cuts, still unexplained, set for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations despite it stated build-up for Mali.)

  Now the official president of the union, who at least initially opposed the no-confidence resolution, has sent the e-mail below. Where is this headed? And where is Ban Ki-moon? (The answer is, traveling again, while the UN further decays).

From: NY Staff Union president Barbara Tavora-Jainchill
Date: 06/16/2013 03:12PM
Subject: Management terminates negotiations with staff unions - We are on our own

Dear Colleagues, It is with great disappointment that we inform you that the annual negotiations between the UN’s staff unions and global management, held this year in Mexico City, were terminated early by management Friday evening as unions vigorously defended you from attempts to remove negotiating rights.

The abrupt ending of the Staff Management Committee (SMC II) on its third of seven days means that key issues relating to the Secretary-General’s reform agenda are now left unresolved. These include mobility, introducing more transparent guidelines for downsizing, reviewing the situation of field staff, fixing the internal justice system, travel standards and a hiring freeze to protect General Service staff already on board.

We were surprised management should choose to terminate the meeting so early. Management had introduced a proposal after the document submission deadline to remove unions’ right to negotiate; a right unions had won after four years of dedicated campaigning. Staff unions wanted adequate time to get to the bottom of management’s proposal in order to make sure that a proper negotiating framework would continue to be in place. Management wanted to cut short this agenda item and move onto other issues, proposing to come back to it time-permitting. Staff put two options forward to overcome the disagreement including deferring the issue of negotiating rights to the following session. Management rejected them both and then insisted on the early termination of the meeting.

We continue to believe that a constructive dialogue between staff and management, as set out in the current framework (ST/SGB/2011/6), makes the United Nations strong especially when significant reforms are being proposed that impact staff welfare. We therefore urge management to return to the table and call for SMC to be resumed. Until that meeting is concluded, it goes without saying that none of the Secretary-General’s proposals on the agenda should be implemented.

We believe the early walk out by management demonstrates a lack of flexibility required for a negotiation and an irresponsible use of resources, both of the organization and of those unions that paid to send delegates to the meeting.

   And amid this, as Inner City Press has also exclusively reported, the UN has been paying $1200 for Romano Prodi to travel from Bologna to Rome - as Ban's envoy on the Sahel, no less. Watch this site.