Sunday, May 23, 2010

On Sri Lanka, UN Can't Say How Many Died, Nor If Ban Called for Ceasefire

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- With the UN accused in Sri Lanka of funding prison camps, ineffectual efforts at a ceasefire and leaving civilians to fend for themselves, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky faced and dodged questions on Monday. He did not say how much the UN spent on the internment camps, nor explain the UN's silence after its estimate of civilians deaths was leaked to Inner City Press in March 2009.

Nesirky said that Ban "made energetic efforts" to protect civilians. Inner City Press asked if that included calling for a ceasefire, and if not, why not. Video here, from Minute 20:23. Nesirky simply repeated the line about energetic efforts.

Asked another question about establishing an inquiry as he did after the killing of 150 people in Guinea, Nesirky insisted that Ban has been pursuing accountability since his trip to Sri Lanka, and will "soon" named a panel to advise him. But the trip was a full year ago. Only on March 5, 2010 did Ban say he would name a panel "without delay -- and ten and a half weeks later, he has not done so.

Nesirky repeatedly insisted there is no way to know how many civilians were killed. But Inner City Press reported, and reminded Nesirky, that a leaked Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs document counted 2,684 civilians deathly only between January 20 and March 7, 2009.

Inner City Press asked if the UN has other similar documents in its possession, if so why they have not been released and will they be released? Nesirky said he would look into it, but insisted that body counts are almost impossible.

Inner City Press asked, if the UN produces casualty figures in for example Sudan and the Congo, why not Sri Lanka? Video here, from Minute 36:25.

Nesirky said you cannot compare, it "depends on the circumstances." One wanted to ask, depends on the political circumstances?

Footnote: the UN and Ban backed down, in the view of many, in the face of push back by Sri Lanka and certain of its allies which have a say in Ban Ki-moon's second term. Recently Sri Lanka's Mission to the UN has taken to trying to intimidate journalists, e-mailing abusive letters even during the middle of the UN's noon briefings.

One wonders if the Mission will do the same to all those journalists who asked about Sri Lanka killing civilians during Monday's briefing: from France, Lebanon (comparing Sri Lanka to Sudan) and the Balkans (comparing Sri Lanka to Srebrenica). We'll see.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri7unfollow051710.html

As Figueres Gets UNFCCC, S.Africa in Line for OIOS, Pillay Misplayed Simonovic

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- While the selection Christiana Figueres for the UN's top environmental job at the UNFCCC surprised some, not least because she's from Costa Rica, a country of three million people which already has an Assistant Secretary General level post held by Rebecca Grynspan at the UN Development Program, there are wider UN politics at work.

Inner City Press is told by well-placed UN sources that South Africa, whose tourism minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk was on the final two person UNFCCC short list with Ms. Figueres, was taken out of the running because it is now in line for a higher, Under Secretary General level post at the Office of Internal Oversight Services, to replace the outgoing -- but untransparent -- Inga Britt Ahlenius.

But, some still wonder, what of India? They too had a minister on the UNFCCC short list. Some point to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's recent naming of Atul Khare to the number two post in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations as similar, if one level below, South Africa's reward at OIOS. But others say Atul Khare was "not really India's candidate," in that they were merely told of the appointment. We'll see.

Meanwhile in Nairobi, one or two major UN posts are to be filled. The new USG to preside over the UN Office in Nairobi, following Ban's controversial replacement in that function of Ana Tibaijuka by Achim Steiner of Germany, should soon be named. And it appears Ms. Tibaijuka's term at UN HABITAT is expiring.

Africa, which Ban passed over for the Number Two slot in UNDP despite an understanding the Continent would get that post -- Helen Clark wanted Ms. Grynspan, and for now Helen Clark unlike Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay appears to get whatever she wants from Ban -- should have these two Nairobi posts in the bag. But as they did to place Libya on the Human Rights Council, they need to come up with a consensus candidate.

Footnote: Navi Pillay, Inner City Press has told, has wanted the Brazilian Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as her New York representative. So she stacked the four person short list she gave to Ban with "unappointable" people:

Argentine Juan Mendez, when that country already has a USG in Susana Malcorra of DFS, Swede Karin Landgren, just after Margot Wallstrom of that country was given the rape as a weapon of war post, and Ivan Simonovic, whom the sources say Pillay thought couldn't get the post due to opposition from Croatian and international human rights groups.

But Team Ban tapped Simonovic (click here for Inner City Press' pre-announcement report.)

And see, www.innercitypress.com/posts1oios051710.html

Finland Pitches Its Shanghai Expo Site, Shot Glass Design, Iceland Schandenfreude

NYC MEATPACKING DISTRICT, May 16 -- Finland has sought to promote itself and its designers, in a standing room only design exhibition in New York City's Meatpacking District Sunday night. The closest nexus to diplomacy was the display of Finland's pavilion at the Shanghai Expo, an entirely recyclable building that is for sale, Inner City Press was told by the architect's representative, Harri Lindberg of JKMM, for a mere 10 million Euros. (If the Euro survives, that is.)

But there were also exhibits of clothing and shot glasses by Alessi and video games, even of an overhead lamp that unfurls like a flower as its LED lights sense heat. What is the common denominator? Inner City Press interviewed a South Asian attendee, who said he was drawn by the connection between "Scandinavian design and social change." But social change in a shot glass?


Intrigued, Inner City Press interviewed the two curators, both from Assay Systemic Thinking. Teemu Oksanen, a Finn, said he would not judge the success of the event until 2012. His partner, Paula Bello from Mexico, said that the name of the exhibition, Straight-Forward, was meant as a double entendre, with the hyphen: both honest and forward looking. She said it was inspired by the work of Finnish designer Kaj Franck.

She said that based on an open call in November 2009, 188 designers has applied. Ultimately some thirty were selected, and giving trainings in what Teemu Oksanen called "elevator speeches." (Inner City Press suggested he adopt the U.S. word, pitches.) They have lawyers to protect their designers' intellectual property.

But what if you were Iceland, Inner City Press asked. There were eye rolls, some Schandenfreude, than a common two words: Thank God. But what of Icelandic design? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/finn1design051610.html

On Sri Lanka, ICG Calls for Investigation of UN Inaction, Ban Panel Still Delayed

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- At the one year anniversary of Sri Lanka's bloodbath on the beach, the UN which pulled out of Kilinochchi before the slaughter, then funded internment camps for Tamils after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's "victory tour," has come under questioning.

Inner City Press on May 14 asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky when Ban would follow through on his intention, announced on March 5, to name a panel of experts to advise him on the issue, and whether Ban's delay was now related to Sri Lanka's belated unveiling of its own "mechanism."

Nesirky called the mechanism -- dismissed by a slew of human rights groups -- an "interesting development," but said that Ban is independent.

Now, the International Crisis Group is calling for an inquiry into the UN's own behavior, for an inquiry into "the conduct of the UN during the last year of the conflict, examining the UN’s September 2008 withdrawal from Kilinochchi through to its ineffectual attempts to push for a ceasefire and its involvement in Sri Lankan government internment camps."

This is from an early copy of ICG's report to be released on May 17. [Full disclosure - the ICG report cites to Inner City Press.] ICG's President Louise Arbour said, "The scale of civilian deaths and suffering demands a response. Future generations will demand to know what happened, and future peace in Sri Lanka re-quires some measure of justice." Amnesty International has damning findings, though unlike ICG, under embargo until May 17.

Meanwhile Sri Lanka's Mission to the UN attacks Inner City Press -- click here for coverage in Sri Lanka of the first leter of new Deputy Permanent Representative Bandula Jayasekera -- as Perm Rep Palitha Kohona lounged around in the General Assembly on May 14 waiting to speak about Somalia piracy. THe air was of impunity, as both Ban and GA President Ali Treki offer assurances of inaction to Kohona and the Rajapaksa administration. One can ask the UN to investigate Sri Lanka -- but who will investigate the UN?

From the UN's May 14 transcript

Inner City Press: A week ago, you’d said that the wheels were, are turning and fully, well-oiled for this visit by Mr. Pascoe to Sri Lanka. Has there been any progress on that? Because the most recent reporting from Colombo is that he won’t be going until June, and there seems to be a controversy of whether now Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, will now await to see how this mechanism, late announced mechanism by the Rajapaksa Administration, how that works out before he moves forward and names his own panel. Is that, that seems to be inconsistent with this idea of no delay. Can you say if there is any relation between the mechanism announced last week by the Rajapaksa Administration and the Secretary-General’s 5 March stated goal to name his own panel?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: The Secretary-General remains committed to the panel of experts and setting it up without delay. That remains the case. And as for Mr. Pascoe’s visit, that’s being worked on. I can’t say exactly when it will be, because that’s still being worked on. But it’s in the works.

Inner City Press: And [inaudible] without delay is not changed by this announced mechanism? It’s not that it will be delayed until the mechanism is established?

Spokesperson Neskirky: Obviously, that is an interesting development. But it doesn’t impinge on the Secretary-General’s own stated aim of setting up a panel of experts which would report to him. It’s a separate matter. But, obviously, it’s an interesting development, the news that we’ve heard from Sri Lanka in the last few days on this separate internal, if you like, domestic undertaking. But the Secretary-General’s is a separate matter, as we have said.

We'll see. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri6unfollow051610.html

At UN, Illegal Fishing off Somalia and Pirates' Death Scoffed At, Preening Delayed

UNITED NATIONS, May 14 -- "Ensuring that the pirates are treated in an appropriate manner is right at the forefront of our operations," Rear Admiral Peter Hudson of EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta told the Press on Friday. Inner City Press asked about the Russian Navy's reported killing of ten pirates, either by casting them to sea without their navigation equipment or outright execution. "I can't comment on that," Hudson said. The forefront. The very forefront.

Hudson was among the few interesting speakers in a daylong "debate" on piracy in the UN General Assembly. Ahmedou Ould Abdullah, moderating the second panel, refused to let member states like Cape Verde speak, insisting that those on the podium proceed with their speeches and Powerpoint presentations -- Mr. Endo's barely legible from the hall, did include a little cartoon pirate.

The speakers from the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union tied the piracy issue to illegal fishing in Somali waters. Inner City Press asked Hudson about this, and about the dumping of toxic waste on Somali shores. Hudson was dismissive, saying there is very little fishing of any kind without two hundred miles of Somalia. He scoffed at any relations between illegal fishing and the seizing of oil tankers for ransom. Video here, from Minute 8:18.

But back in the GA hall, no member states was able to question Hudson on this. As usual with UN "debates," there were a series of prepared statements being read out, the lists between the podium and floor getting out of sink so that no one was responding to what had just been said. There was preening about pirates, a three-quarters empty GA hall filled with angry delegates denied until too late their right to preen. Watch this site.

Update of 5:47 p.m. - as the six o'clock show down looms, the Netherlands bragged about a decision in The Hague, and Mona Juul of Norway -- which though not an EU member has a ship under EU command -- talked about the Contact Group. As neighboring Yemen began, its representative was told to be brief, the meeting was almost over. And the other speakers?

Update of 5:58 p.m. - the moderator says his list includes, among others, Liberia, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Greece, Syria, Korea, Thailand, Swaziland, Singapore, Argentina, India, Philippines and Lebanon. But he said while Liberia -- the "last speaker" -- has the floor, the other countries should think if they need to speak.

Update of 6:06 p.m. -- he's doing it, the moderator, saying no interpretation after 6:10, so it's going to end. One hears: who owns this organization?

Update of 6:09 p.m. -- the Ambassador of Khazakstan takes the floor, to read Ali Treki's final remarks. Sri Lanka walks out. The Philippines representative demands the floor, and says that it was very unfortunate many countries were not allowed to speak. The Philippines has many sailors in pirates' captivity. The UN Webcast is no longer working. This is off the clock.

Update of 6:16 p.m. -- the Ambassador of Kazakstan gavels the meeting to a close. "Have a nice weekend," she says. Without translation.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ga1somalia051410.html

Saturday, May 15, 2010

On Sri Lanka War Crimes, US' Rice Supports UN's Ban, So Panel Without Delay?

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told the Press on Thursday, "the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside Sri Lanka and we support his leadership in that regard." Video here, from Minute 8:46.

For two months the Sri Lankan government has lobbied against UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's March 5 announcement he would "without delay" name a panel of experts to advise him about war crimes in the country.

Last week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa announced the country's own "mechanism" to look at "lessons learned." When US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice on May 10 issued a statement welcoming and setting benchmarks for the Rajapaksas' mechanism, without mentioning Mr. Ban's proposal, it brought into question whether the U.S. supported Ban's move toward outside review.

Inner City Press on May 11 sought comments from Ambassador Rice and the State Department, and from Human Rights Watch. The latter responded first, by way of Tom Malinowski, HRW's Washington Advocacy Director:

“Sri Lanka has a long history of failed commissions of inquiry and there is no indication that this one will be any different. Everyone should be asking what happened to the committee Sri Lanka established in response to the October US State department report. The members of that inquiry were initially supposed to report in December 2009 and then in April, but nobody has heard from them since. The Sri Lankan government launches these efforts from time to time not because it wants to bring out the truth, but because it wants to delay calls for an international investigation. There is no reason to let this process play itself out again to its inevitable, inconclusive end before calling for an independent, international inquiry, which is realistically the only way forward.”

On May 13, after Ambassador Rice spoke of positive developments in the UN Human Rights Council since the U.S. joined -- she did not mention the flip of the EU proposed resolution about the killing of civilians by Sri Lanka's government into one praising and demanding resources for the government -- she took four questions, about Libya, Iran and at the end, Sri Lanka.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice to clarify her May 10 statement -- does the U.S. support Ban Ki-moon's stated intention to without delay name a panel to advice him on war crime in Sri Lanka, or does the Sri Lankan mechanism replace that?

"As I think you know, Matt, my statement didn't address that one way or another," Ambassador Rice began. Yours "is a different question. Why don't you ask that question, instead of asking me to reinterpret my statement?"

The question re-asked, Ambassador Rice said that "the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside Sri Lanka and we support his leadership in that regard." Video here, from Minute 8:46.

From the US Mission's transcript:

Inner City Press: can you clarify your statement Monday on Sri Lanka. I just wanted to know, were you saying in that, does the U.S. support the Secretary General’s call to, without delay, appoint a panel to advise him on war crimes in Sri Lanka or was this saying that the Sri Lankan somehow replaces that?

Ambassador Rice: As I think you know, Matt, my statement didn’t address that one way or the other. It was a statement about the Commission that had been established within Sri Lanka, and I didn’t comment on the Secretary General.

Reporter: Do you support the Secretary General’s position?

Ambassador Rice: I think the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside of Sri Lanka, and we support his leadership in that regard.


Ironically, a senior Ban administration official on May 11 told Inner City Press, in light of Ambassador Rice's statement, that Ban would now wait to see how the Sri Lankan mechanism developed before acting on his stated intention to name his own panel "without delay." Now what? What this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sri5unfollow051310.html

In NY, as Obama Raises Wall Street Money for his Party, Lady Gaga Goes for Rainforest

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- First Avenue in front of the UN was lined with metal police barricades on Thursday. Nor for a protest of Libya getting a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, but as the route for Barack Obama's DCCC fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.

There, couples were charged $50,000 to meet Obama and attend a private reception. The minimum charge was $15,000, for an individual. For this they got lobster in something called yuzu dressing, and "truffle gift box potato." Many of the attendees from from Wall Street; some politicians stayed away. Nevertheless fully 21 of New York State's 26 Democratic Party members of Congress were slated to attend.

There were protests, right on time at 6 o'clock. By seven pm after twenty-some arrests, they were gone. What were the politicians afraid of? Being spotting by the media?

Business-backed Kathryn Wilde of the Partnership for NYC made an implicit threat: "New York's future as a place to raise money hangs in the balance!" If you regulate too hard, we won't keep paying you.

In the protest's aftermath, when Fifth Avenue was filled with Obama fans and gawkers, Inner City Press asked Jeff "Bootstraps" Fisher why the protesters left so quickly. "If you had an M-16 pointed at you, you'd leave too," he said."Google me," he added, noting that four blocks away at Carnegie Hall, Lady Gaga was playing, "there are more people there than here."

Over at Carnegie Hall, the concert of Lady Lady and Elton John and Sting, produced by Trudy Styler, was to benefit the Rainforest Fund. At the St. Regis, it was to benefit a political party, with money from Wall Street. A foreign correspondent marveled, "Lady Gaga has more soul?" For this night at least.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/obama1regis051310.html

As UN Pitches Metal Recycling, Congo Coltan and Worker Safety Are Afterthoughts

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- Metal recycling was promoted Thursday by the UN Environment Program. Inner City Press asked about the conflict metals and minerals like coltan mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and if the UN is doing anything about the working conditions of those who work in recycling.

UNEP's Achim Steiner, who until this final question in the press conference had presented recycling as an unmitigated good, now described waste dumps as "killer sites," and said that the International Labor Organization is on the case.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Riefsnyder acknowledged safety as a problem, but said that in the U.S. it is a matter of local (state) rather than federal law.

Professor Thomas Graedel said that coltan is made up of cobalt and tantalum. The former, he said, is 24 to 30 percent recycled. But tantalum is not. One third of global supply comes from Africa, he said. Cassiterite is a form of tin. He added, "we are not locked into the Africa situation there." Video here, from Minute 40:12.

The UN system has disparate goals, which are rarely reconciled or working together. If the UN is concerned about conflict metals being mined, perhaps it should focus its call for recycling there. And if it cares about worker safety, this should be worked into the campaign from the beginning, and not be an afterthought. We'll see.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unep1coltan051310.html

Angola and Libya Poised for Human Rights Council, Georgia - Russia Fight Next Year?

UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- There are only 14 candidates for the 14 seats on the Human Rights Council up for election on May 13. Despite opposition from some groups and requests by others, this almost certainly means that each of the 14 candidates, including Libya and Angola, will get elected to three year terms on the HRC, a body which last year converted a draft condemning the Sri Lankan government's murder of civilians into a final resolution praising the government.

In Libya, political opponents are imprisoned and disappear. In Angola, poor people are summarily evicted to make way for projects, while oil revenue continues to disappear. There are only two examples.

The one contested race that loomed for May 13 involved Iran running for a seat. The country withdrew, however, in exchange for a spot on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Click here for Inner City Press' Q&A with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about how Iran would use that seat. US Ambassador Susan Rice, being criticized for not opposing this Iran seat, may speak on the topic after Thursday's vote.

In the run up to the election, Inner City Press asked the representatives of two NGOs calling for the casting of empty ballots what they thought of the place of human rights in the UN since Ban Ki-moon took over in 2007. "Kofi Annan was good on these issues," replied Tom Melia of Freedom House. "That's my answer."

Hillel Neuer of UN Watch was more diplomatic, later providing Inner City Press with a detailed explanation of how the voting could go on May 13. He was responding to questions Inner City Press asked the spokesman for the President of the General Assembly, Ali Treki of Libya:

Inner City Press: Sure, Jean Victor. There was a presentation here in the UN by two NGOs about the upcoming vote for the Human Rights Council, countries to be on it. Among other things, they were urging, you know, I guess Member States, to vote against Libya and some certain other candidates for it. But it was unclear since the regional, and I couldn’t really get a straight answer from them how this would work, if the regional groups put forward only you know, two names for two African slots. If in fact a country like Libya were not to receive the 97 affirmative votes, what would be the procedure to actually, to fill that slot? I mean, what is, is being named by a regional group an automatic that you get the seat or is there some, do they have some basis to say that by choosing not to vote, this would somehow reopen it and another country could be elected?

Spokesperson Jean Victor Nkolo: I think we have to allow the General Assembly proceedings to be implemented in the full transparency that the Member States usually apply on these processes. Nothing is sealed, nothing is automatic. That’s why you have a vote. And there are…

Inner City Press: The vote is for two spots, with only two candidates. What happens if people choose not, just choose, as these two NGOs were urging, not to vote for one of the two. Then…?

Spokesperson: There are many votes in the General Assembly and in other organs, and in other proceedings of the UN when you have a limited number of candidates or in some other instances, many candidates. So, we should really not make a pronouncement on this very specific case. I will not comment on the particular of a specific country.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] I’m asking about the procedure, because they seem to be urging people to simply not, you know, not vote, and that this would somehow, you know, this could have an effect, is what they were saying. They were also saying that if people write in another country, that under the GA rules that is not supposed to be recorded as a vote for another, for somebody that is actually not on the ballot. But they say that it is.

Spokesperson: What I will be very happy to do is to put you in touch with our colleagues in the General Assembly Affairs who deal with these very complex, intricate proceedings. But, I believe that Member States should be given not only the chance, but also should be accepted as partners in these proceedings and they implement it quite fairly and transparently. If you do not have many candidates or if proceedings lead to the conclusion that you take these are your own conclusions. But…

Inner City Press: What I am asking, just to be clear, I am asking, this was done, this was inside the UN, it was Freedom House and UN Watch, they had a list, they have a report out; may be you can ask the President Ali Treki if has any response to this type of lobbying by NGOs. I just wanted to, you know, it’s a procedural…

Spokesperson: Well, this is lobbying by NGOs. This has nothing to do with Member States, per se. But, I will still ask the questions, and we will try to find out on the proceedings side. But these are proceedings that are set and that have to be implemented for the time being. I really see no procedural problem that might have been infringed, per se.

Neuer of UN Watch clarified:

Hi Matt, I saw your question to Jean Victor.... First, please note that officially the regional groups are not the ones who decide nominees, as you had indicated. Each country officially can decide on its own. In practice, however, we all know it doesn’t work that way, and that they tend to negotiate among themselves in the regional groups.

Here is how the process works, as diplomats told us, based on UNGA Rule of Procedure 94. A candidate may announce up itself to the actual first round of voting, but we have never seen anyone wait that long to announce. So regarding Libya on the African list — assuming it remains what we call a “closed slate” of 4 names for 4 spots — if Libya doesn’t get 97 the first time, leaving an empty space on the African list, there are two more rounds held for that remaining place. Only Libya’s name would appear on the ballot.

If there is still no conclusive outcome after these 3 rounds of the 1st ballot, the 2d set of three rounds begins and any name may be written in, not only those on the first three rounds. This is called “unrestricted” balloting. (It rarely goes this far.) A “new” candidate does not take the microphone and say “we’re running”, rather the delegates mull about the room and murmur as to what country may be interested/available/desirous/amenable/etc. to being placed on the ballot (this could all be pre-cooked, of course.) This scenario plays out very, very infrequently. It goes back to “restricted” for three and “unrestricted” again for three until there is an outcome.

Neuer also answered 3 questions from Inner City Press:

Q - What do you think will happen on May 13?

Neuer of UN Watch -- Unless Ambassador Susan Rice and her EU colleagues do what UN Watch and 30 other NGOs asked them to do today — lead a campaign to stop Qaddafi — I fear that the “closed slate” politics will win the day and Libya will be elected, along with all the others whom we rated as non-qualified or questionable. Let there be no mistake: the election of Libya will be the most damaging thing the 4-year-old Council has done to date. It’s not just the brutality of the regime, but also the folly that its leader exemplifies. He continues to hold a Swiss businessman hostage in a Libyan jail; last week he gave an interview calling for the dismemberment of Switzerland, which he called “a mafia”; now he’s sending an envoy to the Swiss-based council?

Inner City Press: What do you think of HRW's strategy of seeking commitments from those who are going to run and win, as they put it?

Neuer of UN Watch – I think it’s well-intentioned, but question whether the ones who really need to be held accountable will provide the rope with which to hang them.

Inner City Press: What do you think of next year's battles on the horizon?

Neuer of UN Watch – The new membership will make the OIC even more powerful and lower the democratic minority even further.

A seeming highlight for next year will be Georgia running for a seat, which Russia is expected to oppose. Inner City Press has asked the Russian Mission -- which said generally that Russia loves the Georgian people, just not the government -- watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/hrc1libya051210.html

On Somalia, UN's Ould Abdullah Dismisses 300 MPs as Web Sites, Hasn't Read Report

UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- The UN's envoy on Somalia Ahmedou Ould Abdullah, fresh from being denounced and asked to resign by over 300 members of the Somali parliament, dismissed the criticism on Wednesday as being the product of web sites. "I don't consult web sites, except yours from time to time," he told Inner City Press.

He went on to say that the AP report of 300 MPs was "based on a letter not signed." He did not respond to the rejection of the Norway-funded deal he unilaterally made with Kenya, about Somalis' rights to their shelf continential shelf. As to the criticism that rather than mediating he has taken sides in the Somali conflict, he said "yes I take sides.. for peace, stability, legality, human rights." Video here, from Minute 21:33.

But he has in fact defended violations of human rights by Ugandan and Burundian troops in Mogadishu, who have fired into civilian areas trying to "drain the sea" to get at Islamist rebels. Ould Abdullah earlier called for a moratorium on the reporting of the killing of civilians by AU peacekeepers. Now he says reports by human rights groups are overblown.

Speaking of reports, UK Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parham told the Security Council on Wednesday that he would "like to register our disappointment that the Secretary-General’s report was issued less than 24 hours before this meeting."

Ould Abdullah claimed that he had only read the first draft of his report, trying to explain why in person he was more dismissive of claims of aid diversion than the report was. What exactly is Ould Abdullah doing? He is a man of action. He does not read UN reports, he does not read web sites (except this one, from time to time). He is not based in Mogadishu but rather Nairobi, Kenya. Soon he will be in Turkey beating the drum for donations. But does he have support in Somalia? Apparently not. What is the UN going to do about this? Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/los8somalia051210.html

In Afghanistan, UN Won't Investigate Black Jail or Speak on Election Spending

UNITED NATIONS, May 12, updated -- With Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington to meet with Barack Obama today, it's not only the US that's making nice: the UN is following suit, abdicating even on human rights to both the US military and Karzai government.

In most countries where the UN has a presence, particularly a Mission like it has in Afghanistan, it claims to monitor human rights violations. So for example, if only to burnish its credibility, the UN Mission under both Kai Eide and now Staffan de Mistura has issued press releases criticizing killings of civilians by the US and ISAF, when the numbers are too high.

But when Inner City Press asked the UN on May 11, with Karzai in the US, about reports of a "black prison" on the Bagram base, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky replied "this is a United States base; it’s for the United States to comment on."

Inner City Press asked, "Does UNAMA have any human rights component? Doesn’t the UN have some role, where it has a peacekeeping mission, to investigate claims like this?"

Nesirky said, "The UN’s mandate there is very clear and this particular story... this is something that you can clearly ask the US."

But it's not about asking, it's a question of what the UN is going to do. Does it just sit in a country, see reports of human rights violations, and do nothing? In Sudan, for example, while the UN actually does very little to stop the killing, it does speak about it a lot. But the UN dares not criticize the US -- or for that matter China or other Permanent Five members of the Security Council who could veto a second Ban Ki-moon term.

Nor is the UN clear about money it's said to offer. A week after the UN flip flopped on whether it would offer aid to the interim government in Kyrgyzstan -- at first no, then ostensibly yes, which upon inquiry was simply a quantification of aid already being given -- Inner City Press asked how much the UN will devote to the upcoming Afghan parliamentary election. Karzai's fraud addled election cost the UN quite a bit.

From the May 11 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: it’s reported that the upcoming parliamentary elections there; this IEC [Independent Election Commission] official, Zakaria Barakzai, has said that the UN will make up a funding shortfall of some $40 million. Is that the case? What is going to be the UN’s financial contribution or activity in connection with that election?

Spokesperson Nesirky: We need to find out the exact numbers for you, if you’re giving me numbers like this. I am not familiar with those. I would need to find out.

Inner City Press: Also it’s reported, including by the UN’s own ReliefWeb, that the Afghan Government has cancelled the licences of 172 non-governmental organizations, including 20 international NGOs. I’m wondering if the UN, as it did in Sudan, for example, has any comment on this cancelling of licences of NGOs.

Spokesperson: This is something that our colleagues in Kabul are probably very familiar with. I have not heard; my colleagues here in New York have not heard any particular word from the Mission there. If we have something, then we will obviously let you know.

Inner City Press: There is also a report today that, both by the BBC and the Red Cross, of the discovery of a black jail; i.e., an unreported interrogation centre on the Bagram Air Force Base that the United States runs in Afghanistan. I wonder if it’s, if that is anything that the UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan] or its human rights component has ever heard of? Do they intend to investigate it? Do they have any comment on it?

Spokesperson: That’s something for the United States. This is a United States base; it’s for the United States to comment on. We’ve seen the reports.

Question: Does UNAMA have any human rights component? Doesn’t the UN have some role, where it has a peacekeeping mission, to investigate claims like this?

Spokesperson: The UN’s mandate there is very clear and this particular story — obviously we’ve seen that story on the BBC. This is something that you can clearly ask the US.

But the US Misison to the UN hasn't even answer a question posed on the morning of May 11, 24 hours later. Watch this site.

Update: over 24 hours later, this came in:

Subject: Your questions on Afghanistan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com

We have some answers from UNAMA concerning your recent questions at the noon briefing about Afghanistan.

Concerning the financing of the Afghan elections: It is not correct that the UN funds elections in Afghanistan. Rather, Staffan de Mistura has asked donors to release funds to support Afghanistan's electoral bodies for the upcoming elections. The UN will work on mobilizing funds to fill the gap.

Concerning the licensing of NGOs: The UN Mission (UNAMA) and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) are looking into it further but have no comment at this time. It does not seem to affect any NGOs working with UN.

Concerning reports about a secret prison facility at Bagram, UNAMA has no independent information on this report.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/unama1jail051210.html