Monday, December 30, 2013

With DR Congo's Mende Citing "Terrorist Attack," Will France Draft UNSC Statement, As Full Battalion Shifted to South Sudan?


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 30 -- Amid the gunfire in Kinshasa, the spokesperson for Joseph Kabila has called it a "terrorist attack." 

   Following minster of information Lambert Mende's statement, and the events, the question arises: will France, which holds the UN Security Council "pen" on the DRC and controlled the Council's recent trip there now draft a Council press statement on the chaos?

  While this remains to be seen -- France has been silent in the Council of last on the breakdown in its former colony the Central African Republic, even as eight African peacekeepers have been killed -- it must be noted that the UN has proposed removing a full battalion of peacekeepers from its MONUSCO mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click here for long form analysis on Beacon Reader.

  For a week since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that he would move peacekeepers and "assets" including attack helicopters from DRC, Darfur, Abyei, Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire to South Sudan, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky about any UN analysis or recognition of the potential impacts on the places the peacekeepers would be removed from.

  Nesirky has not answered the questions. None of them. Another question Inner City Press asked, about tensions between South Korea and Japan including in South Sudan after Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe's visit to a shrine for Japan's World War Two dead, Nesirky answered but first to other media on a regional or politicized basis, 13 hours before a more general "Note to Correspondents." These practices are being opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access.
  Mende's use of the word "terrorist" has significance: the Security Council routinely issues fast press statements condemning terrorist attacks. (See yesterday's Inner City Press story here.) So will France propose a press statement now on the DRC? And will it address, as the UN Secretariat hasn't, the pull out of a battalion from MONUSCO at this time? Watch this site.
Footnote: Meanwhile for hours after what Mende called the "terrorist attack," nothing has been heard from the UN's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler. One wag wondered if Kobler was "pulling a Hilde Johnson" -- the UN's envoy in South Sudan said little in the days after the fighting and killing in Juba. Is Kobler now as aligned with Kabila as Johnson is with Salva Kiir?
  Kobler's MONUSCO mission was blithely tweeting out photographs of blue helmets holding hands with Congolese children... in Pinga in North Kivu, far far away. This is the Department of Peacekeeping Operations under Herve Ladsous, who "has a policy" of not answering Press questions, video here, UK coverage here. This is the UN of late: no answers, just spin.

 
  

Sunday, December 29, 2013

With South Sudan Poised To Take Bentiu "Anytime," UN Focused on Kiir & Bor, Questions UNanswered 200 Hours


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 29 -- In South Sudan, in the run-up to to Salva Kiir's army re-taking of Bor, the UN did not call for restraint. Now with the SPLA saying it will re-take Bentiu anytime, where is the UN? Nowhere, it seems. It is heavily focused on discouraging any re-retaking of Bor.  UN envoy Hilde Johnson is a long-time supporter of Salva Kiir, and not Riek Machar.

  Rather than answer actual questions that were posed throughout last week, some below then more on December 26 and 27, the UN Spokesperson puts out press releases, and YouTube video of 72 Bangladeshi peacekeepers arriving from the UN Mission in the Congo. With civilians also under threat in DRC, what's the impact of the transfer? The UN has refused to answer.

 On December 29 the UN was "appalled" at the killing in Darfur of peacekeepers from Senegal and Jordan. UNsaid is that the UN plans to transfer a full battalion from Darfur to South Sudan.
  On December 24 after the UN Security Council voted 15-0 for a US-draft resolution to shift peacekeepers from five other Missions to South Sudan, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Kiir's ultimatum for retaking Bentiu. Video here, from Minute 3:39. From the UN's transcript:
Inner City Press: What about Bentiu? It was said that the Government has given an ultimatum for the rebel forces to leave Bentiu; otherwise they say they are going go into force. What does that UN think of that? Would you call for restraint? What is the role of UNMISS on this retake in Bor and now Bentiu?

SG Ban Ki-moon: There is no military solution at this time. Therefore, I am urging again that the leaders, whatever their differences may be, should start dialogue immediately. I have been speaking with African and other world leaders yesterday and today, with a lot of leaders, so that they could provide necessary assets and resources, as well as demonstrate their influence, whoever they may have [it on]. 
  Ban used the phrase, "There is no military solution." One hears this a lot these days from the UN -- it was NOT heard when Sri Lanka's government killed tens of thousands in 2009 in the bloodbath on the beach -- but even when said, it does not always mean the same thing.
  It can be said with a wink and a nod, like, just re-take Bentiu as quickly as you can, before the Security Council has to meet again. 
 On December 25, SPLA army spokesman Philip Aguer was quoted that "the SPLA forces are in the western part of the state and the SPLA is reorganizing. Definitely they will launch an attack on Bentiu any time." And where is the UN, urging any kind of restraint? Nowhere.
  In Juba on December 24, Kiir-supporting UN envoy Hilde Johnson first postponed her press conference in deference to Kiir's information minister, then held it and praised Kiir's talk of accountability. Perhaps she hadn't read of Nuer killed in Juba under color of state law. 
  At least Johnson belatedly took some questions in Juba. In New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky refused to hold a simple noon briefing on December 23 or 24.
  In lieu of the needed December 24 noon briefing, Inner City Press submitted questions on South Sudan ("what is UN's knowledge of government assault on / re-taking of Bor? What is the level of casualties? Did anyone in the UN system urge restraint?"), on the UN and rule of law, and on the Central African Republic, dysfunctional fighting between "peacekeepers" there - we'll have more on this. Here are some of the pending questions:
December 26: Hilde Johnson "spoke of disarming those who enter UNMISS bases. Please state if this applied to the 27 SPLA fighters whom UNMISS spokesperson Joe Contreras was quoted by Reuters as saying sought shelter with with UNMISS in Rubkona, across the river from Bentiu, and separately state if UNMISS has sheltered SPLA fighters anywhere else in the past two weeks."
"Please describe MONUSCO's actions to protect civilians from (and to "neutralize") ADF-Nalu in Beni and FDLR since mid-December, and state which battalion would be taken from the DRC to South Sudan, and how that would not undercut the pledge to now neutralize the FDLR, and protect civilians."
December 27: "In Bentiu, what medical assistance staff are available now that MSF says it has pulled out? 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?
What is UN's knowledge of any planned government assault on / re-taking of Bentiu? Does the SG or anyone in the UN system urge restraint?

Please respond to quotes from diplomats that those with Dinka surnames, regardless of nationality, have difficulty leaving Bor (and Bentiu);

Please state the status / knowledge of UNMISS base in Aweil, and in Kuacjok;

While your Office has said the Secretariat won't get involved in the staff union election the results of which were published on i-Seek, on January 2 which ticket will have access to the Staff Union office in the Alcoa building, in light of Ticket 2's letter to Ban Ki-moon et al? Please confirm that the outgoing president will be recalled to post.

In the Central African Republic, please confirm or deny that Chadian peacekeepers fired on protesters (and that the UN will do about it), and engaged in a skirmish with Burundian peacekeepers.
  The chief of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who understated the death toll in South Sudan then disappeared from sight, has a "policy" of not answering Press questions.Video here, UK coverage here. 
  Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping, in the midst of all this on December 24, tweeted praise of itself and its mission in Mali, where Chadian "peacekeepers" shoot civilians as they now have in Central African Republic as well, there also throwing a grenade at "fellow" Burundian peacekeepers. 
  Amid all this, while refusing to answer written questions on South Sudan, CAR and corruption for 100 hours, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson has refused to even hold a normal noon briefing today.
  Again, Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office STILL not holding noon briefings -- and has left questions unanswered for 100 hours now. The Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info has protested, again, here.
  On the morning of December 21, Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokespeople, and then the listed "Weekend Duty Officer," about Ban's proposed shift of assets and the shift's potential impacts . More than four days later, they had not answered.
  Ban took four questions on December 23 but none on this.
  Ban's lead 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 word of killing including 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.
  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.
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.

 
  

Volgograd Bomb Condemned by UN Security Council Without Citing Human Rights as on Lebanon, Kenya, Somalia and Yemen; France's CAR Silence


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 29 -- The UN Security Council quickly issued a press statement on December condemning the suicide bombing in the Russian city of Volgograd earlier in the day. 

  The Council is able to circulate and approve such statements quickly because, members say, there is a standardized statement including that "any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed."

But as Inner City Press reported in 2011 and remains the case now, the terrorism statements are NOT standard.

Earlier this week, the Council press statement on the bombing in Beirut that killed among others the former finance minister Mohammed Chatah cited the need for Lebanon's fight against terrorism to comply with human rights:

"The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and all obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts."
The invocation of human rights is in the statements the Security Council directs at Somalia and Kenya and Mali (December 14)e and Yemen (December 5), for example, but was not included in 2011 with respect to then-Council member India.
Some say the proponents of this phrase in the Council only direct it at less powerful countries. Countries like the US and Russia as recently of the October suicide bombing in Volgograd can simply say, we don't want a statement.
There is also the matter of which Council member does the initial draft of a statement. On that, Inner City Press has for days asked, with at least eight African MISCA peacekeepers killed in the Central African Republic in recent days, why has no Security Council press statement been drafted by France, which is both President of the Council for December and has the pen in its former colony CAR? Watch this site.

 
  

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Amid Delay, Ban Ki-moon Praises Syria OPCW Chemical Weapons Team, No UN Answer for 5 Days on Staffer Allegedly Probed


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, December 28 -- Even about its Syria chemical weapons mission with the OPCW, beyond theUN's failure to respond to questions about its performance in South Sudan and Central African Republic, the UN has refused answers on questions of corruption raised by whistleblowing staff. 

   Questions put in writing to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's two top spokespeople five days ago, and a follow up 28 hours ago, remain unanswered. Now Ban echoes the OPCW statement that the will be a limited delay in removing "the first tranche" of chemical weapons from Syria -- but praises the Mission's team.

  But consider the issued raised, below and in this unresponded to follow up question:

"As a follow up to the not-answered [earlier question, see below], please confirm or deny that Michael Antoine has also transferred from UNTSO to the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, but that he is in Cyprus; please explain his duties to jump from FS4 to FS6; please describe the Joint Mission's interview and recruitment practices."
  This question has not been answered; a question Inner City Press submitted about the tension between South Korea and Japan, including in South Sudan, caused by Japan's prime minister's visit to a shrine for the country's World War Two dead was answered in a statement apparently given to other media, on a regional or political basis, 13 hours before today's "first" Note to Correspondents. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging these practices.
   Previously Inner City Press had asked, without answer:
"Please confirm or deny that Abdullah Fadil is with the UN-OPCW joint mission on chemical weapons in Syria, that while at UNTSO he managed to have Ministry of Foreign Affairs cards from both Israel and Lebanon, and separately that he is under investigation by OIOS and/or other UN bodies for recruitment irregularities and SEA."
  Five days later the question has not even been acknowledged, much less answered. Questions submitted and re-submitted to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's top two spokespeople on the morning of December 21, about civilians at risk, have not been acknowledged. 
  By stonewalling, and by the practices described in the below, which are evident elsewhere and to the very top of the UN system, the UN credibility is being damaged. At least questions should be answered.
  While we have more, here's from the underlying whistleblower's initial complaint giving rise to the question, about the current chief of staff of UN - OPCW mission for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Syria:
I am an avid reader of the Inner City Press. My numerous Missions with the UN can confirm what your many articles state: rampant corruption, nepotism, and recruitment manipulation at all levels in the UN. Sadly, this conduct is only increasing. Within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) it is not "what you know" but it’s "who you know." There is an absolute absence of accountability. It is often said that nobody gets fired unless you are a whistle-blower or suspected of bringing the UN into disrepute by exposing corruption; usually after becoming exasperated trying to deal with it via due process. After speaking to many staff members, I am compelled to report a matter that concerns me. The mission/UN is failing to take action and I feel that it is time that external scrutiny is required.
1. Mr. Abdullah Fadil, a Somali (now Canadian), is a member of the UNTSO Mission in Israel. He is an international staff Member at the level of Director (D1) and occupies the position of Chief Mission Support (CMS). He is the most senior civilian in the mission. As CMS he has control over all administrative functions, most notably, finance, procurement, and recruitment. He previously held similar positions in Kosovo, Khartoum and Darfur... He is well known in the DPKO system and there are numerous allegations against Mr. Fadil presently being investigated by the Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS), Ombudsman Office, and the Complaints and Discipline Unite (CDU). These allegations range from sexual harassment, Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA), to manipulating recruiting to allow friends (internally) and externally to jump recruitment rosters. This includes managing recruiting panels and overseeing the selection process.
All UNTSO staff recruited in the UNTSO Mission in the three years he has been the CMS are either former girlfriends, absolute loyal friends from former missions, or family members. The method of control is to provide the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) with his handpicked short list along with a verbal directive as to whom he wished to be selected. This practice tended to exclude competent staff as he put loyalty to himself as the primary selection criteria. This allowed him to have a foundation of very loyal staff that he could rely upon. Senior managers within the mission could not recruit competent staff. Managers who voiced their concern were either moved sideways or resigned.
4. Due to these many complaints he was asked to take a temporary assignment to Syria (OPCW) to reduce the level of discontent in the mission.
5. The allegations include obstructing an investigation by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) into the fraudulent use of tax free PX fuel cards (Israel) by national staff and some international staff. His obstruction included briefing the suspect prior to being interviewed by investigators. His intent was cover up the extent of the fraud by International Staff (friends) who had aided and abetted the fraud. This allegation also included misuse of duty free products (alcohol) to pay rent in disputed territories.
6. A most egregious act that must be investigated, and which should result in his termination from the UN, is the fraudulent acquisition of a MOFA card from the government of Lebanon. The circumstances are that Mr. Fadil is located in Jerusalem and holds a valid Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) card which grants him residency in Israel. To qualify for this status, one is required to reside/hold residency in that country due to one’s UN official status. The process requires that one file a signed request to the Host Government for a MOFA card as an official of the United Nations. The signature verifies the accuracy of the document and information provided. One must include an address, UN letter of appointment, and photographs. The MOFA card grants certain privileges and benefits as a member of the UN.
In addition to the Israeli MOFA card provided to Mr. Fadil by the Israeli Government, he was recently found to have a MOFA card from the Government of Lebanon. Inquiries confirm that two years ago he fraudulently applied for MOFA status in Lebanon stating that he was a resident in Lebanon. This is not true as he and family reside in Jerusalem. He has also misrepresented himself to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Fadil has been using that same Lebanese MOFA card in Lebanon to obtain benefits. In short, he has two MOFA cards; one for Israel and one Lebanon. When this fraud becomes known to the governments of Israel and Lebanon they might apply a high level of scrutiny to new legitimate applicants. This could have a significant impact on UN staff members and UNMOs applying for MOFA cards within Lebanon and Israel. He has placed us all at disadvantage by giving both governments cause to delay and further investigate applications. He has placed the UN in a difficult position. Hence the cover up.
We will have more. There are a number of other Press questions long-pending in Ban Ki-moon's Office of the Spokesperson, never responded to, stonewalled. Watch this site.

 
  

On South Sudan, As Salva Kiir Moves on Bentiu and Riek Machar Accuses IGAD-Member Uganda of Bombing, UN's Ban Ki-moon Praises Them


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 28 -- Amid reports of attempts to "retake Bentiu" and to re-retake Bor in South Sudan, and after Riek Machar accused IGAD-member Uganda of bombing troops loyal to him, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued this statement:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Subject: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the outcome of IGAD Summit
Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on the outcome of IGAD Summit
The Secretary-General welcomes the outcome of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Summit held on 27 December, appointing a mediation team to work with the Government of south Sudan and opposition in reaching a cease fire, the release of the detainees and building toward a process of peaceful dialogue.
The Secretary-General commends IGAD for its work and offers his full support to this process.
The United Nations stands with the people of South Sudan and will continue to do everything within its means to protect civilians at risk and provide necessary humanitarian assistance.
All violence, attacks and human rights abuses must end immediately. The Secretary-General reminds those responsible that they will be held accountable. He calls on the Government and all concerned to ensure the rights and security of civilians are protected.
New York, 28 December 2013

  It sounds fine, but what about Bentiu? What of Machar's allegations against IGAD-member Uganda? As set forth below, what about the areas including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from which peacekeepers are being withdrawn? 


While the UN has refused to answer Press questions about the foreseeable impacts of moving peacekeepers out of the Eastern Congo, Darfur, Abyei and even Cote d'Ivoire, on December 27 it uploaded to YouTube a video featuring 72 Bangladeshi UNPOL peacekeepers arriving in South Sudan from now less-protected by unspecified parts of the DRC.
  The Bangladeshi move, approved quickly by prime ministerSheikh Hasina whom the UN has purported just a week before to be pressuring for flexibility in upcoming elections, was meant to show how seriously the UN takes the protection of civilians. 
   But what is being left behind in the Congo? Why not answer that question? See longer form analysis on Beacon Reader, here.
  The UN Security Council, whose president for December Gerard Araud told Inner City Press that the impact of the shifting of peacekeepers had not been discussed, was slated to here from the UN's envoy to South Sudan Hilde Johnson on December 27. 
  But that session was canceled, so that Johnson could go to the IGAD meeting in Nairobi and presumably make Salva Kiir's case.
  Now it is re-scheduled for 10 am on December 30. At least the Council is meeting on South Sudan -- with 11 peacekeepers killed this month in Central African Republic, the Council barely meets on it.
  France's president Francois Hollande and UN Secretary General Ban -- location undisclosed -- had a telephone chat and different read-outs on December 27. Hollande said he wants the UN to play a more important role (read, pick up the slack, save the bacon, cut and run) and Ban Ki-moon promised to consult with the Security Council on the coming days.
  But where is he? The UN will not say, despite a request from the Free UN Coalition for Access. This, the UN tries to erase -- or Ban -- from its transcripts, click here for that. Now, Ban's spokesperson gave some media a statement on Japan, South Korea and China between 7 and 8 pm on December 27 -- then emailed it to others, including the Press which has earlier asked about the tensions, a full 13 hours later. And so it goes in Ban's UN. Watch this site.