UN's NGO Committee Dominated by Sudan, Later US Speaks, Then Sycophants to Power

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- The UN's Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on Janary 29 was dominated by Sudan and Mauritania, Cuba and Nicaragua. Led by Sudan, questions were directed at NGOs like Shi'a Rights Watch and the International Association of Independent Journalists. Inner City Press as before covered the Committee's back and forth, here and here.

The United States spoke up on the former, not the latter. At 6 pm the meeting abruptly ended, with the scheduling of a closed door session for 9:30 am on January 30 about the Committee's “work methods.”

  After that, US Ambassador Samantha Power, speaking by Twitter, said “very concerning initiative in NGO Committee to prevent UN from publicly reporting what member states say about NGO's seeking accreditation.... In an era of global crackdown on civil society, the UN's NGO Committee must set the example for openness & transparency. RT if you agree.”

  Among the re-tweeters was the UN Correspondents Association, a group that decided does not support the rights in independent journalists, having tried for example to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, see here and here and here (UK Guardian here). This led to the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which presses for increased access to the UN.

 The feed of UNCA, more properly known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, is in fact run by censors, here. They didn't even cover the NGO Committee, only playing sycophant to Power after the fact. And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.

Footnotes: the day before in the UN's NGO Committee the proposal was made to proceed, in meetings making up for those cancelled by snow, without interpretation. Cuba and Nicaragua objected, as others were sure to. We'll see.

Chile's UN Security Council Month Had 7 Stakeouts, Haiti Trip Without Cholera Accountability, No Palestine Resolution

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- When Chile's Ambassador Cristián Barros Melet held a January 5 press conference on the month's Program of Work of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about a next Palestine resolution, about rapes and expulsions in Sudan and, on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access to hold as many question and answer stakeouts as possible.

  Twenty four days later, when Chile held its End of Presidency reception just north of the UN at the River Club, there was still no Palestine resolution -- no fault of Chile, whose Foreign Minister Heraldo Munoz mid-month explained the country's support of, and embassy in, Palestine.

  The mass rapes in Tabit in Darfur had yet to be followed up on by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, whose chief Herve Ladsous refused Press questions, here, unlike Barros.

 On the rapes, the Ambassadors of the UK and Lithuania replied to Inner City Press that they are raising the issue to DPKO, in consultations. Will this bear fruit in February?

  Barros himself held six stakeouts, each time agreeing to take questions even if slightly off camera; Heraldo Munoz held another on January 15, for a Chilean total of seven.

 There were two meetings on Ukraine, and one on Lebanon which a full day later had yet to produce even a press statement. One Ambassador at the end of presidency reception complained to Inner City Press that the killing of peacekeepers should always result in such a Statement, "no matter who is responsible."

 Because we have reviewed other End of Presidency reception, we'll review this one, complete with ceviche on plantains, sliders and one of Ladsous' predecessors, Jean-Marie Guehenno. He was once quoted urging the UN to do more about cholera in Haiti - the failure to raise this issue during the Council's visit to Port au Prince and Cap Haitien is still to be explained.

 There are not enough media questions like this; the head of the old UN Correspondents Association, unquestioning receptor, was seen hailing a taxi for the less than ten block trip to the River Club. What's next, an UNCA faux UN briefing on climate change? But that's another story. For now, hats off to Chile, from which we hope to hear more throughout this year.

   

On Ethiopia Versus Zone 9 Bloggers, US Worried, But UN Tells Free UN Coalition for Access It Is UNaware

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- The attack on Ethiopia's Zone 9 bloggers, which Inner City Press covered in late April, now has Ethiopia moving forward with a trial against them.

 On January 29 Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN Spokesman

Inner City Press: "about press restrictions in Ethiopia, journalists are denied entry visas, there are restrictions on what could be published.  Does the UN believe that the coverage of the summit and of its operations in Ethiopia are impacted by the restrictions on the Internet and the press there?  Thanks."

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't have any details on Ethiopia, but obviously, our principled stand is for freedom of the press and to allow journalists to do their work and obviously a free and accessible Internet is critical to that.  I'm not aware of any impact on the AU [African Union] summit.

  Later on January 29, the US State Department spokesperson said

"The United States is concerned by the Ethiopian Federal High Court’s January 28, 2015, decision to proceed with the trial of six bloggers and three independent journalists on charges under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation.  The decision undermines a free and open media environment—critical elements for credible and democratic elections, which Ethiopia will hold in May 2015.

"We urge the Ethiopian government to ensure that the trial is fair, transparent, and in compliance with Ethiopia’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.  We also urge the Ethiopian government to ensure that the trial is free of political influence and continues to be open to public observation.

"The use of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation in previous cases against journalists, activists, and opposition political figures raises serious questions about the implementation of the law and about the sanctity of Ethiopians’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental elements of a democratic society.  We call on the government of Ethiopia to support freedom of expression and freedom of the press to demonstrate its commitment to democracy as it approaches its May 2015 national elections. "

  The UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon has after pressure condemned just this in Egypt. But when Inner City Press on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the terrorism charges on July 18, at first there was no comment at all. 

  Then the UN Spokesperson's Office sent Inner City Press a link to a statement by Navi Pillay -- from May 2. Nothing since?

  Now later on July 18, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki has said:

The United States is deeply concerned by the Ethiopian Federal High Court’s July 18 decision to press charges against six bloggers and three independent journalists under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation.

We urge the Ethiopian government to ensure that the trial is fair, transparent, and in compliance with Ethiopia’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.  We also urge the Ethiopian government to ensure that the trial is open to public observation and free of political influence.

We reiterate Secretary Kerry’s May 1 call on Ethiopia to refrain from using anti-terrorism laws as a mechanism to curb the free exchange of ideas.  The use of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation in previous cases against journalists, activists, and opposition political figures raises serious questions and concerns about the intent of the law, and about the sanctity of Ethiopians' constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental elections of a democratic society. The arrest of journalists and bloggers, and their prosecution under terrorism laws, has a chilling effect on the media and all Ethiopians’ right to freedom of expression.

 Now will Ban's UN say something? Watch this site."

 Previously we asked, after US-based Twitter has suspended Natnail Feleke's account, what would the US say? Did Twitter give in to Ethiopia, as it has been doing in Turkey, where Ergodan has also claimed it have "copyrights" his own leaked phone calls? 

  This recalls an anti-Press complaint to the UN now being banned from Search by Google under a spurious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint, here. In the UN itself, a request has been made to have UNTV censor even cut-aways of opponents, click here for that. The newFree UN Coalition for Access is asking the UN and countries' diplomats at the UN about all this.

  Watch this site.

Footnote: Outright censorship as well as freedom of the press issues have arisen at the UN with respect to Voice of America, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry serves. Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed with the BBG - and with the State Department, including with regard to South Sudan and the US Atrocities Prevention Board. The issues are being pursued by the new Free UN Coalition for Access. Watch this site.

   

UN's Central African Republic Probers Cited MINUSCA & Sangaris, But Human Rights Watch Cites Only African Union Force for Abuse: Selective Vision?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29, more here -- On Central African Republic, today's report by Human Rights Watch tries to limit abuses to the African Union force and not the UN force of French Sangaris - but the UN's own Commission of Inquiry recited complaints against all three.  HRW says:

"Some AU peacekeepers, while providing important civilian protection during their deployment, also committed serious human rights abuses, although according to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, those facing allegations were not integrated into MINUSCA."

  This is going soft on the UN and its head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, who as noted undermined the UN's stated "human rights due diligence policy."

Back on January 21 when Philip Alston and Fatimata M'Baye, two of the three members of the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Central African Republic, took questions, Inner City Press asked about alleged abuses in CAR by the MISCA / MINUSCA peacekeepers and French soldiers in Sangaris.

   The report says that complaints were received against all of these, but only MISCA (the African Union force) was looked into. It describes allegations in PK12, Baoli and Bossangoa and proposes that the UN Security Council set up a mechanism. 

  But what about prosecution, Inner City Press asked, and why weren't the allegations against Sangaris and the current MINUSCA even looked into? Report here, Para 542.

   Alston, whom Inner City Press has previously asked about Sri Lanka, for example, emphasized that it may not be realistic or productive to speak of referring these to the International Criminal Court, but that the mechanism proposal is new. (It is; we'll have more on it.)

  Inner City Press asked if this mechanism proposal would apply, for example, to the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. Alston said that problem has “plagued” the UN; in the case of individual peacekeepers, he said, there should be accountability.

And how about this?With UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic guarding prisons, Ladsous on December 9 refused to answer a simple Press question about the practice. Video here, and embedded below.
  

  Ladsous had told the Security Council that "inmates inside the Bangui central prison seized weapons and shot and threw hand grenades at UN peacekeepers providing static guard duty outside the prison. Three UN troops and one UN police officer were injured in the incident."

  But should UN peacekeepers be functioning as prison guards? When Ladsous left the Security Council -- unlike his predecessors Alain Le Roy and Jean-Marie Guehenno Ladsous does not to question and answer stakeouts on UNTV -- Inner City Press asked him, Does the UN guard prisons in the Central African Republic?

  Ladsous indicated, as he has before, I do not answer your questions, Mister, and walked to the elevator. But he is paid both to run DPKO and to explain it to the public, including answering questions.

   

Colombia Offers Troops to UN, Which Makes Human Rights Claims, 22 Police in Haiti

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met on January 26 with Colombia's Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzón Bueno, Inner City Press had heard it concerned Colombian UN peacekeepers.

  So Inner City Press went up to the UN's 38th floor for thephoto opportunity, here, which followed similar sessions between Ban and Israeli President Rivlin and Swedish Foreign Minister Wallstrom.

   For the latter two, the UN issued read-outs that same day. But not for the Colombia meeting. So at the January 28 UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked for one. Later in the afternoon, this was sent out:

“The Secretary-General met on Monday, 26 January, with H.E. Mr. Juan Carlos Pinzón Bueno, Minister of Defense of Colombia. They discussed Colombia's support to United Nations peacekeeping operations, including to the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). The Secretary-General commended Colombia for its commitment and welcomed future collaboration in this area. 

“The Secretary-General also commended the progress made in the Colombian peace talks and reiterated the Organization's support to this process, which is critical to bring peace and stability to the people of Colombia.”

  The phrase “including to MINUSTAH,” seemed strange -- that is the only peacekeeping mission in which Colombia has personnel, not peacekeeping troops but rather 22 police.

   Inner City Press look further into it and finds that while a Memorandum of Understanding was signed -- the Department of Peacekeeping Operations' Edmond Mulet and not Herve Ladsous was present at the photo op on January 26, but apparently Ladsous signed, typically off camera -- actual contribution and deployment of peacekeeping troops from Colombia will require action by that country's legislature, at earliest in March.  

  The deployment of the 22 police to MINUSTAH in Haiti apparently did not require legislative approval, although UN police in Haiti generally have weapons and have used them -- see story here for an investigation not yet public.

   Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric in more detail about this at the January 29 noon briefing. Dujarric said he had an answer but couldn't find it and would send it out later.  Three hours later, this was sent out:

"In response to questions at today’s Noon Briefing about Colombia’s potential participation in UN peacekeeping operations, the Spokesman has the following response:

"This past Monday, the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations signed a pre-agreement with the government of Colombia, paving the way to the country's participation, as a potential troop contributor, in UN peacekeeping operations. This pre-agreement is the first step in a well-established process.

"The Department of Peacekeeping Operations welcomes the signing of this pre-agreement, congratulates Colombia for its willingness to join the peacekeeping partnership, and looks forward to reaching a full and formal agreement that will includes all relevant UN policies and practices; including in relation to human rights screening of Colombian soldiers and officers to be deployed in peacekeeping missions."

  There - was that so difficult? Watch this site.

   

In DR Congo, UN Only "Supports" Army, As On Minova Rapes, Human Rights Watch Soft on Ladsous

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- After the UN repeatedly said Congolese President Joseph Kabila would sign with the UN a Joint Directive for military operations against the FDLR, and a week after the UN's Herve Ladsous refused to answer Press questions about it, the UN put this out:

"'MONUSCO will provide full support to the FARDC, both operationally and logistically,' declared Martin Kobler, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in the DRC. FARDC Chief of Army Staff, General Etumba announced the launch of military operations against the FDLR on Thursday 29 January 2015 in Beni, during a press conference, in the presence of MONUSCO Force Commander, General Dos Santos Cruz. Prior to this meeting, the Chief of MONUSCO, Martin Kobler finalized the details of the cooperation between the FARDC and MONUSCO with General Etumba."

  So was the joint declaration signed, and if not, why not?

  UN Peacekeeping providing "full support to the FARDC" has a bad record - under Herve Ladsous, full support continued to two FARDC units involved in the mass rape of over 100 -- or "at least 76" -- women and girls in Minova in November 2012.

 Today's Human Rights Watch report says

"A year after the mass rape of at least 76 women and girls by soldiers in and around Minova, Congo’s Military Operational Court opened a trial on November 20, 2013, for 39 soldiers, including five high-ranking officers, on charges of war crimes and other offenses. On May 5, the verdict was announced, with only two low-ranking soldiers convicted of rape."

  But, typically soft on the UN, HRW does not mention the UN's claimed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy much less its underminer-in-chief Herve Ladsous.

(By contrast, even the International Peace Institute reports that "After [MONUSCO SRSG] Kobler referred to the UN’s stated Human Rights
Due Diligence Policy, Inner City Press asked him if any UN support was withdrawn over the DRC Army’s 130 rapes in Minova and only two convictions.Kobler’s answer did not mention any aid suspended.”)

On January 22 Ladsous made a speech about freedom of the press in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the UN Security Council, and made excuses for not acting to “neutralize” the Hutu FDLR rebels as the UN did the largely Tutsi M23. 

Then Ladsous came to the Security Council stakeout, ostensibly to take questions.

  Inner City Press asked, “On the neutralization of the FDLR, what is the hold up?”

  Ladsous said "I don't respond to your questions, Mister." Video hereand embedded below.

   Then Ladsous turned and gave the question to Reuters. When that back and forth was over, Inner City Press asked if any of the countries in the UN's Force Intervention Brigade are well than willing to attack the FDLR, as senior diplomats at the UN have told Inner City Press.

   Ladsous refused to answer this question, and gestured that Ban Ki-moon's envoy to the DRC Martin Kobler, standing behind Ladsous at the stakeout, shouldn't answer it either. Reuters took or was given another question, distancing the FDLR from genocide.

   Finally Inner City Press asked both men what if anything UN Peacekeeping has done as the Kabila government has frozen the accounts of the Panzi hospital for rape victims.  Ladsous waved this off -- for months he waved off Press questions about mass rape in Minova by his partners in the Congolese Army, video here -- and walked away with this spokesman. 

 (One can only imagine the advise this “communications professional” is giving Ladsous. Perhaps he can help Ladsous address his history with Hutu groups as evidence in this memo. These are Press questions.)

   Kobler to his credit told Inner City Press he would come back and answer, and he did, albeit only some, and off camera. That will be another story. Because the story here is, how can a person in charge of UN Peacekeeping be allowed to refuse particular media's questions in this way? While, in classic UN fashion, giving a speech about freedom of the press, elsewhere? The weakness of current UN leadership comes to mind.

  But as many ask, WHY does Ladsous refuse to answer Inner City Press? While he has refused to answer that, too, it began when Inner City Press reported that Ladsous was not even France's first choice for the position - Jerome Bonnafont was.

   Tellingly, an Agence France Presse member of the Executive Committee of the so-called UN Correspondents Association complainedabout this Inner City Press story, and soon the Executive Committee of UNCA, under then and now president Giampaolo Pioli, made more complaint about that story, and another about Sri Lanka, demanding it be removed from the Internet.

   Inner City Press quit UNCA and co-founded the Free UN Coalition for Access, which demands that all UN Under Secretaries General answer questions. UNCA, for course, has said nothing about Ladsous' refusal. It is the UN's Censorship Alliance. More on this -- including video -- to follow.

   

On Sri Lanka, UN Tells Inner City Press Ban Ki-moon Hopes for Cooperation on "Investigation on What Happened" in 2009 - But Whose Investigation?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- After Sri Lanka's new government spoke of doing another local investigation into war crimes in 2009, Inner City Press on January 29 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon thinks of this back to the future approach.

 Dujarric told Inner City Press, "We've seen those reports, obviously, we're trying to figure out what it means in terms of the cooperation with the UN human rights investigation. We hope there is positive movement in the cooperation between Sri Lanka and the UN system on the investigation of what happened."

  One assumes "the investigation" means the UN Human Rights Council mandated investigation. 

  Back on January 12 the UN said that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made this call:

"The Secretary-General congratulated President Sirisena’s election and the successful conclusion of the presidential election. The Secretary-General and President Sirisena discussed the President’s 100-day plan and Sri Lanka’s post-war agenda. The Secretary-General affirmed continuous support by the UN to Sri Lanka."

  That is, the UN's read-out of Ban's call had no mention of accountability or of the UN Human Rights Council inquiry into the bloodbath on the beach in 2009. We'll have more on this.

 After Mahinda Rajapaksa conceded defeat but before 10:30 pm on January 8 in Washington, US Secretary of State issued a statement, below. 

  Inner City Press published it, and asked the UN for its comment. Told to expect one in the AM, New York time, Inner City Press noted, the earlier the better. Twelve hours later, there was nothing.

  So Inner City Press asked again at the noon briefing on January 9, after new President Sirisena's inauguration. UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN welcomes the transfer of power, then later in the briefing read out this statement:

"The Secretary-General congratulates the people of Sri Lanka on the successful conclusion of the presidential election, and welcomes the constitutional transfer of power.

"The Secretary-General applauds the Sri Lankan Elections Commission for its professionalism in ensuring a peaceful and credible election. He also commends the efforts of the candidates, including in particular outgoing President Mahinda Rajapaksa, law enforcement agencies and civil society for upholding and respecting democratic governance.

"The Secretary-General looks forward to working with President Maithripala Sirisena and the people of Sri Lanka. He affirms the continuous support of the United Nations for development, reconciliation, political dialogue and accountability in Sri Lanka."

  Inner City Press immediately asked Haq if what this reference to accountability portends for the UN inquiry into the events in 2009. We'll have more on this.

  Amnesty International has said that "Sri Lanka has for years resisted all international efforts to investigate the conflict years, and instead relied on domestic investigation bodies that toed the government line. This has to end – the new government should cooperate fully with the UN investigation.”

   Watch this site.

  In other possible routes to accountability, talk of seeking justice in US courts as to several joint American citizens in Team Rajapaksa - or on the team during the 2009 "Bloodbath on the Beach" -- has picked up. Some team members have reportedly already left the country: we'll have more on this.

 Kerry said:

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY KERRY

January 8, 2015

Conclusion of Sri Lankan Elections and Election of Maithripala Sirisena

The Sri Lankan people deserve great credit on the successful conclusion of their elections.  They turned out in great numbers to exercise their democratic rights and every vote was a victory for Sri Lanka.

The United States applauds the Sri Lankan Elections Commissioner, the security forces, Sri Lankan civil society, and the candidates themselves for making sure this election was not marred by unrest and for ensuring a significant drop in campaign-related violence. It will be important for that effort to continue in the coming days.

I commend President Rajapaksa for accepting the results of the election in the proud tradition of peaceful and orderly transfers of power in Sri Lanka. His words tonight about accepting the verdict of the people and moving forward are important.

I look forward to working with President-elect Maithripala Sirisena as his new government works to implement its campaign platform of a Sri Lanka that is peaceful, inclusive, democratic, and prosperous."

  It's done. But what does it portend for the Rajapaksas' military / diplomatic corps, like Shavendra Silva and in New York, Palitha Kohona?

   

US Might Comply with Law and Let In Iran's UN Ambassador In, Reuters Says In Claimed "Exclusive"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- The US is required by international law and its Host Country agreement with the UN to allow in nation's ambassador to the UN.

  How then is Reuters claiming -- and compensating -- an "exclusive" for today reporting that the US may comply with the law and agreement and allow in Gholamali Khoshrou as Iran's new ambassador to the UN? The article doesn't even mention the Host Country agreement. The author, engaged in censorship, here, has already been cut off by one Permanent Five Security Council member, however much Reuters tries to conceal it.

  Is this new faux exclusive a way to try to counter that? UNreal.

Back on November 23 as the Iran P5+1 talks continued on the eve of the then-deadline, who is bragging about having predicted their failure? Western wire service Reuters, crowing that "Other media now coming around to @reuters consistent reporting on how final Iran atomic deal unlikely."

 While false exclusives have proliferated at Reuters under Stephen J. Adler, there a second, separate trend at work here.

  On another UN sanctions regime, Somalia and Eritrea, even when former Reuters reporter turned sanctions monitor Dinesh Mahtani was forced to resign for havingchampioned a new leader for the country he was supposed to monitor, Reuters entirely omitted his removal from its claimed exclusives on the sanctions report.

  Some of this goes beyond a desire, compensated by editor Adler, to claim exclusives even where not merited (including by adopted a policy of not crediting others' exclusives).  At the UN, Reuters has gone so far as to try to censor and remove from Google's Search as "copyrighted" copies of Reuters complaints against other media filed with the UN, click here for that. 

 At what point does this become more (or less) that journalism? What about "other media now coming around to @reuters consistent" refusal to credit smaller media, attempts to get them kicked out, then censoring the Internet? We'll have more on this.

  Back on October 27 when the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed held a press conference at the UN, Inner City Press asked him for an update on what he had said about the effect of sanctions and banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system which Inner City Press asked him about one year and three days earlier, 2013 here from Minute 12:29.

  On October 24, 2013, Shaheed had acknowledged that the banning of Iran from the SWIFT payments system had had an impact. On October 27, 2014, Shaheed said he believes Iran is still banned from SWIFT, but he had no update. Instead he said that humanitarian exemptions to sanctions are having successes. 2014 video here.

 But banning from SWIFT or "de-SWIFT-ing" is not a targeted sanction at all, and he did not mention any exemptions to it.

   Overall, Inner City Press asked Shaheed what impact he thought "the nuclear issue" and the P5 + 1 talks have on human rights in Iran.  Shaheed said he doesn't like linkage, but added that when there's focus on the nuclear issue, it takes away from the focus on human rights. 

  Last year Inner City Press obtained and exclusively published an internal OHCHR plan to take over the "rule of law" functions of the rest of the UN system, and the staffing of the Special Representatives on Children and Armed Conflict, Sexual Violence and Conflict, R2P and the Prevention of Genocide.What has happened on that? Are rapporteurs, like sanctions monitors, still not given any training or orientation by the UN?

Footnote: on October 27, the UN Correspondents Association which so often demands the first question be set-aside for it didn't even send anyone to Shaheed's press conference. One attendee said, it's defUNCA-ed, as in defunct, or de-UNCA-ed, like de-SWIFT-ed. The new Free UN Coalition for Access, present, did not try to brand the press conference, because there was no need. Watch this site.

   

After UNIFIL Peacekeeper Killed, Differing Reports on UN Security Council, Spanish Ambassador Roman Oyurzun Marchesi

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- After a UN Peacekeeper from Spain was killed in Lebanon, UN Peacekeeping deputy Edmond Mulet briefed the UN Security Council. Afterward, at least until 9 pm, the only output was "elements to the press," followed by Spanish Permanent Representative Roman Oyurzun Marchesi's first stakeout since joining the Security Council four weeks ago.

  Will an internal UN investigation be enough for Spain? The question was not taken or answered, yet.

  His answer that it came from the Israeli side, in response to Hezbollah, was widely reported as Spain blaming Israel. But Reuters and France 24, for example, said France asked for the meeting, when the Security Council's president said the request was from the UK.

  Reuters said Herve Ladsous would be the briefing - but he was not, rather it was Edmond Mulet.

 Mulet told the Press that a UNIFIL "Board of Inquiry" will look into the death, and that its report will be public.

  Inner City Press asked Mulet how long it would taken. Mulet said UNIFIL has been asked to expedite the Board of Inquiry.

  We note that UNlike the head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions (most recent video here) Mulet did his job, answering factual questions about UN Peacekeeping. Maybe he should be in charge. We'll haver more on this.

   

After UNIFIL Peacekeeper Killed, Mere Elements to the Press Then Spanish Ambassador

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 28 -- After a UN Peacekeeper from Spain was killed in Lebanon, UN Peacekeeping deputy Edmond Mulet briefed the UN Security Council. Afterward the output was "elements to the press," followed by Spanish Permanent Representative Oyurzun Marchesi's first stakeout since joining the Security Council four weeks ago.

  Will an internal UN investigation be enough for Spain? The question was not taken or answered, yet.

  An hour before, Mulet told the Press that a UNIFIL "Board of Inquiry" will look into the death, and that its report will be public.

  Inner City Press asked Mulet how long it would taken. Mulet said UNIFIL has been asked to expedite the Board of Inquiry.

  We note that UNlike the head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous, who refuses to answer Press questions (most recent video here) Mulet did his job, answering factual questions about UN Peacekeeping. Maybe he should be in charge.

  

  Earlier on the afternoon of January 28, the US State Department's spokesperson put this out:

"The United States strongly condemns Hezbollah’s attack today from Lebanon on Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in blatant violation of the cease fire between Lebanon and Israel and UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks.  We support Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense and continue to urge all parties to respect the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon.  We urge all parties to refrain from any action that could escalate the situation.

"We are deeply concerned by reports of injuries and casualties on both sides of the Blue Line, including the reported deaths of IDF soldiers and the death of a Spanish UN peacekeeper from the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).  We extend our sincere condolences to the victims’ families.  We also stand with UNIFIL as it fulfills its important mandate to maintain peace and security along the Blue Line.

"Hezbollah continues to incite violence and instability inside Lebanon by attacking Israel and by its presence and fighting inside Syria, which violates Lebanese leaders’ agreed policy of dissociating Lebanon from foreign conflicts."

  But who killed the UN peacekeeper? And what are the UNIFIL Mission's rules of engagement? Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesperson, video here. 

And there will be a briefing by UN Peacekeeping's elusive - we're being diplomatic - chief Herve Ladsous. (Here's video of his last appearance.)

The reports from Lebanon were that Israeli Defense Forces killed the peacekeeper. This raised the stakes for, and some questions about, the United Nations.

   Recently when UN peacekeepers in northern Mali were fired at -- none killed in the incident -- UN Peacekeeping responded with air strikes from attack helicopters, killing five.  Is this only how UN Peacekeeping respond to its personnel being fired at in Africa, or only in Mali?

   Inner City Press asked the Spanish Mission to the UN if there is any UN Security Council statement being worked on. They responded, it is being worked on right now. 

  How will it address who is responsible for the killing? Killing a UN peacekeeper, the Security Council has often said, can be a war crime.

Footnote: While awaiting response to written questions Inner City Press put to the UNIFIL's top four spokespeople, for now they still compare favorably to the UN's mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, whose spokeswoman Sophie Boutaud de la Combe has put many UN Headquarters-based media on the mission's press e-mail list, but hasrefused as to Inner City Press, which closely covers not only cholera in Haiti but also the UN peacekeepers there, as in Mali, firing at protesters.

  The Mali mission at least sends out statements; from MINUSTAH we have only silence. This is the Ladsousification of the UN -- see most recent footage of Ladsous, refusing Press questions about the DR Congo, here. We'll have more on all of this.