Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

Kunduz MSF Hospital Bombing by US Now Called War Crime by MSF

UNITED NATIONS, October 4, more here – After repeated airstrikes by the US destroyed the MSF hospital in Kunduz killing doctors and patients, the sequence of UN statements of condemnation began with Rights Commissioner Zeid, then Ban Ki-moon, then Aid Chief Stephen O'Brien. Some wondered why not the UN Department of Political Affairs, which runs the UNAMA mission in the country, headed by American Jeffrey Feltman.

  Obama chimed in, saying that he's asked the Department of Defense to keep him informed of the investigation. Imagine, some asked, if the new strikes in Syria caused such carnage: would saying "we are investigating" be enough?

  And still, as of 7 pm Sunday in New York, there was no statement by the UN Security Council.

  On US Sunday morning television, former US military figure Jack Keane said it must have been an "errant missile" or mis-targeting. But why then did the attacks go on for an hour, even as MSF called the US?

 This was followed on October 4 by statement by the acting Kunduz governor that the hospital was a Taliban base. MSF fired back:

"MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and US forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital with more than 180 staff and patients inside because they claim that members of the Taliban were present.

This amounts to an admission of a war crime. This utterly contradicts the initial attempts of the US government to minimize the attack as 'collateral damage.'

There can be no justification for this abhorrent attack on our hospital that resulted in the deaths of MSF staff as they worked and patients as they lay in their beds. MSF reiterates its demand for a full transparent and independent international investigation."

 So who will do the investigation?

Background: Following up on Inner City Press exclusive publication of UN Development Program audits of its Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan, including double payments and other irregularities, whistleblowers this past summer exclusively provided Inner City Press with yet more damning documents.

   On August 15, 2014 UNDP belatedly specified that "there is an ongoing investigation related to issues raised in documents published by Inner City Press" - but again uses this as a rationale for the lack of response not only by UNDP but also the UNAMA mission and UN Department of Safety and Security.

  On fifty five days later, despite two more requests from Inner City Press, UNDP has nothing on any results of its investigation. It has provided its response to the October 6 release by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction -- which says (other) audits will be released by the end of the year.

  When will any of these audits, including one promised in early September about Rwanda ghost consultancies, be released?

  Inner City Press asked at the October 10 noon briefing, then in writing: "this is a request for UNDP's response to SIGAR's allegations -- and for the results of the probes UNDP answered on August 15 then in early September, about Afghanistan and Rwanda."

  The latter two have yet to be answered, other than "let me check and I will get back to you." On SIGAR, UNDP says "we will make publicly available an audit of our oversight of the monitoring agent before the end of this year." (The rest should go here.)

  On Rwanda ghost consultancies, UNDP told Inner City Press on September 3, "The results of the investigation will be available once it is complete." It has not been made available; nor has any update yet been provided.

   As to what the documents and "issues raised" regarding Afghanistan are, see for now here, here, here and here, exclusively provided to Inner City Press by now-former UNDP staff. There are more documents, one more of which was published today, here.

In it, the same Colonel Bashary who threatened he would not tolerate these accusation turns up on the list of double payments.

  This publication follows four days in which UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, formerly UNDP's spokesman, had not said whether an audit cited as a justification for not answering is the troubling audit completed in February 2014.

  After Inner City Press asked again on August 15, UNDP's Dylan Lowthian provided this response, which we publish in full:

  We'll have more on this. For now, Inner City Press is informed that now "the heat is on at the Kabul office" -- this is called a cover-up, and retaliation against (the wrong) whistleblowers.

 The UNDP Independent Office of Audit and Investigation COMPLETED an audit of this Closing the Security Gap on February 12, 2014, Report Number 1251, here.

  That report noted "incomplete recording of expenditure incurred in 2012. Salaries were not charged to the Project for the first
five months of 2012; lack of appropriate audit evidence on fuel charges amounting to $60,715 and rent expenses of $13,589; overstatement of indirect program support costs by $21,737."

   First, it was and is unacceptable for this UN to say it will not respond to troubling documents because it is conducting its own audit or "investigation," with no completion date named and no commitment to make it public. The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposing and seeking to reverse this UN descent into obfuscation and stonewalling.

  Inner City Press asked Dujarric on August 11:

Inner City Press: last week there was some back and forth about the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) programmes in Afghanistan that resulted in Farhan [Haq] on Friday saying that an audit is ongoing, and while the audit is ongoing, there will be no comment.  At least that’s how I interpreted it.  But, I’ve looked into it and it turns out that there was an audit that was completed of this very program called “Closing the Security Gap” project, finished in February of this year by Grant Thorton.  It made a lot of negative findings, but… it wasn’t clear to me, since UNDP never directly answered the questions, is this audit that’s being cited the old audit?  Is there a new audit?  If there’s a new audit of the same programme, how much was paid for the former audit?  And can you explain how it’s appropriate for the Secretariat to not answer questions about DSS [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] by referring to a UNDP audit that may already be completed?

Spokesman Dujarric:   My short answer is, show me what you have, what you’re referring to and I’m happy to look into it because I’m a little confused by the number of audits myself.

  Inner City Press immediately emailed the audit to Dujarric, along with these three questions:

  There was no answer. Inner City Press asked Dujarric again on August 13:

Inner City Press: I’d asked you on Monday about this UNDP audit that was cited as a reason they were not answering a questions about [Department of Safety and Security] and UNAMA [United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan].  Have you been able to find out from them whether this February 2014 audit was the one that they’re citing now or is there a new audit?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I haven’t had a chance to actually follow-up but I will.

 Two day later, nothing. So Inner City Press asked yet again.

 Before publishing any of the documents, Inner City Press posed questions to five UNDP spokespeople. But none even confirmed receipt -- including Abdel-Rahman Ghandour, the spokesperson who belatedly responded to Inner City Press' previous LOTFA exclusives.

 What changed, other than Inner City Press' subsequent reporting on UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's layoff campaign, and these new troubling questions?

 The questions were sent on August 5 to the following, without response for 72 hours: lead spokesperson Dheepa Pandian (out of the office from August 1 to 18), Mila Rosenthal and Helen Clark's personal spokesperson Christina Lo Nigro.

  After Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq to reply about the UN Secretariat's own role, Haq on August 8 read a statement from UNDP -- there will be no answer pending a UNDP audit. Video here.

   This is pure stonewalling. And can Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat's Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA Mission hide behind a UNDP investigation that may never be public?

   After Haq refused another Inner City Press question, after the UNTV cameras turned off, Haq told Inner City Press that UNDP refused to answer the August 5 questions, below, due to "your people skills." Inner City Press deals perfectly well with numerous diplomats at the UN and many others -- but UNDP and some UN officials don't like hard questions and think they can simply stonewall, in the UN's Zone of Impunity.

   Seventy two hours in, while the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon said it wouldn't answer about the role of its own Department of Safety and Security and UNAMA mission while UNDP answers, August 6 and 7 video here -- UNDP had provided no answer at all.

   This despite UNDP Administrator Helen Clark having been subject to formal governmental requests about related UNDP irregularities in Afghanistan in May. Is this any way to run for UN Secretary General?

  The fourth document, exclusively published here, makes even more clear why Bann Ki-moon's Secretariat must respond. The document describes double payments then introduces one "Colonel Bashary," who threatens not to talk about corruption, "I will not tolerate these accusations." Click here to view.

  In Afghanistan as Inner City Press exclusively dug into, UN Security official Louis Maxwell was killed, presumptively by Afghan Forces -- and the UN has obtained zero accountability for this killed staff member. Inner City Press has put questions about Louis Maxwell to Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson, who to his credit responded, and to current Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura, here.

Now: why would the UN be telling a whistle-blower to "just let it be," then refusing to answer?

  The third document, exclusively published here, concerns "'Ghost Staffing' at the UN Protective Force," about which the UN Department of Safety and Security said, "Just let it be for now." Click here to view.

    On August 5, Inner City Press exclusively published this one, linking it to the LOTFA scandal: an official "was again advised that it may be illegal for salaried police officials to take cash payments to augment their salaries" but the adviser was told it was "no longer my priority under LOTFA and that I was no longer to address these issues with DPII or DSS."

  This and the other documents indicate that little was fixed, that UNDP goes after whistleblowers, and does not follow up even when for example it is involved in visa fraud.

   Inner City Press on morning of August 5 asked no fewer than four spokespeople at UNDP, including the personal spokesperson for UNDP Administrator (and UNSG candidate) Helen Clark for their response to the below.

 There had been no answers. Inner City Press exclusively published the second document, here: about payments by UNAMA / UNDSS to fully salaried Afghan forces. Click here.

  Both UNAMA and UNDSS are run by Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, so Ban's spokespeople must answer. UNDP's Helen Clark herself has refused official inquiry about these irregularities. So on August 6 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

  That UNDP "is in touch with you" was and is not true: there has been no response at all. The statement UNDP "will get to you" remains unfulfilled. This is today's UN system -- even when UN system staff unions wrote to Ban Ki-moon about Helen Clark, and Inner City Press repeated asked about the letter, there has been no response.

  Here is what Inner City Press asked on August 5, no answer:

  On the visas we can for now add: There are 3 more from ELECT Project and 3 to 4 from Information Communications and Technology Unit whom whistleblowers say have also overstayed their visas. We plan to have more. Watch this site.