Given
How Ban Gave
UN Pension
Post, OCHA
Concerns
Multiply
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 19,
more here
-- When the UK's
David Cameron
put forward
dubious
candidate(s)
to replace
Baroness Valerie
Amos as the
UN's chief
humanitarian
officer and
Inner City
Press asked
if there will
be any outside
review, Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
replied that
Ban can and
will do such
reviews
himself.
The reason
some are not
convinced --
including for
example the
more than 80
non-governmental
organizations
who have
written to Ban
demanding a
credible
independent
review of OCHA
candidates --
is exemplified
by Ban's
schedule for
the afternoon
of January 19.
From Ban's
schedule:
"3:30
p.m
Ms. Carolyn
Boykin,
Secretary-General’s
Representative
for United
Nations Joint
Staff Pension
Fund Asset
Investments"
Many people
raised
concerned to
Ban, including
that Boykin
"served as CIO
of the
Maryland State
Retirement and
Pension
System..
before leaving
abruptly."
Why? Here's
from the
Baltimore Sun:
Boykin
also disclosed
that Chapman
had told her
as far back as
August 2001
that a money
manager he
selected had
invested in a
Chapman-controlled
company.
She
didn't
act on that
information,
she said,
because she
thought
Chapman meant
the manager
had invested
personal
funds, not
state pension
money - a
misinterpretation
Chapman
yesterday
called
"incredible."
"What
else
could I have
been talking
about?"
Chapman said.
Boykin
declined to
comment for
this article.
Declining to
comment? This
is a badge of
honor in
today's UN:
witness Herve
Ladsous, video
here, UK
coverage here.
Meanwhile UN
Pension Fund
staff informed
Inner City
Press they are
told that
they cannot
complain to
the UN's
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services
without first
telling the
very people of
whom they
would be
complaining.
Not
only did Ban
go ahead and
appoint, and
today meet
with, Boykin -
there has been
no public
explanation of
why this is
ok, why the
above was
ignored.
Who will it be
on OCHA? We
will continue
to pursue
this.
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's
spokesman on
September 5
about
whistleblowers:
Inner
City Press:
There was this
decision over
the Labor Day
weekend in the
case of Mr.
[James]
Wasserström,
which was a
big
whistleblower
case...Tthe
decision that
was made that
still upheld
$15,000
against the
Secretary-General
for having
refused to
comply with
production and
discovery
orders, but it
cut back on
the rights and
protections of
whistleblowers
and that this
may violate
this 2014 law,
requiring the
US Government
to withhold
funds if the
UN doesn't
enact best
practice for
whistleblowers.
What is the
UN's response
to this
criticism?
Spokesman:
I should have
something more
detailed for
you.
But,
obviously, you
know, we
respect the
decisions made
by the
internal
justice system
here. As
for whether or
not those
decisions
violate the
laws of the
United States
or any other
country, that
is not for me
to interpret.
Inner City
Press:
What about the
decision that
the
Secretary-General
erred in not
complying with
discovery
orders, do you
accept that?
Spokesman:
As I said, I
hope to have
something
further.
Question:
The other one
really quickly
is: I
know that you
have been
asked about
this
investigation
of reporting
from Darfur
about attacks
on civilians
and when it
will be
completed.
So, I would
like to,
obviously,
know, will it
be public when
it comes
out?
But, also, I
have heard
that Mr.
[Mohammed ibn]
Chambas is
being
considered as
a replacement
for Said
Djinnit in the
UNOWA [United
Nations Office
in West
Africa]
Office. Does
this sort of
pre-foretell
the
investigation
or how serious
is the
investigation
of UNAMID
[African
Union-United
Nations Hybrid
Operation in
Darfur] if
somebody could
be getting
promoted
laterally or
what could you
say about
that?
Spokesman:
Well, I think
you offered me
an out.
The
whistleblower
question has
still not been
answered. On
Chambas, eight
days after
Inner City
Press
exclusively
reported
that Chambas
as the head of
the
peacekeeping
mission being
investigated
for
under-reporting
attacks on
civilians was
being given
the UN Office
in West Africa
post in Dakar,
and asked
about it,
on September
12 the UN on
September 12
confirmed the
move.
Inner City
Press had
asked on
September 5,
and did again
on September
12, if this
move didn't
undercut or
pre-judge the
UN's
investigation
into charges
that the
Darfur mission
under Chambas
under-reported
attacks on
civilians.
On September
12, UN
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
insisted he
didn't want to
"pre-judge"
the
inquiry.
But by giving
the new post,
this has
already been
done. There is
little to no
accountability
in today's UN.
Chambas was
quoted last
month that the
UN “cannot
stop
Government
forces from
entering camps
for the
displaced,”
despite a
supposed
protection of
civilians
mandate.
Inner City
Press asked
UN Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
it on August
22 and he
said “we will
check with the
Mission to
verify the
quotes and see
what actually
they have been
doing.” But in
the two weeks
since,
nothing.
Now Inner City
Press has
exclusively
learned from
multiple
sources that
Chambas is set
to be
rewarded, or
moved, to the
Dakar, Senegal
UN Office on
West Africa
post vacated
by Said
Djinnit.
This would be
classic UN:
amid a scandal
about UNAMID
under Chambas
covering up
the murder and
abuse of
civilians, a
promotion, in
a game of
musical
chairs.
On August 22,
Inner City
Press asked:
Inner
City Press: in
Darfur, it
seems that Mr.
Mohamed ibn
Chambas went
to Kalma Camp
and met with
residents who
expressed a
variety of
complaints,
but he was
quoted as
saying there
that UNAMID
[African
Union-United
Nations Hybrid
Operation in
Darfur] cannot
stop
Government
forces from
entering camps
for the
displaced, and
it has left
many people
confused
whether, what
is UNAMID’s
role in terms
of protection
of civilians
given these
[inaudible]
entrances in
the camp and
people lying
on the ground?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I will… we
will check
with the
Mission to
verify the
quotes and see
what actually
they have been
doing.
Two weeks, no
answer. Now
this.
UN
Peacekeeping
and its
mission in
Darfur
continue take
a selective
and lax
approach to
protecting
civilians.
This example
concerns the
UN's evolving
statements on
the Al-Salam
camp.
After
whistleblower
Aicha Elbasri
further
exposed UN
Peacekeeping
under Herve
Ladsous as
covering up
attacks in
Darfur, on
June 17
several
Security
Council
members joined
International
Criminal Court
prosecutor
Fatou Bensouda
in calling for
an
investigation.
On August 7,
Inner City
Press asked
the Joint
Special
Representative
of the African
Union-United
Nations
Mission in
Darfur,
Mohamed Ibn
Chambas, about
the status of
the probe.
Chambas told
Inner City
Press he had
met earlier in
the day with
the
commission,
whose members
will be on
their say to
Darfur.
Inner
City Press
asked if the
report will be
public.
Chambas only
said his staff
will
cooperate.
Apparently it
will be up to
Ban Ki-moon,
or even Herve
Ladsous, to
decide to
release or
withhold the
report.
Back
in Khartoum on
August 11,
Chambas said
this:
"And
on the attack
on Alsalam
camp, let me
state that we
have
information
about this. We
have always
stated that
the
responsibility
for
maintaining
law and order
in Sudan lays
with the
Government.
This is a
sovereign
country, it
has law
enforcement
obligations,
it has its
justice system
and the AU,
the UN is only
here to
facilitate and
ensure that
law and order
and justice
are maintained
and are
enforced
according to
due process of
law. So, we
want to say
that we will
continue to
engage with
the Government
of Sudan in
accordance
with its own
protection of
civilian
mandate and to
ensure that
the activities
on law
enforcement
agencies are
carried out
without
infringement
of the rights
of innocent
civilians
specially
vulnerable
communities in
IDP camps. We
hope that on
the other hand
residents of
IDP camps can
understand and
do understand
that
possession of
weapons,
carrying of
weapons is not
allowed in IDP
camps under
international
humanitarian
law.
"It’s also
imperative,
and it’s a
responsibility
of the leaders
of IDP camps
to ensure that
no one is
using these
camps to keep
weapons or to
hide weapons,
because this
is against
international
humanitarian
law. These are
the issues
involved there
and we as
UNAMID we will
continue to
work with both
sides, with
IDP leaders to
educate them
what is
permissible in
these camps
and what is
not, and at
the same time
working
with
Government to
enforce
legitimately
law and order
but to do that
respecting the
civic and
human rights
of the
citizens and
also
respecting due
process of
law. Thank
you."
Since this
seemed to
defer to
Sudan's Abu
Tira, and even
to blame the
victims, Inner
City Press on
August 13
asked:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
about Darfur,
Missouri and
Afghanistan.
On Darfur,
photos have
come out of
the Sudanese
uniformed Abu
Tira forces
going through
a refugee camp
or [internally
displaced
persons] camp
in El Salam
and making the
residents lie
on the
ground.
And Mr.
Chambas was
asked about it
and said that
this was
entirely up to
the Sudanese
and it just
seems sort of
strange. I
mean, I know
there is a
Human Rights
component to
these
peacekeeping
missions.
Does the UN,
does UNAMID
[United
Nations Hybrid
Operation in
Darfur] or
does anyone in
the
Secretariat,
are they aware
of these
photographs?
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric:
I will check.
Twenty three
hours later,
Dujarric sent
nothing to
Inner City
Press. But
UNAMID issued
a belated
statement,
which seems to
contradict or
attempt to
rehabilitate
Chambas'
dismissive
August 11
comments:
"Following
a security
raid conducted
on Al Salam
IDP camp on 5
August when
individuals
were arrested
for alleged
possession of
illegal drugs,
weapons and
ammunition,
UNAMID
monitored the
trials of
those arrested
during the
operation;
most of whom
have since
been released.
UNAMID has
been engaging
relevant state
authorities on
the conditions
of those still
being
detained.
"Other
security raids
have been
conducted in
Otash and
Dereig camps
and are part
of a wider
campaign by
the South
Darfur
authorities to
address the
high level of
criminality in
the State,
especially
around Nyala.
"The security
raids have
generated
alarm and
anxiety
amongst IDPs
in Kalma camp,
who are
anticipating a
similar
operation at
their camp and
have expressed
their concerns
to UNAMID."
We'll
continue on
this.
Inner City
Press asked UN
deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq if
an independent
investigation
of Ladsous' UN
Peacekeeping
will be done,
and if not,
why not? Video
here.
Haq claimed
that UN
Peacekeeping
is already
acting on
Elbasri's
complaints,
and that it
had been
telling the
press about
it. Inner City
Press asked,
where have
these updates
been provided.
Haq
cited a
read-out given
in March,
largely
generic; then
he said the
requests made
on June 17
would be
studied.
Ban's
spokesman
Dujarric - in
the midst of a
controversy
about UN
Peacekeeping
chief Ladsous'
mission in the
DRC flying
sanctioned
FDLR leaders
around,
said "you
can pick up
the phone" -
after siting
next to
Ladsous while
he refused to
answer Press
questions on
DRC.
On May 29,
Ladsous
refused Press
questions, video here, compilation
here.
Back on April
24 when Darfur
as such was
the topic of
the UN
Security
Council, three
major Darfur
rebel groups
wrote to the
Council to
investigate
"all reports
of the Peace
Keeping
Mission,
including
reports
presented to
the UNSC by
[Under]
Secretary
General for
Peace Keeping
Mr. Ladous and
the
reliability of
the sources he
had relied
on."
But unlike his
abortive
stakeout on
the evening of
April 23 about
South Sudan, video here, Ladsous did not come
out to answer
any questions.
And at the
April 24 UN
noon briefing,
when Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq for
a response to
the request
for an
investigation
of Ladsous and
his reports,
there was
none: not one
modified or
corrected
report was
cited.
Instead, from
the "holy
seat" of
the UN
Correspondents
Association a
long time
scribe
followed up to
say that it is
not all
Ladsous'
fault, and to
cast blame on
the
government.
This
reflexively
shifting of
blame from the
UN to the
government,
whose new
Permanent
Representative
spoke in the
Council on
April 24, is
in this case
particularly
absurd: how
can the
government be
responsible
for the UN's
own reports
being
inaccurate?
There is
little to no
accountability
in today's UN.
And the new Free UN Coalition for Access is now
taking this
on.
We'll
be following
this. Watch
this site.
, 
