UN's
Doss Won't Explain His Support of War Criminal, Playing Out the Clock
in Congo
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, December 16 -- The head of the UN Mission in the Congo Alan
Doss, under fire for assisting and covering up war crime by former
rebel units of the Congolese Army, tried to defuse the critique on
Wednesday by renaming the so-called Kimia II operation. While the UN
said its Mission will now only "hold ground" in Eastern
Congo, Doss' testimony to the Security Council acknowledged MONUC
will still "undertak[e] focused interventions" -- that is,
targeted strikes.
MONUC
works with
units of the Congolese army which the UN's own experts as well as
human rights groups say are war criminals. Inner City Press asked
Doss, directly, why he has continued to work with Colonel
Innocent
Zimulinda (a/k/a Zimurinda), accused for murder and rape by UN
rapporteur Philip Alston and illegal mining by the UN Experts.
Doss
did not answer
why he continues to work with Zimurinda. Inner City Press asked about
a list of 15 presumptive war criminals in the Congolese Army that
MONUC itself drew up and gave to the Joseph Kabila government, but
whom MONUC still supports. While saying it is the government's role
to discipline, Doss did not explain why he continues to work with the
unit commanders on his own list of human rights violators.
Similarly,
when
asked about the leaked UN Office of Legal Affairs memos, two of which
Inner City Press has put online,
Doss claimed that the memos offer
opinions that MONUC had to put into practice. But the memos say Doss
should have had a policy much earlier on, and should suspend support
to whole operations with violations, which he has not done.
Doss
himself is
the subject of a nepotism
investigation that will be the subject of a
separate article.
Alan Doss, OLA memos, Zimurinda, nepotism answers
not shown
But sources in MONUC describe his leadership as
compromised, and say that the UN investigation is being drawn out
until Doss leaves, perhaps in March. Human rights groups favor new
leadership, circulating the names of former peacekeeping chief Jean
Marie Guehenno among others.
While
the Council
is now considering a resolution which would extend MONUC's mandate
for only five months, Inner City Press is informed that permanent
member China, which now has a large mining and infrastructure deal
with Joseph Kabila, was urging a mere "technical roll over."
Others blame Doss' support of human rights violators on the push by
his native UK, as well as the U.S., to destroy the FDLR rebels at any
cost. We will have more on this.
* * *
UN
Violates Law in Congo, Leaked UN Legal Memo Shows, Doss on Grill in NY
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, December 13 -- What are the consequences if the UN violates
international law, as defined by the UN's own Office of Legal
Affairs? The question is now squarely raise by an October 2009
memorandum to the UN Mission in the Congo (MONUC) from chief UN legal
office Patricia O'Brien, obtained by Inner City Press and published
online here.
In
the October
12
memo, marked "Priority Confidential" and addressed to top UN
peacekeeper Alain Le Roy, MONUC's policies
for providing assistance to the Congolese army (FARDC) are found to
violate international law. Specifically, MONUC's policies, then and
now, do not provide for suspending assistance to operations of the
FARDC in which laws are violated, but rather only partial suspension
to particular units.
OLA
notes that
MONUC, even in the cases (so far only one) in which is suspends
assistance to a particular unit, might just increase support to other
units in the operation. Before publishing this memo, Inner City Press
asked UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky for an answer, and received a three
paragraph UN Peacekeeping response which does not even address OLA's
critique of the lack of a policy for initiating support to an FARDC
operation.
The
UN's own Special
Rapporteur on extra judicial execution Philip Alston has
noted that MONUC worked with - and continues to work with - units
under Colonel Zimulinda, which he charges with murder and mass rape.
These
decisions are made by the chief of MONUC Alan
Doss, embroiled
since the summer in a nepotism scandal in which as exposed by
Inner
City Press he asked the UN Development Program to show him "leeway"
and give his daughter a job, in violation of applicable rules.
Doss
is scheduled
to be in New York from December 14 on, to brief the Council -- but
perhaps hide from the Press -- on December 16. In the interim there
will be press conferences about among other things MONUC's violations
of international law under Doss' tenure. Watch this site.
In Congo, UN's Doss under fire, legal violations not shown
As
noted, Inner
City Press before publishing this October 2009 OLA memo asked the UN
about reports its own Office of Legal Affairs advised MONUC not to
work with units of the Congolese army involved in these and other
crimes. The response:
Subj:
your question on the DRC
From:
unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
12/10/2009 1:33:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
I.
The tasks carried out by MONUC are determined by the Security
Council. The mission has a mandate to provide support to the
Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) in disarming illegal armed groups
while protecting the civilian population. MONUC continues to give the
highest priority to protection of civilians.
II.
In furtherance of this mandate, MONUC and DPKO requested advice from
the Office of Legal Affairs regarding the conditions governing their
collaboration with the FARDC. In full transparency, the Secretariat
and the Mission advised the Security Council of the risks involved
and potential consequences of cooperating with the FARDC. The
Security Council has repeatedly expressed their unanimous support for
MONUC and for the joint operations with the FARDC against the FDLR,
with full respect for International Humanitarian, Human Rights and
Refugee Law.
III.
After extensive consultations between the Secretariat the Mission and
OLA, a policy was developed, setting out the conditions under which
the Mission would support FARDC. This policy was transmitted to the
DRC Government in November. It specifies that all MONUC participation
in FARDC operations must be jointly planned and must respect
international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. The
policy also includes measures designed to improve FARDC performance
as well as to prevent and sanctioning violations. This
'conditionality' provision is why the Mission suspended support to a
specific FARDC unit believed to have been involved in the targeted
killing of civilians in the Lukweti area of North Kivu.
But
this response
does not address the October 2009
memo, which says that MONUC should
have had a policy before begin to support FARDC operations, and
should suspend assistance to entire operations, rather that
particular unit. Watch this site.
* * *
IMF
Studies Congo Deals by India and China, Quid Pro Quo by Canada at Paris
Club on
Mining, UN's Kivu Spin
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, December 11 -- The Congo battles for and is embattled by its
natural resources, the International Monetary Fund made plain on
Friday, perhaps inadvertently. During a press conference call
explaining the IMF's
$550 million facility to the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, the IMF's Brian Ames put the DRC's external debt at
$13
billion.
Inner
City Press
asked about new debts to China and prospectively India, about
conflict and mining in the East, and Canada's use in the Paris Club
of debt relief to strong-arm for two of its mining firm.
Ames,
who traveled
to Kinshasa to negotiate about what he called the "China deal,"
described how with IMF pressure the deal decreased in size from $9
billion to $6.2 billion, with "only" $3 billion guaranteed
by the Congolese government.
Even
this
guarantee, he emphasized, could only become due in 25 years. Still,
the IMF urged the restructuring of the China deal. Inner City Press
asked about a newly reported loan proposal by India to the Congo, for
$263 million.
Ames
said that was
just an announcement, when Congolese officials were in India. To
Inner City Press, a connection with the Congo's loud demand that
Indian peacekeepers leave the UN Mission in the Congo, MONUC, is
inescapable. India is paid by the UN and makes money on these
peacekeepers. How does this sum relate to whatever concessional rates
India will offer to the Congo?
Inner
City Press
asked what the IMF thinks of Canada's delay of a Paris Club vote on
debt relief to the Congo based on contracts canceled to Canadian
mining firms. Ames agreed that this had happened, saying it was
really about 1st Quantum. But what about Toronto-based Lundin Mining,
whose 24% stake in the Tenke Fungurume mine and its $1.8 billion
contract are being "re-negotiated"?
After
Ames said
that Canada had, after a week's delay in November, agreed on a
conference call to go forward with debt relief, Inner City Press him
if 1st Quantum's contract was restored. No, he answered, but the
Congolese government, which already won a round of litigation in its
own courts, has agreed to international arbitration.
Congo's Kabila and China's Hu Jintao,
Indian UN peacekeepers and IMF and Canadian pressure not shown
Ames'
colleague,
whom Ames instructed to "earn his paycheck," added the 1st
Quantum has other mines in the Congo, that the dispute involves only
one mine. Yes, but that is the $553 million Kolwezi copper and
cobalt project.
Inner
City Press
asked if the IMF has concerns, similar to those evidence on the China
deal, about the prospects of an Indian infrastructure loan. It is
just a proposal, Ames said, adding that it would be for two hydro
electric projects and one water project. Actually, the third would be
$50 million towards the rehabilitation of the rail system in
Kinshasa.
When
Inner City
Press asked about reports, including by the UN's Group of Experts, of
illegal mining in the Kivus, Ames said that since this revenue stream
has yet to go to the government, its diversion does not have an
impact and is not considered. Actually, the UN Group's report shows
that units of the Congolese army are involved in the illegal mining.
Inner
City Press
asked the UN about reports its own Office of Legal Affairs advised
MONUC not to work with units of the Congolese army involved in these
and other crimes. The response:
Subj:
your question on the DRC
From:
unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
12/10/2009 1:33:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
I.
The tasks carried out by MONUC are determined by the Security
Council. The mission has a mandate to provide support to the
Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) in disarming illegal armed groups
while protecting the civilian population. MONUC continues to give the
highest priority to protection of civilians.
II.
In furtherance of this mandate, MONUC and DPKO requested advice from
the Office of Legal Affairs regarding the conditions governing their
collaboration with the FARDC. In full transparency, the Secretariat
and the Mission advised the Security Council of the risks involved
and potential consequences of cooperating with the FARDC. The
Security Council has repeatedly expressed their unanimous support for
MONUC and for the joint operations with the FARDC against the FDLR,
with full respect for International Humanitarian, Human Rights and
Refugee Law.
III.
After extensive consultations between the Secretariat the Mission and
OLA, a policy was developed, setting out the conditions under which
the Mission would support FARDC. This policy was transmitted to the
DRC Government in November. It specifies that all MONUC participation
in FARDC operations must be jointly planned and must respect
international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. The
policy also includes measures designed to improve FARDC performance
as well as to prevent and sanctioning violations. This
'conditionality' provision is why the Mission suspended support to a
specific FARDC unit believed to have been involved in the targeted
killing of civilians in the Lukweti area of North Kivu.
Let's
remember
that the IMF is ostensibly part of the UN system. We will continue to
follow this -- watch this site.
* * *
IMF
Murky on Angola's Oil, Bond and China Deals, Doles Out $1.4 Billion
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 25 -- Days after announcing a $1.4 billion
arrangement with Angola, the International Monetary Fund held a press
conference call to offer explanations. At the end, things were
murkier than before. Inner City Press asked if the IMF had been able
to fully assess the income and distribution of revenue from the state
owned oil company Sonangol.
The
IMF's Lamine
Leigh, who led the Fund's missions to Angola in August and September,
replied that "in the context of our negotiations, Sonangol
participated fairly well." Inner City Press asked, since
Sonangol has accounts in off shore financial centers and tax havens,
if the IMF had gotten to the bottom of these accounts.
After
a long
pause, Lamine Leigh proffered another answer, that the government has
"committed to steps in the more general area of resource revenue
transparency." But what about the Sonangol accounts?
Oil in Angola, Sonangol's accounts not shown
Inner
City Press
asked about the statement
by IMF Deputy Managing Director and Acting
Chair Takatoshi Kato that in Angola "measures will be taken to
strengthen further the regulatory and supervisory framework."
The IMF's Senior Advisor on Africa Sean Nolan replied that the IMF
analyzed the effect of the exchange rate on borrowers and "on
the banks."
In
fact, Angola's
government has gotten billions in pre-export oil loans from, for
example, BNP Paribas, Standard Chartered and Deutsche Bank. The
latter has made similar loans in Turkmenistan, assailed by
transparency and human rights advocates. How much of the IMF's new
arrangement benefits these banks?
In
fact, the
questioner after Inner City Press, cutting off follow up, was from
Standard Bank. Other than Inner City Press, the only other media
questioner was from Reuters.
Before
the call
ended, Inner City Press was able to ask about Angola's reported $4
billion bond sale planned for December. Sean Nolan said that the
IMF's "understanding" with Angola does involve a
"fundraising effort," but that the timing was not agreed
to, the IMF does not "micromanage" to that extent. Nolan added
that there is an agreement on an "overall limit."
"Is
it four
billion dollars?" Inner City Press asked.
Nolan
replied that
the precise limit will be "clear in the documents," which
have yet to be released. Why play hide the ball?
Nolan
praised the country for "appointing reputable financial and legal
advisers for the transaction" -- JPMorgan Chase will be the manager.
Nolan
continued
that the actual size of the bond sale will depend on how much
"concessionary lending" Angola gets from "countries
with a strong record of financial support to Angola."
Inner
City Press
asked if the size of China's loans to Angola -- China gets 16% of its
foreign oil from Angola -- were known by the IMF or considered.
"That
hasn't
figured in our discussions," the IMF's Nolan responded. Why not? Watch
this site.
* * *
IMF's
Report Buries Its Icesave Conditionality, Enforcer's Duplicity?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 3 -- While the IMF has acknowledged that its second
round of disbursements to crisis-hit Iceland was delayed for months
by the country's failure to placate those in the Netherlands and UK
who did business with IceSave, the IMF's just released report on
Iceland buries the issue on page 30 of the 98 page report. The IMF
states that
"[t]he
terms and conditions of Nordic loans, amounting to $2.5 billion, have
been finalized. Their disbursement has been linked to resolution of
the Icesave dispute with the U.K. and Netherlands over deposit
insurance liabilities. After protracted discussions, the three
governments have reached an agreement on this"
Once
that
agreement was reached, on October 18, the IMF then went forward with
a letter of intent and memorandum of understanding for the second
tranche of financing. But, as with the IMF's moves in Latvia for
Swedish banks, some see the Fund operating as an enforcement or
collections agent for creditors who even less would like to show
their hand.
Iceland / Icesave protest, but is the heartfelt sign true?
Since
the IMF does
not like to admit or reveal its degree of control over the countries
it lends to, the de facto conditions for loans, such as paying off on
IceSave, are often not explicit in what purport to be full agreements
containing all express and implied terms.
In
fact, the IMF
has claimed that it "no longer" engages in conditionality.
But the Iceland report has an entire chart about conditionalities.
It's just that the most important one was left unsaid. Is this
diplomacy or duplicity?
The
IMF's Iceland
report continues, about other loan requests including from Russia:
"A
loan from the Faroe Islands ($50 million) has already disbursed, and
a loan from Poland has been agreed ($200 million), and will disburse
alongside the next 3 program reviews. A $500 million loan originally
committed by Russia is no longer expected, but the $250 million in
over-financing in the original program, an expected
macro-stabilization loan from the EU ($150 million), and use of an
existing repo facility with the BIS ($700 million, of which $214
million is outstanding) will more than offset this."
Offset may be the right
word. Last year, in the midst of Iceland's abortive run for a seat on
the UN Security Council, the country announced it had to seek a $4
billion loan from Russia. It was after that that the IMF loan
commitment was made -- an "offset," some saw it -- and
after talks in Istanbul, on October 15 the already whittled down loan
request to Russia was formally rejected.
Then the deal
with the UK
and Netherlands, and the IMF's releasing. While the IMF calls these
types of moves only technical, others call them power politics. Watch
this site.
* * *
IMF
Plays Ukraine, Zim and Pakistan As "Technical" Questions,
Pushes Tax Hikes in Serbia
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, October 22 -- Are the International Monetary Fund's
negotiations with countries about the level of taxes and salaries for
public sector employees, the pricing of electricity and the
privatization of social services political, or merely "economic
and technical"? The questions arose Thursday in connection with
Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, among others, in the IMF's first
press briefing since its annual meeting in Turkey.
IMF
spokesperson
Caroline Atkinson fielded questions for half an hour, leaving
unanswered one submitted by Inner City Press about Serbia, where the IMF's
Paul Thompson has been quoted that "if the Serbian
delegation has a concrete pan for decreasing expenses, we will
support it, if not, they
will have to agree with us and think about
increasing taxes." Left unanswered: how is raising taxes merely
"technical"?
Ms.
Atkinson did
respond to Inner City Press' questions about Ukraine, Zimbabwe and
Pakistan. While a full transcript is available online here,
and video here,
in sum the Q & A went as follows:
Inner
City Press asked, In Ukraine, the opposition party is critical of the
IMF as funding the campaign of Tymoshenko. What is the IMF's response
to the opposition's criticism? Ms. Atkinson replied that IMF funds go
to the central bank, and that the IMF has a team on the ground in
Kiev for a third review.
The
opposition was
not, it seems, saying that money from the IMF is being used by
Tymoshenko for advertisements or to pay poll workers, but rather "MP
and opposition government's finance minister, Mykola Azarov, said
this at a meeting with delegates of an IMF mission, 'We must say that
the program of cooperation with the IMF has turned out to be
ineffective, and nothing is left but to consider the IMF's
assistance
as politically motivated, as funding of one of the candidates running
for the presidency.'"
When
another
reporter asked a follow up question about Ukraine, wondering if with
the IMF mission on the ground, the upcoming election "is an
issue," Ms. Atkinson said the IMF does not comment while a
mission is in the field, negotiating a program, but that information
-- and one hopes some questions and answers -- will be provided once
the mission is completed
IMF points the way, in budgets... and politics?
On
Zimbabwe, Inner
City Press asked, "NGOs are critical of the IMF for, they say,
pushing Zimbabwe to privatize its social services system. Has the IMF
pushed for that, and how does it respond to the criticism?" Ms.
Aktinson, while saying she can get back to Inner City Press with more
information, argued that the IMF does not favor or disfavor
particular privatizations, but must be pushing to strengthen the
social service sector to help the poor.
But
speaking just
ahead of civil society's consultative meeting with an IMF team under
Article IV of the Fund's Articles of Agreement, NANGO said
"'we
are opposed to some IMF polices such as privatization of basic social
services. We know it from the past that some IMF policies have worked
against people in this country. They have affected the social
services sector and their polices are anti-people and negative'...
[NANGO] said some of the IMF instigated polices which had brought
suffering to the people were the Economic Structural Adjustment
Programme (ESAP) and Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social
Transformation (ZIMPREST)." It's a pretty specific critique,
and we'll publish the IMF's response upon receipt.
Following
up on
Inner City Press' questions and article from August 2009, it asked
"in Pakistan, the IMF in August extended for a year the
country's time to eliminate electricity subsidies. Now, while the
IMF
says 2 price increases will be implemented, others say this is not
possible politically. What is the IMF's thinking on consumer power
pricing in Pakistan?"
Ms.
Aktinson
replied that "as I believe you know, the issue of issue of
electric subsidy is typically done by the World Bank and Asian
Development Bank," that IMF gets involved due to the budget."we
will be having another review of the Pakistan program in early
November." We'll be there....
* * *
On
Food Speculation, UN's Expert Says Nothing's Being Done, S. Korean Land
Grabs from Madagascar to Sudan, Brazil on Ethanol
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, October 21 -- After many speeches at the UN about the need
to crack down on financial speculation in food, nothing has been
done, the UN's expert on the right to food told Inner City Press on
Wednesday.
Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian law professor just back
from a visit to Brazil about, among other things, the loss of land
for food to ethanol, replied that "nothing is moving at the
inter-governmental level." This despite a statement by the G-20
in April favoring the regulation of hedge funds which present
systemic risk. The argument is that commodities index funds which
speculate in food present systemic risk to net food importing
countries. But nothing has been done.
De
Schutter spoke
about the monopolization of the seed industry, and made a slew of
recommendations for governments. The three top monopolizers --
Monsanto, Dupont and the Swiss-based Syngenta -- are all members of
the UN Global Compact, and claim to comply with human rights. De
Schutter pointed out the antitrust law is directed as national and
not global or subnational markets. It is all very heady but one
wonders what effect it has.
Brazil
might be
one of de Schutter's claims to impact. He spoke glowingly of
President Lula, saying that Brazil has said that only 19% of land can
be used for sugar cane for ethanol, and has committed to monitor
labor rights. But what about, for example, Indonesia and Malaysia?
De Schutter, action on food speculation not shown
After
De
Schutter's briefing, Inner City Press asked his staffer for an update
on the proposed land grab in Madagascar by South Korea based Daewoo,
which was reputed after the coup in that country. De Schutter had
been scheduled to visit, but it was put off by the coup. The same
thing happened in Honduras. So perhaps De Schutter does have an
effect after all, mused one wag.
Footnote:
immediately after De Schutter's briefing, the UN's Haile Menkerios
was scheduled to speak to the Press about Madagascar. While the UN
usually compartmentalizes its work such that a rapporteur looks at
land grabs, while the Secretariat remains on "political affairs"
narrowly defined, this land grab played a role in the change of
government. Now it's said the South Korean deal is being pursued from
India, while South Korea appears to have moved on to 690,000 hectares
in Sudan. Watch this site.
Click
here
for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters
footage, about civilian
deaths
in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City
Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City
Press March 12 UN (and AIG
bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City
Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click
here
for Feb.
12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan.
16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press'
review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner
City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press'
December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner
City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on
Security Council and Obama and the UN.
* * *
These
reports are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for a Reuters
AlertNet piece by this correspondent
about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click
here
for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali
National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an
undefined trust fund. Video
Analysis here
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN
Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017
USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
Reporter's
mobile (and
weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available
in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|