In
Murky
UNIFIL, 20
Minutes in
Israel Called
"Quick,"
Nepal
Mislabeled
Truck
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
May 8 -- As
the UN murkily
meanders into
its Syria
observer
deployment, it
provides what
appears to be
spin about its
UNIFIL
mission next
door in
Lebanon.
On
May 7 Inner
City Press asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
returned lead
spokesman
Martin Nesirky:
Inner
City
Press: The
Government of
Lebanon, has
complained to
UNIFIL about
a Spanish
officer of the
UNIFIL
contingent
rep, crossing
barbed wire
and meeting
they say with
Israeli forces
for 20
minutes, they
say it
violates their
sovereignty.
Did it
actually take
place? Is it a
violation of
the SOFA or,
or whatever
the
understanding
is between
and, and
what’s the
explanation?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Let me find
out about that
particular
topic, because
I
haven't heard
about that.
Let me check
on that for
you.
Later
in the day,
Nesirky's
office emailed
and inserted
into its
transcript:
Subject:
Your
question on
UNIFIL
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at]
un.org
Date: Mon, May
7, 2012 at
1:16 PM
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Regarding
your
question at
today's noon
briefing, we
have the
following
information
from the UN
Interim Force
in Lebanon
(UNIFIL):
Yesterday
a
UNIFIL
technical team
was carrying
out
measurements
on the ground
to ascertain
the exact
location of
the work
carried out by
the IDF in
the general
area of Kafr
Kila.
In
carrying
out its work,
the technical
team was
accompanied
and
assisted by
UNIFIL Spanish
troops. In the
process, one
of the
peacekeepers
inadvertently
crossed the
Technical
Fence and
quickly
came back, as
soon as he
realized it.
This
issue
has been
addressed at
the tactical
and
operational
level
between the
Lebanese Armed
Forces and
UNIFIL.
But
is 20 minutes
"quickly"?
It's reported
that
"the
Spanish
officer
crossed the
Fatima Gate in
southern
Lebanon,
facing
the Israeli
town of
Metulla, held
talks with
Israeli troops
for 20
minutes and
then returned
back to the
Lebanese
territories. A
Lebanese army
source [said]
that the
incident is an
'unjustified
violation of
Lebanon’s
sovereignty.
We demanded
the UNIFIL’s
Command to
take strict
punitive
measures
against the
(Spanish)
officer as he
violated the
agreement
signed with
the
peacekeeping
mission, which
prevents any
of its members
from crossing
into
Israel.'"
So
which is it? Actually,
the
Spanish exodus
from Lebanon
will,
relatedly or
not, be more
extensive:
"Spanish
Defense
Minister Pedro
Morenes
stressed on
Tuesday his
country’s
commitment to
reduce by 20
percent the
number of
Spanish troops
in
the United
Nations
Interim Force
in Lebanon. He
told Spanish
state
television
that the rest
of the Spanish
troops will
completely
withdraw from
the
international
force in
2013."
Meanwhile,
Inner City
Press
also on May 7
asked, about
Nepal:
Inner
City
Press: In
Nepal, there
is a report in
Republica, a
paper there,
that a police
officer was
killed by a UN
vehicle; this
was, it was
published on
Friday and I
just wonder,
is that the
case, and more
than that,
what did the
UN, given that
it has
immunity or
legal
immunity, what
does it do in
circumstances
such as this?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
In Nepal,
right. I don’t
have anything
on that,
Matthew. I’ll
check.
The
next day the
UN
replied:
Subject:
Your
question on a
vehicular
accident in
Nepal
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at] un.org
Date: Tue, May
8, 2012 at
10:56 AM
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Regarding
your
question about
a fatality and
reports of the
involvement of
a UN
vehicle in
Nepal, we have
the following
information:
A
lorry,
carrying two
Nepal Army
Mine Protected
Vehicles,
intended for
use by the
United
Nations, lost
one cargo
vehicle, which
accidentally
killed a
Nepalese
policeman. The
local police
investigated
the
accident and
cited a brake
failure as the
cause of the
accident.
These
vehicles
are white in
color and
marked with
black UN
letters on the
side, hence
the initial
confusion.
Okay.
Next
question: how
can the UN
keep dodging
on having
introduced
cholera
into Haiti?
Watch this
site.
, 
