In
DRC, UN Spun
Failure As
Allowing
Monitoring,
Then Silent on
Minova
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 25,
updated -- The
inaction of UN
peacekeepers
under Herve
Ladsous as M23
took over Goma
and then Sake
is one of the
biggest UN
failures in
some time.
A
member of the
UN's
C-34, to which
Ladsous first
proposed
drones in
March
of this year,
has analogized
it to previous
UN breakdowns,
such as in
Srebrenica
(not to say as
in Congo's
neighbor
Rwanda in
1994).
While
the numbers in
Srebrenica,
which some put
at 7000, were
higher the
structure is
the same: the
UN says it
will protect a
place, people
gather and
remain -- then
the UN does
nothing when
the place is
attacked.
Here, the UN
ended up
saying it was
better it did
not
fight. Better
for whom?
The
UN also said
that by not
fighting, it
could remain
and "keep
records." But
how? And for
whom?
After
Herve Ladsous
refused again
on November
21 to answer
any Press
questions,
including
"would MONUSCO
defend Bukavu"
and
about the
protests
against the UN,
Inner City
Press on
November 23
submitted
simple
questions in
writing to
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
three top
spokesmen.
They
forwarded the
Congo
questions to
Ladsous
spokesman Kieran
Dwyer, who
had been the
one to tell UN
personnel to
make sure not
to give the
microphone to
Inner City
Press, to
instead search
for a friendly
question "en
Francais."
Dwyer,
who by that
and other acts
appeared to
become
something
other than a
spokesman,
emailed a
response to
basic
questions, I
am looking
into
that, before 4
on November
23.
A
day and a half
later, despite
major
developments
and more UN
failure
on the ground,
and the
statement
issued by a
meeting of the
International
Conference of
the Great
Lakes Region,
neither Dwyer
or
the other UN
spokespeople
have provide
any of the
promised
responses
to the
questions.
One
awaits as of
11 am on
Sunday at the
UN in New York
even any
comment on the
ICGLR plans,
on which Inner
City
Press asked
the three top
UN
spokespeople
for UN
"comments and
plans on the
roles assigned
to it by what
was
announced."
Surprising
in
light of its
failure, the
UN's MONUSCO
mission, which
did nothing
as the M23
took over
Goma, was
assigned the
task of
standing
between
the new
territory
taken by M23
and the city
of Goma, which
the
statement says
M23 should
leave -
except,
paradoxically,
for its
airport. So
far, a full 24
hours after
the
communique,
the UN has had
no response.
And now
DRC President
Joseph Kabila
has said there
will only be
talks with M23
if they leave
Goma first.
On
November 23,
Inner City
Press asked
the UN to
"please
describe
any and all of
MONUSCO's
interaction
with or
support of
elements of
the Mai Mai or
NYATURA so far
this year."
On
November 23,
Ladsous'
Kieran Dwyer
replied, "I am
looking into
this." In the
43 hours
since, no
information
has been
provided.
But it is
widely
reported that
NYATURA fought
alongside the
Congolese
army in Sake;
and that the
Congolese army
when it
retreated to
Minova
robbed
people's
houses and
stores and
committed
rapes.
And
so questions
have had to be
asked, on the
morning of
November 24,
of
the Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights,
including that
"in Minova,
there have
apparently
been rapes and
looting by
FARDC units as
they
retreated. Has
anyone from
OHCHR visited
Minova?" No
far, nothing.
What was that
again, about a
benefit of not
fighting being
the ability to
keep records?
The
UN has refused
even to
provide its
records of its
own damages.
Inner
City Press
also asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople
to
"please
specify all
damage or
injury to UN
system staff,
facilities or
property in
the Democratic
Republic of
Congo since
November 20,
including but
not limited to
in Bukavu,
Bunia, Goma,
Kinshasa and
Kisingani."
More
than three
hours later,
all Dwyer
responded with
was, "I am
looking into
this." And as
with the
question above
about Mai Mai
and NYATURA,
no information
was provided
in the 43
hours since.
How
could the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
purport to
have no
answer to
this? UN
buildings have
been set
aflame, rocks
thrown at
cars, mortars
reportedly
fired at the
MONUSCO base
in Monigi. But
after 43
hours, no
information at
all was
provided.
Back
on November
21, it was
Kieran Dwyer
who for
Ladsous asked
UN
personnel to
not give Inner
City Press the
microphone as
its question
"would MONUSCO
protect
Bukavu" was
asked.
Inner
City Press
asked Ban
Ki-moon's
three
spokespeople
to "please
state the
Secretariat's
position on
its Department
of
Peacekeeping
Operations'
spokespeople
directing
staff of the
UN Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit and UN
Television /
audio to hold
the
Security
Council
stakeout
microphone
away from
Inner City
Press, most
recently by
spokesman
Kieran Dwyer
on November
21."
This
question was
paradoxically
referred to
Dwyer himself,
and he did not
purport to
answer it or
even claim "I
am looking
into it."
There was
another,
entirely
factual
question about
Herve Ladsous,
including his
role during
and public
(and private)
communications
about, the
Rwanda
genocide in
1994, to which
Ban Ki-moon's
spokesperson's
office has
replied only
that "We do
not comment
on recruitment
processes."
We'll have
more on this.
Meanwhile,
Ladsous'
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations is
issuing short
statements
about the
"background"
and mandate of
MONUSCO.
When a Tweeter
with three
followers
asked online
why the UN and
its
humanitarian
chief Valerie
Amos didn't
respond as in
Somalia,
with AMISOM,
the UN
Peacekeeping
account
replied
with MONUSCO's
mandate.
But
when asked
by a more
active Tweeter
with hundreds
of followers
why
Ladsous does
not resign
after his
failures, here,
there was no
response
from UN
Peacekeeping.
And so others
online
answered the
question
themselves.
Who will
be held
accountable?
Watch this
site.
Update:
more than 24
hours after
the ICGLR
communique,
and still
without any
responses from
Ladsous' DPKO,
the UN put out
a statement in
which Ban
Ki-moon "calls
on the M23 to
immediately
lay down their
arms in
accordance
with the
agreements
reached in
Kampala, and
comply with
the immediate
withdrawal of
their forces
from Goma" and
"is also
determined to
ensure that
the United
Nations
presence in
the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo be
adjusted to
respond to the
evolving
challenges in
line with
relevant
Security
Council
resolutions on
the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo."
So why did the
UN, evne under
its mandate,
do nothing in
Goma, and why
does it not
answer since?
, 
