UN
Conceals
Winner of
Drone Contract
& DRC Army
Units
Supported
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, July
31 -- Some say
for the UN to
become a party
to the
armed conflict
in Eastern
Congo is a
mistake.
But
the UN is
doing just
that: on July
30 it set an August 1
deadline
after which it
will take
offensive
military
action
against anyone
who
doesn't disarm
in what it
calls the
"Security
Zone" between
Goma and Sake.
Some
characterize
this as
"protection of
civilians," as
UK
Ambassador to
the UN Mark
Lyall Grant
did, tweeting
that the UK
"has
supported the
UN
Intervention
Brigade,
precisely to
help stop
murderous
activities by
M23 (and other
armed
militia)" and
that
he didn't
think "women
suffering
sexual
violence in
DRC would
see UN
Peacekeepers
disarming
militia as 'UN
going to
war.'"
This
ignores that,
for example,
135 DRC women
and girls were
raped in
Minova in
November by
two units of
the Congolese
Army, the 41st
and
the (US
trained) 391st
Battalions
-- both of
which the UN
still
supports,
despite
accountability
measures that
are shockingly
limited, and
now
undisclosed.
On
July 31 Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
about the 41st
Battalion,
about which
company signed
a drones
contract with
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous, and
if the Geneva
Conventions
apply to the
UN. From
the UN's
transcript:
Inner
City Press:
There was a
MONUSCO
[United
Nations
Organization
Stabilization
Mission in the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo]
press
conference
today in which
they described
a joint
surveillance
cells
that they had
established
with the
forty-first
commando
battalion in
Sake-Goma,
which is the
security zone.
Since this is
one of the two
battalions
that was
implicated in
the rapes in
Minova, is
this
support for
purposes of
the human
rights due
diligence
policy to
establish
these joint
surveillance
cells? What’s
the current
tally
of actual
arrests or
indictments
made for those
rapes, and is
it
possible to
know which
units of the
Congolese Army
MONUSCO would
be
providing
support to,
for purposes
of the human
rights due
diligence
policy as part
of its newly
announced
disarmament
initiative to
begin
in 24 hours?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, on the
middle
question,
that’s one for
the
authorities.
On the last
part of your
question and
the first part
of
your question,
for
operational
reasons with
regard to the
present
circumstances,
the Mission is
not providing
a full list of
which
units it is
operating with
and would
support. So
that’s the
first
bit. The
second is with
regard to the
broader
question you
raised a
number of
times, the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations is
simply
not putting
into the
public domain
that
information.
Inner
City Press:
One follow-up.
How could the
UN have a
policy
publicly
announced like
the human
rights due
diligence
policy, which
says they
wont support
abusive units
and then
refuse to
disclose which
units
they do
support? And
when you’re
saying it’s up
to the
Congolese
authorities to
disclose the
arrests, at
least as
described by
Patricia
O’Brien, the
UN must seek
that
information in
order to
make its risk
assessment of
potentials of
abuse arising
from its
support. Is it
an entirely
secret policy?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
No, no, not at
all. Those two
parts are not
mutually
exclusive.
It’s for the
authorities in
the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo to
provide
information
into the
public domain
on what
arrests have
or have not
been made, who
has been
charged, who
has
been
prosecuted.
That’s
self-evidently
for the
authorities,
the
Congolese
authorities to
do. It is not…
that does not
mean that
it’s not
possible for
them also to
provide that
information to
the
peacekeeping
mission there.
And with
regard to the
more general
point, this
policy is
about a
process. You
don’t decide
from one
day to the
other if a
unit has been
accused of
some kind of
infractions —
that is
investigated
under that
policy and, of
course, by the
authorities,
and that’s a
process.
Inner
City Press:
Thanks a lot,
I just wanted
to get this
out of the
way. I wanted
to ask two
general
things.
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Just wait a
second. I can
see other
hands in the
room. Okay?
After
cutting away,
when Nesirky
returned he
limited
questions,
disallowing
one about
Mali, and
declining to
name the
beneficiary of
a drones
contract the
UN has already
signed:
Inner
City Press: I
have a
question on
Mali but I
wanted to just
finish on
DRC. This
seems to be
something
that’s right
in the UN’s
mandate
to answer,
whether the
Geneva
Conventions
apply to the
operation that
the
Intervention
Brigade or
MONUSCO has
just
announced,
i.e., would
it be making
the
Intervention
Brigade a
party to an
armed
conflict? And
the other
question,
Hervé Ladsous
announced
during the
Bastille
Day in France
that the drone
contract had
been signed.
I’ve checked
various
databases that
are publicly
available.
What’s the
company
that won? And
if it’s not
yet public,
how could the
UN be signing
a contract
declaring a
winner and not
have it be
public? Is it
public and
what is the
name of the
company?
Spokesperson:
I will check.
I don’t
believe it is
public,
firstly.
Secondly,
there is a
very clear
procurement
process that’s
in place, and
with
regard to the
first part of
your question,
the mandate
that the
peacekeeping
operation has
in the DRC is
fully
compliant with
international
humanitarian
law.
Then
Nesirky took
no more
questions on
the topic, nor
from Inner
City
Press about
Mali or
anything else.
At a ceremony
unveiling a
new bike
rack for the
UN, when Herve
Ladsous walked
by Inner City
Press asked
him who won
the UN drone
contract. He
did not
answer. Video
here.
Watch this
site.