On
Haiti Cholera,
Opposition to
US "Suggestion
of Immunity"
for UN
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May
15, with a song --
On the UN having
brought
cholera to
Haiti, the
US government
on March 7
filed a
briefing
supporting the
UN's immunity
-- or in this
case,
impunity.
Now today, May
15, opposition
to the US
position has
been filed,
with amicus
support from a
bevy of law
professors, an
ex judge of
the International
Criminal Tribunal
for the Former
Yugoslavia and
former UN
human rights
rapporteur on
torture
Manfred Nowak.
Nowak said, "the
UN needs to
understand
that immunity
cannot mean
impunity. If
it refuses to
provide people
alleging harm
with a path to
justice,
courts will
refuse to
uphold its
immunity.”
But for now,
the UN under
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon won't
even bring its
envoy on
cholera Pedro
Medrano forward
for
questioning.
Inner City
Press has
asked, for
example on
April 21:
Inner
City Press: …
seemed to
quote Mr.
Medrano as
predicting in
advance
that this
panel he would
be on with the
Government may
provide
assistance,
but he said,
like, the word
“compensation”
won’t be
used. So I
wanted to
know, is that
a UN position?
Is it his
prediction of
that the
Government
doesn’t want
the word
“compensation”
used? And is
there some way
that we can
have by
video or
otherwise, a
kind of, some
kind of
presentation
by Mr.
Medrano?
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric:
Sure, on
Haiti, over
the weekend,
the terms of
reference on
this high
level
committee on
cholera, which
would be a
UN and
Government of
Haiti
committee,
have been
officially
agreed on. And
the aim is
really for the
joint effort
of to fight
cholera
between the UN
and the
Government of
Haiti. The
Committee aims
at
further
improving the
coordination
response to
the epidemic
and
obviously we
expect to have
an official
announcement
in the next
couple of
days. But this
is a very
important… the
establishment
of
this committee
is a very
important one
in terms of
our efforts,
and
most
importantly
the Government
of Haiti’s
efforts, to
address not
only cholera
but also the
associated
water and
sanitation
issues....
Inner
City Press:
Just on
Medrano, I
will like to
say again if
you could do
a briefing in
this room it
would help.
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I hear you.
But did he?
There has been
no briefing.
Then again on
May
8, from the UN
transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to ask
about Haiti
and
cholera.
It was said
here on 21
April that
there was this
new committee
that would be
the Government
of Haiti and
of the UN, and
Stéphane said
that we expect
a more
official
announcement
shortly.
Some people
are wondering,
what are the
terms of
reference of
the
committee?
Who’s on
it? Has
there been any
development in
the two weeks
since on
setting up, on
this
committee?
Deputy
Spokesman
Farhan Haq:
I believe
there has
been, but I
don’t think
there’s
anything to
announce just
yet.
I’ll check if
and when
there’s
something to
announce and
we’ll try to
get some
details at
that point,
but right now
we’re just
going through
the work of
trying to get
it formed.
From
the US State
Department's
May 7 briefing
transcript:
Today
is the
deadline,
apparently,
for the State
Department to
decide whether
it wants to
file a brief
in this
lawsuit that’s
being brought
by some
Haitians
against the
United
Nations. Has
the Department
decided
whether it
will file a
brief in this
case, and if
it has, is it
in support of
the UN or is
it in – which
wants the case
dismissed – or
is it in
support of the
people
bringing the
case? Or is it
just neutral?
MS.
PSAKI: Sure.
Well, my
understanding
is DOJ, of
course, would
file the
brief, right,
not the State
Department.
But we did –
the U.S.
Government
filed a
statement of
interest and
suggestion of
immunity
yesterday,
asserting that
the United
Nations, the
United Nations
Stabilization
Mission in
Haiti, UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, and
Assistant
Secretary
General for UN
Peacekeeping
Operations are
immune from
suit in the
case of – in
this case.
The
cholera
outbreak
resulted, as
we all know,
in a tragic
loss of life
just when
Haiti was
struggling to
recover from
the
devastating
earthquake
from 2010. We,
of course,
first and
foremost,
express our
sympathy for
the victims of
the epidemic.
But in cases
like this, we
don’t file a
brief out of a
lack of
empathy. We –
the United
States has
legally
binding treaty
obligations
that require
it to afford
the UN
immunity from
suit and also
provide
immunity for
UN officials.
That’s why it
was important
to file the
brief and why
we filed the
brief.
Q: So
you believe,
along with the
UN, that this
case should be
dismissed
because they
enjoy
immunity?
MS.
PSAKI: Well,
we believe
that they
should enjoy
immunity, and
this brief was
submitted
based on the
legal analysis
of that issue.
To
many, this is
shocking.
Members of
Congress have
written to
State
Department
diplomats
about this
case.
As this US
answer was
released,
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon was
partying with
in-house
scribes,
most of whom
never pursued
this most
outrageous
case of UN
impunity, or
even asked if
Ban Ki-moon
like a scoff
law was hiding
from the
process
server.
Inner City
Press, having
twice asked
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople
to confirm Ban
has been
served with
legal papers,
on
February
28 asked
about Gallon's
report:
Inner
City Press: on
Haiti, there
is a recent
report just
out by Gustavo
Gallón, who is
the UN
independent
expert on
human rights
in Haiti, and
he says, as a
direct quote,
that full
compensation
for the damage
suffered by
the Haitian
people by the
introduction
of cholera to
the island
should be paid
as quickly as
possible. So,
I understand
that he is an
independent
expert and
doesn’t work
for the
Secretariat;
at the same
time, it’s a
respected
position and a
mandate formed
by the Human
Rights
Council, so I
wanted to know
what in the
face of this
sort of either
intra-UN or
intra-UN
system
critique, what
is the
response of
the United
Nations?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Well,
simply, that
you answered
the question
yourself. The
Human Rights
Council-appointed
special
rapporteurs
and other
special
advisers of
various kinds
are
independent
and they are
not appointed
by the
Secretary-General
and I don’t
have anything
further to say
on that.
Inner
City Press:
But does the
UN system
expect, for
example,
countries when
when they are
subject to
these type
recommendations
or criticism
by an
independent
experts of the
Human Rights
Council to
respond in
some way to
them to say:
we agree or
disagree, or
that is why we
disagree?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
That’s for
each
individual
Member State
to decide.
Ah,
leadership.
Meanwhile,
while the UN
has refused to
answer if Ban
was served the
court papers,
beyond this song,
Inner City
Press will now
publish the
sad litany of
attempts to
serve what
could be
described as a
scoff law:
On
December 19,
2013, at
approximately
3:11 PM, a
paralegal for
Plaintiffs’
counsel
contacted OLA
by telephone
and spoke to a
woman who
identified
herself as
“Mae” (who,
upon
information
and belief, is
Mae Arkoncel,
Assistant to
the UN Legal
Counsel). Mae
confirmed that
OLA had
received the
faxed
documents from
Plaintiffs’
counsel and
stated that
the UN was
currently
'reviewing the
documents'...
Service
of
process by
delivery to
Defendant Ban
personally
through the
use of a
private
process
server... was
attempted
again on
January 20,
2014, at
approximately
10:05 AM, at
Defendant
Ban’s
residence
located at
[redacted by
ICP]. A
security guard
informed the
server that
Defendant Ban
was not
present, and
refused to
open the door
or accept
service.
8.
Service of
process by
delivery to
Defendant Ban
personally
through the
use of a
private
process
server... was
perfected on
January 20,
2014, at
approximately
2:00 PM, at
Defendant’s
Ban residence
located at
[redacted by
ICP]. A male
who identified
himself as
'security'
answered the
door and
informed the
server that he
would not
accept service
and that
Defendant Ban
was not
present. The
server affixed
the process to
the front door
with masking
tape and
informed the
security guard
that he was
doing so with
the intention
that the
documents
would be
forwarded to
Defendant Ban.
The server
then mailed
another copy
of the process
to Defendant
Ban at the
same address.
That's
called
"nail-and-mail,"
and it's
what's used
with a
fugitive or
scoff law. Is
that what this
UN has become?
It's the basis
of this lyric,
can't serve
the papers up
in the
townhouse, song here.
Watch this
site.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
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 2006-2014 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|