HRW's
676
Page Report
Lists Ban Only
4 Times, Soft
on UN Inaction
in Sudan,
Haiti?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 23 --
Human Rights
Watch's new World Report 2012 was
launched in
Cairo on
Sunday by HRW
director Ken
Roth.
On Monday
three
HRW
representatives
held an
"after-launch"
at the UN in
New
York,
ostensibly
focusing on UN
issues.
Inner
City Press
asked HRW to
assess the
UN's actions
in countries
where it has
peacekeepers:
for example
the
allegations of
and immunity
for sexual
abuse, in
Haiti the
alleged
introduction
of cholera,
the failure to
protect
civilians in
Southern
Kordofan and
now Jonglei
State in South
Sudan, the failure to
follow through
on Sri Lanka.
HRW's
Philippe
Bolopion
replied that
while these
are "valid
questions,"
HRW
bases itself
on solid
information
and in these
circumstances
does not
have access.
While that might
have
been true in
Jonglei at New
Years, when
the UN's
alleged
negligence
meant it had
no replacement
military
helicopters
for the ones
Russia had
told the UN it
wouldn't
fly, it
can't be true
in Haiti.
But
while HRW's
report
mentions
cholera, the
UN's denial
and then
studies that
"claim
evidence that
MINUSTAH
soldiers most
likely
introduced the
strain,"
HRW does not
opine on the
UN's failure
to respond to
formal legal
complaints
that it never
established
the standing
claims
commission
called for its
its Status of
Forces
Agreement.
If HRW judges
countries'
systems of
accountability
and
transparency,
why be silent
on the UN's?
Back
in May 2011,
Inner City
Press asked
HRW for a
simple read
out of Ken
Roth's
meeting with
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, and
received in
return
the following:
"To preserve
our ability to
have frank
discussions
with UN
officials and
advance our
advocacy
goals, we
don't
typically
communicate on
the content of
discussions we
have
with them."
On
Monday, Inner
City Press
asked how this
is legitimate
for an NGO
involved in
human
rights, and
what benefit
HRW saw from
this access in
2011. Bolopion
insisted that
"everything
does not need
to be public,"
that
disclosure
could even
"undermine...
our goals."
But
isn't the
standard
different for
a meeting with
the UN
Secretary
General, who
also claims to
be
transparent?
(c) UN Photo
Ban, Kim and
team meet
HRW's Roth and
team May 2011,
read out not
shown
Bolopion said
that no one
questions
that HRW is
tough on Ban.
Yes, a year
ago HRW was
critical of
Ban.
Then, as Inner
City Press
reported based
on sources
close to Ban,
there was a
backlash.
There was a
meeting, no
summary of
which was
every given.
And on Monday
HRW largely
complimented
Ban, on Syria
and
Egypt. Ban
Ki-moon is
mentioned only
four times in
the 676 page
report.
Inner
City Press
an hour later
asked Ban's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
about HRW's
praise, as
well as its
light critique
on, for
example, Sri
Lanka.
Nesirky said
the praise is
"very
welcome," then
insisted
that since Ban
sent a report
to Geneva, it
is "up to
member
states." But
this is not
the stance he
takes on
Syria, for
example, where
he calls on
the Security
Council to
take action.
In
September 2011
Ban committed
to an inquiry
into the UN's
own actions in
Sri Lanka.
As Inner City
Press has
reported,
Ban's own
chief of staff
Vijay
Nambiar played
a role in
coaxing out
LTTE leaders,
who in turn
were
killed. Inner
City Press
asked on
Monday about
the status of
the
inquiry
committed to
four months
ago, and even
who is
conducting it.
We'll see.
At
UN, HRW's
Minky Worden,
Bolopion &
Peggy Hicks,
read out
awaited? (c)
MRLee
In
terms of
holding the UN
accountable,
the example
Bolopion gave
was Cote
d'Ivoire,
where he said
HRW "raised to
DPKO" (UN
Peacekeeping)
inaction by UN
peacekeepers.
Well, over the
weekend in
Yopougon in
Abidjan,
supporters of
Laurent Gbagbo
rallied and
were
attacked by
Ouattara
forces, with
they say no
response from
the UN
peacekeepers.
Inner City
Press has
asked Nesirky
for a response
--
will HRW?
Watch this
site.
, 
