Ladsous
Justifies
Refusal of
Press Qs,
Stonewalls on
Mercenaries
& DRC
Killings
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 20 -- Is
it legitimate
for a UN
official paid
hundreds
of thousands
of dollar a
year, tax
free, to
refuse to any
questions
from a UN
accredited
journalist
based solely
on the
journalist's
critical
coverage?
Secretary
General
Ban Ki-moon
and his
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous have
taken this
position for
eight weeks
now. Yesterday
the position
was
reiterated,
and requested
answers not
provided.
Ladsous'
spokesman
Kieran Dwyer
on July 19
wrote that
Inner City
Press' written
coverage
of "Ladsous
since he took
up his
position have
made it
impossible to
have a
professional
engagement
with Inner
City Press on
the substance
of
peacekeeping
work."
A
question is, whose
lack of
"professionalism"
was on display
on June 17,
when at a
stakeout on UN
Television
Inner City
Press
asked Ladsous
for his
response to
Spain cutting
its troop
contribution
to the UN
Mission in
Lebanon in
half, and if
his Mission
in the Congo
had as
reported
killed
civilians.
Ladsous
refused to
answer either
question, and
Dwyer quotes
himself as
saying, "we
are on the
record as not
answering your
questions due
to your
personal
attacks." Video
here,
Minute 6:50.
Ladsous
began
this strategy
of explicitly
conditioning
answering
or even taking
question on
getting
positive --
and we and others
posit, as yet
unmerited --
coverage on
May 29 in a
televised
press
conference,
and has continued
it off camera
since.
Can
critical
coverage of
the job
performance of
a
international
civil
servant be
called the
type of
"personal
attack" that
justifies
refusing to
answer
questions
about job (and
Department)
performance?
Dwyer
writes that
his on-camera
July 17
refusal to
answer was "in
line with
Under-Secretary-General
Ladsous’s
response to
your noon
briefing
question of 29
May, when he
said 'I will
start
answering your
questions when
you stop
insulting me
and spreading
malicious and
insulting
insinuations.'"
Again,
can the
publication of
reviews of
DPKO's
performance
under Ladsous,
and his
plans for
example for
the use of
drones which
several member
states
have
criticized as
not having
enough
safeguards be
construed as
"malicious and
insulting
insinuations"?
By
contrast,
at the same
stakeout
position where
Ladsous and
Dwyer on
July 17
refused to
answer basic
questions
about the
UNIFIL and
MONUSCO
missions, on July
20 Ambassadors
Rice, Lyall
Grant, Wittig,
Li and Churkin
all took and
answered
questions
from Inner
City Press.
Diplomats
employed
by their own
nations -- in
these cases
the US, UK,
Germany, China
and
Russia,
respectively
-- might more
easily say
they can
openly refuse
to answer
particular
journalists'
or media's
questions.
But
Ladsous
is paid by the
UN, that is,
by global
taxpayers. He
claims
that he does
not work for
France.
So on what
basis does he
refuse to
do what
Ambassadors
Rice, Lyall
Grant, Wittig,
Li and Churkin
do? (It might
be worth
noting that of
all the
Ambassadors
who spoke at
the Security
Council
stakeout in
the past two
days the only
one who,
through his
spokesman,
refused to
take any
question from
Inner City
Press was
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud.)
After
receiving
Dwyer's
justification
for his and
Ladsous'
refusal to
answer
questions,
which was
copied to Ban
Ki-moon's two
top
spokesmen,
Inner City
Press replied
that it is
"opposed to
conditioning
answering or
even taking
questions on
the content of
press
coverage" and
"will continue
to ask
questions,
including
about DPKO and
its missions,
and to report
on the
responses, or
lack of
responses."
Inner City
Press then
after
Thursday's
Security
Council
meeting asked
four questions
of DPKO, and
two of Ban
Ki-moon's
Secretariat,
none of which
have been
answered or
even
acknowledged
by mid-Friday
afternoon:
I
would still on
Syria like a
description of
USG Ladsous'
role in the
June 15
notification
to the
Security
Council that
UNSMIS has
limited its
mobile
operations in
Syria as of
18:00 hours
local that
day, see http://www.innercitypress.com/icp1syriadpko061512.pdf
and an
explanation of
the steps
taken since
the S-G (and
presumably USG
Ladsous)
received
UNSMIS' report
on Houla,
where in the
UN he referred
it and why it
has not even
now been
provided to
the Security
Council,
according to
several
Council
members.
Also from
today, I'd
like an answer
how SRSG
Martin
Kobler's
stakeout
statement that
UNAMI does not
use private
military (or
security)
contractors
other than for
dogs comports
with these
two budget lines:
HART
SECURITY
LIMITED
CYP
Training,
other
$437,444
11AMI-20387
UNAMI
HART
SECURITY
LIMITED
CYP
AMI/CON/2011/041 Provision
of Security
Awareness
Induction
Training
Training (SAIT) for
UNAMI
1-Aug-11 31-Jul-12
$1,143,682
UNAMI
This last
seems to runs
through July
31, 2012 -
still in
force.
I
am also
requesting to
be informed
whenever
MONUSCO
finishes its
review of the
effects of its
use of
helicopter
gunships /
missiles in
North
Kivu.
And, to those
you cc-ed, I'd
like like
answers to the
two non-bomb
questions I
emailed in
yesterday
afternoon.
Those were:
what
is the UN's
response to this criticism
from Sierra
Leone (here),
and to the
Staff Union's
statement
yesterday
urging the S-G
to do more on
staff
detentions in
Myanmar and
prison term in
Ethiopia?
No
noon briefing
questions were
taken on
Thursday, and
there was no
noon briefing
at all on
Friday -- the
point here is
that there
might have
been time to
answer at
least one of
these
questions. But
at least as to
Ladsous, there
is a stated
"on the
record" policy
of not
answering
Press
questions. Is
that
legitimate?
As Inner City
Press wrote on
July 18, we'll
pursue this --
and, we hope,
answers to the
questions
Ladsous
refused to
answer or even
take, on top
of the
unanswered
questions
about DPKO
introducing
cholera into
Haiti, and Ban
and Ladsous
having as a
Senior Adviser
on
Peacekeeping
Operations an
alleged war
criminal, Sri
Lankan general
Shavendra
Silva.
Notably
Ladsous did
take Press
questions
earlier in
May, and what
he fastened on
between then
and May 29 is
mysterious and
/ or
troubling.
Watch this
site