By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, March
18 -- The UN
says it is for
press freedom,
but on March
18, UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous
told the
Security
Council of
"unacceptable
vilification
of the UN by
some... media
articles."
After the
meeting, while
neither
Ladsous nor
the UN's envoy
to South Sudan
Hilde Johnson
came to answer
questions, the
president of
the Security
Council for
March, Sylvie
Lucas of Luxembourg,
did.
Inner
City Press
asked her
about Ladsous'
line, and if
the UN and
Security
Council were
now in the
business of
critiquing
articles in
countries with
peacekeeping
missions.
Lucas, who has
held more
stakeouts this
month by far
that recent
presidencies,
replied by
citing a
protest sign
depicting
Hilde Johnson
and a revolver.
Inner City
Press has seen
a picture of
the sign - but
it is well
within the
bounds of
protected
First Amendment
speech and
protest in the
US. Is
the UN, or
Ladsous and
Johnson,
promoting a
lower
standard?
South Sudan's
Permanent
Representative
Francis Deng,
himself a
former UN
official, said
that the
government
plans to
"contain
hostile
publicity." So
now if the Kiir
government
shuts down a
newspaper, or
beats
protesters for
holding "bad"
signs, are the
UN and its
Security
Council, or
Ladsous and
Johnson,
complicit?
Already,
Ladsous
refuses to
answer Press
questions on
topics ranging
from the
introduction
of cholera in
Haiti to rapes
by the UN's
partners in
the Congolese
Army in
Minova, video
here.
Now when the
UN speaks on
unacceptable
media
articles, what
does it mean?
Salva Kiir's
information minister
said that to
broadcast
interviews
with rebels
into South
Sudan would be
illegal. The
UN had no
comment
A Kiir adviser
admitted his
government
gives "advise"
to journalists
on what and
what not to
write -- just
as Inner City
Press has been
told, in
connection
with UN
Accreditation,
how to write
about Ladsous.
This is called
censorship.
Now Ladsous
explicitly
joins the
censors. Some
say it's Ladsous
who should be
censured --
if, that is,
the UN
believes in
free press.
Though it was
UN
Peacekeeping
own admitted
"error" that
gave rise to
articles,
Ladsous now
blames the
government for
not agreeing
to a joint
investigation.
He said, "We
offered to the
Government to
conduct a
joint
investigation,
to prove our
good faith and
provide full
transparency.
Unfortunately,
the offer was
declined."
Back on March
6, the UN
issued a rare
admission of
error, saying
that contrary
to policy
weapons were
moved by road,
not air, in
South Sudan
for the Ghana
peacekeepers
recently
arrived from
Cote d'Ivoire.
The UN
issued
this:
Juba,
6 March 2014:
It is the
policy of the
United Nations
Mission in
South Sudan
(UNMISS) that
during the
crisis in
South Sudan
all arms and
ammunition for
peacekeeping
contingents
are flown into
respective
areas of
deployment and
not taken by
road. This is
an important
security
measure.
In
connection
with the
transport of
cargo of
general goods
belonging to
the Ghanaian
battalion on
its way to
Bentiu,
several
containers
were wrongly
labelled and
inadvertently
contained
weapons and
ammunition.
This is
regrettable.
The Ghanaian
troops are
part of the
surge of
UNMISS troops
to assist
South Sudan
and the goods
were en route
to Bentiu,
passing
through
Rumbek.
UN
Headquarters
intends to
dispatch a
high level
investigation
team to look
into this
matter on an
urgent basis,
in cooperation
with the
Government of
South Sudan.
Pressed
for
more details,
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
declined. One
wondered, if
the UN can in
essence
apologize so
quickly for
weapons
transport in
South Sudan,
why not for
the 8,000
people killed
by the cholera
introduced
into Haiti?
Then
Inner City
Press was sent
links to the photos
of the (UN)
trucks,
and of the weapons.
Click here
and here;
h/t.
Perhaps
it's that the
UN was caught
red-handed, so
to speak. So
now what?
Watch this
site.
, 
