In
Somalia, UN Manufactures Consent As AMISOM Shoots Camels as
Insurgents
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, September 15 -- The UN, which nearly invariably uses as a
defense against inaction on human rights abuses that only works in
countries upon invitation, views Somalia through a different prism,
it seems. How else to explain the dismissive response of the head of
the UN's Department of Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to questions
that have arise about the work of UN envoy Ahmedou Ould Abdallah
after his Norway-funded, Kenya-drafted Law of the Sea filing about
rights to Somalia's continental shelf was roundly rejected by
Somalia's parliament?
Inner
City Press
asked about that, and other questions that have arisen about the
legitimacy of the multinational naval
presence off Somalia's coast
under a UN Security Council resolution based on a letter signed right
at, or past, then President Yusuf's last day in (appointed) power.
Video here,
from Minute 1:05.
Pascoe
replied
breezily that Ould Abdallah is so "activist" that it is not
surprising that some people don't like it. But if those people
include the majority of Somali parliamentarians, isn't that a problem
for the UN? Pascoe replied that the former President -- presumably
Yussuf -- really wanted the UN in the country.
To
paraphrase
Pascoe about surprise, it is not surprising that rulers who have
never been directly elected by the people welcome outside forces
which treat and support them as legitimate. Some Somalis were found,
as a fig leaf, to invite in the Ethiopian forces in 2006. Recently,
the AMISOM force which took over from the Ethiopians mistakenly shot
and killed a group of camels just outside the barbed wire fence around
Adan Ade airport in Mogadishu, mistaking them for
"insurgents."
The camels shot by AMISOM as insurgents
AMISON's
spokesperson, Barigye Ba-hoku, told the press that "It was our new
forces and they were not aware of the camels’ movements. They say they
were attacked, and so opened fire,"
Inner
City Press
has asked the UN what its role with AMISOM is, whether it provides
ammunition and training, and what it thinks of the camel killing
incident. Watch this site.
* * *
At
UN, Fowler Fall-Out Continues, Info "Got Out Somehow," But Answers Four
Days Late and Counting
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, September 14 -- The UN's head of political affairs Lynn
Pascoe on Monday defended his agency's "reticence to be
explicit" about what Robert
Fowler, the Canadian ostensibly
serving as the UN's envoy to Niger, was doing in the country,
traveling to a Canadian owned mine, when he was kidnapped in
December. Pascoe said Fowler was working on relations between the
government of Niger and the Taureg rebels, with "the full
agreement of the government." Video here,
from Minute 1:08.
But
Fowler has
said that the government of Niger "hated" his mandate, and
that his located was leaked to the kidnappers neither by the
government of Niger or by "supporters of Al Qaeda" within
the UN in Niger or even within UN headquarters. Pascoe did not
respond on camera to that, but in the hallways afterwards he told the
Press that it was clear that someone told the kidnappers where Fowler
would be, somehow the information got out.
Inner
City Press
asked Pascoe, if the supposed Niger mandate was so important, if
anyone is still working on it, after Fowler's kidnapping and eventual
release. Video here,
from Minute 1:05:59. Pascoe did not answer this
question, saying only that Fowler was "grabbed" before the
work was "far along." Some question if the work might have
had anything to do with mining, specifically of uranium.
"We
were
pounded by you," Pascoe said, referring to Inner City Press,
"for not saying what he was doing in the first place."
Pascoe was asked if it is appropriate for an envoy traveling to a
country to work for the UN to go without explanation in a UN vehicle
-- but no security -- to visit a mine owned by a company from his own
country. "If I spent my day telling SRSGs where to be every day,
I" couldn't work on anything else, Pascoe said.
He
said that
envoys or Special Representatives of the Secretary General have a
duty to tell him and the UN when they go in or out of a country, or
out of the region they are to work in. In Fowler's case, it's said
the area the mine is in and where he was kidnapped has little to do
with the Taureg rebels. So why didn't Fowler tell the UN where he was
going? Ban Ki-moon's Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said that the UN
had to "reconstruct" what Fowler had been doing after he
was kidnapped.
Since
then, Niger's ambassador to Canada, Nana Aïcha Foumakoye, has
said
that Fowler did not give her government his agenda for the day he was
abducted and she suggested he was hiding the true nature of his work.
"What did he have to hide?" said Ambassador Foumakoye. "Why
didn't he let us know? I don't understand why he didn't."
Fowler, Guay, and Mali's President and
Foreign Minister, answers not shown
During
his press conference, Pascoe repeatedly said that the UN and its
Department of Political Affairs only gets involved when invited by
the government. But Fowler calls Niger President Mamdou Tandja
"offended, annoyed [and] embarrassed" by him showing up as
UN envoy, and says Niger "hated" this mandate.
Haq
and Ban's
Spokesperson's Office still has not answered the following questions,
put to
them in writing on September 10:
1.
You said yesterday that Fowler is no longer a USG. What was his last
date as a UN employee?
2.
Did Fowler receive UN compensation for the dates that he was held in
captivity? How much?
3.
Yes or No? Did the United Nations issue the air ticket that Fowler
used to fly from Canada to Niger in December 2008?
--The
Fowler Party did not have ANY UN- or Host Country-provided close
protection on its trip to the Canadian owned gold mine in Niger last
December -- yes or no?
--Fowler
and his associate, Louis Guay, did not have UN-issued travel orders
prior to their excursion to Niger -- yes or no?
--The
Department of Safety and Security was not informed by the Department
of Political Affairs about the Fowler trip in advance, contrary to UN
rules and regulations, and therefore did not provide security
clearance in advance -- yes or no?
--The
use of a UNDP driver and vehicle was not authorized by the
appropriate UNDP security and administrative authorities, contrary to
UN rules and regulations -- yes or no?
--The
Niger Government was not aware of the Fowler Party's side trip to the
gold mine, and was not informed that Fowler was undertaking any UN
responsibilities in Niger during that trip besides representational
duties related to Niger's national day celebration the Friday prior
to his abduction -- yes or no?
In
response, Haq told Inner City Press that "These
questions will need to go to our human resources office, and I very
much doubt (from past experience) that I can ask them a question this
afternoon and still have an answer for you later today. It'll take
more time than that. But I'll pass your questions on."
Four
days later, we have not a single answer. Pascoe said that Fowler's
release somehow proved the UN was right to have been "reticent to be
explicit" during his detention about what Fowler had been doing. But
now that he's released, why are these questions not being answered?
Watch this site.
* * *
UN
Says Fowler On Private Visit to Niger Mine, Of P-5 Plus One,
Other Secret Envoys?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, September 9 -- After months of denying then refusing to
comment on reports that its putative Niger envoy Robert Fowler was
visiting a Canadian owned gold mine on the day of his abduction, the
UN on September 9 admitted they didn't know where he was going that
day, and later reconstructed that it was to a mine that had nothing
to do with its supposed UN mandate. This reversed even the UN's
September 8 statement that Fowler was on UN business at the time.
Some cynics conclude that the UN covered up Fowler's activities
until
Fowler turned on the UN and said that perhaps UN supporters of Al
Qaeda "sold" him. Then the UN admitted the truth about
Fowler's foray, but only as revenge or retaliation. Others say tell
Inner City Press that Fowler's mission to Niger was about uranium,
and was in fact supported by four of the P-5 Plus One...
Notably
of his
co-visitor to the mine, Louis Guay, Fowler has said "I have a
moment, just a moment, and I said Louis, tell them the truth. No
matter what happens, tell them the truth. You don't have anything
that is so important to protect that it's worth your life." Some
wonder, why was Fowler's partner trying to lie? Is it because of the
mining visit ?
Entirely
disagreeing with the UN's statement Wednesday about its knowledge of
his itinerary, Fowler has said
"The
president of Niger, whose name is Tanja. It was clear from the first
time I met him in August that he was offended, annoyed, embarrassed
by the fact that the secretary general of the UN had seen fit to
appoint a special envoy for his country. In fact, some of the stuff
I've read since I got out, with Niger government spokespeople talking
about my mission. They said I was there to see if I could get hold of
illicit arms trafficking, which was not my mission. My mission was
to get the government to make peace with the rebels. As long as there
was no peace with the rebels, the enemy was at the gate, right? If
al-Qaeda is taking people on the outskirts of the city, the enemy's
really at the gate. And governance of national security makes sense,
right? So I don't know who shopped me. I know somebody shopped me.
Who could it be? It could be the government of Niger. Could be an
al-Qaeda sympathizer in the UN office in Niger. In the UN office in
West Africa. In the secretariat building in New York. All of them had
my agenda, my itinerary."
At
the September 9
noon briefing, UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said that "we
ourselves at the United Nations were not always fully apprised of his
travels; and in fact the day he was abducted we had to try and to
reconstruct what had happened on the day that he was kidnapped."
In Niger, a (uranium) mine, Fowler and UN mandate not shown
Inner City
Press followed up:
Inner
City Press: I wanted to ask a follow-up on Mr. Fowler. In what you
just said, you just said that the UN, I just want to be clear --
you’re saying that the UN didn’t know where he was going or what
he was doing that day? I mean, I wanted to know, is it the
protocol…[interrupted]?
Associate
Spokesperson: We did not know at the time; we had to reconstruct
that afterwards -- after the abduction.
Question:
But what’s the protocol if an Under-Secretary-General is in the
country of known -- I’m not sure what the security threat was -–
isn’t he supposed to tell security, at lease DSS [the Department of
Safety and Security] where he is going? Did he have security with
him that day? I guess not.
Associate
Spokesperson: As you’re well aware, he did not have security with
him. There were Mr. Fowler, Mr. [Louis] Guay and their driver,
Soumana Mounkaila, were travelling -- just the three of them.
Question:
And does that violate UN procedures?
Associate
Spokesperson: I don’t want to get into that particular question. As you
know, Mr. Fowler kept people apprised sporadically. But, at
the very moment that he was abducted, we did not know about his
travels over those previous several hours.
Question:
And just when you reconstructed it, can you now say where was he
going? Because many people, many newspapers have reported that he
was headed to a gold mine that’s owned by a Canadian firm. Is that
true or not true?
Associate
Spokesperson: He was headed back from a trip to that mine.
He’d visited the mine, which was part of a private visit,
but he was actually going back to the capital, to Niamey.
Question:
You’d said yesterday that he was performing his official duties at
the time it took place. Is it official duties to visit a mine?
Associate
Spokesperson: He’d done a number of official duties that day and
in fact he was going to a working meeting back in Niamey at the time
that he was abducted.
Yet
until
September 9, the UN never admitted that Fowler had engaged in a
"private visit" to a Canadian owned mine. The conflict of
interest, and even violation of the UN charter, is obvious. But the
UN apparently has or enforces no rules in this regard. Inner City
Press asked a question left unanswered from the previous day's
briefing:
Inner
City Press: I’m just wondering; is he still a USG or not, or has
his term expired?
Associate
Spokesperson: He’s no longer working for the United Nations.
And
then, for the
record:
Inner
City Press: Are there any other USGs that have been named, say, this
year, that have not been announced in this room?
Associate
Spokesperson Haq: If they have not been announced, I am not aware of
them.
The
answer seems
spurious: there are many things the Office of the Spokesperson is
aware of and does not announce. We'll see.
Footnote:
Sources tell Inner City Press that Fowler's mission to Niger was
about uranium, and was in fact supported by four of the P-5 Plus
One...
