As
UN
Stonewalls on
French Co's in
Mali, France
Claims No
Interest
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 6 --
Peacekeeping
can be big
business. On
December
4 Inner City
Press reported
on the French
companies
vying for
pieces
of the pie
providing
logistics to
peacekeepers
in Mali;
on December 5
Inner City
Press asked
the UN
spokesperson
about it:
Inner
City
Press: I
wanted to ask
you the Mali
mission,
MINUSMA, there
has
been reporting
about the
lobbying by
companies such
as Sodexho,
Thales, GEOS
and others to
become the
logistic
suppliers to
the
MINUSMA
mission. Where
does that
stand? The
logistics
contracts
that were
previously
fulfilled by
Pacific
Architects and
Engineers
when it was an
African Union
mission, are
they being put
up to bid
and where does
the process
stand? What
would you say
to those who
say
it seems to be
a bunch of
French
companies now
standing in
line to
get these DPKO
contracts?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: I’d
say that there
is always an
entirely
transparent
procurement
process in any
tendering for
contractual
arrangements
with companies
in
Peacekeeping
Operations.
And I am
sure that my
colleagues in
the Department
of Field
Support, who
would
be handling
that, as I
understand it,
would be able
to help with
any
details on
that.
By
the next day,
no information
was provided.
That's part of
the
problem: UN
Peacekeeping
under Herve
Ladsous, the
fourth
Frenchman in
a row to be
placed by
France atop
the
Department,
refuses to
answer
Press
questions.
Video here, UK
coverage here.
But still -
this is
money not only
from France.
In
the absence so
far of a UN
Peacekeeping
response,
Inner City
Press
runs this,
Google-translated:
"The
current
negotiations,
which should
lead to a
formal tender,
is
actually
directly
between the
United Nations
and a State,
in this
case France.
Among the
companies are
well
approached
Thales,
Sodexo,
etc.
Bolloré... The
control of the
operation was
entrusted to
'France
Expertise
Internationale,'
a public
institution
with French
industrial and
commercial,
created on
April 1, 2011
by Law No.
2010-873 of 27
July 2010 on
the external
action the
state, and
promote
technical
assistance
aims to French
and
international
expertise
abroad. Its
mission? Here
is what the
Decree
2011-212 of 25
February 2011
on France
Expertise
Internationale:
'In
the
framework of
the tasks
referred to in
Article 12 of
the Law of 27
July 2010
referred to
above, France
international
expertise is
responsible,
alone or, by
agreement, in
cooperation
with other
public
or private
operators,: 1
Promoting
technical
assistance and
international
expertise to
the French
international
organizations,
foreign
governments
and other
foreign
organizations
to implement
any
project funded
by these
entities
states; 2
Action with
European
public
operators in
the framework
of European
groupings of
economic
interest; 3
Run for the
part rightful
missions on
behalf of the
European
Union; 4
Assist in any
client, French
or foreign,
wishing to
lead an
international
project, 5 °
act as an
international
operator
for the
account or at
the request of
the State or
any other
public
authority; 6
Run the
provision of
services on
behalf of
public
institutions;
7 ° Conduct or
coordinate, at
the request of
any
client, the
training of
international
technical
experts.
France
international
expertise
operates
without
prejudice to
the tasks of
competent
private,
French or
foreign, in
expertise and
international
mobility. It
works in close
cooperation
with all
operators,
whether
public or
private.
Ensures the
needs
expressed by
the diplomatic
network
abroad.'
How
is the
procurement of
logistics for
MINUSMA being
done? What is
the
role of France
and of
"letters of
assist"?
Here
was French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud's
answer to
Inner City
Press,about
the Central
African
Republic, on
December 5:
Inner
City
Press: There
is some
criticism that
the African
forces today
have not come
outside of the
capital come
out of their
bases and
defended
people? How
would this
resolution
change that?
Also people
look at the
intervention
in Mali, your
presence in
Mali and they
say
we are back to
the
“françafrique”,
the idea of
France and its
former
colonies. How
would you say
these two
actions are
different,
is there any
economic
interest of
the country
behind either
of the
two?
Araud:
As
for the
mandate, it is
simple. The
African force
needed a
stronger
mandate. The
MICOPAX didn’t
have it. Now
it has a
mandate under
chapter VII.
The
spokesperson
of the African
Union here
said it
intends to
implement this
mandate, I
quote him in
French “de
manière
aggressive”,
in “an
aggressive
manner”.
Secondly,
they
needed
personnel. The
MICOPAX, the
previous
force, had
around
2,000 troops.
Now it should
be 4,000. It
will be also
reinforced in
its structure,
in its
headquarters,
in its command
structures. It
will also be
able to rely
on the support
of the French
forces. The
French forces
will go from
450 to more
than 1,200.
As
for
the action of
France, I am
not here to
give a
qualification.
I
think, and nobody
can
say that there
is any
economic
interest in
the CAR.
I’m
proud
of my country.
Nobody wanted
to go there,
nobody was
really
interested by
this forgotten
crisis in a
largely
ignored
country. So
we are doing
the job, and I
think it is
really great.
But doing the
job means
supporting the
Africans. It
means also
that as soon
as the
African forces
are able to
monitor, to
control the
situation, we
will
withdraw our
own forces. We
go there
because we are
needed but we
have
absolutely no
particular
thirst to be
engaged in the
CAR.
Really?
And
in Mali? Watch
this site.