In
Mali, French
PR Points Have
Nothing on
Kidal or
Rapes, Morocco
& MNLA
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 3 --
Before the
Mali press
conference led
by French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
at the MINUSMA
headquarters
in Bamako on
February 3,
Inner City
Press asked at
the UN's noon
briefing about
access to the
event, where
questions about
Kidal and
alleged gang
rapes by peacekeepers
could and
should be
asked. Video
here, from
Minute 19:05.
UN
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
said Internet
speeds are slow
but he hoped
his colleagues
in UN
Peacekeeping
were listening
and could
dial. This did
not happen;
the MINUSMA
mission made
Inner City
Press aware of
bullet
points to open
the press
conference and
a photo with
Araud in the
middle,
other Ambassadors
sitting
behind. Inner
City Press has
asked for the
Q&A.
Meanwhile it
emerges that
King Mohammed
VI of French
ally Morocco is
meeting with
the MNLA,
giving more credence
to pre-existing
doubts. It's
all a French
connection:
are the
Council and
most of the
UN, other than
French-run UN
Peacekeeping,
just along
with the ride?
During the
Council's Mali
trip, MINUSMA
produced and
uploaded a
series of
YouTube
videos, heavy
on the
positions of
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud.
Inner City
Press noted
that the
"interview"
uploaded from
Mopti, where
the Council
did not meet
representatives
from Kidal in
the North,
omitted all of
the questions
asked. Inner
City Press
asked why, and
on behalf of
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access
asked that the
Council's 7 pm
press
conference be
live-streamed
or otherwise
made
accessible in
real time.
MINUSMA responded
that "Internet
speed is not
sufficiently
fast, sorry
for that."
FUNCA has asked
that questions
can be posed
and answered
by Twitter, as
done for
example the UN in
Somalia
and the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo (from
which envoy
Martin Kobler
complained on
February 3 of
protesters
stoning UN
vehicles;
Kobler did
a live-streamed
Twitter
Q&A.)
We note that
from Mail the
UN's MINUSMA,
despite the
statement
about Internet
speed, has
continued to
put online
Araud (and
envoy Bert
Koenders)
videos on
YouTube, for
example here and
here.
Koenders
claimed
that with
president IBK,
"all the
aspects" were
discussed --
but still
nothing has
been said pubicly
about the
failure to
meet with
those from
Kidal, and
about the
alleged gang
rapes by UN
peacekeepers.
Araud went
further in his
MINUSMA
video, quoting
US Ambassador
Samantha Power
that strong-man
IBK is
"impressive," video here at Minute 0;40, and calling his
dialogue
"completely
inclusive"
despite the
absence of those
from Kidal.
So will these
questions be
asked, allowed
and answered
at "the
Security
Council's" 7
pm press
conference?
The Free UN
Coalition for
Access has
asked.
That
the Malian
Presidency proudly
links to a
Radio France
Internationale
story praising
the French
ambassador as
"at once very
nuance and
very clear" is
one thing.
Now the UN
Peacekeeping
mission in Mali
MINUSMA has
edited and
posted a video
of Ambassador
Araud, with
all questions
edited out. Click
here. Thus
Araud is able
to speak about
"inspecting"
the UN force,
without
anything about
oversight of
the French
Serval force
the UN belated
authorized.
(Will the 7 p.m.
press
conference at
MINUSMA
headquarters
in Bamako be
live-streamed?
One would
think with the
money spent
that the UN
could do it.
But will they?)
Likewise,
Araud speaks
of meeting
with the armed
groups of the
north without
saying
anything about
Kidal.
It's one thing
that the
Security Council
members did
not visit the
north due to
safety
concerns. But
given the
centrality of
Kidal to the split
in the
country, how
could their
meeting in
Mopti with
"civil
society" from
the north not
include Kidal?
It is
confirmed, by
French-selected
scribes: the
Council met
with it "civil
society from
Timbuktu, Gao
and Mopti" -
and NOT from
Kidal. But the
scribes,
typically, did
not question
the omission,
much less
disparities in
description of
killings in
Kidal or the
lack of transparency
by the UN
about gang
rapes by its
peacekeepers,
despite claims
of "zero tolerance."
On February 3,
France's
Operation
Serval is set
to make a
presentation.
While the
Security
Council has so
far remained
silent about
France's
Operation
Sangaris'
killings in
Central
African
Republic, and
taking sides
and leaving
some at risk as
even Navi
Pillay noted,
more should be
expected in
person in
Mali.
MaliActu,
a publication
on which the
government in
Bamako has
previously
cracked down
and threatened,
reported that Kidal was not represented
in the meeting:
"Les
émissaires de
l’ONU ont
rencontré les
représentants
de la société
civile -chefs
religieux ou
traditionnels,
fonctionnaires-
de Mopti, Gao,
et Tombouctou,
mais pas de
Kidal."
It and the
below are
important
issues, but
are not
addressed in
the tweets
and
facebook-ed
statements of
the Council
members on the
trip, much
less in
MINUSMA's upbeat
photos of Bert
Koenders and
France's
Gerard Araud
inspecting the
troops.
Did the
Security
Council, led
by France and
Chad, meet
with leaders
from Kidal or
not? Especially
given the
dipute, below,
about killings
in Kidal?
So far, the
way France
arranges this
trips like the
one to the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo last
year,
there is too
little media
coverage, at
least online,
about the
trip.
The MINUSMA
mission, which
is releasing
interesting
photographs,
directed
its promotions
to only one
media: Radio
France
Internationale.
And RFI has
now published
a piece
calling French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
statement "a
la fois tres
nuancee
et tres
claire" --
at once nuanced
and clear.
Hmm.
Alongside a
growing with
of tweets
(beginning
with UK,
Lithuania,
US, now joined by Luxembourg,
Bert Koenders
and Araud inspecting
the troops),,
the Council
members have
returned to
Bamako. Not
yet mentioned:
the UNresolved
charges of
gang rape by
the UN
peacekeepers
from Chad.
If the UN's
and Security
Council's
stated
policies on
sexual
violence and
conflict and
"Zero
Tolerance"
mean anything,
the issue will
have to be
addressed, and
publicly,
during the two
day trip.
Back on
January 16 the
UN
Spokesperson's
Office sent
Inner City
Press this
response,
which does not
answer
the question
of
accountability.
But here it
is, in full:
Subject:
Your
question on
Mali
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at] un.org
Date: Thu, Jan
16, 2014 at
3:23 PM
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
In
response to
your question
about the
follow-up to
the
allegations of
sexual assault
by United
Nations
peacekeepers
in MINUSMA in
September
2013, we have
received the
following
information:
The
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
officially
notified the
Government of
Chad of these
allegations in
late
September. The
Government of
Chad
officially
responded,
saying that it
would take
responsibility
for the
investigations.
The Government
of Chad has
further
advised the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
that it has
completed the
national
investigation,
and the United
Nations awaits
advice on the
outcome of the
investigations
and follow-up
accountability
measures as
appropriate.
The UN is
waiting for
"advice" --
but will it
ever make it
public? How
else can the
UN's stated
Human Rights
Due Diligence
Policy be
assessed?
On January 17,
Inner City
Press asked UN
acting deputy
spokesperson
Farhan Haq
about it. From
the UN's
transcript,
video
here and
embedded
below:
Inner
City Press: On
Mali, I wanted
to thank you
for this
written answer
you gave
yesterday
afternoon that
Mali has said
that its
completed its
investigation
of the alleged
rape in Mali
by the Chadian
troops. And it
said that the
UN awaits
advice on the
outcome of the
investigation.
And what I
wanted to know
is whether…
what part of
that is going
to be made
public, given
both the human
rights due
diligence
policy,
etcetera? I
appreciate you
saying that
the
investigation
is finished,
but, has… did
they clear the
soldiers? Were
the soldiers
found guilty?
Where does it
stand?
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson
Haq: As we
emailed to
you, the
Mission does
await advice
on the outcome
of the
proceedings.
We know that
there have
been
proceedings
regarding the
case. You know
this is a case
regarding
sexual assault
and so, we
await further
information
from that.
We’ll try to
make public
what we can of
the
information
that we
receive.
Inner
City Press:
So, they
literally just
told you that
it’s complete,
but…no
indication on
what was done?
I guess I
wonder when --
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson:
The
information I
have in the
email that was
sent to you is
the
information we
have. If we
have any
further
updates, we’ll
share it with
you at that
point.
Two
weeks later,
nothing. So
what will
members of the
Security
Council ask,
find and make
public?
One of the
UN's other
too-few
criticisms of
military
action in
north Mail,
the shooting
into a crowd
of protesters
in Kidal on
November 28,
was disputed
in the
Security
Council on
January 16.
In a statement
prepared like
a defense
attorney,
trying raise
reasonable
doubt, Mali's
Permanent
Representative
Sekou Kasse
said that the
UN Mission
MINUSMA
elements
closest to the
shooting were
400 meters
away,
precluding
them from
"objective"
testimony.
The argument
made was one
must wait for
the ballistic
analysis
ordered by the
Malian
government
itself. Will
that be
credible?
Shouldn't the
Council, or
less
"invested"
Council
members,
inquire into
this during
the two day
visit?
Again,
similarly, can
statements by
the French
Mission to the
UN, about
military
action in its
former colony
Mali and
related
topics, be
believed? If
so, does that
require
disbelieving
the UN itself,
whose reports
are different?
In the
run-up to the
UN Security
Council's
January 16
meeting on
Mali, both
France and the
UN Mission
MINUSMA filed
reports. It's
worth
comparing
their accounts
of the same
incidents, for
example on
October 23,
2013 in
Tessalit.
France
gave
a Polyanna
report emphasizing
its good works
and
downplaying
death:
"On 23
October 2013,
in response to
an attack on a
Chadian post
in Tessalit by
a commando
made up of
three armed
terrorist
groups using a
vehicle-borne
improvised
explosive
device, the
Operation
Serval Liaison
and Support
Detachment
assigned to
the Chadian
battalion
assisted
MINUSMA by
conducting a
patrol with a
Mirage 2000D
jet and
sending a CASA
'Nurse'
medical
evacuation
aircraft. The
end result was
that six
wounded
Chadians were
evacuated and
the remaining
explosives
were
neutralized."
The UN by
contrast
recounts seven
deaths
including five
civilians (one
child) and two
peacekeepers:
"On 23
October, four
individuals
drove and
detonated a
vehicle-borne
improvised
explosive
device into a
MINUSMA
checkpoint in
Tessalit.
Seven people
were killed,
including four
adult
civilians, a
six-year-old
boy and two
MINUSMA
peacekeepers."
This
type of
disparities in
reporting -
misleading -
would and
should be
delved into
into during
the two day
Council trip.
How and where
will these
disparities be
explained?
One
might say, ask
at the
Security
Council
stakeout. But
in
mid January French
Permanent
Representative
Gerard Araud
used the
stakeout to
rail against
publication of
a New York
Police
Department
document
concerning a
French
diplomat
-- contrasting
with the case
of Indian
diplomat
Khobragade --
an NYPD
document on
which Araud's
French Mission
to the UN had
declined to
comment,
responding
only with
threats that
publication
would a
"hostile act."
While
continuing to
pursue that,
particularly
given
developments
in the
Khobragade
case, delving
into the
French report,
and the roles
of UN
Peacekeeping,
MINUSMA and
their
respective
leadership(s),
should be done
- including by
the Council
during their
two days "on
the ground."
Watch this
site.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2014 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|