Of
CAR Rapes, ICP
Asks If Jallow
Panel Can Get
All OIOS Documents,
Ladsous Emails
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,,
Exclusive
series
UNITED
NATIONS,
June 25 --
French
soldiers in
the Central
African
Republic
allegedly
sexually
abused
children, as
exposed in a
UN Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights report
given to the
French
government by
longtime OHCHR
staffer Anders
Kompass.
Kompass
was urged to
resign --
according to a
UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling
reinstating
him, by French
head of UN
Peacekeeping
Herve Ladsous,
who has since
tersely denied
it -- and
Miranda Brown
who worked
with him did
in fact have
her UN service
ended, see
below.
Inner
City Press:
This has to do
with the panel
on the Central
African
Republic
sexual abuse
allegations.
The Government
Accountability
Project,
watchdog of
whistle-blower
protections,
has identified
Article 5 of
the terms of
reference,
where it says
that
information
will be
provided… I
remember it
was said from
here the panel
can get all
the
information.
But it seems
to say it will
only be
provided with
the
information to
the extent
consistent
with OIOS’s
(Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services)
mandate.
Since the
mandate of
OIOS is always
described as
being
independent
from the
Secretariat,
etc., does
this, can you
clarify what
this means in
terms of them
actually
getting
information
and address
the concern
that, if… if
Carman
Lapointe’s
decision to
meet with
Flavia
Pansieri and
the Ethics
Office in
Italy in March
is one of the
issues that
people are
most concerned
about in terms
of
independence,
how can she be
the one to
decide what
information to
give and not
give to the
panel?
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq:
Well,
regarding the
mandate, I
mean,
ultimately,
the panel
itself is
operationally
independent.
They’ll have
access to any
UN documents
or
communications
that they want
to examine and
they have
access to
personnel and
all UN staff
will be
required to
cooperate with
the
panel.
So they have a
very broad
range of
powers in
order to carry
out their
work.
But how they
will go about
that, that’s
their
decision.
Inner City
Press:
But this
limitation on
consistent
with OIOS’s
mandate does
seem to
provide… it
doesn’t seem
to say that
they’re going
to have access
to every
document they
want.
Deputy
Spokesman
Haq:
Ultimately,
let’s see how
the panel
works within
this.
Like I said,
they have a
wide range of
powers and
ability to get
information
across the UN
system and
they will be
operationally
independent.
This doesn't
resolve the
conflict(s) of
interest.
On
June 24, Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric not
only of Penel
member Jallow
working for
the ICTR, but
being subject
to an OIOS
investigation:
Inner
City Press: on
Central
African
Republic, I
wanted to ask,
you'd said
that Mr.
[Hassan
Bubacar]
Jallow is
going to step
back from the
ICTR
[International
Criminal
Tribunal for
Rwanda] during
the ten
weeks.
But it's been
— it's — OIOS
[Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services] has
had — has
jurisdiction
over ICTR and
has during his
tenure there
and it's my
understanding
that there
were at least
two OIOS
inquiries into
— you know,
without
casting
aspersion on
it only, to
say to some
it's sort of —
it's not an
independent
inquiry.
You have
somebody
that's worked
for a long
time for
something
subject to
OIOS and had
investigations
by OIOS — OIOS
now
investigating
OIOS and so
what would you
—
Spokesman:
I think the
panel, taken
as a whole, is
a first-rate
panel.
It has human
rights
experts.
It has in —
the panel
member from
South Africa
served on the
Truth and
Reconciliation
Commission,
who's been an
active voice
for human
rights in
Africa.
It has a
former Supreme
Court Justice
of Canada who
has led the
independent
investigation
into sexual
abuses, into
the Canadian
Armed Forces,
that was done
some years
ago. And
it has Mr.
Jallow, who
has knowledge
of the UN
system, who is
an independent
prosecutor,
who is a
first-rate
jurist.
And I think,
you know,
people are
free to
question the
composition of
the
panel.
And whatever
the
composition of
the panel will
be, people
would have
questioned
it. I
think we stand
by this
panel.
We're very
proud of
it. It
will do its
work
independently.
It will choose
its own
staff.
And it will
work under
the, I think,
fairly broad
terms of
reference.
Inner City
Press:
Can you just
get a
statement on
whether in
fact Mr.
Jallow has had
— has been the
respondent in
OIOS cases,
given that
OIOS is being
investigated
by this panel?
Spokesman:
First of all,
OIOS is not
being
investigated
by this panel.
Inner City
Press:
They're not?
Spokesman:
I think they
will look —
the panel will
look how the
issues were
handled, but I
think to say
that OIOS will
be
investigated
by the panel
is a jump.
Inner CIty
Prss:
But is it…
Spokesman:
I — you know,
if the — you
know, the
proceedings of
any
administrative
tribunals are
public, you're
free to look;
but, again,
I'm not going
to go on a
witch hunt
against Mr.
Jallow and
we're very
proud to have
him on the
panel.
We'll
have more on
this.
On
June 23 Inner
City Press
asked Dujarric
why the
investigation
of Kompass
would continue
alongside
Ban's new
panel - and
why Ban was
refusing to
disclose the
country of
origin of a
new set of
accused child
sexual
abusers, this
time directly
in the MINUSCA
mission.
Dujarric on
the latter
replied that
Ban will wait
until (at
least) his
next report to
begin naming
names. In
response,
Inner City
Press can
report that
senior UN
sources have
exclusively
told it that
in CAR the
allegation is
of two
peacekeepers
having sex
with a 12 year
old girl for
less than one
dollar - and
these these
peacekeepers
are from
Burundi.
That Ban
would refuse
to disclose
this is
particularly
troubling in
light of
questions
raised by
Burundi civil
society, and
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
about Ladsous'
Peacekeeping
still using
abusive
Burundi
security
forces. We'll
have more on
this.
On June
24 the UN's
Fifth (Budget)
Committee
adopted a
resolution (in
advance we put
it online here
and embedded
below) which,
on these
issues, says
that
Special
measures for
protection
from sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse
42. Recalls
section IV of
its resolution
66/264 and
reaffirms the
collective and
unanimous
position that
one
substantiated
case of sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse is one
case too many;
43. Reaffirms
the need for
full
implementation
of the United
Nations policy
of
zero-tolerance
of sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse in
peacekeeping
operations;
44. Welcomes
the
Secretary-General’s
determination
to strengthen
measures for
protection
from sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse in the
areas of
prevention,
enforcement
and remedial
action;
45. Notes the
declining
number of
reported
allegations of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse cases
during this
reporting
period, and
reiterates its
concern at the
number of
cases,
particularly
those
involving the
most egregious
forms of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse;
46. Expresses
concern about
the response
of the United
Nations to the
recent
allegations of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse in the
Central
African
Republic;
47. Welcomes
the
establishment
of an External
Independent
Review by the
Secretary-General
to review and
assess the
response of
the United
Nations to
recent
allegations of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse,
including in
the Central
African
Republic, as
well as a
broad range of
systemic
issues related
to how the
United Nations
responds to
serious
information of
this kind, and
encourages the
Review to give
due
consideration
to
decision-making
processes in
all involved
departments
and offices
and at all
levels of the
Organisation,
including
senior
management;
48. Requests
the
Secretary-General
to report
expeditiously
to the General
Assembly on
the findings
of the Review,
and further
requests him
to report on
the lessons
learned and
measures for
improvement no
later than the
main part of
its seventieth
session;
49. Recalls
the
Secretary-General’s
Bulletin
ST/SGB/2005/21
on protection
against
retaliation
for reporting
misconduct and
for
cooperating
with duly
authorized
audits or
investigations,
and welcomes
the prompt
reporting in
good faith of
any
misconduct,
including
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse in
peacekeeping
operations;
50. Recalls
paragraph 21
of its
resolution
69/272,
encourages the
Secretary-General
to continue
his efforts to
strengthen
accountability
in all sectors
of field
missions, and,
to this end,
urges the
Secretary-General
and Member
States to
undertake all
relevant
actions within
their
respective
areas of
competence,
including
holding
perpetrators
accountable;
51. Requests
the
Secretary-General
to ensure the
availability
of easily
accessible
reporting
mechanisms for
victims of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse;
52. Also
requests the
Secretary-General
to improve the
timeliness and
quality of
investigations;
53. Stresses
the importance
of
responsibility
and
accountability
of the most
senior
managers in HQ
and missions
in determining
organisational
behaviour and
leading by
example for
the conduct of
both uniformed
personnel and
civilian staff
in
peacekeeping
operations;
54. Requests
the
Secretary-General
to make
further
efforts to
ensure that
all personnel
are made fully
aware of, and
remain
compliant
with, their
personal
responsibilities
regarding the
zero-tolerance
policy of the
Organisation,
upon their
arrival in the
mission and
throughout
their
deployment;
55. Stresses
the importance
of training
all personnel
for the
prevention of
sexual
exploitation
and sexual
abuse, and
requests the
Secretary-General
to expedite
the
development of
the e-learning
programme and
deploy it as
soon as
possible;
56. Recognizes
the commitment
of the
troop-contributing
countries to
the United
Nations zero
tolerance
policy against
sexual
exploitation
and abuse;
57. Recalls
paragraph 55
of the report
of the
Secretary-General
(A/69/779) and
requests the
Secretary-General
to engage in
consultations
with MS, in
particular
TCCS, on the
reporting
methodology on
SEA cases, and
to update the
relevant
Committees on
the results of
his efforts in
this regard in
his future
reports;
58. Reiterates
the importance
of improving
the
collaboration
between the SG
and the TCCs
and PCCs with
regard to
allegations of
SEA,
emphasizing
the need to
maintain a
frequent
exchange of
information on
the ongoing
processes;
The UN
tried to
forestall
questions by
saying
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
would name an
independent
panel to
investigate.
On June 5,
Inner City
Press
exclusively
reported that
Ban himself
told a group
of states his
panel would
include at
least one
African, and
one woman. The
slower FP
Turtle
re-reported
this, days
later, as if
heard for the
first time;
later it said
Sweden is on
the group,
which is not
the case.
On
June 22 Ban
belatedly
named his
three member
panel. While
it's called
independent,
one of the
three members
currently
works for the
UN's
International
Criminal
Tribunal on
Rwanda (ICTR),
Hassan Jallow.
Inner City
Press at the
June 22 UN
noon briefing
asked Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric how
then it could
be considered
independent.
He insisted it
should be seen
that way,
while
separately
stating that
everyone who
works for the
UN is paid by
the UN.
On June 23,
Dujarric
returned to
say Jallow
will be
stepping away
in some
fashion from
the ICTR.
The other two
members are
Yasmin Sooka
of South
Africa,
previously on
a UN panel on
Sri Lanka, and
Marie
Deschamps, a
retired
Justice of the
Supreme Court
of Canada. “No
Volcker,” one
observer
remarked.
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric to
confirm that
Ban's deputy
Jan Eliasson
met on June 19
with concerned
member states
-- he did --
and to explain
why this was
not on
Eliasson's
public
schedule (he
did
not).
Inner City
Press asked
about
Spokesman
Dujarric about
a UN
spokesperson
calling
whistleblower
Kompass a
“sleaze-bag.”
Video
here.
On June
11 Miranda
Brown wrote a
second letter
to Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon,
stating that
Ban's
Executive
Office and
presumably his
Deputy Jan
Eliasson knew
back on August
8, 2014 of the
evidence of
child rape in
CAR by French
"peacekeepers"
- and did
nothing except
months later
try to get
Kompass to
resign.
On June
12, Inner City
Press asked
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
this and he
denied that
Deputy
Secretary
General
Eliasson knew
anything about
the CAR sexual
abuse
allegations in
August 2014,
saying he only
learned of
them in April
2015.
Inner
City Press
asked if this
meant the UN
was denying
the existence
of an April 8,
2015 email
from Ban's
executive
office saying
that Eliasson
would be
briefed.
Dujarric
responded by
saying
"categorically"
that Eliasson
was not told
of the CAR
allegations
until April
2015. See
transcript
below.
In light of
this response,
Inner City
Press now
reports it is
informed that
the August 8,
2014 response
from Ban's
Executive
Office was not
from any
clerical or
scheduling
staff, but
high official
Andrew
Gilmour, whose
influence
spreads to
Syria and
elsewhere, who
said DSG
Eliasson would
be briefed
that
afternoon." If
he wasn't, why
not? And who was
briefed? We'll
have more on
this.
Inner
City
Press:
Two
interrelated
questions.
One has to do
with Miranda
Brown, who I
have asked you
about before,
whistle-blower,
has put in
writing that
the Office of
Ban Ki-Moon
was told about
the sexual
allegations
and evidence
of sexual
abuse in
Central Africa
Republic on,
at latest, 8
August
2014.
She says there
was a response
by that office
to Mr.
[Anders]
Kompass's
assistant
saying that
Jan Eliasson
had been put
in charge of
it. I'd
like to know
what’s your
response to
that?
It's very
different than
hearing what
they heard
about it in
the
spring.
How would you
explain the
lack of
action, given
that?
The
inter-related
question is
that on the
report that
you insist on
calling a
draft, when it
was given to
the DFS
[Department of
Field
Support], but
actually it
was finished,
it was just
withheld for a
month.
It says
clearly in the
report that
victims are
not… that
there's a
problem.
United Nations
have performed
very poorly in
assisting
victims of
sexual abuse
and
assault.
Only 26 of 217
SEA [sexual
exploitation
and abuse]
victims were
even referred
for assistance
and it's
unclear if
they received
any. So,
I'm wondering,
on Monday, are
you going to
have, like, a
written
response that
is available?
Spokesman:
I think what…
it's hard for
me to predict
what I'm going
to do in the
next hour, so
I don't know
what we'll
have on
Monday.
On your second
part, this UN
report, this
OIOS report is
yet another
tool to help
the system,
DFS, DPKO and
all the parts
of the house
to perform
better on
issues
relating to
sexual abuse
and
exploitation.
We can always
do better and
we need to do
much
better.
On the issue
of support for
the victims
and
follow-through
in support of
the victims,
one of the big
challenges
that we have
had is the
lack of
funding, is
that what had
been proposed
by the
Secretary-General
was not funded
by the Member
States.
We've had to
do it with
existing
resources and
we haven't had
the funds that
we
needed.
We also need
to do better
in terms of
communications
to the
population at
large in terms
of how they
can access hot
line, what
their rights
are, what is
illegal, how
they can
protect
themselves.
There are all
sorts of ways
we can
improve.
I think what
we have seen
since, over
the past
number of
years, is a
decrease of
cases of
sexual abuse
while overall
the number of
peacekeepers
has
increased.
What I would
go on to Miss
Brown, she
makes a number
of claims in
her letter,
which are, you
know,
claims.
Obviously, as
to who was
told in
various
offices, when,
what and where
it will be
looked at
thoroughly by
the external
panel,
independent
panel, which
we hope to
announce,
hopefully next
week.
What I can
tell you
categorically
is that the
Deputy
Secretary-General
was only made
aware of this
issue in
April.
So, that is a
fact which I
am telling you
now.
What
information
was passed
onto his
office, to
whom it was
passed on, how
that was dealt
with, that
will be looked
at by the
review panel,
but the Deputy
Secretary-General
was not made
aware of this
issue until
April of this
year.
Inner City
Press:
So, are you
saying an 8
April 2014
email from
Executive
Office of Ban
Ki-Moon to Ms.
Linnea
Arvidsson, Mr.
Kompass's
personal
assistant,
indicating
that the
Deputy
Secretary-General
would be
briefed on the
report that
was submitted
doesn't exist?
Spokesman:
That's not
what at all
I'm
saying.
What I'm
saying is that
obviously the
panel will
have access to
e-mails, will
look as to who
received what
documents, who
was informed,
who was not
informed.
What I can
tell you
categorically
is that,
personally,
the Deputy
Secretary-General
of the United
Nations was
not informed
of this until
April.
Inner City
Press:
In March on
the timeline…
in March, when
it was the
staff retreat
in Turin and
Ms. [Susana]
Malcorra asked
OIOS and the
Ethics Office
to get
together to
speak about
Mr. Kompass,
who else other
than Miss
Malcorra was
made aware
that…?
Spokesman:
All these
issues will be
looked at, but
she makes a
claim
regarding the
Deputy
Secretary-General,
which I
counter and
which to me is
false.
Miranda Brown,
regarding
whose case
Inner City
Press has
repeatedly
asked the UN
in New York
and Geneva,
writes:
"I
was the Acting
Director of
the Africa
Branch at
OHCHR in early
August 2014
during the
period shortly
after the
MINUSCA report
came to
OHCHR’s
attention in
Geneva. Mr
Kompass was my
direct
supervisor at
the time. My
testimony to
the OIOS
investigation
would have
supported Mr
Kompass’
decision to
disclose the
MINUSCA report
to the French
Government and
would have
shed light on
many elements
relating to
the
disclosure.
"Emails
document my
involvement
and I was the
key contact
between OHCHR
and MINUSCA
during the
period
immediately
following the
disclosure.
Following my
email to Mr
Kompass on 7
August 2014,
the Special
Assistant to
Deputy High
Commissioner
Flavia
Pansieri, Ms
Linnea
Arvidsson,
sent an email
to the
Executive
Office of the
Secretary
General
informing the
UN leadership
about the
allegations of
child sexual
abuse in the
Central
African
Republic and
advising the
UN leadership
that the
unredacted
MINUSCA report
had been
transmitted to
the French
Government. Ms
Arvidsson’s
email to your
Executive
Office
included as
attachments
the unredacted
MINUSCA report
and the letter
of
acknowledgement
from the
French
Permanent
Representative
to the United
Nations in
Geneva,
Ambassador
Nicolas
Niemtchinow.
On 8 August
2014, your
Executive
Office
confirmed
receipt of Ms
Arvidsson’s
email and
indicated that
the Deputy
Secretary
General was
being briefed
about the
transmittal of
the unredacted
report to the
French
Government.
"Thus
the UN
leadership,
including your
Executive
Office and the
Deputy
Secretary
General as
aware that the
unredacted
MINUSCA report
had been
transmitted to
the French
Government. If
child victims
and witnesses
had been put
at risk
through the
transmittal of
the unredacted
report to the
French
Government,
why did the UN
leadership
wait until
March
2015 to take
disciplinary
action against
Mr Kompass? At
the time, in
August 2014,
the message
being conveyed
to OHCHR staff
in Geneva was
that the UN
leadership
considered Mr
Kompass’
disclosure of
the unredacted
MINUSCA report
to the French
Government to
b appropriate
under the
circumstances."
Inner City
Press asks
again: what
did Ban and
his Office DO
after being
informed of
the evidence
of French
"peacekeepers"
child rape in
CAR on August
7-8, 2014?
Ban's (French)
head of UN
Peacekeeping
appears in the
UNDT ruling
asking for
Kompass to
resign. His
UNexplained
subsequent
denial then
(like Ban)
long trip out
of New York
has left these
questions
unanswered.
But the
questions must
be answered.
Watch this
site.
On
June 8, Inner
City Press
asked UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric first
about the
French forces'
non-inclusion
in Ban's
Children and
Armed Conflict
list, then
about the
whistleblowers,
video
here, transcript here:
Inner
City Press: it
seems like the
abuse the UN
was aware of
in the Central
African
Republic by
the French
Sangaris
forces, was
there any
consideration
of including
them and if
so, why not?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
On the CAR
[Central
African
Republic], the
situation in
the CAR, part
of the CAR was
drafted with
the
information
available at
the time of
the writing of
the
report.
As you know,
the… we do
hope to
announce soon
the external
independent
inquiry which
will shed
light on the
process.
Inner City
Press: I'm
sorry to
reiterate
this.
I'd sent you
these
questions but
wanted to ask
you. I
asked the
Office of High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights who
said that Mr.
Kompass is
going to be
extended,
although he
also said it's
not Geneva's
decision; it's
up to New
York.
And there are
several Member
State who
believe he's
not being
extended--
Spokesman:
No, I have no
indication
whatsoever
that his
contract will
not be
renewed.
Inner City
Press:
It does
apparently
expire in one
month.
Spokesman:
Right.
No, as I said,
I have no
indication
whatsoever
that his
contract will
not be
renewed.
Inner City
Press: ]OHCHR]
had said
something
about
contracts
being
automatically
extended if a
person is
under
investigation.
Is that your
understanding?
Spokesman:
I think that
is very likely
a policy but
as I said, for
Mr. Kompass, I
have no
indication
that his…
Inner City
Press: The
other thing I
asked you is
about Miranda
Brown who was
an… worked
with Mr.
Kompass and
has since been
terminated.
I know that
she wrote a
letter to the
Secretary-General
dated 23 May
saying she's
willing to
participate,
but not if
she's fired by
the UN and has
no
immunity.
Has the
Secretary-General’s
responded to
the letter?
Spokesman:
I don't
believe there
has been a
response.
I don't know
if it was
received.
I don't
believe she
was
terminated, I
think her
fixed-term
contract was
not renewed.
Inner City
Press: What
would you say
to those who
say if you
actually want
to know… this
was a person
who was number
two to Kompass
at the time
involved.
What
arrangements
were being
made to try to
get her
evidence?
Spokesman:
I think we
would have to
leave that to
the panel once
it's named.
Miranda Brown
wrote to UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon:
"I
am a key
witness in the
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Service (OIOS)
investigation
into the
disclosure by
Mr Anders
Kompass,
Director at
the Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights
(OHCHR), of
the MINUSCA
report Sexual
Abuse on
Children by
International
Armed Forces
in the M’Poko
IDP camp in
Bangui,
Central
African
Republic to
the French
authorities.
Despite
my appeals to
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Zeid
Ra’ad Al
Hussein, my
employment at
OHCHR was
terminated on
21 May 2015,
one day before
I was
scheduled to
provide
testimony as a
key witness in
the OIOS
investigation.
Please see
attached OIOS’
repeated
requests to
interview me.
As a result of
my
termination, I
now have no
functional
immunity and
given this and
the punitive
termination of
my employment,
I am scared of
testifying in
the
investigation.
I was the
Acting
Director of
the Africa
Branch at
OHCHR in early
August 2014
during the
period shortly
after the
MINUSCA report
came to
OHCHR’s
attention in
Geneva. Mr
Kompass was my
direct
supervisor at
the time.
Emails
document my
involvement
and I was the
key contact
between OHCHR
and MINUSCA
during the
period
immediately
following the
disclosure.
My
testimony to
the OIOS
investigation
would have
supported Mr
Kompass’
decision to
disclose the
MINUSCA report
to the French
Government and
would have
shed light on
many
elements
relating to
the
disclosure. As
such, my
testimony
would also
have been very
embarrassing
and
potentially
problematic
for High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Zeid
Ra’ad Al
Hussein and
others in the
UN leadership,
who have
publicly
denounced Mr
Kompass for
wrongdoing and
placing
victims,
investigators
and witnesses
at risk.
The
stated reason
for the
termination of
my employment
at OHCHR is
that there is
no position
available for
me at OHCHR
headquarters
in Geneva,
where half of
the roughly
one thousand
OHCHR staff
work. This
explanation is
implausible,
deeply
suspicious,
bears all the
hallmarks of
retaliation,
and is, at
best, an
abject failure
to protect a
key witness
and, at worst,
constitutes
possible
witness
tampering. I
have requested
an
investigation
into the
circumstances
surrounding
the
termination of
my employment
at OHCHR.
I
understand
there may have
been a second
disclosure of
the MINUSCA
report to the
French
authorities by
a female staff
member at
OHCHR, and
that because
of my prior
history as a
whistleblower
at World
Intellectual
Property
Organization
(WIPO),
suspicions may
have fallen on
me as the
source of the
second
disclosure.
This is false.
While I agree
with Mr
Kompass’
decision to
disclose the
report to the
French
authorities
and enjoy good
relations with
the French
Permanent
Mission in
Geneva, I have
had no contact
with the
French
Government on
the MINUSCA
report. The
French
Government
would be able
to confirm
this. I
believe that I
know the
female OHCHR
staff member
who made the
second
disclosure to
the French
Permanent
Mission in
Geneva. I do
not expect her
identity will
be revealed as
she would then
herself become
at risk of
reprisal.
Secretary
General, if
you would like
my testimony
in the OIOS
investigation
and for this
investigation
to have any
credibility at
all, you will
need to
immediately
reinstate me
in a P5 level
position in
Geneva, if
necessary in
another UN
organisation
or entity. I
shall be
willing to
testify in
this
investigation
or another
inquiry if one
is launched,
once my
functional
immunity is
restored, my
job is safe
and I no
longer fear
retaliation.
I am sure you
will agree
that the
Member States
of the United
Nations expect
the
investigation
into Mr
Kompass’
disclosure of
the MINUSCA
report to the
French
authoritiesand
any subsequent
inquiry into
these matters
to be
thorough,
fair,
transparent
and impartial.
This
will not be
the case
without my
testimony,
however
inconvenient
this might
prove to some
in the UN
leadership."
What will Ban
do, now that
he has
belatedly said
he will
appoint an
“independent”
Panel?
Meanwhile,
amid reports
that OHCHR
would not
extend
Kompass'
contract,
Inner City
Press asked
OHCHR
spokesperson
Rupert
Colville to
“confirm or
deny this
decision to
not extend
this fixed
term
contract.”
Colville has,
in fact,
denied,
writing to
Inner City
Press that
“It
is not true.
Like all the
rest of us,
Anders's
contract has
an end date
(which is
indeed some
time in July).
The High
Commissioner
will request
that it be
extended (the
final decision
for someone at
Anders's very
senior D2
level is in
fact made in
New York not
Geneva).
However, when
someone's
contract ends
while they are
under
investigation,
an extension
is
automatically
granted
anyway.”
The answer is
appreciate.
But why didn't
that policy
apply to
Miranda Brown?
Watch this
site.
On
June 3, after
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
announced an
intention to
name an
independent
panel at least
14
UN member
states met
about its
terms of
reference and
to whom beyond
Ban it should
report, as
Inner City
Press exclusively
details
below.
Now Inner City
Press reports
on the June 5
meeting
between four
of those
states --
minus South
Africa - which
met on June 5
with Ban
Ki-moon and
more than a
half dozen
other
officials,
including
Deputy
Eliasson, DFS'
Atule Khare,
Herve Ladsous'
fill-in and
others.
The states --
the UN
identified
them as
Australia,
Guatemala,
Japan
and Finland,
though the
last was
Norway -- went
in with a
series of
positions and
questions,
including:
"We
are concerned
by the damage
that these
incidents, and
their
follow-up,
have done to
the UN’s
reputation and
credibility in
an area where
the UN is
expected to
uphold the
highest
standards and
values.
The review
must be
conducted in
an expeditious
manner and the
results must
be fully
transparent.
It is crucial
that the
review looks
at the whole
chain of
events,
including the
senior
management’s
decisions
leading to
disciplinary
action against
Mr. Anders
Kompass. This
has cast doubt
about the
credibility of
the UN’s human
rights
commitments in
field missions
and about the
integrity of
its
whistleblower
policy.
It
is crucial to
remove any
doubts that
the UN is
fully
committed to
preventing
sexual
exploitation
and abuse and
to ensure
effective
investigation
of any such
allegations in
field
missions. In
addition,
accountability
for
perpetrators,
and protection
and assistance
to victims,
must be
ensured.
Questions:
What will be
the scope of
the
Independent
External
Review (CAR
only? The UN’s
handling of
the
investigation,
SEA more
broadly?)
To what extent
has the Human
Rights Up
Front approach
been applied?
Will the
review look at
institutional
reforms to
better address
cases of SEA,
including
timely
reporting and
action in
cases of
abuse?
Will
the review
look at the
protection of
whistleblowers?
What is the
status
regarding the
pending case
against Mr.
Anders Kompass
– in light of
doubts that
have been
raised about
this process?"
In fact, Inner
City Press is
informed that
OHCHR and Zeid
personally are
poised to not
renew Kompass'
fixed term
contract, set
to expire on
July 8, 2015,
and to give
the required
one month
notice by June
8.
Inner City
Press in
response to
the UN
read-out on
the evening of
June 5
formally asked
the UN
Spokesman: "I
have heard
that UN OHCHR
has decided
not to extend
Anders
Kompass' fixed
term contract,
which is set
to expire on
July 8, 2015.
I understand
that under UN
rules, he must
be given one
month's notice
and will thus
need to
receive
notification
by no later
than Monday
June 8, 2015.
"Given the
allegations of
retaliation
(and the UNDT
ruling),
please confirm
or deny this
decision to
not extend
this fixed
term
contract."
This
retaliation,
despite US
Mission
attempts to
protect the
UN, could
result in
funding cuts
or at least
damaging
hearings. But
as with
Ladsous, high
UN officials
are allowed to
operate out of
control in
their
fiefdoms.
In response to
the above,
Inner City
Press can
exclusively
report these
UN responses:
The
Office of the
High
Commisioner
for Human
Rights is
sending a team
to the Central
African
Republic.
Regarding the
External
Independent
Review, it was
assured that
it will be
done by
someone
completely
outside the
UN, also
excluding the
UN’s own
investigative
capacity. It
was still not
decided who
would lead the
panel, but it
would consist
of at least
one woman and
one African.
It would
examine the
specific case
of allegations
in the Central
African
Republic, but
also look at
the broad
range of
systemic
issues being
raised.
Regarding the
time-frame and
further ToR’s
of the Review,
this would be
discussed
after the
meeting and be
determined
shortly.
Regarding the
case of Anders
Kompass, it
was pointed
out that the
separate
investigation
was ongoing,
and the
outcome must
be awaited
before further
comments.
But if Zeid
intends to not
extend Kompas'
fixed term
contract, that
part of it is
moot. And Ban
is heading off
on another
long trip.
Watch this
site.
Note:
three days
after Inner
City Press
exclusively
reported that
Ban told the
ambassadors he
would name an
African and a
woman, slower
others are
repeating it,
citing
"diplomats."
That's the UN
beat.
An emerging
and damaging
question for
the UN is who
knew what,
when. Inner
City Press
asked when Ban
knew of the
alleged child
rapes --
"March" is now
the answer.
There was a
retreat of all
senior UN
officials in
Turin, Italy
on March
18-19, 2015.
This was days
after Kompass
says he was
told the
French Under
Secretary
General for
Peacekeeping
Operations
Herve Ladsous
wanted him to
resign.
(Ladsous now
denies this,
see below.)
In Turin,
Ban's chief of
staff Susan
Malcorra put
together the
ostensibly
independent
Ethics Office
and Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services,
calling into
further
question the
UN's claimed
whistleblower
protections.
If Ban's chief
of staff knew
of the alleged
child rapes,
it is
difficult to
believe Ban
didn't know.
But what did
he do?
Which
of the other
high UN
officials
present in
Turin learned
there or
before about
the alleged
child rapes,
by then
already
covered up for
months? There
is a photo of
the
participants.
UN in
Turin, March
19, 2015 UN
Photo/Eskinder
Debebe ICP:
Who knew?
These
include some
who want to
run to replace
Ban, or for
other high
positions. We
will have more
on this.
The UN did not
give the
report to the
host country
authorities in
CAR. And
according to UN
documents
-- on May 29
released in
more detail by
Code Blue
naming Ladsous
directly, here
-- UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous then
urged that the
whistleblower
Kompass be
forced to
resign.
The
documents also
implicate a
number of
other UN
officials, and
French
government
inaction, see
below. After
Press
questioning
turned to UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, what
he knew and
when he knew
it, Ban on
June 3
announced an
intention to
set up an
"independent"
Panel. Inner
City Press
asked if it
will report
only to Ban --
yes. This is a
problem.
Video
here.
On June 3 a
meeting was
convened to
seek answers
and
improvement on
the UN's
response, by
Guatemala and
Norway, with
attendees from
all UN
Regional
Groups, see
below. Inner
City Press has
spoken with
several
members;
Norway will be
requesting a
meeting for
the group with
Ban Ki-moon,
on topics
ranging from
to whom the
Panel will
report to its
Terms of
Reference to
the actions of
OIOS and the
Ethics Office.
As Inner
City Press
analyzed
below, there
is a history
of UN panels
being used to
cover up.
Now Code Blue
has these
three
recommendations:
"First, this
must be a
truly external
and
independent
inquiry.
No member of
existing UN
staff should
be appointed
to investigate
nor to act as
the
investigators’
secretariat.
"Second, it
must be
understood
that top
members of the
Secretary-General’s
own staff will
have to be
subject to
investigation.
This must go
right up to
the level of
Under-Secretaries
General. No
one can be
excluded,
whether the
Director of
the Ethics
Office or the
USG of the
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services or
the
Secretary-General’s
own Chef de
Cabinet. It
would appear
that all of
them and more
acted
inappropriately
in response to
the dreadful
events in CAR.
"Third, the
reference in
the
Secretary-General’s
announcement
of a review to
‘the broad
range of
systemic
issues’ is
crucial to the
inquiry. What
happened in
the Central
African
Republic was
an atrocity,
but the fact
that the UN
stood silent
for nearly a
year after its
own discovery
of widespread
peacekeeper
sexual abuse
(even if by
non-UN troops)
is itself a
bitter
commentary on
the
Secretary-General’s
declared
policy of
‘zero
tolerance’."
Inner
City Press
would add,
past UN staff
and offiicals
as well.
Consider these
past panels,
as put
together and
at the end
analyzed by
Inner City
Press and the
Free
UN Coalition
for Access:
On 22
September
2003,
Secretary-General
Kofi Annan
appointed Mr.
Martti
Ahtisaari,
former
President of
Finland, to
chair an
Independent
Panel on the
Safety and
Security of UN
Personnel in
Iraq.
The priority
of the
Independent
Panel’s
investigation
of the
“oil-for-food”
programme was
to “get after”
allegations of
corruption and
misconduct
within the
United Nations
itself and,
more broadly,
the question
of the
maladministration
of the
“oil-for-food”
programme,
stated Paul A.
Volcker,
Chairman of
the
Independent
Panel, in a
press
conference at
UNHQ.
The UN
Commission of
Inquiry,
appointed by
Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon at
the request of
the Pakistani
Government,
reached no
conclusion as
to the
organizers and
sponsors
behind the
attack in
which a
15-year-old
suicide bomber
blew up Ms.
Bhutto’s
vehicle in the
city of
Rawalpindi on
27 December
2007.
The
three-member
panel, which
was headed by
Chilean
Ambassador to
UN Heraldo
Muñoz and
included
Marzuki
Darusman,
former
attorney-general
of Indonesia,
and Peter
Fitzgerald, a
veteran
official of
the Irish
National
Police, urged
the Government
to undertake
police reform
in view of its
“deeply flawed
performance
and conduct.”
Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon
established
the Panel of
Inquiry on the
31 May 2010
Flotilla
Incident on 2
August 2010.
The Panel
received and
reviewed
reports of the
detailed
national
investigations
conducted by
both Turkey
and Israel.
On 22 June
2010, the
Secretary-General
announced the
appointment of
a Panel of
Experts to
advise him on
the
implementation
of the joint
commitment
included in
the statement
issued by the
President of
Sri Lanka and
the
Secretary-General
at the
conclusion of
the
Secretary-General's
visit to Sri
Lanka on 23
March 2009.
Meanwhile
UN staff
advocates have
written to
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, his
chief of staff
and Ladsous,
among others,
demanding
resignations.
On June 2
Inner City
Press asked UN
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, who
Banned any
Inner City
Press question
to Ladsous on
May 29, what
Ban Ki-moon
DID, once he
learned in
March about
the rapes. Video here and embedded below.
Dujarric
said he had
nothing to add
to his
previous
answers. Huh?
Inner
City Press
asked
Dujarric, in
light of OHCHR
Zeid using a
private email
address for UN
business, what
the UN's
record
retention
policy is.
Dujarric said
the policy
must be
available
somewhere. To
this has the
UN descended.
Dujarric said
the
investigation
by Lapointe's
OIOS,
discredited in
the leaked
emails, will
"lead where it
will lead."
But Lapointe
has told OIOS
invstigators
to not go
beyond what
they are asked
to look at --
in this case,
only the
whistleblower.
This is called
a cover up.
When Hillary
Clinton used
the UN
Security
Council
stakeout
to belatedly
answer
questions
about her own
use of private
email while US
Secretary of
State, it was
described as
an accident of
scheduling, or
attempt to use
the UNSC
backdrop to
convey
gravitas. But
the echo now
with Prince
Zeid also
using private
email for
presumably
public
business
raises similar
questions.
Anders
Kompass was
asked to send
his side of
the story --
to a private
email address,
but wisely
declined.
Beyond the
treatment of
Kompass
himself, the
documents show
pressure
brought to
bear on
lower-level
staff to make
and thereby
launder the
high
officials'
desire for an
investigation
of Kompass.
Most
directly, it
is asked, what
UN staff
member will
now report
fraud or
misconduct,
knowing that
OIOS and the
Ethics Office
will then
discuss the
accusations
with their
boss? This is
a question
Inner City
Press on
May 29 asked
UN Spokesman
Staphen
Dujarric, who
Banned
Inner City
Press from
putting a
single
question to
Ladsous - the
question has
yet to be
answered.
UN staff
advocates have
written
directly to
Ban Ki-moon
and his
deputy,
Ladsous and
Atul Khare and
others,
demanding
resignations.
They are
offended by
the exposure
of lack of
independence
at the UN
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services and
UN Ethics
Office, and
question
whether the US
should cut off
funding under
the 2014 U.S.
Consolidated
Appropriation
Act, section
7048(a)(1)(B).
After reading
those leaked
documents, how
exactly can
the U.S.
Secretary of
State (or
anybody else)
certify that
the UN's
whistle-blower
policy fulfils
the Act's
requirements?
Is there any
"independent
adjudicative
body" in this
chain?
Evidently the
Ethics Office
and OIOS are
not."
The
staff notice
Ban's
appearance at
another
softball
soccer game,
among those
who are
supposed to
hold him and
the UN
accountable.
The call for
Ladsous to
resign out be
fired has
spread from
the African
Group to Latin
America and
GRULAC.
On May 30,
OHCHR for
Prince Zeid
issued a
statement
beginning, "In
the wake of
the
revelations of
alleged
serious sexual
abuse of
children."
But
Zeid was told
of the
allegations
long before
their
"revelation"
via leaks. And
tellingly, he
continued to
mistakenly
think and say
the rapes were
in Mali and
not CAR.
Likewise,
both UN
Peacekeeping's
Herve Ladsous
-- listed as
urging the
whistleblower
to resign,
which he
denies while
refusing to
take questions
on -- and
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon both
knew of the
alleged child
rapes by "the
Spring," but
did nothing.
This
requires an
investigation,
and not by the
UN's Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services,
shown to not
be
independent,
told to meet
Zeid and the
UN Ethics
Office by
Ban's chief of
staff Susan
Malcorra.
Inner
City Press
reported on
some of the
documents and
went to
Ladsous' rare
press
conference on
May 29
(International
Day of UN
Peacekeepers)
in order to
ask some
questions. Video here.
But
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric,
choosing who
could ask
questions,
refused to
call on Inner
City Press,
even for
Ladsous to
say, as he did
under
Dujarric's
predecessor
Martin
Nesirky, "I
don't respond
to you,
Mister."
So
Inner City
Press
objected, on
behalf of the
new Free UN
Coalition for
Access (the
old UNCA has
become part of
the problem)
and asked
questions, video here, transcript
here.
The
documents also
call into
serious
question the
claims of
"independence"
from the
office of Ban
Ki-moon of the
Office of
Internal
Oversight
Services and
the UN Ethics
Office.
Consider this:
OIOS head
Carman
Lapointe, writing
to James
Finness (still
in charge of
the
"investigation"
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
continues to
use as an
excuse to not
answer
question),
noted that at
the UN staff
retreat in
March "I
received an
urgent email
from the CdC
[Ban's Chef de
Cabinet Susana
Malcorra] to
meet with
Zeid, Flavia
and Joan."
So OIOS
is not
independent -
it can to
told, by Ban's
chief of
staff, to meet
with
collaborate
with the
Ethics Office
as well as
OHCHR's Zeid
and Pansieri.
Inner
City Press
previously
reported on
and asked
Dujarric about
OIOS' flawed
process and a
high profile
recusal, see
below.
As
noted, Inner
City Press
reported on
some of the
documents and
went to
Ladsous' rare
press
conference on
May 29
(International
Day of UN
Peacekeepers)
in order to
ask some
questions.
But
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric,
choosing who
could ask
questions,
refused to
call on Inner
City Press,
even for
Ladsous to
say, as he did
under
Dujarric's
predecessor
Martin
Nesirky, "I
don't respond
to you,
Mister."
So why did
Nesirky allow
Press
questions to
Ladsous, and
Dujarric
didn't?
Dujarric set
the first
question aside
for "UNCA" --
but called on
an individual
who was not
elected to
their board,
who lost the
election; her
question was a
vague softball
offering
Ladsous a
chance to
comment on
Central
African
Republic. He
said, it was
one nation,
not under blue
helmet.
But
Ladsous'
MINUSCA
mission knew
of the sexual
abuse since at
latest August
5, 2014. Inner
City Press
said, "Follow
up on CAR?"
Dujarric
called on
Reuters, which
previously
wrote to him
trying to get
Inner City
Press thrown
out of the UN
(then filed to
get his leaked
complaint
blocked or
Banned from
Google's
Search, here.)
Reuters did
not even aske
about the CAR
sexual abuse.
What
emerged is
that both
Ladsous --
and,
troublingly,
Ban Ki-moon --
were formally
informed of
the sexual
abuse of
children in
CAR "in the
spring."
What date? And
what did they
do?
Dujarric said,
"last
question;" as
Ladsous left
the room Inner
City Press
asked Ladsous
about him
speaking about
the
whistleblower
Kompass with
OHCHR's Zeid,
also a subject
of the new
documents --
no answer.
Inner
City Press
objected to
Dujarric, who
has fielded or
dodged a dozen
Inner City
Press
questions
about the CAR
rapes and
Ladsous' role,
not even being
allowed to ask
a question.
Dujarric said,
"Noted." Video
here.
And
what? Again,
Dujarric's
predecessor
Nesirky, and
his deputy Del
Buey, allowed
Inner City
Press to put
questions to
Ladsous. What
if the
difference?
We'll have
more on this.
On July 30,
2014,
Ambassador
Nicolas
Niemtchinow,
Permanent
Representative
of France to
the UN in
Geneva wrote
to
Kompass that
action was
being taken.
But then,
nothing.
On
August 5, 2014
the Human
Rights Officer
in CAR of
OHCHR wrote to
Renner Onana
of the
already-then
UN mission
MINUSCA;
DPKO's SRSG
Babacar Gaye
was
referenced.
So when did
Gaye or
MINUSCA tell
DPKO chief
Ladsous?
Tellingly,
even the UN's
cover up was
delayed by
High
Commissioner
Prince Zeid
thinking he
heard of
French troops'
sexual abuse
in MINUSMA
(Mali) and not
MINUSCA (CAR).
Zeid
asked his
predecessor
Navi Pillay if
she met with
French
representatives
about rapes in
Mali -- the
answer was no
-- then much
later asked
her if she'd
met with the
French about
CAR (the
answer was
yes.)
It was
Zeid's Deputy
Flavia
Pansieri who
conveyed
Ladsous'
directive to
Kompass to
resign. Zeid
in his
statement
makes much of
Pansieri
meeting with a
Swedish
diplomat in
the street, in
casual
clothes, after
Sweden raised
l'affaire
Kompass at a
dinner in
honor of Ban
Ki-moon's
Deputy Jan
Eliasson. THe
UN's move now
seems to be to
try to lay all
blame on
Pansieri,
whose term was
expiring
anyway. We'll
have more on
this.
"On 12 March
2015 meeting
with the
Deputy High
Commissioner I
was informed
that the High
Commissioner
requested my
resignation
for the way I
dealt with the
reports of
paedophilia in
the Central
African
Republic. I
was told that
the High
Commissioner
had been asked
for my
resignation by
Mr. Ladsous,
Under
Secretary-General
for the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations in
New York,
during a visit
of the High
Commissioner
to New York."
Absent from
the UN Fifth
(Budget)
Committee's
May 18 meeting
was not only
embattled
Peacekeeping
chief
Ladsous,, but
also OIOS'
Carman
Lapointe.
In
her stead for
OIOS was
Michael
Stefanovic,
who told the
Fifth
Committee that
he has recused
himself from
the
investigation
and has
written to
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon as to
why.
This is highly
irregular. If
the recusal
was made on a
personal
connection
between
Stefanovic and
the
whistleblower
Anders
Kompass,
Stefanovic
would have
recused
himself from
the earlier
investigation
- but he
didn't. If it
were such a
recusal, he
would have
written to
Lapointe, and
not to the
S-G.
For now we add
this -- if
OIOS Director
Stefanovic has
a conflict of
interest, how
can the UN be
asking others
to rely on an
OIOS
investigation?
Inner City
Press has
asked a
Permanent
Member of the
Security
Council -- not
France -- if
an OIOS
investigation
would be
sufficient,
and has been
told "No."
Now
we have this,
from the Fifth
Committee's
May 20
meeting:
Lapointe,
summoned to
the meeting
via her
Byun-kun Min,
was asked
-When
did OIOS/ID
start the
investigation
into Anders
Kompass?
-Why
did Mr.
Stefanovic
recuse himself
from the
Kompass
investigation?
-In
view of Mr.
Stefanovic
recusing
himself, did
Ms. Lapointe
see any
impediments
for the scope
of the
investigation,
especially as
it appeared to
implicate an
ASG or USG in
misconduct?
Note - this is
a reference to
UN
Peacekeeping
USG Ladsous.
Multiple
sources tell
Inner City
Press Lapointe
replied that
Stefanovic
told only the
Secretary
General, not
her, that he
recused
himself, and
that the
Deputy
Director of
OIOS in Vienna
is now
"overseeing"
the
investigation.
So
those now on
the case are
James Finniss,
Kanja and
Margaret
Gichanga --
who has been
asking to
interview WIPO
whistleblower
Miranda Brown,
who worked
alongside
Kompass for a
time. We'll
have more on
this. It is a
new low for
the UN.
Back
on May 18,
Inner City
Press, staking
out the Budget
Committee
meeting, spoke
with Ban's
chief of staff
Susana
Malcorra when
she left the
meeting. Here
is a
transcript,
followed by an
exclusive
summary of
what happened
inside the
closed
meeting.
Inner
City Press:
How did it go
in there? Are
their
questions
answered?
CdC
Malcorra: Well
I hope, yes.
Some of them
still have
questions that
will be
answered by my
colleague. I
think I’ve
made a point
of what it is
that we’re
discussing
here. This
investigation
is a UN
investigation.
It was led by
the UN in the
field when
they had
allegations
handed to
them. It was
the human
rights cell in
the mission
that led this
investigation.
It looks like
we were
absent, but it
was us...
And
this
investigation
could, at
least prima
facie, there
were places
clear enough
to further
investigate by
the member
state. And as
such, the
information
was provided
to a member
state. On a
separate
front, is how
the
information is
provided. And
we cannot
accept the
irresponsibility
of the names
of the
victims, the
witnesses and
the
investigators
shared with
the member
states ...
it’s
inacceptable.
It may look
like a
bureaucratic
approach. It’s
not a
bureaucratic
approach...
Inner
City Press:
What about not
telling
Central
African
Republic
authorities?
CdC
Malcora: They
are discussing
that now.
After the
meeting ended,
and Inner City
Press spoke
with numerous
attendees - a
common refrain
was that the
UN leadership
is "in denial"
- we have
pieced
together this
summary of the
meeting, and
the totally
insufficient
answer on UN
Peacekeeping
chief Ladsous'
role, a lack
of recognition
of his UNAMID
mission's
previous cover
up of rapes in
Tabit in
Darfur, which
the US and UK
and other say
they care
about, and
lack of follow
up on
whistleblowers.
Attendees'
summary of Ban
Ki-moon chief
of staff
Malcorra:
"Malcorra
said she had
no idea the
session would
go into the
specifics of
CAR, she
thought it was
to touch upon
general Sexual
Abuse and
Exploitation
policy
(several
attendees were
dubious and
angry about
this
approach.)
Malcorra said
that in the
case of
misconduct by
UN staff the
procedures
were in place.
In this case,
even when it
was not UN
peacekeepers
the human
rights cell in
Bangui was
there and they
were the ones
that initiated
the
investigation.
It is thanks
to the UN that
allegations
were
substantiated
and it was
enough to
decide to
proceed with a
further
investigation.
The wrongdoing
of the UN
staffer Anders
Kompass was to
have shared
the
information
without it
being redacted
putting the
victims,
witnesses and
investigators
lives in
danger. She
repeated many
times this was
a serious
breach and
that she
disagreed with
anyone that
didn’t view
this conduct
wrong.
According to
Malcorra the
UN
investigation
lasted three
months which
allowed them
to
substantiate
the
allegations.
When that
finding was
final it went
to the two
lines of
command: The
head of
mission in CAR
and the
OHCHR.
But, several
asked, why
didn't either
of these tell
the CAR
authorities?
Malcorra
said she would
have preferred
this case
hadn't
surfaced in
the media and
that it is
regrettable
member states
have had to
learn matters
from the
press. But
that, Malcorra
said, member
states have to
be aware that
the press
manipulates
everything.
Several states
talked about
the UN image
and
credibility to
which Malcorra
said she was
very sad with
those comments
because if not
for the UN
these troops
could have
gotten away
with these
disturbing
acts. She also
said this was
a clear case
of damned if
you do damned
if you don’t.
But what about
the cover up?
What about
Ladsous?
Malcorra said
that “no other
element had
been taken
into account”
for Kompass'
firing. But
member states
were aware of
Paragraph 9 of
the UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling
reinstating
Kompass. As
noted, one
Permanent
Representatives
(and several
other
diplomats)
told Inner
City Press
that Ladsous
should resign.
Tellingly, the
sources say,
Malcorra
claimed didn’t
recall any
UNAMID coverup
allegations.
Tabit?
Malcorra
didn’t even
address the
Otis report on
whistleblowers
- which Inner
City Press has
been asking
Ban's
spokesman
about,
repeatedly --
but assured
member states
that due
protections
are in place
and that an
adequate
policy exists.
Malcorra said
she looks
forward to
working
further on the
UN convention
in paragraph
57 of the SG
report on SEA
and agrees
that there are
systemic
flaws, and
therefore
there will be
a review of
all the
processes.
According to
sources in the
meeting --
Inner City
Press asked
and was told
to inquiry
with member
states --
the
Legal Counsel
and head of
OLA qualified
as excellent
the
cooperation
with the
French
Authorities
and that the
lifting of
immunity so
far hasn’t
been necessary
because at
this stage its
very general
requests of
information
that the UN
promptly has
given to the
French
authorities.
For the sake
of efficiency
hasn’t gone
through the
lifting of
immunity
process but if
a trial or
judge becomes
involved they
will do it
quickly at a
later stage.
Several member
states were
dubious. The
EU, Inner City
ress is
informed, said
“accountability
starts at the
top.”
Malcorra
left
unanswered why
the host
state, the
CAR, was not
involved. She
is said to
have ignored
the specific
question on
the status of
the OIOS
investigation.
She ignored
the complaints
about
under-reporting
saying that
the trend of
decrease was
very clear and
that the USG
of DFS would
go into
details (what
he did,
genially, was
repeat the
Secretary
General's
report).
An impartial
investigation
was called
for, from both
sides of the
Atlantic and
elsewhere.
There was a
refrain
afterward:
Ladsous should
resign."
A well-placed
African
Permanent
Representative
before the
meeting told
Inner City
Press before
the meeting
that Ladsous
should resign.
But with him
conveniently
absent, would
others be left
holding the
bag, trying to
explain why
he, Ladsous,
appears in the
UN Dispute
Tribunal
ruling as
urging that
the
whistleblower
resign?
Back on May 8,
Inner City
Press asked US
Ambassador
Samantha Power
about both
issues - the
UN's failure
to tell the
CAR
authorities,
and Ladsous'
"surprising"
role, as High
Commissioner
Zeid put it
earlier in the
day. Video
here and
embedded
below. Then
Inner City
Press asked
the UN
Spokesman,
Stephane
Dujarric,
about the
contradiction;
for the first
time, he gave
a timeline.
Here
is the video
of Inner City
Press
questions to
US Ambassador
Power:
It is an
answer that
may move
things
forward.
Ladsous, it
should be
noted, just
this week
snubbed a Joe
Biden-linked
Hemispheric
peacekeeping
conference in
Uruguay,
wasting an
$8,000 first
class plane
ticket and
angering many
troop
contributing
countries. He
refuses to
answer Press
question, for
example on
rapes in
Minova, DRC
and Tabit in
Darfur.
As noted, on
May 8, High
Commissioner
Zeid held a
press
conference,
and twice
refused to
comment on why
Ladsous was
said to have
pressured to
fire or
suspend the
whistleblower.
Inner City
Press has
covered
Ladsous' role
from the
beginning, and
highlighted
his appearance
in Paragraph 9
of the UN
Dispute
Tribunal
ruling
reinstating
Kompass. On
May 7, Ladsous
told Inner
City Press, "I
deny that" -
then refused
to take
questions.
Zeid
was asked, and
first time
said he should
first give his
view of the
pressure to
the
investigator,
not the media.
The
second time,
he said he was
surprised to
read it -- his
Office did not
contest that
part of the
ruling,
effectively
admitting it
-- and that
the head of UN
Peacekeeping
should not
have been
intervening
about a non-UN
force. Video here.
Neither
he nor the
questioners in
the room in
Geneva said
the obvious:
Ladsous is a
longtime
French
diplomat; it
is not rocket
science to
read Paragraph
9 as him
(inappropriately)
still working
for "his"
country.
Zeid
said other
things we'll
report later;
he alluded to
the need for a
Commission of
Inquiry. Some
ask, will
Ladsous quit
before then?
Or after?
Early on May
8, UN system
staff
complained to
Inner City
Press that UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid of
Jordan, in a
closed staff
meeting on May
8, tried to
downplay the
scandal, going
so far as to
blame imams in
Bangui for not
playing their
role.
But it was
OHCHR which
didn't even
give the
report of the
rape of CAR
children to
CAR
authorities,
only to the
French.
In places,
Zeid appeared
to try to use
his record ten
years ago on
sexual abuse
to shift the
blame to
imams.
Inner City
Press has
shown a
failure by his
Office to act
on past
leaking, to
Morocco. We'll
have more on
this.
On May 7,
Inner City
Press asked
more questions
about this -
including to
Herve Ladsous
himself.
After a long
closed-door
consultation
meeting of the
Security
Council,
Ladsous
emerged. Inner
City Press
asked him,
based on
Paragraph 9 of
the UNDT
ruling, Why
did you ask
Kompass to
resign?"