As
Mali
Representative
Asks Why Close
Borders Amid
Hunger, At UN
No
Answers
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 4 --
Despite much
talk that
sanctions
should be
targeted, the
UN Security
Council on
Wednesday
adopted a
Presidential
Statement
supporting
"the efforts
of the
Economic
Community of
West African
States
(ECOWAS),"
which has
moved to close
Mali's
borders,
leading to
long lines for
gasoline and
impending loss
of
electricity.
The
UN
Secretariat,
even with its
humanitarian
mandate, has
refused to
criticize
these
untargeted
sanctions. On
April 3 Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Inner
City
Press: On
Mali, some are
saying that
the ECOWAS
sanctions,
they’re
closing the
borders, that
there are
already people
lining
up for gas,
they are not
targeted in
any way. I
heard you say
that
the UN
humanitarians
are concerned
about
shortages, but
Valerie Amos,
for example,
on South Sudan
said that they
should keep
pumping oil
because of
humanitarian
needs. What
does the UN
say about a
sanctions
regime that
would
essentially
close the
border and
block
the entry
into, of
consumer goods
like gasoline.
How is it
consistent
to talk about
shortages when
they are being
caused by the
sanctions?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Well,
these are
measures that
have been
introduced
by the
regional
organization,
ECOWAS. I
would refer
you to them to
ask about
that. From a
purely
humanitarian
point of view,
it is
obvious that
the sooner
that the
political side
of this can be
dealt
with, and we
can get back
to
constitutional
order in the
country, the
easier it will
be to deal
with the
humanitarian
crisis that
existed
even before
this, and has
obviously been
exacerbated by
the
developments
of recent
days. I think
that’s what we
have at the
moment.
Also
on April 3
Inner City
Press asked
Gerard Araud,
the Ambassador
of France, about
the impact of
the sanctions,
and to explain
why Foreign
Minister
Alain Juppe
said France
would not
intervene in
Mali while it
played
the key role
in ousting
Laurent Gbagbo
in Cote
d'Ivoire. Video
here, from
Minute 2:09.
Araud
stammered
that "the only
difference
between Cote
D'ivoire and
Mali is that
in Cote
d'Ivoire we
had a UN
mandate,
resolution
1975....
[here] we are
not doing to
ask for it, no
French
intervention
in Mali." He
continued, "As
for sanctions,
it's decision
by ECOWAS,
they have
knowledge of
the region.
But
if that's the
logic,
wouldn't one
assume that
the
representative
of Mali knew
even
more about the
plight of
Mali's people
than ECOWAS?
Wednesday
after
Jeffrey
DeLaurentis of
the US, as
president of
the Security
Council
for April,
read out the
Council's
statement, he
gave to floor
to "the
representative
of Mali,"
Ouman Daou. He
has been the
Permanent
Representative
of Mali at the
UN since 2008.
Now with his
president
overthrown by
"muntineers,"
it is not
clear who
exactly he
represents.
Ouman
Daou
handled it
with aplomb.
He said he
represented
"the people"
of Mali; he
questioned the
ECOWAS
sanctions,
asking "is
this the
time to close
the borders?
To leave us
thirsty and
hungry?"
But
the Council,
having just
expressed
support for
ECOWAS, did
not answer.
DeLaurentis
thanked "the
representative
of Mali," and
deemed the
meeting over.
Will Ouman
Daou continue
to appear at
Mali's
representative?
Will anybody
listen? Watch
this site.
, 
