By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Follow Up to
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 24 --
On October 7
Inner City
Press
exclusively
reported that
a member of
the UN's
Somalia
Eritrea
Monitoring
Group Dinesh
Mahtani used
UN SEMG time
and letterhead
for unrelated
advocacy
regarding
Eritrea.
Mahtani's
letter was exclusively put
online here
by Inner City
Press.
On October 15,
the Somalia
and Eritrea
sanctions
committee
chairman
Ambassador Oh
Joon of South
Korea, when
Inner City
Press asked of
Mahtani, said
no, “we didn’t
have a
discussion on
him. It’s been
taken care of,
I think.”
Now
on October 24,
after the UN
Security
Council
extended the
mandate of the
SEMG with two
abstentions,
Inner City
Press asked UK
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant about
Mahtani, and
the level of
proof at this
point of
Eritrean
support to Al
Shabaab. Video
here.
Lyall Grant
said that
Mahtani was
disciplined
and resigned,
that he
"exceeded his
authority in
issuing that
particularly
letter." But
as set forth
below, major
Western wire
services in
reporting on
the SEMG have
yet to mention
the "regime
change"
letter.
Lyall
Grant said
this time
there is "much
less evidence"
of Eritrean
support for Al
Shabaab, but
that Eritrea
should allow
the SEMG to
visit Asmara.
Again, how is
this different
from "guilty
until proven
innocent"? The
UK Mission
transcribed
the Q&A on
this:
Inner
City Press: I
wanted to
about the
Eritrea
Sanctions and
also about the
Monitoring
Group.
On the
sanctions, is
there from
your point of
view evidence
of Eritrea
still
supporting Al
Shabaab
because what
they seem to
say is if
there is no
evidence, why
should they
let them in?
It’s kind of
like guilty
until proven
innocent.
And the other
thing I wanted
to ask you
about was the
Monitoring
Group.
There was a
letter that
emerged from
one of the
experts Dinesh
Mahtani in
which he
basically sort
of tried to
pick a new
leader for the
country.
He basically
said he’d be a
good leader
for the
country.
He’s now
resigned and I
wonder what
are the
implications
of that given
that he worked
on the
report.
What have you
learned in
terms of
training for
experts in the
future.
Is there any
follow-up I
guess on this
resignation
from what some
people call a
regime-change
letter?
Ambasssador
Lyall Grant: I
don’t have any
comment to
make on this
particular
expert. As you
say he has
been
disciplined by
the UN system
and he’s
resigned his
position.
He clearly
exceeded his
authority in
issuing that
particular
letter.
On the wider
point, there
has been very
clear evidence
in successive
Monitoring
Group reports
on support for
Al Shabaab
from
Eritrea.
In the latest
report there
is much less
evidence and
that is
encouraging
but because
the Monitoring
Group has not
been allowed
to visit
Asmara, they
have said very
clearly that
they have not
been able to
investigate
various
strands of
evidence that
comes their
way. So
if Eritrea is
no longer
supporting Al
Shabaab then
why do they
not allow the
Monitoring
Group to visit
and talk to
whoever they
want to talk
to and then no
doubt the
Monitoring
Group will
report that
there is no
further
evidence of
Eritrea
supporting Al
Shabaab.
In that case,
the United
Kingdom would
be one of the
first
countries to
suggest that
sanctions be
lifted.
So I think the
solution to
this problem
lies in the
hands of the
government of
Eritrea.
Since October
8 not only
Reuters but
also Agence
France Presse
have retyped
copies of the
SEMG report
given to them
-- with no
mention of the
SEMG scandal
and
resignation
acknowledged
right in the
UN Press
Briefing Room
on October 8.
Isn't this
like
"reporting" on
a panel of
judges' ruling
without
mentioning
that one of
the judges
just resigned
after being
confronted
with a letter
he wrote about
the subject
matter of the
case?
On
October 15,
when the UN
Security
Council met
behind closed
doors about
SEMG and the
report, the
bylined scribe
of Reuters
Mahtani-less
story about
the report
stood briefly
in front of
the Council,
then left.
After an hour
and a half
when the
meeting ended,
Inner City
Press asked
the sanctions
committee
chairman Oh
Joon if
Mahtani and
his
resignation
has been
raised in the
meeting. No,
Oh Joon
replied, “we
didn’t have a
discussion on
him. It’s been
taken care of,
I think.”
But
some question
what the
chairman of
the SEMG knew,
and how the
involvement of
the
now-resigned
Mahtani in the
report under
review
impacted it.
We’ll have
more on this.
On
October 8,
Inner City
Press asked UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
Mahtani's
letter and if
it was
appropriate
behavior for a
sanctions
monitor.
No, Dujarric
said, adding
that the
letter was
“shown” to
Dinesh
Mahtani, who
has resigned.
Video
here.
On
October 10, Reuters
two UN
correspondents
dutifully regurgitated
the SEMG's
most recent
report, even
called it
"exclusive" --
a basis on
which Reuters
pays
-- with no
mention that
one of the
SEMG's members
had resigned
after being
exposed for
pushing regime
change.
Key fact: Dinesh
Mahtani used
to work for
Reuters, see
c.v. here.
This puts
Reuters'
non-mention of
SEMG member
Mahtani's
resignation is
a different
light.
On October 13,
AFP
in English
retyped its
copy of the
SEMG report,
no mention of
regime-change
scandal. This
too is how
the UN works,
or doesn't.
Sources
had
told Inner
City Press
that Mahtani,
the finance
expert on SEMG
and previously
on the DR
Congo
Sanctions
group, was
found
requesting
favors from a
member state,
to which the
SEMG reports.
Here
is a document:
a
letter from
Dinesh
Mahtani,
ostensibly in
his SEMG role,
saying that
former
Eritrean
official Ali
Abdu "has
great
potential to
play a
stabilizing
role in
Eritrea with
the country
possibly
headed to an
uncertain
period in its
history."
This
is hardly the
first
controversy in
the SEMG --
but usually
the members
wait until
they are off
or on their
way off the
Monitor Group
to “let it all
hang out,” as
one source put
it of previous
SEMG chair
Matt Bryden.
The current
chair, Jarat
Chopra, has
faced
complaints
from Somalia,
also exclusively
reported
by Inner City
Press.
, 
