|
As India Criticizes UN's Ban on
Nepal, Will He Counter-Attack as on Zimbabwe?
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of
Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS,
July 18 -- Nepal
has been one of
the UN's recent success stories, if seen in context, at least for now.
But even
on this, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has managed to get publicly
criticized.
Nepal recently requested a six-month extension of the UN Mission in
Nepal,
UNMIN. Ban responded with a report asking for more clarification from
Nepal,
and stating that "should this matter remain unresolved by the time the
Council considers the present report, I would recommend a one-month
extension."
In the July
18 Security Council session
about Nepal, the Ambassador of India Nirupam Sen
said "it is difficult to
accept parts of the Secretary-General's latest report... It seems
inappropriate
for [Ban] to advise this Council to extend the mandate for one month
unless
Nepal's request is 'clarified.' In other words, unless Nepal's request
is in
line with what UNMIN want it to say, the request is not good enough."
Minutes
later at the UN's regular noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's
Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to India's critique. She noted that
Ban's
Special Representative Ian Martin had, in his comments that morning
to the
Council, recommended at six-month rather than one-month extension. But Martin's statement was made before the
Indian Ambassador spoke; India went forward and criticized Ban anyway,
criticized him for even asking for the clarification.
India's Nirupam Sen, reply a la Russia or Zimbabwe not
yet shown
One week
ago, when Zimbabwe's Ambassador said that "the Secretariat" could not
be viewed as impartial, because the UN Department of Political Affairs'
reports
on Zimbabwe only criticized the government and never the opposition,
Ban's
Spokesperson responded with a statement on Saturday expressing "deep
concern" at the "highly inappropriate" comments of the
Zimbabwean Ambassador. This stood in
contrast to this Spokesperson's declining to criticize or respond
to comments
by Russia's Ambassador, about law-breaking in connection with Ban's
reconfiguration of the UN Mission in Kosovo. The theory was that since
Russia
is a Permanent Five member of the Security Council, and could veto any
second
term by Ban, his office did not express concern when criticized by
Russia. On July
15, Inner City Press asked Deputy Spokesperson
Okabe
Inner City Press: Over the
weekend, your Office put out a statement calling a statement by the
Zimbabwe
Ambassador highly inappropriate and unacceptable, for having said that,
in his
opinion, DPA reports were one-sided. How
are his comments different from ones like those of Russian Ambassador
Churkin,
who said the Secretariat was breaking the law with EULEX, and then I
was told
it was just his right to have that opinion?
What’s the basis for calling an Ambassador’s
commentary highly
inappropriate?
Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: It's
evident that the Secretary-General felt
strongly about the Ambassador's remarks, because, as you know, the
Secretary-General has been discussing the situation in Zimbabwe and how
to
bring a resolution to that situation with parties in the region. He's been talking with SADC, with his
partners, all regional parties and this is an area where he’s been
working very
closely. And, as you know, he had
dispatched an envoy to the region and I think that he did not find such
comments helpful to the efforts that he was exerting.
Inner City Press: I think that's
something people
don't understand, like on Kosovo. He's
making a lot of efforts, but he’s been
subject to criticism. So what's the
difference? Is it that Russia’s one of
the P-5?
Deputy Spokesperson Okabe: I'm
not going to engage in comparing the
situations. That's the way he felt about
this situation and I gave you the reason why.
But did Ban
change his proposal from one month to six months entirely because he
was
satisfied with Nepal's clarification? Or because India, a country
certainly
larger than Zimbabwe and that wants a permanent seat on the Security
Council,
let it be known, even before Friday morning's meeting, of its
dissatisfaction
with him even asking for clarification?
Why did
India go forward with its public critique even after Ian Martin
announced Ban's
new position? Since the critique is that by demanding the
clarification, Ban
made Nepal say what he wanted to hear, recommending a six month
extension after
receiving the requested clarification does not answer the
critique. After making his statement, Ambassador Sen said he will
only offer further explanation after the Security Council votes on the
Nepal mission extension, currently slated for Tuesday, July 22. Ian
Martin will speak at that time, as well, hopefully to offer an update
on the deadly
UNMIN helicopter crash among other topics.
It's worth noting that the
same Department of Political Affairs which Zimbabwe's Ambassador
criticized oversees Martin's UNMIN mission, and is in this cas being
criticized by India.
For now, given Ban's response a week ago to
Zimbabwe's criticism, will his Office respond to India's
similar critique? Watch
this site.
And this --
|
