As
UN
Apologizes to Reuters, Both Refuse to Release Letter, Sudanese Ouster
Closed
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 15 -- Why would the UN Mission in Sudan, and
Reuters, refuse to release or even quote from an ostensible apology
from UNMIS for the summary exclusion of a Sudanese journalist working
for Reuters from the UN Security Council's plane from Juba to Darfur?
As
first reported
by Inner City Press, as the Council delegation prepared to fly to El
Fasher last week, UN Security determined there was one extra person
on board. Rather than ascertain who was on the flight but not the
manifest, a Sudanese journalist sitting directly behind Inner City
Press was told to leave the plane.
When
he asked a
question, his backpack was thrown to the ground and he was told he
would be “forcibly” removed. He left, with three other Sudanese
journalists (employed by BBC and Xinhua) joining him in solidarity.
None
of the
Council Ambassadors said anything. (One Permanent Five member later
in the trip expressed surprise to Inner City Press about the
incident, and said it was being used to make the UN and Council look
bad.)
At
the Council's
last press conference in Khartoum, it was rumored that an apology was
delivered. Inner City Press waited in the front row, hand raised. But
no apology was read out, and Inner City Press was not allowed to ask
any questions.
(Afterward, a UN
spokesperson told Inner City Press it
had been decided to limit questions to “local” journalists, which
included as the first question a non-Sudanese western wire service
reporter resident in Khartoum - because potentially relevant, a
Reuters reporter.)
Back
in UN
Headquarters, an UNMIS statement about the incident was put on the
counter of Office of Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's Spokesperson
(previously of Reuters, some note), which was met with skepticism by UN
correspondents and was
then no longer available.
Inner
City Press
asked UNMIS for a copy of the statement, and received in return this
response by UNMIS spokesman Ashraf Eissa:
“It
was a pleasure meeting you in Sudan Last week. I hope your flight
back to NY was not too taxing. Here is our response... UNMIS has
received formal complaints re the incident from the two institutions
with which four journalists who traveled with the SC group are
affiliated. UNMIS has formally responded to these complaints.”
Why not say what
the “formal response” was? Security Council members, including a
Permanent Five member whom Inner City Press spoke with about it, saw
and then read out the ejection of the Sudanese media. What is UNMIS'
response? Inner City Press asked again, and was told:
“The
response was given to two organizations who sent the letters. It is
up to them to disclose it if they choose to do so.”
While
three media
organizations were reportedly involved, Inner City Press asked
Reuters in New York for a copy or summary of UNMIS' letter. From
London, 24 hours later, this was the response:
“We
have received a letter from the U.N. Mission in Sudan, however we
will not be releasing this. But I would like to provide you with the
following statement, which you are welcome to use:
'The
U.N. Mission in Sudan has responded swiftly to our complaint, with an
apology for the treatment of our staff. We appreciate the speed with
which the matter was addressed and the apology we have received. We
now consider the matter to be closed.'
This
statement
should be attributed to a 'spokesperson from Reuters'.”
Why
would Reuters
refuse to release or even quote from the ostensible apology from
UNMIS? Did UNMIS ask Reuters to keep it confidential? The question is
relevant in that UNMIS (and the wider UN) can grant or restrict
access to the media which cover it.
UN Plane in Sudan, Sudanese journalists'
exclusion and apology not shown (c) MRLee
For this
reason, the best
practice would seem to be to release the letter. In fact, Reuters and
other media have in the past demanded that the UN release copies of
other letters described as apologies. Why not this one?
Footnotes:
As
Inner City Press reported at the time, "
The
disparate
treatment of the Sudanese journalists began earlier in the day, in
the base of the UN Mission in Sudan. The reporters traveling with the
Security Council including Inner City Press were told to disembark the
bus for lunch. The
Sudanese journalists were left onboard and only rejoined the group
after the UNMIS sandwiches were eaten."
So did the UNMIS letter also address this? As to who was “extra”
on the UN plane, there was a UN “advance
team” member who earlier that day also tried to get on the press
helicopter from Rejaf back to Juba, without being on the manifest and
who did, in fact, get both to Juba and then to Darfur on the flight.
Also, as many on the trip noticed, US Ambassador Susan Rice was
accompanied by an entourage of four, while most other Ambassadors
were told to bring, and in fact brought, no one else. Might there be
another side deal or apology? Watch this site.
*
* *
In
Sudan,
UNMIS
Dodges on Panel and Exclusions from UN Jobs & UN
Plane
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October
14 -- Upon arriving in South Sudan a week ago, the
UN Security Council was met by two separate demonstrations.
The
reported
one was pro-secession, in the run up with the referendum
scheduled for January 9. Also in the crowd, noted by more than one
journalist but at the time not reported, were signs and chants of
“workers rights are human rights.”
The
following day
the Sudanese media on the UN flight from Juba to Darfur were thrown
off the plane. This was first reported by Inner City Press, then by
Sudanese publications and others.
From
the US early
on October 13, Inner City Press directed three questions to the UNMIS
spokesman in Khartoum. Twenty four hours later, responses were
provided.
But each was
a model of evasion, explicitly not providing
the basis information requested and in one case simply referring the
question back to spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New
York, Martin Nesirky, to whom it has been re-directed four hours
before his October 13 noon briefing.
Here
are Inner
City Press' three questions among with explanation, and UNMIS
spokesman Ashraf Eissa's responses:
“Please
provide
by email asap what UNMIS put out about the incident with the
Sudanese journalist(s) on the tarmac in Juba in the Security Council
delegation's plane.”
The
basis of
this question was a journalist on the trip referring to a canned
UNMIS statement put out in writing in the UN Spokesperson's Office in
New York. It was no longer there when Inner City Press checked. So
Inner City Press asked UNMIS. But after 24 hours, Eissa replied:
“UNMIS
has
received formal complaints re the incident from the two
institutions with which four journalists who traveled with the SC
group are affiliated. UNMIS has formally responded to these
complaints.”
Why
not say what
the “formal response” was? Security Council members, including a
Permanent Five member whom Inner City Press spoke with about it, saw
and then read out the ejection of the Sudanese media. What is UNMIS'
response? The Council meets on Thursday morning about its Sudan trip -
will it exclude this aspect?
Inner
City Press
also asked:
“Please
provide
the response of UNMIS / the UN to the "The
Southern
Sudanese
Drivers and Mechanics Association... cit[ing] UNDP, UNMIS
and Kenya Commercial Bank among the organizations that continue to
employ foreigners in positions that many unemployed indiginous should
hold, rendering local drivers redundant.”
To
this, Eissa
responded:
“On
employment.
It is for other organisations to answer, but as far as
UNMIS is concerned, All national staff jobs are exclusively for
Sudanese nationals.”
While
Inner City
Press was told, while at Juba airport, that much (but not all) of the
protest of the UN was directed UNDP, the UN Development Program, and
not only at UNMIS, doesn't UNMIS have some role to speak for the UN
system, at least in South Sudan?
For
example, the UN
system's Humanitarian Coordinator and Resident Representative Georg
Charpentier is, he seemed to say in El Fasher, an employee of UNDP.
But still he purports to speak for the wider UN system. (Inner
City Press has posed these and other questions to UNDP).
Cannot a
formal spokesman like Eissa do the same?
UN's Menkerios, reclusive UNMIS chief, responsive
info not shown
UNMIS' stated mandate
includes “promoting understanding of the peace process and the role
of UNMIS by means of an effective public information campaign,
targeted at all sectors of society... promoting the rule of law,
including an independent judiciary, and the protection of human
rights of all people of Sudan” -- including, presumably, those
Sudanese protesting their exclusion from jobs of the UN system,
including UNDP.
While
the Council and media were in Sudan, UNMIS one-year chief Haile
Menkerios did not speak with the press, despite requests made to the
UN. Media based in Sudan say Menkerios rarely provides responses to
reporters. What about “promoting
understanding
of the peace process and the role
of UNMIS by means of an effective public information campaign" ?
Inner
City Press
third questions, not related to what it saw first hand in South
Sudan, was
“Please
describe
how Benjamin Mkapa, António Monteiro, Bhojraj Pokharel
and
their staff are being compensated or having their expenses paid.”
To
this factual
and financial question, UNMIS' Eissa has responded:
“The
SG's
Panel is a totally independent panel from UNMIS. It reports
directly to the Secretary-General in NY.”
The work
of
this
panel in South Sudan and Abyei until October 15 is breathlessly
reported on UNMIS' website, so Eissa's response seems too
legalistic.
Even though answers
promised by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson in New York
Martin Nesirky back on October 11 have still not been provided,
Inner
City Press is re-directing this and other questions to Nesirky. Watch
this site.
, 
