As
Congo
Enforcement
Deal Failed In
Addis, UN
Slammed for
Blind Quotes
to Embeds
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 3 --
It was a week
ago that UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
promised
framework
agreement for
"peace
enforcement"
in the Eastern
Congo failed
at the African
Union summit
in Addis
Ababa.
On
February 2 a
diplomat who
was centrally
involved in
Addis
explained to
Inner City
Press, it was
ridiculous,
they showed us
a two page
plan at the
last minute
but they told
BBC and the
wires that we
were going to
agree to it.
Well, we
didn't.
The
diplomat
constrasted
the "arrogant"
attempted
closing of the
deal by Ban
and UN
Peacekeeping
and its chief,
through
(anonymous)
quotes to the
"embedded"
media, to work
that an
official lower
down in UN
Peacekeeping,
Babacar Gaye,
did in
traveling
around Africa
prior to the
AU Summit.
"All that got
wasted," the
diplomat said.
On
January 25 Reuters
from the UN
in New York
ran a quote
that "'It is
not simply
peacekeeping,
this
is peace
enforcement.
It's a much
more robust
stance,' said
the official,
who declined
to be named."
Inner
City Press
asked on
January 26:
why did
Reuters accept
this request
for anonymity
from a UN
official on a
concept --
"peace
enforcement"
-- that not
all UN member
states,
particularly
troop
contributing
countries,
have agreed
to?
What are AFP's
policies for
allowing
anonymous
declarations
of war by the
UN, which is
ostensibly
controlled by
the member
states who now
say they were
not consulted?
Some
of the media
identified as
running the
blind quotes
from "UN
officials"
about what
would happen
in Addis
responded not
on the record
but by setting
up an
anonymous
social media
account to try
to tie the
critic to
terrorist
funding.
Of
the first 21
on the
account, at
least three
are Reuters:
the current UN
reporter and
the bureau
chief, and the
former bureau
chief. The
latter two
control the UN
Correspondents
Association
and its
affiliate.
They
also purported
and purport
not to see the
difference
between
granting
anonymity as
they did and
do to UN
officials to
announce war
plans as
opposed to
countries,
particularly
non Permanent
Five members
of the
Security
Council, to
explain why
they disagree,
while not
being
retaliated
against by the
P5 or UN.
By what right
does the UN,
ostensibly
owned and
controlled by
its 193 member
states, have
to develop and
anonymously
promote war
plans? And
where are the
corrections
for having
mis-reported
what would
happen in
Addis?
After
the UN failed
in the
Democratic
Republic of
Congo to
protect
civilians
first in Goma
then in
Minova, where
the DRC Army raped
at least 126
women in late
November 2012,
a reserve spin
war began.
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous
refused to
answer Press
questions
about the
Minova rapes,
instead taking
favored and
compliant
media out into
the hall
for a private
briefing. Video here. These media included
Reuters,
Agence
France-Presse
and Voice of
America.
In
terms of the
UN, isn't this
"inter-governmental
organization"
owned and
supposedly by
its member
states? Many
of them,
particularly
troop
contributing
countries,
have not
agreed to
Ladsous'
"peace
enforcement"
push, nor in
the C-34
committee on
peacekeeping
have they
signed off on
his proposal
to use drones.
Ladsous is now
slated to hold
a press
conference on
February 6.
One would
think these
questions
would up,
could be
raised. But
the UN (and
the above
identified
media, who
dominate the
so-called UN
Correspondents
Association)
have enabled
Ladsous to
pick and
choose which
media's
questions he
will take.
We'll have
more on this.
Watch this
site.