From
W. Sahara, ICP
Publishes
Morocco Ouster
Letter, List
of 84 UN Staff
By Matthew
Russell Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 2 --
The spokesman
for UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon,
Stephane
Dujarric, on
July 14 told
the press that
the “first
group of 25
MINURSO
personnel,
first batch,
of the
returning
landed in
Layun
yesterday.”
But,
Inner City
Press was
exclusively
informed by
sources, that
was false.
Confirmed
below.
In full
disclosure,
Inner City
Press did
attend,
invited,
Morocco's
Throne Day
event at the
Waldorf on
August 1,
Periscoping
before, during
and after. (Spain's
highest UN
official
Cristina
Gallach,
who evicted
Inner City
Press, was
also in
attendance,
right to the
end.) But the
lack of a
reversal
letter, and
the contents
of Morocco's
list of 84,
call for more
questions.
Watch this
site.
On July 26
after the
Security
Council's
closed-door
meeting on
Western
Sahara,
Morocco's
Ambassador
Omar Hilale in
speaking to
the press
referred to a
“package”
negotiated
with Ban
Ki-moon's UN
Secretariat.
Inner City
Press asked
Hilale who in
the
Secretariat
negotiated
this package,
but Hilale
would not
answer that. Video here.
On July
28, Inner City
Press asked
Uruguay's
Ambassador
Elbio Rosselli
if this
"package" had
been
discussed, and
he said no. Video here. Inner City Press
asked Ban
Ki-moon deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq,
who denied
there is a
package (he
denies many
things.)
Inner City
Press
understands
the next
tranches to
return are 17
and six and
that according
to some in
Ban's
Secretariat,
some (secret?)
commitments
HAVE been made
to Morocco, to
get Ban out of
this jam as he
seeks
to run for
President of
South Korea.
On July 27,
Inner City
Press asked UK
Ambassador
Matthew
Rycroft if
this “package”
had been
discussed in
the Council
consultations.
No, he said,
what was
discussed was
the return of
MINURSO
personnel and
full
functionality.
Video
here.
So who DID
negotiate the
package Hilale
is referring
to? And why
was it not
discussed in
the Council
when Herve
Ladsous spoke?
On July 26
Inner City
Press asked
the Council's
president for
July Koro
Bessho of
Japan if UN
Peacekeeping's
Herve Ladsous
had given any
indication
when more than
25 of the 83
expelled
peacekeepers
would return.
Bessho
said that with
25, the
MINURSO
mission has
not reached
the goal of
full
functionality.
Moments
later Inner
City Press
asked
Morocco's
Ambassador
Omar Hilale
about this
quote. He
replied that
Inner City
Press always
seeks to cast
doubt on
Morocco; he
said that a
“package” has
been agreed to
with the UN
Secretariat
that is a
two-way
street.
So what
has Ban
Ki-moon's
Secretariat
agreed to?
Hilale
wouldn't say.
He said he
will be giving
Inner City
Press a copy
of a letter
showing 28
heads of state
inviting
Morocco into
the African
Union. And here
it is: we are
putting it
online
here
On July 26,
Inner City
Press asked UK
Ambassador
Matthew
Rycroft if 25,
or 50, would
be enough. Video here. From the UK
transcript:
Rycroft: from
what I hear, I
think it's
well on the
way to getting
back to full
functionality.
So, we're
looking
forward, and
seeing that
this is an
issue which is
resolving
itself.
Inner City
Press Q: Now
it's 25. Would
50 be enough?
Rycroft: I'm
not going to
put a number
on it. I'm
just going to
say that I
think we are
moving well
towards full
functionality.
I think the
issues that
have bedeviled
the UN
presence there
are behind
us.
Then Inner
City Press
tried to asked
French
Ambassador
Francois
Delattre about
what
POLISARIO's
representative
Ahmed Boukhari
had said on
the record on
July 25, that
France is
trying for a
UN Security
Council
statement
“congratulating”
Morocco for 25
of the 83 it
expelled.
Inner City
Press asked,
trying to make
it as easy as
possible for
Delattre to
answer, “Vous
voulez
felicitez el
Maroc?” Video
here.
Delattre
congratulated
Inner City
Press' French,
but did not
answer, saying
he would come
out of the
Council later.
But when he
did, after he
read out
statements in
French about
Central
African
Republic and
Inner City
Press said,
“one question
on Western
Sahara?”
Delattre said
no, no more
questions.
Then answered
more. Periscope
video here.
Watch this
site.
On July 25 On
the eve of the
UN Security
Council's
meeting about
Western
Sahara,
POLISARIO's
representative
Ahmed Boukhari
told reporters
that France is
trying to get
a statement
congratulating
Morocco for
letting back
in 25 over the
more than 80
members of the
MINURSO
peacekeeping
mission it
expelled. He
called this,
repeatedly, a
“joke.”
Inner City
Press asked
Boukhari if he
could imagine
Council
members
Venezuela or
Uruguay or
others
agreeing to
such language.
He said no.
Inner City
Press asked if
he would
imagine France
or Senegal
agreeing to
“regret” that
those expelled
have not
returned. Not
that either.
So will
there simply
by no Security
Council
statement or
even Elements
to the Press
after the July
26 meeting?
Boukhari said
that “someone”
had been
trying to play
for time and
delay. As he
answered
questions, a
spokesman of
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous, the
fourth
Frenchman in a
row to hold
that post,
floated by,
smiling,
followed by
HRW's new UN
rep. We'll
have more on
this.
The sources
told Inner
City Press,
after seeing
Dujaric's
claim, that:
“Returns to
Laayoune: 4
staff returned
on wednesday
13 july 2016;
3 staff
returned on
thursday 14
july 2016; 5
staff shall
return on
friday 15 july
2016. The
balance of 13
staff are
awaiting their
travel
confirmations.”
So why
did Dujarric
misspeak or
mislead? We
wrote that
we'd be asking
- and hoped
Dujarric
wouldn't run
from the
podium amid
Press
questions as
he did on July
14, video
here.
After Dujarric
said 25 staff
were back at
the July 14
noon briefing
- false - he
did not appear
for or at the
July 15
briefing.
Inner City
Press asked
his deputy
Farhan Haq
about the
misstatement,
UN
Transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: I
wanted to ask
about Western
Sahara.
Yesterday,
Stéphane
[Dujarric] had
said that the
first group of
25 MINURSO
[United
Nations
Mission for
the Referendum
in Western
Sahara]
personnel
landed in
Laayoune
yesterday…
Deputy
Spokesman:
That’s not…
Inner City
Press:
That is what
he said.
Deputy
Spokesman:
It may have
been a little
bit garbled as
he was trying
to express it,
but the first
batch of 25
people is
arriving over
the coming
days.
But, that
batch will be
there within
the coming
days, but they
haven't all
arrived in one
go.
Inner City
Press:
I'm told only
seven were
there when he
said it?
Deputy
Spokesman:
No. I
believe there
has been about
four or five
each day but
as of now,
right now, the
number is at
12.
Inner City
Press:
Given the
unclarity, I'm
asking you to
confirm as
follows that
on Wednesday,
13 July, four
arrived, that
on Thursda, 14
July, three
arrived, that
five were
supposed to
arrive today
and 13 are
still awaiting
travel
confirmation.
Because people
that know
about this saw
what he said
and contacted
Inner City
Press and said
it's false,
it's false
information?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Well, he had
guidance, but
I think as it
came out of
his mouth, it
was garbled a
little bit,
but he was
saying that
the first
batch of 25 is
arriving.
But it didn't
arrive…
Inner City
Press:
But, why
didn't he then
send an e-mail
around because
people
reported it?
Deputy
Spokesman:
No, when
reporters
approached us,
we tried to
give them the
correct
figures.
Inner City
Press:
I'm interested
in this and I
didn't
approach him
because he ran
out of the
room.
Deputy
Spokesman:
In the first…
that's between
you and him.
Inner City
Press:
Why don't you
send an e-mail
to the press
when you say
something
false from the
podium?
That’s my
question.
Deputy
Spokesman:
It wasn't
false.
They are
arriving in
the coming
days, but in
terms out of
how much
arrived the
first day,
yes, it is
four; and as
of now the
number is 12;
and we will
get further
groups
arriving in
basically
threes and
fours in the
coming days,
up until the
first tranche
is completed
and that will
be a tranche
of 25, which
is what he
said
Well, no, as
the video
shows. On
another
question Haq
wouldn't even
commit to
answering by
email, saying
he might not
have time for
an email and
might leave it
until the next
briefing. But
even by that
retaliatory
logic, note
that Haq did
NOT in his
opening to the
July 15
briefing
correct
Dujarric's
July 14
misstatement
on Western
Sahara. This
is Ban's UN.
When the UN
Security
Council voted
on a draft
resolution
on Western
Sahara on
April 29,
there were two
no votes -
Venezuela and
Uruguay - and
three
abstentions:
Angola, Russia
and New
Zealand. Then
the UN buried
Polisario's
Q&A with
the Press, and
when Pressed
said, "It is
what it is."
Criticized
outside the
Council was
France's (and
Spain's)
role, seeking
to delay even
reporting on
MINURSO for 90
days -- so as
to impact the
selection of
Next Secretary
General, some
say.
Here is an
article in Spanish
on some of the
process at the
UN; here
is the New
York Times of
May 14 about
the related
eviction. UN
Under
Secretary
General
Cristina
Gallach has
told UN
Special
Rapporteurs
the eviction
was for an
incident or
even
"altercation"
in the UN
Press Briefing
Room. The
video shows
there was no
altercation,
but Gallach
has yet to
answer or be
reversed.
Now there is
UN video, with
the camera
controlled by
Gallach's DPI
and pointedly
NOT showing a
disruption in
the room which
tried to stop
the Polisario
representative
who had been
given the
floor from
speaking.
Instead of, as
would be
natural
anywhere in
the free
world, turning
the camera to
film the
source of the
disruption,
the UNTV
camera focuses
more closely
on the
Polisario
representative,
to downplay
the
disruption. Video
here from
Minute 27:52.
Today's UN and
DPI not only
selectively
use "rules,"
some of which
are not
available on
the Internet,
nor on the
UN's iSeek
intranet nor
even through
its Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit - it
controls what
is shown, and
restricts more
independent
views with
minders.
Inner City
Press:
There's been a
two-week-long
meeting of the
Decolonization
Committee with
some
controversy
surrounding
it. One
of the
controversies
that existed
was when the
chairperson
ordered the
meeting to be
adjourned
because the
Polisario
representative
couldn't
speak, and the
representative
of Morocco
said this is a
shame… 50
years, it
violates all
precedence.
My
understanding
is that
security was
called.
I wanted to
know,
obviously,
this is a
building owned
by Member
States, but
what's the
protocol… what
are the rights
of UN security
as regards to
a permanent
representative
of a country
in terms of a
meeting being
declared
closed and a
person not
leaving?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Ultimately,
the rules for
meetings are
set by the
Member States
that share
those
meetings.
They're the
ones who
organized the
meetings, and
they're
responsible
for the rules.
Inner City
Press:
But, what
would be the
repercussions
of a permanent
representative
of a UN Member
State not
obeying such
an order?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Ultimately, we
have a
relationship
with our
Member States
which depends
upon a certain
amount of
adherence to
the
rules.
The Member
States
themselves
agree to the
rules, and it
applies to all
of them
equally.
Inner City
Press:
Right, but
what happens
if it's
violated, I
guess, is what
I'm asking
you.
Deputy
Spokesman:
I really don't
want to engage
in it as a
hypothetical.
It's something
that is dealt
with case by
case
Here is a
non-UNTV, that
is, non-DPI, video of a stand off in another UN
room,
where the
Chairperson of
the
Decolonization
Committee
asked
non-members of
the Committee
to leave the
room and the
Ambassador of
Morocco
refused,
saying "Shame,
Shame."
Gallach will
in this case
not do any
eviction,
surely. But
why did she in
the first
case, on Inner
City Press?
We'll have
more on this.
On June 17 as
Inner City
Press was
confined to UN
minders to
cover the
General
Assembly
meeting voting
on the budget
of, among
other things,
MINURSO, Inner
City Press was
told and
Tweeted
that Morocco
had tried to
speak over
Polisario.
Now, this
video.
And this -
what was
described as
"positive
momentum"
would be a
mere 25
returned from
over 80 thrown
out. But Ban
Ki-moon is
trying to
avoid being
further
tainted, so he
gave in to
Saudi Arabia,
evicted Press
to not cover
the
Secretariat's
role in the Ng
Lap Seng
scandal, some
say, and now
might accept
the sell out
of MINURSO,
just to visit
Morocco in
November
before more
formal launch
(of campaign)
in January.
On June 16
Inner City
Press asked
French
Ambassador
Francois
Delattre,
President of
the Security
Council
Inner City
Press: On
Western
Sahara, the
Any Other
Business
agenda item,
what do you
think?
Delattre :
Well it’s a
bit early,
because it’s a
bit later in
the afternoon
and we have
many other
issues to
discuss until
then. But,
regarding
Western Sahara
we hope we
have come to a
positive
momentum. It
remains to be
confirmed,
it’s up to the
SG to say, but
that’s what
you asked me
so I am
telling you
what I think.
I think we are
about to
confirm a
positive
momentum.
Merci.
Later on June
16, sources
told Inner
City Press the
UN's Herve
Ladsous is
holding this
proposal which
France
describes as
positive.
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, who
cut off
another Inner
City Press
question and
did not
provide a
substantive
answer to this
one, except to
say that Ban
is always well
informed as he
travels.
The Press was
effectively
BANned from
covering the
stakeout
outside the
Western Sahara
meeting of the
Security
Council: the
glass door was
locked, Ban's
Dujarric saw
it and did
nothing. Inner
City Press,
evicted by
Ban's USG
Gallach, has a
reduced pass
which does not
open the
turnstile.
But when the
Western Sahara
meeting broke
up, Council
member Rafael
Ramirez of
Venezuela told
Inner City
Press the
meeting was
not useful,
Ladsous
refused to
provide
information.
Inner City
Press asks if
Ladsous shares
the
information
with his
native France,
leading to the
"positive
momentum"
comment. We'll
have more on
this.
On June 10,
Inner City
Press was
BANned from
attending a
briefing on
Western Sahara
inside the UN,
despite being
invited to it.
The UN has in
2016 confined
Inner City
Press to
minders or
“escorts;” Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric told
the New York
Times, about
Inner City
Press, that
“if he has an
issue, there
is a staff of
media liaisons
to help him
resolve the
problem and
get where he
needs to go.”
That,
like much
else, was not
true. Inner
City Press
went to the
Liaisons,
showed the
email
invitation -
and was told,
we never
escort people
there.
Ultimately
Inner City
Press was
unable to
attend the
briefing,
which before
the pretextual
ouster and
eviction it
would have
been able to.
Dujarric
called on an
attendee first
at the day's
noon briefing,
who asked the
questions
raised by the
briefing. This
is how it
works, or
doesn't at the
UN.
Inner City
Press had
already
reported the
UNexplained
involvement of
another Under
Secretary
General in the
MINURSO
process -- he
was named at
the June 10
briefing,
Jamal Benomar;
the technical
team sent
there is to
return to New
York next
week. Ban
Ki-moon's
capitulation
to Saudi
Arabia puts
all this in a
new light -
the outright
censorship not
UNrelated.
On May 18,
Inner City
Press asked UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, UN transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: I
wanted to know
if you have
any update not
only of the
talks between
the
Secretariat
and Morocco
but also of
just the
current status
of the UN
Mission for
the Referendum
in Western
Sahara
(MINURSO).
I've heard
that Kim
Bolduc
essentially
has no staff
at all, that
there's a
person who's
an air traffic
controller who
is doubling as
her kind of
factotum.
Is that… how
would you
characterize
the current
staff levels
and what Ms.
Bolduc
actually does
day to day.
Spokesman:
She is there
as a Special
Representative
of the
Secretary-General
and continues
to work and
lead the
mission.
Obviously, the
civilian
staffing
continue… has
not changed,
and the
mission is not
able to fulfil
its mandate as
it was
designed.
The… the work
continues, and
we will report
back to the
Security
Council as
mandated by
the last
resolution.
On
April 29 even
while Uruguay
spoke in the
Security
Council, UN
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
started up
“his” noon
briefing
(which ended
with a
profanity
directed at
Inner City
Press, sound
later edited
out or
censored on
UNTV).
After that,
finding
Morocco's Omar
Hilale at the
stakeout,
Inner City
Press asked
him to whom
his King
referred, in
criticizing UN
officers: only
Christopher
Ross? Or USg
Jeff Feltman
too? Hilale
said he would
not criticize
by name.
At 3 pm there
was another
UNTV stakeout.
Inner City
Press asked if
Polisario
could speak.
When the
representative
of Polisario
took to the
microphone to
read a
statement (Tweeted
photo of
statement here)
a UN Security
guard came
over, and the
feed and sound
went dark.
More
correspondents
came, and the
sound went up
again. Inner
City Press for
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access
asked, You
have a right
to speak here,
right? Yes,
was the
answer.
(On May
2, a UN
Security guard
told Inner
City Press in
front of the
ECOSOC Chamber
where Ban
Ki-moon spoke,
You have no
right to be
here; Inner
City Press was
then told it
could not ask
questions of
diplomats.
This is
today's UN.)
But the
resulting
video was not
put on the
UN's website.
So on May 2
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, video here, UN
transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: for a
time the sound
and picture
went out but
then it came
back up, which
seemed to be
appropriate.
But I'm
noticing now
in terms of
the archive
version, it's
not up.
What is the
UN's position,
you say he has
every right to
be in the
building, if
he is, in
fact, invited
and
accompanied by
the Permanent
Representative
of a Member
State, why is
the video of
his stakeout
not on the UN
archives?
Can you find
out?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
We can check
with DPI
(Department of
Public
Information).
But by
noon on May 3,
nothing. So
Inner City
Press asked
again, UN
transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: on this
World Press
Freedom Day
theme, since
you're saying
that all of
these things
are just small
examples or
personal
examples, I
had asked you
yesterday
about the fact
that the… the…
the stakeout
by the
representative
of Polisario
was not put on
the UN's
website.
You said you
could… we
could check
with
DPI. It
wasn't clear
to me who the
"we" was, but
I want to ask
you, because I
have gone back
and checked
and in 2012
when the same
representative
spoke, the
archive did go
up. It
seems like…
what's the
trend
here?
What is the
reason why a
taped, several
minutes long
Q&A with
Polisario's
representative
was not put on
the UN's
website?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I think… this
issue… we're
trying to work
through this
issue.
Inner City
Press:
Meaning what?
Somebody's
lobbying to
not put it up?
Spokesman:
I'll leave it
at that.
Inner City
Press:
Okay.
But you will
finally
announce why…
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I will leave
it at that.
On May
4, Inner City
Press asked
yet again -
and while
Dujarric said
it was
archived, as
it turns out
is was added
to the tail
end of the
Algerian
stakeout -
Dujarric
hasn't yet
answers if
that was
(Gallach's)
compromise. UN transcript:
Inner City
Press: On this
question of
Polisario, I
wanted to ask,
I have been
asking a
couple times
but I have
kind of a new…
the question
of the
stakeout that
was recorded
but was
temporarily
stopped, then
began again,
not going into
archives, the
Turkish
Cypriot
community that
you mentioned,
their’s always
go up.
Yesterday MSF
and ICRC,
which are not
Member States…
Spokesman
Dujarric:
It's archived.
Inner City
Press:
It's archived
now,
great.
Can you
explain what
the delay was?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
No.
Inner City
Press:
You won't?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
I don't.
Before
Dujarric
finished "his"
briefing,
Inner City
Press found
that searching
UN Webcast for
Polisario
would not find
the clip - was
was merely
appended to
Algeria,
though it was
a separate
stakeout. Was
this Gallach's
compromise?
Inner City
Press audibly
asked - but
Dujarric did
not answer,
and it was
then not
in the
transcript.
So on
May 6, Inner
City Press
asked again,
UN transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: you
said that the
stakeout of
the
representative
Polisario
[Front] was,
in fact, added
three days
late to the
UN's
website.
But, it was
added sort of
as the tail
end in the
Algerian
Permanent
Representative's
presentation.
And I wonder,
given that
there was a
gap between
the two and
given that
usually when
that's done…
was this a
compromise
reached after
some lobbying?
How was that
reached?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
It is what it
is, as we say.
Yeah -
UN censorship
under Ban
Ki-moon, "it
is what it
is," from
burying this
to evicting
the Press, video here.
Meanwhile
DPI chief
Cristina
Gallach,
Spain's
highest UN
official and
responsible
for UNTV, has
ousted and
evicted Inner
City Press,
and now mulls
handing its
long time
office to
French or
Morocco media.
As is
happens, when
Polisario
spoke on UNTV
in 2012,
before
Gallach's
tenure, it DID
go into UN
archives, here.
This is
censorship and
the decay and
of the UN.
We'll have
more on this.