On W.
Sahara, Ban's
UN Eyes
Building Road
Morocco Wants,
Rather Than
Stopping It,
Team Ban's
Sell-Out
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 8 --
The UN of Ban
Ki-moon, which
gave in to
Morocco's
demand to pull
out 83 members
of its MINURSO
mission in
Western Sahara
and has yet to
get most of
the returned,
is now
proposing to
given in
further,
sources
exclusively
tell Inner
City Press.
A
UN Security
Council
meeting has
been set up
for Friday,
September 9 at
3 pm. Inner
City Press
understands
that the goal
is for Ban's
UN Secretariat
to proposes
that the UN
take over the
work Morocco
unilaterally
began of
building and
asphalting a
road in the
Guerguerat
area.
Previous UN
reports, under
Kofi Annan,
expressed
concern at
this road. But
now under Ban
Ki-moon, the
UN is prepared
to propose to
do it itself.
It is akin to
Ban's UN
telling a
country, don't
do censorship
yourself --
we'll do it
for it.
Or, as
also just
happened,
giving in to
South Sudan's
Salva Kiir
exclusion of
First Vice
President Riek
Machar from
the peace
process. This
is Ban's UN.
In the
Council,
France could
be expected to
support this,
as could Spain
(whose highest
UN official Cristina
Gallach
has also
blocked
critical Press
coverage of
Western Sahara
meetings this
year, and
delayed
putting up
video even of
stakeouts that
happened.
We'll have
more on this.
Watch this
site.
On August 18,
UN deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq
told Inner
City Press
that the
Western Sahara
incursion
complained off
near
Mauritania was
only by
civilian
vehicles. Now
a memo
of UN
Peacekeeping
-- whose boss
Herve Ladsous
remains on
vacation -- to
the Security
Council admits
that these
“civilians”
were
accompanied
and supported
by armed
security
personnel of
the
Royal Moroccan
Gendarmerie.
At noon
on August 30,
Inner City
Press has UN
lead spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, who
has canceled
the noon
briefing, this
and awaits
answer, on
"UN Deputy
Spokesperson's
August 18
answer (to
Inner City
Press'
question),
saying that
only civilian
vehicles were
observed, the
basis for that
statement and
any update,
including but
not limited to
confirming a
DPKO finding
that Morocco
sent in armed
security
personnel and
equipment."
At 6:18 pm,
and published
before 6:40
pm, Dujarric
provided this
answer:
"MINURSO and
the
Secretariat
have been
strongly
engaging with
both parties
and key Member
States at
senior level,
calling for
restraint and
urging all
stakeholders
to ensure that
no action is
taken that
could lead to
the resumption
of
hostilities.
The
Secretary-General
has also
stressed the
importance for
both parties
to adhere to
their
obligations as
per the
Military
Agreement
No.1, and the
need to
respect the
letter and the
spirit of the
ceasefire
agreement of
1991, most
recently in
his statement
of 28 August
2016.
Has the
MINURSO
mission
witnessed any
military
movement on
the Moroccan
side or the
Polisario’s?
MINURSO has
deployed
additional
capability to
the area which
confirmed on
28 August that
approximately
32 armed
Frente
Polisario
military
personnel were
present in the
area of
Guerguerat,
south of the
berm, inside
the Buffer
Strip, located
in between the
Moroccan and
Mauritanian
border
posts.MINURSO
also confirmed
the presence
of
approximately
ten Royal
Moroccan
Gendarmerie
personnel in
the area.
What are the
measures the
UN mission to
the region has
taken so far
to avoid any
further
deterioration
of the
situation?
In response to
this
situation,
MINURSO has
significantly
reinforced its
monitoring
activities in
the area
through
deployment of
increased
ground and
aerial patrols
and is
conducting
extensive
liaison with
the parties in
an effort to
de-escalate
the situation
locally.
MINURSO will
convene a
Violation
Working Group
in the
immediate
future in
order to
review the
potential
violations by
both sides."
Inner City
Press' (first)
follow up question
is, When did
the UN become
aware of the
Moroccan
Gendearmes,
after telling
Inner City
Press is was
only
civilians?
On August 15,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban Ki-moon's
spokesman
Farhan Haq
about reported
Moroccan troop
movements in
Western Sahara
and got no
answer. On
August 16 Haq
returned to
say that the
UN Mission
MINURSO is
"liaising"
with both
sides. But on
August 17 when
Inner City
Press asked
what the
results of
this liaising
have been, Haq
said only that
the liaising
continues,
then walked
off. Vine
here.
On August 18,
Inner City
Press asked
again, and Haq
said only
civilian
vehicles, Vine here, UN
Transcript
here and
below.
Ten days later
this response
was criticized
in an August
28 letter to
MINURSO from
the Frente
Polisario,
stating that
“MINURSO
delayed
attempts to
deal with
these
developments,
and the
unfortunate
first report
of MINURSO
regarding
those
developments,
reflected in
the statement
of the UN
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq on
August 18th,
did nothing
but
encouraging
Morocco to go
ahead
further.” See
letter Inner
City Press is
publishing
here.
Was Ban
Ki-moon's
deputy
spokesperson
Haq's August
18 statement
the result of
MINURSO
remaining
under-staffer
and less than
full
functional, or
something more
nefarious?
Belatedly and
while on a
junket, Ban
Ki-moon issued
one
on Gabon
and this
statement -
and after
Inner City
Press was told
that the
Polisario's
military is
200 meters
from the
Moroccan Army
- a showdown
enabled by
Ban's
spokesman's
misdirection
and failure to
even follow
through and
ask about the
letter he'd
three times
been asked
about, Vine
here.
After the UN
Security
Council
meeting on the
topic on
August 26 --
the Press was
for most of
the meeting
locked out of
the stakeout,
attributable
to Spain's
Cristina
Gallach as
noted here
-- Inner City
Press asked
the Deputy
Permanent
Representative
of Malaysia,
the Security
Council
president for
August, what
had happened
in the
meeting.
She answered
away from the
UNTV
microphone
that the
Security
Council has
requested more
information.
Inner City
Press asked,
information on
what? She
mentioned al
Guergarat. Periscope video here.
The
Frente
Polisario said
it delivered a
letter to Ban
Ki-moon,
asking among
other things
for monitors,
but on August
24 when Inner
City Press
asked, Ban's
spokesman said
he had nothing
on it:
Inner City
Press: has the
Secretary-General
received a
letter from
the Polisario
Front asking
to establish
monitoring
bases in this
al
Guerguerat…?
Spokesman:
Not that I'm
aware.
Inner
City Press
exclusively
reported on
August 26 that
Western Sahara
would be
discussed in
the Security
Council, on
August 26
after
Colombia. At
the August 25
noon briefing,
Ban's Dujarric
STILL said he
had nothing on
the Polisario
letter and
request:
Inner City
Press: And the
Western Sahara
letter, did
you… can you…
Spokesman
Dujarric:
No, still no.
On August 26,
Dujarric said
he hadn't even
asked upstairs
about it, and
supended
briefings for
a week.
Inner City
Press: On
Western
Sahara, you'd
said two days
ago that
[inaudible]…
whatever, the
Mission was
liaising with
the two sides
about this
reported
incursion.
What's the
result of that
liaising?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Yeah, the
Mission
acronym you're
looking for is
MINURSO.
All the
Mission
acronyms are
starting to
blur into one,
I know.
Okay. On
this, on 16
and 17 August,
the United
Nations
Mission for
the Referendum
in Western
Sahara,
MINURSO,
deployed
ground and air
capabilities
to investigate
allegations of
violations in
the
southwestern
part of
Western Sahara
near
Mauritania.
MINURSO has
not observed
military
presence or
equipment in
the buffer
strip.
The Mission
observed what
were assessed
as civilian
vehicles
moving across
the berm but
was not able
to determine
additional
information.
MINURSO
continues its
liaison with
both parties
in order to
ascertain the
facts with
regards to the
alleged
incident.
MINURSO has
been in touch
with the
Polisario
[Front] to
share the
preliminary
findings of
its
investigation.
"En el
contexto de la
crisis
diplomática
que enfrenta a
Marruecos con
Naciones
Unidas, a raíz
de la
expulsión del
componente
político-civil
de la Misión
de Naciones
Unidas para el
Referéndum del
Sáhara
Occidental
(MINURSO), y
habiendo
ordenado el
Consejo de
Seguridad en
su resolución
de 28 de abril
de 2016 el
retorno al
pleno
funcionamiento
de la citada
Misión, sin
que hasta la
fecha se haya
cumplido este
mandato,
Marruecos
llevó a cabo
una nueva
violación del
Acuerdo de
Alto el Fuego
firmado con el
Frente
Polisario y
que está en
vigor desde el
6 de
septiembre de
1991.
Durante los
últimos años,
asistimos
atónitos a
una, cada vez
mayor, dejadez
de funciones
por parte de
la ONU y su
Consejo de
Seguridad, en
lo que, a la
resolución del
Conflicto del
Sahara
Occidental se
refiere; y es
que, Marruecos
viene año tras
año retando y
haciendo
efectivas sus
amenazas de
menoscabo de
la paz y
seguridad
internacionales,
mediante actos
y
manifestaciones
de sus Altos
Cargos,
desafiando a
la Comunidad
Internacional
y al propio
Consejo de
Seguridad,
ante quienes
se siente
impune. La
política
anexionista de
Marruecos,
además de las
constantes
provocaciones
y amenazas a
la paz
internacionales,
está
centrándose
cada vez más
en el traslado
masivo de
colonos al
territorio,
ejerciendo una
presión y
conflictos con
la población
autóctona que
se está
traduciendo en
un aumento de
la
delincuencia y
los
asesinatos,
amparados por
las fuerzas de
ocupación
marroquíes
sobre la
población
saharaui.
La expulsión
del personal
político-civil
de la MINURSO
el pasado mes
de marzo
acompañada de
la tibia
reacción del
Consejo de
Seguridad, los
continuos
saqueo y
expolio de
recursos
naturales del
pueblo
saharaui, la
intransigencia
en la búsqueda
de una
solución
dialogada de
conformidad
con el Derecho
Internacional,
las
sistemáticas
violaciones de
los Derechos
Humanos, la
persecución y
asesinatos
selectivos que
sufren
ciudadanos
saharauis en
las zonas
ocupadas, así
como el estado
de apartheid
creado por
Marruecos en
las zonas que
ocupa
ilegalmente
desde 1975,
están
generando un
clima de
crispación y
tensión de
consecuencias
inimaginables.
A todo lo
expuesto se
suma la
flagrante
violación del
Acuerdo
Militar Nº 1
del Acuerdo de
Alto el fuego
de 1991, que
establecía la
prohibición de
movilización
de tropas y el
traspaso de
estas al otro
lado del Muro.
El pasado 11
de agosto en
la región de
Bir Ganduz, un
convoy de las
Fuerzas
Armadas Reales
de Marruecos
fue movilizado
de su puesto
cruzando al
otro lado del
Muro por el
paso de
Gargarat, una
zona bajo
control de la
MINURSO; este
hecho es una
muestra más,
del ánimo de
provocación
del Reino de
Marruecos, que
ante los
silencios y la
permisividad
de la
Comunidad
Internacional,
se siente
impune para
violar los
pactos y
acuerdos que
rigen su
relación con
el Frente
Polisario.
El Secretario
General del
Frente
Polisario hizo
llegar una
protesta
formal, por
estos hechos
al Secretario
General de las
Naciones
Unidas y al
Consejo de
Seguridad
confiando en
que se tomen
las medidas
oportunas, a
la mayor
brevedad, para
reducir el
aumento de la
tensión que
vive la
región, así
como, evitar
que esta
parte,
utilizando su
legítimo
derecho a la
defensa
reanude la
lucha armada,
para
salvaguarda de
los intereses
del Pueblo del
Sahara
Occidental."
On August 15,
with US-based
multi-national
McDonald's
blithely set
to open a
branch in El
Ayun, it was
reported that
Moroccan
forces have
entered the
zone of
Guerguerat
a/k/a
“Kandahar,”
Oued
Ed-Dahab-Lagouira
crossing in
the south of
Western Sahara
strip, north
of the
peninsula of
La Guera and
in the border
with
Mauritania.
Inner City
Press asked
the UN about
it on August
15, without
answer. Vine
here: on
August 16, UN
spokesman
Farhan Haq
returned with
this:
"the UN
Mission in
Western
Sahara,
MINURSO, has
seen reports
of alleged
violations in
the
southwestern
part of
Western Sahara
near
Mauritania.
The Mission is
liaising with
both parties
in order to
ascertain the
facts and will
deploy its
capabilities,
if it is so
required, as
per its
mandate."
So what
about the
"full
functionality"
the UN
Secretariat
and Ladsous
claim is there
goal? Inner
City Press is
told the UN is
claiming that
the non-return
of some to
Western Sahara
is due to the
staff's
incompetence,
not Ban
Ki-moon
backing down
to Morocco in
order to try
to put out
another fire
as he prepares
to try to run
for South
Korean
president.
We'll have
more on this.
The
POLISARIO
Front has
written,
including to
envoy
Christopher
Ross, USg Jeff
Feltman and
Herve Ladsous
(good luck
with the
last):
"For your
information
URGENT
Morocco
military
forces have
committed ,
starting on
August 11, a
serious and
dangerous
violation of
the cease fire
in the region
known by
Elgargarat, in
the extreme
southwest of
Western Sahara
borders with
Mauritania.
Armored tanks
with air force
protection
crossed the
military berm
in the
direction of
Elgargarat,
located at few
kms from
Western Sahara
borders with
Mauritania and
destroyed or
siezed
material and
cars belonging
to Saharawi
civilians.
Credible
reports
indicate that
the final
objective is
the extension
in the coming
weeks of the
military berm
so as to
connect it to
the
Mauritanian
borders, which
will require a
lot of of
construction
equipment and
a heavy
engagement of
military
forces.
The Frente
Polisario
forces will be
forced, in
that scenario,
to take the
appropriate
measures since
it will be
considered a
clear
violation of
the cease
fire.
The F.
Polisario
Secretary
General has
sent an urgent
letter to the
UNSG and
Minurso high
representatives
have ben
informed on
these
dangerous
developments.
After the
expulsion of
Minurso
Personnel by
Morocco and
its
obstruction to
Ambassador
Ross planned
visit to the
region , the
F. Polisario
believes that
this new
degree of
provocation to
the peace
process
constitutes a
direct
challenge to
the UNSC which
must take the
necessary
measures to
avoid the
worst.
With my
highest
considerations
Ahmed
Boukhari"
The area
is ostensibly
under the
control of the
UN mission
MINURSO,
compromised by
Ban Ki-moon --
who remains
silent, as he
is on attacks
on Yemen. On
August 15,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq, Beyond the Vine here, UN transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: I
wanted to ask
you about in
Western
Sahara, just
if you have
anything on
this.
There are
reports of… of
troop movement
by Moroccan
troops in an
area in which
supposedly
MINURSO
[United
Nations
Mission for
the Referendum
in Western
Sahara] is in
control.
I wanted to
know if you
have anything
on that, and
also if you
have any
answer now to
the letter
that was
written by the
staff unions
about the
failure to
return staff
to MINURSO and
their
impression
that they're
being
politically
traded away.
Deputy
Spokesman:
The process of
returning
staff to
MINURSO
continues to
be under
way.
Like we said
at the time
when the first
25 were going
back that that
was intended
to be the
start of a
process of
returns.
So, that is
continuing.
And we're
working in
this in as
thoroughgoing
a manner as
possible.
So, no
answer on the
troop
movements,
asked about at
the noon
briefing.
MINURSO staff
through their
unions have complained
to UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon and UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous, as
well as Atul
Khare, about
political
pressure being
applied to
them by the
UN, about
bias,
discrimination
and lack of
due process.
This has
become a
hallmark of
the UN of Ban
Ki-moon and
his officials
like Spain's
Cristina
Gallach, here.
The letter,
which Inner
City Press exclusively
published here,
says Ban's UN
has been
making
“political
concessions”
and violating
applicable
rules. It
cites a
message from
the Mission
never followed
through on,
and calls for
the Security
Council to
belatedly be
informed how
few staff have
been returned.
Given
that, why are
“vacancies” to
be advertised?
What deal has
Ban Ki-moon,
and/or
Ladsous, cut
with Morocco?
For now, the
UN is not
saying. On
August 5 Inner
City Press
asked, video
here,UN transcript
here:
Inner City
Press: In
Western
Sahara,
there's a
letter that
I've seen from
a staff union,
UNISUR and
another union,
basically
saying that
the staff that
are supposed
to be returned
have received
a letter that
makes them
doubt that
they'll
actually be
returned, and
the letter
from the staff
union to the
Secretary-General
and Mr.
[Hervé]
Ladsous talks
about
political
compromises
and urges a
compliance
with UN rules
in terms of
how the staff
are… are
treated.
Can you
confirm
receipt of the
letter?
And what is
the response
of the
Secretariat to
the staff
union, saying
that basically
the rights of
staff under
the rules are
being traded
away from
political
convenience?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Well, we're…
certainly, we
are aware of
the
letter.
I don't have
any response
to share with
you at this
point. I
believe that
that will be
considered.
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.
, 
