As
HRW Faux-Fights UN on Kosovo
Lead, It Goes Light on
Retaliation, Its Censorship Link
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS,
September 7 – Amid vague claims
of reform at the UN, even the
victims of high profile UN
malfeasance such as bringing
cholera to Haiti and abuse of
children in the Central African
Republic remain without any
remedy. The Roma in Kosovo,
poisoned by lead in a UN camp,
as well: on 19 April 2017, Inner
City Press asked the UN's still
holdover spokesman Staphane
Dujarric about it, UN
transcript here: Inner
City Press: I wanted to ask you,
the Roma that were poisoned by
lead in the UN camp, I’ve seen
your quote, but I wanted to know
more specifically, if it’s true
that the Office of Legal Affairs
(OLA) is recommending that the
delays attributable… the delay
in making some kind of a payment
or reparations to the people who
have been poisoned for so long
is being delayed by OLA not
wanting to admit liability, what
has the UN system, including the
Secretary-General, learned from
the situation of Haiti, which
many people describe as a
shameful one for the UN in which
no one has really received much
compensation and it went on for
years? What’s been learned
from that? Spokesman:
Look, I understand that people
may be interested in what is
being said behind closed
doors. There are
discussions going on between
various parts of the
house. The
Secretary-General will make a
decision in the very near future
on how to respond to this
particular case in Kosovo.
I think if you ask what we’ve
learned is that there is a need
for… I think there is a need for
continued care and compassion on
how the UN operates. Inner
City Press: What
about the speed of
decision-making? I guess,
one of the things that people
point to in Haiti is that six
years of denials, etc., so is
this… does this speed what the
UN would want to do going
forward, or is there some
desire… obviously, you’d have
to… [inaudible] Spokesman:
I think all these questions are
complicated and complex, and
they, unfortunately, take time.
Inner City Press: When is
the decision expected.
Spokesman: "As I said, very
soon." Now on September 7, Human
Rights Watch is sending its UN
lobbying to speak at the UN, not
in the UN Press Briefing Room
but rather a private club he was
a part of, on the topic. But
beyond refusing
to make any disclosure of the
issues HRW raises to the
Secretary General, there are
other issues. Even a recent HRW
report about the UN in Geneva
misses a major point about the
UN - which HRW generally likes,
its lobbyist having asked
Dujarric to throw Inner
City Press out of the UN, and
"leaked" documents to Dujarric saying
"you didn't get this from me" -
specifically, OHCHR going after
not only Inner City Press but
also the whistleblower
protection group Government
Accountability Project. After
chasing out of
the UN Anders
Kompass
who exposed
the rape of
children in
the Central
African
Republic by
French
"peacekeepers"
and Miranda
Brown, Zeid
next
retaliated
against staff
member Emma
Reilly. Inner
City Press covered
the story and
was nearly
immediately
condemned,
along with the
DC-based Government
Accountability
Project,
in a tweet
and press
releases
by Zeid's
spokesperson
Colville, who
never
responded to a
simple
question.
On February 14, Inner City Press
sent Colville questions about
OHCHR's ongoing gagging of Ms.
Reilly: "Inner City Press has a
few questions it'd like answers
to as soon as possible:
whistleblower Emma Reilly tells
us that “OHCHR now claims I
can't speak because of the staff
rule that 'in no circumstances
should [staff members] use the
media to further their own
interests, to air their own
grievances, to reveal
unauthorized information or to
attempt to influence their
organizations’ policy
decisions.' No response to my
email on how this squares with
OHCHR airing grievances against
me by falsely stating my claims
had been found to be
unsubstantiated.” Is that in
fact OHCHR's position? In terms
of OHCHR calling things
unsubstantiated, on social media
and in a press release, is OHCHR
denying that the Ambassador of
Morocco financial supported the
sale of Mr Eric Tistounet's
book?" No answer. And so this
question has arisen,
paraphrased: "about OHCHR
whistleblower Emma Reilly. When
her case leaked in February,
OHCHR issued a press release (on
February 2) confirming it gave
names as she had reported, but
claimed this was standard
practice, so she wasn't a
whistleblower. In a written
response to Human Rights Watch
of 30 August, OHCHR now claims
names are not handed over. The
next session of the Human Rights
Council starts on Monday. Which
of these contradictory positions
are true? Now that the danger of
giving these names is clear,
will OHCHR finally investigate
Eric Tistounet, who decided that
names should be given? And, as a
follow-up, can you confirm that
Emma Reilly's case is still
under consideration by the
Ethics mechanisms? It has now
been 420 days since she applied
for protection, and she remains
without relief. How does this
square with the SG's claims to
have improved whistleblower
protection?" HRW present
this as death by a thousand
cuts. It's not. It's policy, and
the rot started back in March
2013 in the Human Rights Council
Secretariat. We'll have more on
this.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2017 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
