By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Follow up on
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
June 30 --
Four days ago,
Inner City
Press reported
Rwanda
complained to
the UN
Security
Council that
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous and
his MONUSCO
mission flew
FDLR leader
Gaston
Iyamuremye /
Rumuli Michel
on UN aircraft
even as
Ladsous'
travel waiver
request was
denied.
And so on June
27 Inner City
Press asked UN
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric a
simple factual
question: did
MONUSCO fly
Rumuli around
inside the DRC
before any
Security
Council
decision on
Ladsous'
request?
This is a yes
or no
question,
about the use
of UN
resources and
money. But
Dujarric did
not answer it
on June 27,
and MONUSCO
chief Martin
Kobler did not
answer it on
June 28 or
June 29.
So on June 30
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric
again. He
said, as he
increasingly
does, if he
gets something
on that, he'll
pass it along.
But that is UNacceptable.
Did he even ASK
Ladsous' UN
Peacekeeping?
Dujarric sat
next to Ladsous
on May 29
while Ladsous
said, "You
know I do not
respond to
you, Mister" -
and said nothing.
Video here.
When asked
later if this
was acceptable
in Ban's UN,
he did not say
no. There is
more for we'll
leave it here
for now.
It is
undoubtedly
newsworthy
that the UN,
or really
France, chose
to put at the
helm of UN
Peacekeeping
in the Great
Lakes a person
who in 1994,
in the
Security
Council,
argued for the
escape of genocidiares
from Rwanda
into Eastern
Congo. Inner
City Press story
here; sample
1994 memo by
Ladsous here.
Ladsous'
history has
caused
needless
problems; when
asked about
it, rather
than answering
Ladsous has
adopted a
policy of
refusing that
and any
related
question.
Video
compilation
here.
Now in the
Congo Martin
Kobler, who
works for
Ladsous, has not
answered the
simple
question of
flying Rumuli
inside the
DRC; instead
MONUSCO tweets
photos of
Kobler singing
in a choir in
Kinshasa.
Ladsous has
turned the UN
into a joke --
and it keeps
getting worse.
That the
French
government is
in denial
about its role
in 1994 in the
Rwanda
genocide is
one thing. But
why aren't
they told they
have to
appoint a
chief of DPKO
- a position
they claim to
own - without
this
pernicious
baggage?
A bare
minimum:
shouldn't this
official at
least have to
answer
questions?
, 
