UN
Calls Haiti
Cholera Claim
“Not
Receivable,”
O'Brien &
Ban Leaving
Town
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 21 –
More than a
year after a complaint
about introducing
cholera
into Haiti
was filed
with the UN
(video here),
on Thursday
afternoon
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
announced that
the claim was
“not
receivable.”
Inner
City Press
asked him to
explain what
the phrase
meant,
immunity or
impunity, and
why it had
taken the UN
so long. February
21 video here,
from Minute
10.
Nesirky
first
declined to
explain,
saying it is
not the UN's
practice to
discuss in
public the
details of
claims filed.
Then he cited
the
“privileges
and
immunities”
resolution
adopted by the
UN General
Assembly on
February 13,
1946.
He
said that
since
considering
the claims
would involve
reviewing
“political and
policy
matters,” the
claim was not
receivable.
Why
take more than
a year then,
Inner City
Press asked.
Nesirky
explained that
the UN had
engaged in
“serious
consideration”
for the time
necessary of
the claims in
all their
aspects.
Repeatedly
since
the claim was
filed, Inner
City Press asked for the status or for
Ban Ki-moon's
top lawyer
Patricia
O'Brien to
answer
questions. The
new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
also made this
request, that
O'Brien as an
Under
Secretary
General hold a
press
conference. It
never
happened.
Now
Patricia
O'Brien is
about to leave
the UN, to go
represent
Ireland at the
UN in Geneva.
To skeptics it
appears that
the UN waited
until now, to
get the
disturbing
decision out
of the way
before a new
UN top lawyer
comes in. They
note that Ban
Ki-moon is
about to leave
New York on a
trip.
But
how can the UN
preach “rule
of law” while
holding itself
exempt? How
can it even
try to avoid
explaining how
it exonerated
itself? Who
will hold this
UN to account?
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
Inner City
Press has also
asked the head
of UN
Peacekeeping
Herve Ladsous
what
safeguards if
any he's
implemented to
avoid
spreading
cholera
elsewhere.
Ladsous
refused to
answer,
then after FUNCA protested, on
February 6
purported to
answer
Inner City
Press on
cholera - with
no reference
to safeguards.
This continued,
this week, in
the UN Special
Committee on
Peacekeeping.
UNlawful...
From
the February
21, 2013 UN
noon briefing
transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
want to ask
you a question
about the
Haiti
announcement
you made, when
you say it is
not
receivable,
what is the
legal
argument? Was
a Standing
Claims
Commission, as
required by
the
status-of-forces
agreement,
established?
It makes it
sound like it
is a legal
determination,
but is there
going to be
some kind of a
memo? What’s
the basis?
What took so
long, and “not
receivable”
in what way?
It was
received. Is
it basically a
claim of
immunity
by the UN? Can
you say more
about what
this “not
receivable”
means?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Well,
I am not in a
position to
provide you
with any
details. It’s
not the United
Nations
practice to
discuss in
public
the details of
and the
response to
claims filed
against the
Organization.
Let me also
say I can
confirm that
we have
informed
counsel for
the claimants
that the
claims are not
receivable.
Consideration
of the claims
would
necessarily
involve a
review of
political and
policy
matters.
Accordingly,
the claims are
not
receivable,
pursuant to
Section 29 of
the Convention
on the
Privileges and
Immunities of
the United
Nations, which
was adopted by
the General
Assembly on 13
February 1946.
Just to answer
your
question about
the time
taken: we gave
serious
consideration
to the
matter, and
took the time
necessary to
properly
review the
various
claims raised
in all their
aspects.
, 
