In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, CJR Letter PFT Q&A, NY Post

UN GATE, Sept 24 – The UN's introduction of cholera into Haiti, killing tens of thousands of Haitians and injuring a million more, has arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court. A cert petition filed this summer states, first on the facts then on the the law - and now an amicus brief on UN impunity, see below -- that

"the United Nations spread cholera throughout Haiti by taking 1,075 peacekeepers from Nepal (where cholera was rampant) and deploying them to Haiti, a nation that had not seen a case of cholera in more than 100 years. App. 11. The UN never tested its Nepalese peacekeepers for the presence of the disease and constructed inadequate sewage facilities on a tributary of a major river used for bathing, cooking and drinking water. Cholera spread quickly. It is estimated that  8 10,000 people died and approximately 1 million were sickened as a result of the UN’s actions."

  Now on September 24 during the UNGA high level week Antonio Guterres has banned Inner City Press from amid its questions on this and other UN scandals, Guterres issued this Haiti read out, no mention of UN cholera: "The Secretary-General met with H.E. Mr. Bocchit Edmond, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of Haiti. The Secretary-General and the Minister discussed developments in the country and the ongoing transition to the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti.     The Secretary-General assured the Minister of the continued support of the United Nations to Haiti.     New York, 24 September 2019." Support like killing 10,000 people then not paying a cent? What a fraud. We'll have more on this.

   Twice now in writing, Inner City Press banned from even entering the UN by UNSG Antonio Guterres amid its questions about UN corruption has in writing asked his spokesmen Stephane Dujarric and Farhan Haq: "On UN impunity and having brought cholera to Haiti, what is the SG's comment and action for UN accountability, if any, now that a cert petition has been filed to put the UN's impunity in Haiti before the U.S. Supreme Court?." Days have passed; no answers.

  On the law the cert petition states:

"Throughout this case, Petitioners believe there has been a reflexive reaction on the part of governments, the courts, and others to pre-judge—to decide, without proper consideration, that the UN is immune, despite the Organization’s own express agreement to be liable and acceptance of responsibility for the damages it has wrought. As a result, there has never been a hearing in open court to consider the issues at the heart of this case, and arguments by Petitioners as to the nonexistence of UN standing claims commissions—or any other binding forum for the adjudication of claims—have been ignored by both the district court and the Second Circuit. Put simply, it has never been explained to the Petitioners by any court how the UN can assume a liability that is enforceable nowhere."

  An amicus brief just filed from Geneva states, "United States Courts denied not only the Petitioners’ fundamental right to access redress in courts, but that of other victims of wrongdoing or negligence committed by international organizations, as are highlighted in the argument section of this brief. This denial is in direct conflict with Constitutional principles of Strict Scrutiny. Federal Courts have been abridging rights of Petitioners in the most broadly tailored way possible: absolute denial of redress.  Notably in Jam v. International Finance Corp., 860 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2017), the D.C. Circuit held the International Finance Corporation (“IFC”), head- quartered in Washington, D.C., was immune from civil liability in a case arising out of an IFC-funded project. In Jam, the D.C. Circuit struggled to deter- mine the exact extent of IFC immunity. This Court ultimately held that IFC’s immunity was restrictive rather than absolute, like that enjoyed by sovereign states under the Foreign Sovereignties Immunity Act of 1976. IFC immunity comes from the International Organization Immunity Act of 1945,4 but the UN’s immunity is afforded by the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities, ratified by the U.S. in 1972. Here the outcome for Petitioners is the same: they are denied access to redress in United States Courts. In any case, the source of the immunity is irrelevant here. Such immunity is unconstitutional whether granted by Congressional act or a ratified treaty. We urge this Court is to hear the present appeal completing the work started in Jam, finally settling the extent and validity of immunities asserted by all international organizations operating or domiciled within the United States."

  Inner City Press, now daily covering the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York while banned from any entry into the UN by Guterres, will be in writing asking the UN about this cert petition, on which amici are soon to be heard from. Watch this site, @InnerCityPress and now @SDNYLIVE.

  This is also a project for the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info. Watch these sites and feeds.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for