By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 1 --
UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous has
arrived Sunday
in the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo, just
as the drone
he pushed for
at the UN in
New York is
set to launch
as a spy-eye
in the sky
over the
borders of
Eastern Congo.
Friday afternoon
in New York,
Ladsous was
asked by the
Press about
his
peacekeepers
role in Kidal,
Mali urging
the dispersal
of protesters
who then were
shot by the
Malian army.
Ladsous
refused to
answer, as has
been his pattern.
Video
here, UK
coverage here.
Nor in the 48
hours since
has any
information
been forthcoming
from the UN,
beyond a
MINUSMA
mission press
release that
even Reuters
said was
UNclear.
Ladsous role
in the Great
Lakes region,
back to 1994
when he was
France's
Deputy Permanent
Representative
arguing for
the escape of
genocidaires
from Rwanda
into Eastern
Congo is
documented,
there there
are attempts
to bury it. Click
here.
While UN
Peacekeeping's
new spying,
not only in
DRC but also
now with the
Dutch in Mali,
is celebrated
by some. But
given Ladsous'
history, it is
important to
ask and to
determine: who
exactly will
get the
information
from the
drones and
"signal intelligence"
and surveillance
in Mali?
Inner
City Press
went to the UN
on Friday,
November 29, a
UN workday,
and posed this
question in
writing since
there was no
in-person noon
briefing:
"In
Mali,
after
protesters in
Kidal were
subjected to
live fire,
please
describe the
role of the
MINUSMA
peacekeepers
in the events,
including in
reportedly
telling the
protesters to
leave the
airport. Is
that true? Is
so, why did
the UN tell
protesters to
leave, given
the UN's
stated
commitment to
the right to
protest?"
In-person,
Inner
City Press
asked UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous about
Kidal, but he
said nothing.
Here is the
UN's written
response to
Inner City
Press, citing
an UNclear
MINUSMA press
release:
Subject:
Your
questions for
Friday
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at] un.org
Date: Fri, Nov
29, 2013 at
12:42 PM
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Regarding
the
questions you
asked by
email, the
Spokesperson
has the
following to
say:
Regarding
your
questions on
Mali, the UN
Mission,
MINUSMA, has
provided the
following
information in
a press
release today:
Bamako,
29
November 2013
- MINUSMA
strongly
condemns the
violence that
took place
yesterday in
Kidal prior to
the scheduled
arrival of the
Prime Minister
and a
Government
delegation.
The
Mission
deplores the
fact that,
despite a
security plan
coordinated by
the Malian
Government on
Wednesday in
cooperation
with MINUSMA
and supported
by Serval,
incidents of a
serious nature
took place.
MINUSMA,
in
close
cooperation
with Serval,
assisted the
evacuation of
three of the
injured for
medical care
in Gao.
MINUSMA
calls
for restraint
and a return
to the
negotiating
table to
continue
discussions
toward a
solution in
accordance
with Security
Council
Resolution
2100 (2013)
and the
commitments
made,
including on
security and
investigation
arrangements,
in the
Ouagadougou
Preliminary
Agreement.
If as
reported the
Malian Army
shot
protesters,
leaving two
women in
critical
condition,
what does it
mean to say
the UN
"deplores the
fact that,
despite a
security plan
coordinated by
the Malian
Government on
Wednesday in
cooperation
with MINUSMA
and supported
by Serval,
incidents of a
serious nature
took place"?
Is the
UN deploring
the
protesters? Or
the Malian
Army shooting
at them?
As noted, even
Reuters found
the MINUSMA
press release
to "not shed
much light on
what actually
happened in
Kidal
yesterday."
We say "even"
because
Ladsous has
several times
used Reuters
at the UN
as a
pass-through
for misleading
or
self-serving
answering, for
example as
he covered up
for months
the 135 rapes
in Minova by
his partners
in the
Congolese
Army.
Now, Reuters'
promoted piece
on the MNLA's
decision doesn't
even mention
the role of
Ladsous' UN
Peacekeeping.
Reuters
at
the UN
coordinated
with AFP at
attempt to get
Inner City
Press thrown
out; AFP led
with the way
Inner City
Press asked
Ladsous a
question about
the Minova
mass rapes.
Now, after the
two were
linked by
MediaBistro
with troll
counterfeit
Inner City
Press twitter
accounts, on November 27
the troll
social media
campaign began
again.
Ladsous
is
who he is
-- but
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople,
even just to
keep UN
Peacekeeping
here from
making the
whole UN look
bad, need to
provide more
and better
answers, as
well as to
question their
"exclusive"
partnership
with an
association of
big media
"mean girls"
who have
descended into
anonymous
trolling. Two
more questions
Inner City
Press asked on
Friday weren't
even
acknowledged.
Another DPKO
question:
"With
regard
to Lebanon and
UNIFIL, please
state the UN's
knowledge of
Israel's
"spying"
stations and
whether these
spy on
UNIFIL's
communications
as alleged by
the Lebanese
government and
its Committee
on Assessing
the Dangers of
the Israeli
Telecomm
Towers in
Lebanese
Territory."
To
this, Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople
replied to
Inner City
Press:
"Regarding
your
questions on
Lebanon, the
UN Interim
Force, UNIFIL,
says it has no
information on
this."
Well,
beyond the UK
coverage of
Ladsous, here's
coverage
of the issue
in Lebanon, on
which Ladsous'
UNIFIL said
"it has no
information."
Again, in the
past 48 hours,
no UN Peacekeeping
or wider UN
answer to this
and at least
four other
questions
posed on
Friday. Watch
this site.
, 
