After
UN Spun Congo
Failure As
Allowing
Monitoring,
Now Ban
Ki-moon Speaks
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 25 --
The inaction
of UN
peacekeepers
under Herve
Ladsous as M23
mutineers took
over Goma and
then Sake is
one of the
biggest UN
failures in
some time.
A
member of the
UN's
C-34, to which
Ladsous first
proposed
drones in
March
of this year,
has analogized
it to previous
UN breakdowns,
such as in
Srebrenica
(not to say as
in Congo's
neighbor
Rwanda in
1994).
While
the numbers in
Srebrenica,
which some put
at 7000, were
higher the
structure is
the same: the
UN says it
will protect a
place, people
gather and
remain -- then
the UN does
nothing when
the place is
attacked.
Here, the UN
ended up
saying it was
better it did
not
fight. Better
for whom?
The
UN also said
that by not
fighting, it
could remain
and "keep
records." But
how? And for
whom?
After
Herve Ladsous
refused again
on November
21 to answer
any Press
questions,
including
"would MONUSCO
defend Bukavu"
and
about the
protests
against the UN,
Inner City
Press on
November 23
submitted
simple
questions in
writing to
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
three top
spokesmen.
They
forwarded the
Congo
questions to
Ladsous
spokesman Kieran
Dwyer, who
had been the
one to tell UN
personnel to
make sure not
to give the
microphone to
Inner City
Press, to
instead search
for a friendly
question "en
Francais."
Dwyer,
who by that
and other acts
appeared to
become
something
other than a
spokesman,
emailed a
response to
basic
questions, I
am looking
into
that, before 4
pm on November
23.
A
day and a half
later, despite
major
developments
and more UN
failure
on the ground,
including in
Minova, and
the statement
issued by a
meeting of the
International
Conference of
the Great
Lakes Region,
neither Dwyer
or
the other UN
spokespeople
have provide
any of the
promised
responses
to the
questions.
One
awaited as of
11 am on
Sunday at the
UN in New York
even any
comment on the
ICGLR plans,
on which Inner
City
Press asked
the three top
UN
spokespeople
for UN
"comments and
plans on the
roles assigned
to it by what
was
announced."
Surprising
in
light of its
failure, the
UN's MONUSCO
mission, which
did nothing
as the M23
took over
Goma, was
assigned the
task of
standing
between
the new
territory
taken by M23
and the city
of Goma, which
the
statement says
M23 should
leave -
except,
paradoxically,
for its
airport. For
full 24 hours
after the
communique,
the UN had no
response.
Then,
still without
any responses
from Ladsous'
DPKO, the UN
put out a
statement in
which Ban
Ki-moon "calls
on the M23 to
immediately
lay down their
arms in
accordance
with the
agreements
reached in
Kampala, and
comply with
the immediate
withdrawal of
their forces
from Goma."
Ban "is also
determined to
ensure that
the United
Nations
presence in
the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo be
adjusted to
respond to the
evolving
challenges in
line with
relevant
Security
Council
resolutions on
the Democratic
Republic of
the Congo."
So why did the
UN, evne under
its mandate,
do nothing in
Goma, and why
does it not
answer since?
And now DRC
President
Joseph Kabila
has said there
will only be
talks with M23
if they leave
Goma first.
Meanwhile,
Ladsous'
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations is
issuing short
statements
about the
"background"
and mandate of
MONUSCO.
When a Tweeter
with three
followers
asked online
why the UN and
its
humanitarian
chief Valerie
Amos didn't
respond as in
Somalia,
with AMISOM,
the UN
Peacekeeping
account replied
with MONUSCO's
mandate.
But
when asked
by a more
active Tweeter
with hundreds
of followers
why
Ladsous does
not resign
after his
failures, here,
there was no
response
from UN
Peacekeeping.
And so others
online
answered the
question
themselves.
Who will
be held
accountable?
Watch this
site.
, 
