The main point here is that while the probably Syrian inspired killings in Lebanon have led the UN to talk to all the governments in the area and also to the sectarian militias, to keep reviewing the situation, and organize eventually an international court of justice, when it came to Pakistan it deferred to the representative of Pakistan, and even stood aside when the government of Afghanistan threw out the UN representative who tried to talk to the Taliban. Our question at www.SustainabiliTank.info is if this has to do with the US position - as the US does not care about the government of Syria, and that seems right, but cares very much about President Musharraf in whom it invested $billions, and that might be not so right. The Italian Presidency of the Security Council, and the initial statement by the UNSG would have wanted to see some follow up - but was it the US that quashed any attempt to come up with a stronger Italian UNSC Statement?

After Bhutto’s Killing, UN Statements Watered Down, Omitting Need for Speed and Law

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, December 28 — In the hours after Benazir Bhutto was killed, the 15 members of the UN Security Council negotiated and agreed to a Presidential Statement of condemnation. A sixteenth country was consulted: Pakistan. According to Council diplomats involved in the negotiations, among the changes made before the final Presidential Statement was issued was the omission of any temporal reference in the Council’s statement of the “need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice.” The proposal was to say this should be done as soon as possible, but this was omitted, apparently to make it less likely that the matter could be brought back before the Council if the investigation is too slow or otherwise not credible.

Before these Security Council negotiations, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had issued a statement, including a

“call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice as soon as possible. I convey my heartfelt condolences to Mrs. Bhutto’s family, her colleagues and to the people of Pakistan. While strongly urging for calm and restraint to be maintained at this difficult time, I call on all Pakistanis to work together for peace and national unity.”

In the Council, it was suggested that the Presidential Statement should track Ban Ki-moon’s already-issued statement. But issue was taken with the phrase “as soon as possible” and “peace” — “international peace and security” being the legal hook for the Council to send peacekeepers or investigators, as in Lebanon, to a country. Following the assassination in Beirut of Rafiq Hariri, the Security Council set up an International Commission to investigate, and is now setting up a tribunal in The Hague. Diplomats involved in the negotiation Thursday of the Council’s Presidential Statement, dismissive of the post-negotiation comments on camera of Pakistan’s Deputy Permanent Representative Farukh Amil, opined to Inner City Press that the government of Pervez Musharraf wants to forestall any outside inquiry or oversight, even any language that could help bring his administration to the attention of the Security Council again.

Benazir Bhutto with supporters and cameras, UNSC Presidential Statement not shown

When asked about the phrase “as soon as possible,” which is in the Secretary-General’s statement but did not make it into the Council’s Presidential Statement, Pakistan’s Deputy Permanent Representative Farukh Amil said “I don’t understand the question,” and then “not at all, the statement was prepared and done very smoothly.” A journalist also asked about reservations Pakistan might have had with the tribute to former Prime Minister Bhutto. The real question, though, concerns the omission of those fighting for democracy and rule of law.

While the final Presidential Statement offers a “tribute to former Prime Minister Bhutto,” it had been proposed to also mention those fighting for democracy and the rule of law. But this too was omitted, apparently under the theory that it might embolden and even empower those questioning the rule of Pervez Musharraf. One is left with a watered down statement, and ever-multiplying questions.

————————-

To Speak or Not with Taliban, Behind Karzai’s UN Expulsion, Its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, December 27 — Afghan president Hamid Karzai has ordered the expulsion of Mervyn Patterson, described as the third-highest UN official in the country, and Michael Semple, said to be with the European Union, for allegedly talking with the Taliban. Wednesday the UN denied that Patterson spoke with the Taliban. But Tom Koenigs the highest UN official in Kabul ten weeks ago told Inner City Press that the UN does not ask who is Taliban and who is not. Video here, from Minute 4:28. Press accounts link this with reports of Britain’s MI6 also speaking with the Taliban, contrary to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s statements two weeks ago. In Afghanistan, the issue seems to be that President Karzai does not want it perceived that foreigners, including the UN, are working around him and speaking to the Taliban.

Mervyn Patterson is included in the UN’s official “List of Staff,” a document the UN considers confidential — but of June 30, 2006 (and 2005 and 2003) Patterson is designated as “on special leave without pay.” In 2002 he was quoted by wire services as mediating between warlords in northern Afghanistan, for example between Abdel Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammad of Jamiat-e-Islami party, and between Abdul Saboor and Ahmed Khan. A UN insider who worked with Patterson in 2002 describes him as a consummate negotiator, and also says that Michael Semple worked with the UN. (Semple is not listed at all in the UN’s List of Staff.) As of 5 p.m. Wednesday at UN Headquarters in New York, the spokesperson’s office said Mr. Patterson had not yet left Afghanistan, but that more would be known by morning. The following day, the office confirmed that Patterson had left. Inner City Press asked this office a series of questions, and the response was that

“We can confirm that a UN official had been asked to leave the country on the grounds that their presence is detrimental to national security. This followed a visit to Helmand province to discuss stabilization efforts with local authorities and community representatives in the province. We believe that there is no basis for such a decision and that this is a result of a misunderstanding with the Afghan authorities. Discussions are currently ongoing with the Afghan authorities to rectify this situation so that we can continue with the vital efforts to secure peace, stability and progress for the people of Helmand province…. Was he talking to the Taliban? No. We have been talking to the local authorities and community representatives, we are not talking to the Taliban.”

First, if the UN’s Tom Koenigs has said that the UN “keeps contact with everybody without asking him or her if they are Taliban,” how would the UN so quickly know? Second and more fundamentally, how can one make “efforts to secure peace” without talking to the insurgency?

Hamid Karzai and Ban Ki-moon: who can talk with Taliban?

One week ago, upon his return to New York from visiting survivors of the bombing of the UN building in Algiers, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said:

“We must do even better in explaining to the public and the media the role of the United Nations, wherever we operate — why we are there, what we do, what we stand for and what we don’t. We must make clear we are not there to represent the interests of any one group of nations over another.”

While currently this public explaining is lacking, for example here and in Sri Lanka where the UN has remained silent as the government accuses UNICEF of supporting the Tamil Tigers, back on October 15 the UN’s outgoing Special Representative to Afghanistan Tom Koenigs said that the UN “keeps contact with everyone, without asking him or her if they are Taliban or not.” He also specified, as is relevant here, that ultimate authority for negotiation must rest with the government of Afghanistan. Video here, from Minute 4:28. (Inner City Press had asked, at the televised stakeout in front of the Security Council chamber, about Iran’s chiding of the UK and others reaching out to the Taliban.“)

News analysis: If, as Mr. Koenigs said in October, the UN does not ask who is Taliban and who is not, this would be the time to explain what the UN is doing, and why. That the UK would desire secrecy, particularly after Gordon Brown’s categorical statement two weeks ago, is understandable. But the UN, as called for by Ban Ki-moon, should do “better in explaining.” Watch this site.