November, 03 2014, 02:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Shelley Walden, International Program Consultant: ShelleyW@whistleblower.org
Sarah Damian, Communications Manager: 202.457.0034 ext. 130 or SarahD@whistleblower.org
Review Finds U.N. Mission Withheld Evidence of Government Crimes in Darfur
Whistleblower Says Review Too Weak
New York, NY
Last week, the United Nations issued a statement regarding a review of whistleblower Aicha Elbasri's claims concerning the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID).
In July, the U.N. Secretary-General set up a Review Team to examine GAP client Elbasri's claims that UNAMID concealed crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. This announcement followed a three-part report published by Foreign Policy magazine in April 2014 based on hundreds of internal U.N. documents disclosed by Elbasri, and a call by the International Criminal Court's (ICC) prosecutor to have the U.N. investigate her claims. The Review Team was led by American Philip Cooper, a U.N. retiree who previously worked in peacekeeping and benefited from Elbasri's full cooperation.
The Team scrutinized the 16 incidents documented by Elbasri, the former spokesperson for UNAMID who resigned her post in April 2013 after claiming that she had been prevented from accurately informing the public about what was happening in Darfur.
The Team found that, in five incidents, UNAMID withheld evidence indicating the responsibility of Sudanese government forces and/or their proxies in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. The report cited UNAMID's failure to share with U.N. headquarters in New York "a copy of the verification report on the attacks, rapes and looting at four villages in Tawilla by pro-Government forces." According to the Team, UNAMID also withheld from headquarters "reasonable evidence" showing that members of the government Border Guards committed serious crimes against civilians in Hashaba, which, according to a report of the Secretary-General, had resulted in the killing of up to 70 unarmed men and women. "UNAMID chose not to report to UNHQ the threat by PDF [Popular Defence Forces] members to identify and kill Zaghawas travelling in a UNAMID convoy carrying two Zaghawa villagers," said the Team's report about the third incident.
The Team also found that critical information held back from U.N. headquarters included "considerable evidence and reason to believe that the fatal attack on [the U.N.] team site was carried out by pro-Government forces." The Review Team asserted that "frank reporting" by UNAMID was discouraged out of fear of the Sudanese Government.
"In some incidents the initial reports identified the attackers as suspected Government or Pro-Government forces, this was changed at some point in the official reporting chain with the perpetrators becoming 'unidentified assailants' or 'armed men in military uniform [...]' This gave the perpetrators anonymity and the Government could not be held accountable for the criminal acts of its forces and/or proxies," the report noted.
The Review Team also acknowledged that the Mission maintained silence toward media queries and self-censored its public reporting on Sudanese crimes, leading to "under-reporting of incidents when Government and pro-Government forces were suspected to be involved."
Despite all the findings that suggested an intended cover-up, the Team concluded that it "found no evidence to support the proposition that UNAMID or DPKO would have intentionally reported in such a way as to cover up crimes against civilians and peacekeepers."
"I am not disappointed with the outcome of this review since I didn't expect any credible findings from an internal evaluation that lacks transparency and independence," said Elbasri. "This review is not the 'thorough, independent and public inquiry' the ICC Prosecutor called for last June. It is just a cover-up of the cover-up, a whitewash that adds insult to injury."
The review also failed to comply with best practices in whistleblower protection. A key best practice is to enfranchise the whistleblower to review and comment on the draft report resolving the alleged misconduct, to assess whether there has been a good faith resolution. Whistleblowers are often the most knowledgeable, concerned witnesses in the process, and their evaluation comments often lead to significant improvements and changed conclusions. However, Elbasri was not allowed to see or comment on the draft report.
Moreover, the U.N. failed to release the full report publicly, in contravention of best practices. According to the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 15 percent of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations or any U.N. agency shall not be obligated until the State Department reports that the organization is implementing best practices for whistleblower protection.
"This review is further proof of the United Nations' failure to uphold best practices in whistleblower protection," said GAP Executive Director Bea Edwards. "GAP notified the Review Team of its obligation to comply with best practices, but the U.N. still failed to do so, in violation of the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act."
At the outset of the review, Elbasri and GAP raised concerns about the fact that the Secretary-General had established a "Reporting Management Review Team," and not an investigation team as requested by the ICC. They were also concerned about the internal character of the team, its undisclosed composition and the insufficient time allocated to this exercise. This internal team clearly lacked critical elements of any credible inquiry.
"The main achievement of this review is that it revealed serious U.N. misconduct that needs to be fully and properly investigated, not by an internal team but an external and competent one," said Elbasri. "The U.N. needs to take responsibility for its misconduct. This is the very least it can do for civilians in Darfur who, one decade on from the arrival of the Blue Helmets, are still suffering the world's biggest forgotten war."
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Asset Seizure Likely as Trump Can't Afford Bond for NY Fraud Case
"Trump owes this money because he fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets—and now (oops) apparently no one will accept those assets as collateral."
Mar 18, 2024
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the remainder was demanded from his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
A Times analysis found earlier this month that Trump has only about $350 million in cash.
James has given Trump until March 25 to pay the judgment, which was announced last month as New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found the former president and his real estate empire, the Trump Organization, had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
"It wouldn't surprise me if lenders are refusing real estate as collateral due to his lying about their value," said attorney Blake Allen.
The attorney general said last month that regardless of Trump's difficulty in securing the bond, her office is "prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers" and suggested she would pursue asset seizure.
"I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James toldABC News, referring to one of Trump's buildings in New York's Financial District.
James hasn't publicly stated what other Trump assets she would potentially seize from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump asked an appeals court to issue a stay on the judgment, pausing enforcement while his appeal proceeds, or to accept just $100 million.
In addition to potentially levying and selling Trump's assets, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain toldThe Associated Press last month, James' office could "lien his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders Says US Must 'Fundamentally Rethink' Its Foreign Policy
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people."
Mar 18, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called for a "revolution in American foreign policy" that replaces "greed, militarism, and hypocrisy" with "solidarity, diplomacy, and human rights."
In a lengthy piece published in Foreign Affairs, Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that "it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy," a shift that starts with "acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity."
"If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions," the democratic socialist senator wrote. "Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war."
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people," Sanders argued. "This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power."
Sanders' article examines U.S. foreign policy since World War II, underscoring commonalities between the many wars and acts of aggression perpetrated by Washington over the decades.
"Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts," the senator wrote, noting the U.S.-led war in Southeast Asia in which as many as 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians and more than 58,000 American troops were killed.
Sanders also highlighted the U.S. record of perpetrating or backing coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries, "often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty."
"Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests," he wrote.
Sanders then moved on to the 21st century, when the George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by committing "nearly 2 million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a 'Global War on Terror' and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"—the latter "built on an outright lie."
The senator continued:
The Iraq War was not an aberration. In the name of the Global War on Terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and "extraordinary renditions," snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA "black sites" around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
"I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror," Sanders wrote. "But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not."
"In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen," he noted. "The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza."
"U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle," Sanders said. "For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets."
Revisiting a major theme from his two Democratic presidential runs, Sanders contended that "economic policy is foreign policy."
"As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population," he said. "That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest 1% of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99%—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases."
"The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs," Sanders wrote. "The United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy."
"The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action," he added, "not militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular