UK Says AMISOM Complies With Rights, But Kenya Navy Not Part of AMISOM
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 18, 2012 updated -- As Kenya's navy has been
shelling and "softening up" Kismayo in Somalia, and in the process killing
at least three civilians, Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN what
safeguards are in place.
<
http://www.innercitypress.com/un3kismayo090712.html>
After pointing out that the Kenyan navy is not part of the UN-assisted
AMISOM mission, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally pointed back to a three
week old statement by the UN's humanitarian Mark Bowden.
But given the UN's role in funding AMISOM, with which the Kenyan naval
shelling is clearly coordinated, doesn't the UN have a greater role?
On Tuesday morning Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative
Mark Lyall Grant about the shelling, after he described the just-passed
Security Council resolution and upcoming summit meeting at the UN.
Lyall Grant said the Kenya's ground troops are part of AMISOM, but the
"Kenyan navy assets" are not. He said he would not speak to the timetable
for re-taking Kismayo from Al Shabab, which he called "a longstanding
objective that will be pursued."
Inner City Press asked, since the Kenyan navy is clearly coordinating with
the Council authorized (and UN funded) AMISOM, what safeguards are in place?
Lyall Grant said the issue goes beyond Somalia, whenever regional
organizations are authorized by the Council in this way.
He said while less direct than with UN blue helmets (or berets), AMISOM is
still expected to comply with human rights, and he said "we have not reasons
to believe that they are not doing so."
But what about the Kenyan Navy and its shelling?
There was previously a dispute in the Security Council about whether to
fund the Kenyan naval component, or at least its maintenance. Did declining
to provide that funding leave this de facto component outside any human
rights safeguards?
Watch this site.
Here is the UK Mission transcript:
Inner City Press: you mentioned Al-Shabaab, and there's been a lot of
reports in recent days of the Kenyan Army and AMISOM closing in on Kismayo,
and also some shelling from ships that are said to be in the Kenyan Navy.
I'm wondering 1) what you can say about this kind of end game with
Al-Shabaab, but a question arose, whether the Kenyan navy was part of
AMISOM, was it ever approved by the Council, are you paying for the ships,
and if, what safeguards are in place for this, essentially, shelling into
Kismayo that some people say has killed at least three civilians?
Amb. Lyall Grant: "Well, it has always been a long term objective of both
AMISOM and the Somali authorities to take back control of Kismayo from
Al-Shabaab. I'm not going to comment on the timetable for that, or the plans
for that. But that is clearly an objective and it's an objective that will
be pursued. In terms of the Kenyan naval assets, they are not formally part
of AMISOM. The Kenyan troops since June, when the MoU was signed with the
African Union, have become part of AMISOM and are being funded accordingly.
But the Kenyan naval assets are funded by the Kenyans and are not part of
AMISOM."
Inner City Press: something I've been trying to figure out for a few days.
Since it's working obviously in coordination with AMISOM, and there are at
least reports, Human Rights Watch put out a report that a pregnant woman and
two children were killed by the shelling, how does the Council ensure that
something that's part of a mission that it authorised, that there's human
rights monitoring, and safeguards in place for the whole operation, and not
only part of it.
Amb. Lyall Grant: "Well, that is a general challenge that goes beyond the
case of Somalia. There are other examples of regional organisations that are
authorised, mandated, by the Security Council to take action. Now obviously,
when it is a full UN peacekeeping operation with blue berets, there is a
more direct control on the part of the UN system and on the part of the
Security Council on issues like human rights. With the case of AMISOM, it is
a more distant, hands off relationship. But nonetheless, it is a UN
authorised mission and we do expect AMISOM to abide by international
standards of human rights and humanitarian law, and we have no reason to
think that they are not doing so."
******************************************************************
On Yemen, UNSC Talked Accountability for Saleh But No Follow-Through
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, September 18 -- The UN system and Security Council is full
of calls for accountability, but there is very little follow-up. One case in
point is Yemen.
After 30-year strongman Ali Saleh was essentially given immunity by the
Gulf Cooperation Council and United States, the Security Council made a
point of saying that there was no impunity but rather its opposite: yes,
accountability.
Tuesday after Security Council consultation on Yemen, Inner City Press
asked UN envoy Jamal Benomar for an update. He said that there is a new
draft transitional justice law, and that there will be no impunity.
But an hour later when Inner City Press asked this month's Security
Council president Peter Wittig of Germany of dynamics in the Council on
accountability, he said that hadn't really come up in the Council.
That may be candid, but there is a problem. Ali Saleh is still the head of
his political party; as Inner City Press reported, his supporters were
involved in Yemen's mission to the UN bouncing a UN due check and not being
able to vote on a Syria resolution in the General Assembly.
<
http://www.innercitypress.com/yemen2bofa081012.html>
Accountability, a cynical might say, is not a UN principle but a temporary
tool directed as some but not all dictators and human rights abusers, to
accomplish a short term goal. Then it is forgotten, even if as in today's
Yemen the goal has yet to be achieved, and Saleh is still involved. What
message is being sent? Watch this site.
Received on Tue Sep 18 2012 - 18:41:03 EDT
