When UN Flew Haroun, No Reimbursement or Flight Manifest, France vs UK
By Matthew Russell Lee
Feb 1, 2011
The Inner City Press
http://www.innercitypress.com/un3harun020111.html
UNITED NATIONS, February 1 -- When the UN flew International Criminal Court indictee Ahmed Haroun to Abyei, they did not even ask for reimbursement from the government of Omar al Bashir, also indicted by the ICC for genocide as well as war crimes. 

  The UN admitted this to Inner City Press after rebuffing the question for two weeks. It still refuses to say who else was on the plane with Haroun.
  Meanwhile on February 1, French Ambassador Gerard Araud confirmed to Inner City Press that it was the French Mission to the UN which complained to the UN Secretariat of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about flying Haroun. 
  Araud said, “there is a question, and I think it is a legitimate question, he is on ICC so it is really...” His voiced trailed off. Really uncomfortable? Really outrageous?

   As to who made the decision to fly Haroun, Araud indicated he didn't know. He could, one assumes, find out informally: Frenchman Alain Le Roy is the head of UN Peacekeeping.

  Inner City Press has been asking the UN since January 19, after it got spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm the flying of Haroun by the UN Mission in Sudan, for the specifics of the assistance it provided to Haroun, who decided on it and who was on the flight:

“what type of aircraft was used to fly ICC indictee Haroun to Abyei? Who else was on the flight? How much did the flight cost? Are any of the costs being recouped, or asked to be recouped? Who made the decision to transport Haroun in a UN plane despite the ICC indictment? With whom did this person confer, at UN headquarters? When will Ms. O'Brien of OLA do a briefing?”
  After simply ignoring the question for 10 days, on January 31 the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations forwarded this response: “On Ahmed Haroun, we have provided you with our answers previously and have nothing further to add.”
  Inner City Press followed up, insisting that
“UNMIS and you should answer yes or no whether the UN has sought reembursement from the Goverment of Sudan for flying ICC indictee Ahmed Haroun to Abyei. If the answer is no, please simply state so. These are after all publicly financed resources, public money.”
  Finally on February 1, the UN addressed the question of reimbursement, saying it had not even been requested:
Subject: Your question on Ahmed Haroun
From: UN Spokesperson [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:17 PM
To: Inner City Press
In accordance with its mandate, the Mission provides the necessary support to those key players in their pursuit to find a peaceful solution. In this context, at the request of the Government and on a space available basis, UNMIS provides seats on its flights to Government officials on official business related to the peace process, without any financial implications to the Government and at no additional operational costs to the mission.
  This response does not answer who else was on the plane. In fact, footage exists of Haroun arriving back in South Kordofan on a large UN plane, arranging to be filmed so as to use the UN to undermine the ICC and its indictment. Was the plane otherwise empty? Would it have otherwise flown from Abyei to Kordofan? The UN should provide answers to these questions.

  Also on Febuary 1, Inner City Press asked Nesirky's deputy Farhan Haq about Abyei:
Inner City Press: the Sudan Tribune, in an article about Abyei, quotes a UN official who couldn’t give his name because he is not authorized to speak to the media, but has a direct quote saying that UNMIS had heard reports of an armed group with rocket-propelled grenades and machetes amassing north of Difra and Abyei. And says, “but the patrol was not permitted to meet the group”. So, I wanted to know, who would be stopping UNMIS from carrying out its protection of civilians duties in Abyei? Would that be the… it is just, it seems like it is a pretty serious statement by a UN official. Is there some way to find out who stopped… whether the UN has access throughout Abyei and who stopped this particular patrol?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first we’ll have to see whether the details of that are correct. But we’ll check with our colleagues in UNMIS whether they have reported any blockages.
Inner City Press: And also just now in front of the Security Council, the French Permanent Representative, [Gérard] Araud, said, or I guess confirmed, that he had demarched the Secretariat about the use of UNMIS air assets to move Ahmed Haroun, saying that, you know, he is indicted by the ICC [International Criminal Court] as a war criminal. So, I wanted to know, can the Secretariat confirm that it… who was demarched and what’s their response?
Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: I wouldn’t have any details to share on that. On that, what I can tell you is that we have already spoken out about the transport of Ahmed Haroun. We made it clear the necessity of that particular task given the violence in Abyei at the time and I don’t have anything further to say beyond what we have already shared on that.
  Perhaps emboldening Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat is the position of the UK. When Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant about UNMIS flying Haroun around, he said that he wouldn't second guess the UN.

  On February 1, Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parhan about France's demarche, and whether it would be correct to infer that the UK and France have a different position when it comes to requesting answers from the UN about human rights issues.
  “I wouldn't want to speak for France,” Parham said, then pointed back to Lyall Grant's “no second guessing the UN” stakeout. Parham added, “There are operational issues where it's right not to second guess.” He said it is not possible to define where this line is. Inner City Press asked if the UK's line might be a certain dollar (or Euro) figure, or number of casualties? Parham laughed and shook his head.

  People close to the UK Mission say that Lyall Grant has indicated that the UK is not entirely opposed to the idea of suspending the ICC's case against Bashir, at least for a year under Article 16 of the ICC's Rome Statute, if beyond the Southern Sudan referendum he were to recognize the ICC -- for example by turning over Haroun. We hope to have more on this.

Still, if even the Permanent Five members won't question the Secretariat on the issues they say they think are important, like accountablity, who will? Watch this site.