Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

EXCLUSIVE: Yonas Fikre believes the US government played a role in his hellish three-month detention in the United Arab Emirates.
UPDATE: Fikre’s lawyers have written a letter to the Justice Department about his allegations and released a video of him talking about his ordeal.
Last June, while Yonas Fikre was visiting the United Arab Emirates, the Muslim American from Portland, Oregon was suddenly arrested and detained by Emirati security forces. For the next three months, Fikre claims, he was repeatedly interrogated and tortured. Fikre says he was beaten on the soles of his feet, kicked and punched, and held in stress positions while interrogators demanded he “cooperate” and barked questions that were eerily similar to those posed to him not long before by FBI agents and other American officials who had requested a meeting with him.
Fikre had been visiting family in Khartoum, Sudan, when, in April 2010, the officials got in touch with him. He agreed to meet with them, but ultimately balked at cooperating with FBI questioning without a lawyer present and he rebuffed a request to become an informant. Pressing him to cooperate, the agents told him he was on the no-fly list and could not return home unless he aided the bureau, Fikre says. The following week he received an email from one of the US officials; it arrived from a State Department address: “Thanks for meeting with us last week in Sudan. While we hope to get your side of the issues we keep hearing about, the choice is yours to make. The time to help yourself is now.”
“When Yonas [first] asked whether the FBI was behind his detention, he was beaten for asking the question,” says his lawyer. “Toward the end, the interrogator indicated that indeed the FBI had been involved.”
Fikre made his way to the UAE the following year, where, he and his lawyer allege, he was detained at the request of the US government. They say his treatment is part of a pattern of “proxy” detentions of US Muslims orchestrated by the the US government. Now, Fikre’s Portland-based lawyer, Thomas Nelson, plans to file suit against the Obama administration for its alleged complicity in Fikre’s torture.
“There was explicit cooperation; we certainly will allege that in the complaint,” says Nelson, a well known terrorism defense attorney. “When Yonas [first] asked whether the FBI was behind his detention, he was beaten for asking the question. Toward the end, the interrogator indicated that indeed the FBI had been involved. Yonas understood this as indicating that the FBI continued to [want] him to work for/with them.” Nelson, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Council on American Islamic Relations are assembling a high-powered legal team to handle Fikre’s case in the United States.
Fikre’s story echoes those of Naji Hamdan, Amir Meshal, Sharif Mobley, Gulet Mohamed, and Yusuf and Yahya Wehelie. All are American Muslim men who, while traveling abroad, claim they were detained, interrogated, and (in some cases) abused by local security forces; the men claim they were arrested at the behest of federal law enforcement authorities, alleging the US government used this process to circumvent their legal rights as American citizens.
As Mother Jones reported in its September/October 2011 issue, the FBI has acknowledged that it tips off local security forces on the names of Americans traveling overseas that the bureau suspects of involvement in terrorism, and that these individuals are sometimes detained and questioned. The FBI also admits that its agents sometimes “interview or witness an interview” of Americans detained by foreign governments in terrorism cases. And as several FBI officials told me on condition of anonymity, the bureau has for years used its elite cadre of international agents (known as legal attachés, or legats) to coordinate the overseas detention and interrogation by foreign security services of American terrorism suspects. Sometimes, that entails cooperating with local security forces that are accustomed to abusing prisoners. (FBI officials have told Mother Jones that foreign security forces are asked to refrain from abusing American detainees.)
It’s difficult to confirm US involvement in the detentions of Fikre or other alleged proxy detainees—indeed, plausible deniability is part of the appeal of the program. But what’s clear is that Fikre was on the FBI’s radar well before his detention in the UAE. (The FBI declined to comment on his case, as did the State Department.) Fikre, whose only previous brush with the legal system came when he sued a restaurant for having ham in its clam chowder, may have drawn the FBI’s interest because of his association with Portland’s Masjed-as-Saber mosque, where he was a youth basketball coach.
The mosque has been a focus of FBI scrutiny ever since the October 2002 case of the “Portland Seven,” in which seven Muslims from the Portland area were charged with trying to go to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban in the wake of 9/11. (Six are now in jail; the seventh was killed in Pakistan.) Masjed-as-Saber was in the news again in 2010 when Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19-year-old Somali American who sometimes worshipped there, was charged with trying to detonate a fake car bomb provided by an undercover FBI agent.
More recently, three other men who attended Fikre’s mosque—Mustafa Elogbi, Michael Migliore, and Jamal Tarhuni—have found themselves on the no-fly list after traveling abroad. (The government’s use of the no-fly list to prevent American terrorist suspects from returning home after traveling overseas is currently the subject of a major ACLU lawsuit.)
Fikre’s case “really does make a mockery of the FBI’s use of watchlisting as a means of protecting the US,” says Gadeir Abbas, a staff attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It’s not a means of protecting America—it’s a tool the FBI uses to put people in vulnerable positions.”
It “really does make a mockery of the FBI’s use of watchlisting as a means of protecting the US.”
Fikre, who is currently living in Sweden and believes that it would be unsafe for him to return to the United States, has given a series of videotaped interviews detailing his ordeal. His presence in Sweden beyond the three-month window allowed for tourist visas suggests that he has applied for permanent status there, and local media have so far refrained from reporting on the story for fear of affecting his case to stay in the country.
In the interviews, Fikre describes a series of events that are similar to the 2008 case of Naji Hamdan, a Lebanese American auto-parts dealer from Los Angeles who was then living in the UAE. Like Hamdan, Fikre claims he was detained in the UAE, tortured (including with stress positions and beatings on the soles of his feet, so as to not show marks), and asked about his activities in the United States. Like Hamdan, Fikre believed a western interrogator was present in the room at some points during his detention, because when he could peek out under his blindfold (“after being kicked/punched and falling over,” Nelson says) he occasionally saw western slacks and shoes. “In those occasions there was a fair amount of whispering,” Nelson added.
The similarities between the two cases were so striking that Michael Kaufman and Laboni Hoq, lawyers who are representing Hamdan in his separate case against the government, initially thought that Fikre had simply parroted Hamdan’s story. But once they heard more, they decided “the backstory of why the government was interested in him was reasonable and something that didn’t sound fabricated,” Kaufman said. “It seemed like a long way to go for a lie,” Hoq added.
A key difference between Hamdan’s and Fikre’s stories is that Hamdan eventually confessed—under torture, he now emphasizes—to being a member of several terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. He ultimately spent 11 months in UAE custody before being deported to Lebanon, where he now runs a children’s clothing store. Despite an extensive FBI investigation, he was never charged in the United States.
Fikre, his lawyer says, “never confessed to anything”—”thankfully.”
“The FBI does this stuff because they can get away with it,” Nelson says. “But the bureau has totally destroyed any relationship it had with the Muslim community in Portland.”
UPDATE, Wednesday, 1:00 p.m. EST: Fikre’s lawyers have released a video of him talking about his ordeal (they’ve also written a letter to the Justice Department). You can watch the video here:
—By Nick Baumann | Tue Apr. 17, 2012 3:01 AM EDT
Find this story at 17 April 2012
Copyright ©2015 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

EVAN KOHLMANN IS the U.S. government’s go-to expert witness in terrorism prosecutions. Since 2004, Kohlmann has been asked to testify as an expert about terrorist organizations, radicalization and homegrown threats in more than 30 trials.
It’s well-paying work — as much as $400 per hour. In all, the U.S. government has paid Kohlmann and his company at least $1.4 million for testifying in trials around the country, assisting with FBI investigations and consulting with agencies ranging from the Defense Department to the Internal Revenue Service. He has also received another benefit, Uncle Sam’s mark of credibility, which has allowed him to work for NBC News and its cable sibling, MSNBC, for more than a decade as an on-air “terrorism analyst.”
Kohlmann’s claimed expertise is his ability to explore the dark corners of the Internet — the so-called deep web, which isn’t indexed by commercial search engines — and monitor what the Islamic State, al Qaeda and their sympathizers are saying, as well as network the relationships among these various actors. Kohlmann doesn’t speak Arabic, however, and aside from a few days each in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Dubai and Qatar, has hardly any experience in the Arab world. Kohlmann’s research is gleaned primarily from the Internet.
Indeed, Kohlmann is not a traditional expert. Much of his research is not peer-reviewed. Kohlmann’s key theory, to which he has testified several times on the witness stand, involves a series of indicators that he claims determine whether someone is likely a homegrown terrorist. Yet he has never tested the theory against a randomly selected control group to account for bias or coincidence.
For these and other reasons, Kohlmann’s critics describe him as a huckster.
Kohlmann’s works are “so biased, one-sided and contextually inaccurate that they do not provide a fair and balanced context for the specific evidence to be presented at a legal hearing,” said one terrorism researcher.
In a court filing, Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA officer who has been called to the witness stand several times to discredit Kohlmann’s claims, described his testimony and reports as “so biased, one-sided and contextually inaccurate that they do not provide a fair and balanced context for the specific evidence to be presented at a legal hearing.”
In recent months, however, the small cohort of defense lawyers nationwide who battle the government in terrorism prosecutions have been asking themselves another question: What’s in the government’s mysteriously classified materials about Kohlmann?
The question began circulating last year. While representing at trial Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, New York lawyer Joshua Dratel, who has security clearances, was given classified materials about Kohlmann, a witness in the Mustafa prosecution. “It was the integrity of a prosecutor who learned of [the materials] some way,” Dratel said, crediting a single Justice Department employee for providing a rare full disclosure about Kohlmann.
Dratel has reviewed the classified materials in full, but he is prohibited from discussing their contents publicly. “It’s hard to talk about it without talking about it,” he said.
However, the judge in the Mustafa case allowed very limited references to the contents of the classified materials during Dratel’s cross-examination of Kohlmann — providing a clue to what the government is hiding about its star terrorism expert.
“You have done more than consulting for the FBI, correct?” Dratel asked Kohlmann.
“Correct,” Kohlmann said from the witness stand.
“You have done more than act as an expert for the government, correct?” Dratel followed.
“That’s correct, yes,” Kohlmann admitted.
That’s as far as the judge would allow.
Kohlmann and the Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests to comment for this story.
Asked if he thinks the information about Kohlmann should be classified, Dratel commented: “I think it’s unjustifiably classified now. I think the rationale for its classification is more connected to litigation, to protecting Kohlmann as a witness.”
KOHLMANN GREW UP in South Florida and attended Pine Crest School, a tony prep school with campuses in Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton.
“I applied to college not really knowing what I wanted to do, but I spent summers in France — my father grew up there — and I was always interested in foreign affairs,” Kohlmann said in a 2006 profile in Penn Law Journal, titled “Terrorists Beware; Kohlmann is on the Case.”
Kohlmann studied political science at Georgetown and later law at the University of Pennsylvania, though he never took the bar exam. His steeping in terrorism studies can be credited to Steven Emerson, who founded a nonprofit think tank, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which a young Kohlmann joined in 1998. “I started obviously as an intern, but by the time I left the Investigative Project in 2003, I was a senior analyst,” Kohlmann said in court testimony.
Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Emerson successfully portrayed himself as a credible terrorism expert, thanks in part to his 1994 documentary, Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America, which aired on PBS Frontline. His work at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which he founded shortly after the airing of Terrorists Among Us, helped fuel speculation linking University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Holy Land Foundation to Hamas. In addition to Kohlmann’s, Emerson also helped launch the career of Rita Katz, who runs the SITE Intelligence Group.
“The Investigative Project was a nonprofit enterprise seeking to collect and harvest information — difficult-to-find information about the recruitment, communications, and financing of particular international terrorist organizations,” Kohlmann said in court testimony. “Then taking this information, and both in its raw form and by distilling it into unclassified memorandums, congressional testimonies, and other documents, including media … we then provided this information to a variety of different people, including, again, everyone from policymakers in Washington, DC, law enforcement, other academics, media, you name it.”
(In recent years, while Kohlmann and Katz have maintained close relationships with the U.S. government and news media, Emerson has seen his star fade due to two embarrassing Fox News appearances — one in 2013, when he claimed a U.S. government official told him that a Saudi national initially suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings was being deported on national security grounds, and another this year, when he said Birmingham, England, was “totally Muslim” and off limits to non-Muslims.)
While at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Kohlmann wrote what would become his book, Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network. He initially submitted the manuscript to the University of Pennsylvania Press, where Sageman, who would become a chief critic of Kohlmann’s work as a government expert, was asked to serve on a peer review panel. He recommended against publishing the book. Kohlmann found a publisher in the United Kingdom, Oxford International Publishers, which had no affiliation with the University of Oxford. (Kohlmann has been asked whether he has intentionally tilted his testimony to leave the impression that his book’s publisher was linked to the prestigious university. “I did not deliberately attempt to exaggerate my credentials,” Kohlmann said in court testimony last year, countering this question.)
With his book and stint with the Investigative Project on Terrorism as credentials, Kohlmann became an expert witness for the Justice Department and a consultant for the FBI. An FBI agent described the baby-faced expert as “the Doogie Howser of Terrorism,” and a George Washington University law professor described Kohlmann to New York magazine as having been “grown hydroponically in the basement of the Bush Justice Department.”
Among Kohlmann’s earliest cases was the 2006 prosecution of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain in Albany, New York. It was the first FBI counterterrorism sting to use Shahed Hussain, an aggressive criminal-turned-informant who was involved in the investigations of the so-called Newburgh Four — a sting involving four defendants and a plot to bomb synagogues in the Bronx and attack a nearby airport — and of Khalifah al-Akili, a botched sting operation in Pittsburgh in which the FBI informants’ covers were blown. The Albany case was a convoluted one involving a loan between Hussain, the informant, and Hossain, a local businessman who owned a pizzeria and a few rental properties. Aref, a local imam originally from Iraq, was brought in to observe the loan transaction and terms in accordance with Islamic law. The government alleged that Hossain and Aref knew the money was connected to the importation of missiles — the informant used a code word for the missiles, chaudry, the government alleged — but defense lawyers for the two men maintained that they believed the arrangement was a loan, not money-laundering for terrorists.
To support charges that the pair was involved in terrorism, the government used the transcript of a recording between Hossain, the pizzeria owner who was originally from Bangladesh, and the FBI informant. “We are members of Jamaat-e-Islami,” Hossain said in the recording.
The government initially claimed that Jamaat-e-Islami, a political party in Bangladesh, was linked to terrorism through a proxy organization, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen. Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism scholar at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, was originally going to testify to this connection as an expert. But the government instead brought in Kohlmann.
Kevin A. Luibrand, a lawyer for Hossain, challenged Kohlmann’s knowledge as an expert.
“Can you name any of the major political parties in Bangladesh from the year 2000 to 2004?” Luibrand asked Kohlmann in a deposition.
“Other than Jamaat-e-Islami?” Kohlmann asked.
“Yes.”
“That’s — I’m not familiar off the top of my head,” Kohlmann said.
“Have you ever heard of an organization known as the Bangladesh National Party?” Luibrand followed.
“Vaguely.”
“Do you know what it is?”
“I’m assuming it’s a political party, but again — the name vaguely sounds familiar but …” Kohlmann answered.
“Do you know what, if anything, it stands for politically within Bangladesh?” Luibrand asked, cutting off Kohlmann’s answer.
“Sorry, can’t tell ya,” Kohlmann said.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, to which Luibrand was referring, is one of the two largest political parties in Bangladesh and allied with Jamaat-e-Islami.
“You can’t tell me because you don’t know?” Luibrand asked Kohlmann in a follow-up question.
“I don’t know off the top of my head,” Kohlmann said.
Kohlmann also admitted in the deposition that he had never written about Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh. Luibrand asked to have Kohlmann disqualified as an expert, arguing that Kohlmann was unable to demonstrate knowledge of the groups he was testifying about. A judge denied the request and allowed Kohlmann to testify. Aref and Hossain were convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Evan Kohlmann on MSNBC as their terrorism analyst.
From there, Kohlmann’s career as a government witness skyrocketed. In all, he has testified in more than 30 trials, including the trial of the Fort Dix Five, a group of men who allegedly planned to attack a U.S. military base in New Jersey; of medical doctor Rafiq Abdus Sabir, who was caught in a sting swearing allegiance to al Qaeda; and of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who plotted with undercover FBI agents to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. Among more recent court appearances, Kohlmann testified in the Tampa, Florida, trial of Sami Osmakac, a counterterrorism sting target FBI agents described privately as a “retarded fool” whose targets for an attack were “wishy-washy.”
At the same time, Kohlmann has amassed what he has described as seven terabytes of information related to terrorism and illicit activity. He has described the database as proprietary, and he’s never been asked to turn it over as part of his expert testimony. He also leverages it, according to court testimony, to provide information and services to private sector clients; as of 2014, working for the government represented only about 40 percent of Kohlmann’s income.
Sageman, one of Kohlmann’s harshest critics, alleges that the use of this database in trial testimony and expert reports lacks transparency and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge his conclusions. “He uses the appearance of scholarship, such as footnote references, but is extremely selective in his references basing them not on actual scholarly work, but on anecdotes from obscure references that he often has privileged access to, preventing other scholars from checking the context of the reference,” Sageman wrote in a court report.
Sageman also alleged in the same report that Kohlmann views his expert testimony not as well-researched and settled science to be discussed honestly at trial, but as a kind of information clay to be molded for the prosecution’s benefit. Referring to a conversation he had with Kohlmann over lunch, Sageman wrote: “He selects what is most supportive for the side that retains him. Indeed, he told me so at one time when I challenged him about his testimony in the [Hammad] Khurshid case in Copenhagen, because he had neglected to mention important facts under oath. He justified his one-sidedness by saying that it was an adversarial process and it was up to the defense attorneys to cross examine him.”
Among the topics Kohlmann often testifies to is his theory of homegrown terrorists — a series of indicators showing that a disillusioned individual living in the United States likely has stepped over the line to become a terrorist. He has testified that the indicators include choosing a scheme to travel abroad to fight or launch an attack in the United States; acquiring training material and propaganda from the Internet or elsewhere; adherence to an extreme ideology, particularly radical Islam; using “logistical subterfuge” by, for example, encrypting electronic communications or taking indirect routes when traveling; and attempts to contact like-minded individuals. “Not every case necessarily has one of these or all of these, but you do tend to see these factors pop up again and again,” Kohlmann testified in a 2011 hearing in the case of the so-called Triangle Terror Group in North Carolina. “And these tend to be the most definitive factors leading to judge whether something is, indeed, a valid home-grown terrorist or home-grown extremist network or violent extremist network.”
However, the number of indicators in Kohlmann’s theory appears to be malleable, depending on the case. In the North Carolina trial, he testified to five factors. Two years later, in court testimony in the 2013 case of Mohamed Osman Mohamud in Portland, Oregon, Kohlmann listed six factors. In a hearing in the Triangle Terror Group case, Kohlmann conceded that his terrorism indicators, and his methodology in general, are not supported by any statistical analysis that would prove their veracity.
“You go through marriage, camouflage, dressing or what someone wears, the use of guns or paint-balling and training, propaganda and travel and draw certain conclusions from that, correct?” asked defense lawyer James M. Ayers III.
“That’s correct, yes,” Kohlmann answered.
“Now, you have done no statistical studies as to what percent of the population that engages in these various activities are terrorists or not, correct?” Ayers followed.
“No, that’s correct,” Kohlmann said, adding later that he did not believe numerical statistics were applicable to studying homegrown terrorism because of the infrequency of cases.
And it’s not just that Kohlmann chooses not to subject his theory to rigorous testing; he doesn’t seem know much about social science research at all. In a July 2014 hearing in the case of Ralph Deleon, a citizen of the Philippines, and Sohiel Omar Kabir, an Afghanistan-born U.S. citizen — who along with two others were swept up in an informant-led counterterrorism sting — defense lawyer Angela Viramontes quizzed Kohlmann on commonly used terms in the social sciences.
“What is your understanding of an attribute in social science research?” Viramontes asked Kohlmann.
“I don’t understand the question, Your Honor,” Kohlmann said, turning to the judge.
“I think the question speaks for itself. If you don’t know the answer, you don’t know,” Viramontes followed.
“I don’t know the answer,” Kohlmann said.
THE PRIMARY CRITICISM of Kohlmann’s work is that his knowledge about terrorist groups and purported expertise are based primarily on Internet research. The other concern is a question of impartiality, and how much information from the deep web Kohlmann may be giving the FBI for investigations.
Yet the U.S. Department of Justice continues to employ Kohlmann as an expert witness. Most recently, he was proposed as an expert in the prosecution of Agron Hasbajrami, an Albanian citizen who pleaded guilty on June 26 in New York to attempting and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, before Kohlmann could testify in his trial.
In other cases, Kohlmann has testified to the fact that he has assisted the FBI with investigations — but it’s unclear how far Kohlmann’s work crosses the line from independent expert and consultant to paid criminal investigator for the FBI. That’s why, among defense lawyers in terrorism cases, there’s a lot of interest in what the government is hiding in classified materials about Kohlmann.
These lawyers started swapping information in earnest last year, when Joshua Dratel provided a signed declaration to the lawyers representing Deleon and Kabir in Southern California. “It is my opinion that review of the classified materials is essential to any cross-examination of Evan Kohlmann, whom the government has apparently proposed as its expert witness in the Kabir prosecution,” Dratel wrote. “It is also my opinion that the classified materials are extraordinarily material to such cross-examination; indeed, I do not believe there could be more material information.”
Jeffrey Aaron, who represented Kabir, asked the judge to force the government to provide the classified materials on Kohlmann. “We felt that he didn’t seem like a legitimate academic expert to us,” Aaron said. “He seemed like an advocate, and it seemed to us that he was a witness who would always find a way to support the government’s case. We suspect that the material under top-secret protection probably dealt with him cooperating with the FBI or being a quasi-government agent. And honestly, we thought that was very disturbing.”
The judge in the Kabir case, Virginia A. Phillips, refused to give defense lawyers access to the classified materials — but she did hint at their contents in her written ruling: “The materials requested by the defendants to be produced in discovery relate to work on other investigations performed by Evan Kohlmann for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) and do not address the facts of this case or the conduct of the defendants.”
When Dratel was given access to the classified materials on Kohlmann, and offered a limited opportunity to question him about them on the witness stand during the Mustafa case, he appeared to push Kohlmann to disclose the information — offering even more hints about what might be in the classified materials.
“You testified in a case called United States v. Mehanna?” Dratel asked Kohlmann in the hearing last year.
“Yes,” Kohlmann answered.
Tarek Mehanna was a Massachusetts man who, in a case widely criticized by civil libertarians, was convicted of charges that included providing material support to terrorists because he translated radical Arabic texts into English for a website — the type of activity Kohlmann monitors as a part of his business.
“In that case, in preparing for that case, or at any time during that case, did you inform the prosecutors in that case of your precise relationship with the FBI?” Dratel continued.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘precise,’ but the prosecutors in that case I had worked with on a previous case, and they were fully aware of the nature of my work with the FBI,” Kohlmann answered.
“No, the precise nature of your relationship with the FBI,” Dratel said, speaking cryptically due to the classified material and the limits the judge had placed on his questions.
“Objection, your Honor,” the prosecutor interrupted.
“Did you inform them?” Dratel asked Kohlmann.
“Sustained,” said U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest. “Asked and answered.”
Dratel couldn’t go any further.
And Kohlmann didn’t actually answer the question.
Trevor Aaronson
July 27 2015, 5:25 p.m.
Find this story at 27 July 2015
Copyright https://firstlook.org/

Hij duikt de afgelopen jaren geregeld op in de media als ‘onafhankelijk’ expert op het gebied van terreur, Glenn Schoen. Hij verkondigt doemscenario’s die de overheid dienen aan te sporen het pakket aan veiligheidsmaatregelen verder op te schroeven. Schoen echter is werkzaam voor de private beveiligingsfirma G4S, in wezen verkoopt hij zijn product.
Glenn Schoen is een graag geziene gast in de wereld van de media. Van het tv-programma Dit is de dag van Tijs van de Brink, BNR nieuwsradio, Pauw en Witteman, Met het Oog op Morgen tot aan Hubert Smeets van NRC Handelsblad: ze maken allemaal dolgraag gebruik van de diensten van Schoen. Hij wordt onder andere omschreven als ‘terrorisme deskundige/expert’, ‘terreurdeskundige/expert’, ‘Al Qaida deskundige/expert’, ‘veiligheidsdeskundige/expert’, ‘veiligheidsanalist’ en ‘beveiligingsdeskundige’.
Waaraan hij al deze titels te danken heeft, is niet altijd even duidelijk. Schoen heeft geen indrukwekkende publicatielijst op zijn naam staan. Wie een boek van hem probeert te vinden, raakt teleurgesteld. Ook artikelen van zijn hand in de media zijn moeilijk te vinden. Zelfs op de website van G4S, het beveiligingsbedrijf waar hij voor werkt, bevat geen publicaties onder de naam van Schoen.
Hans Beerekamp schrijft in een van zijn tv-recensies in NRC Handelsblad (11-02-14) dat Glenn Schoen een ‘praktijkman’ is, ‘in de hoogtij van wat toen steevast werd aangeduid als ‘moslimterrorisme’ werd nog wel eens een praktijkman (Glenn Schoen was de bekendste) voor de camera gehaald.’ Volgens Beerekamp willen ‘we (de media red.) tegenwoordig toch liever een wetenschapper.’ Wie echter de mediastatus van Schoen bekijkt, constateert dat hij nog steeds een graag geziene gast is op radio en tv, maar ook in de geschreven media.
In de NRC wordt hij zelfs twee dagen eerder dan de angehaalde tv-recensie van Beerekamp door journalist en ‘Ruslandkenner’ Hubert Smeets geciteerd in relatie tot de veiligheid van de Olympische Winterspelen in het Russische Sotsji: “Neem van mij aan dat de Russen voor een goede package zorgen: politieauto’s, motorrijders, busjes”, zo weet Schoen te melden.
Dokter Clavan
Er is sprake van een aantal opvallende zaken die aan het optreden van Schoen in de media ten grondslag liggen, maar ook de manier waarop de media met de man omgaan, baart enig opzien. De wijze waarop Schoen bijvoorbeeld zijn mening verkondigt, getuigt van een hoog ‘dokter Clavan’ gehalte. Misschien niet geheel vergelijkbaar met het niveau van het gesprek tussen interviewer Hobbema (acteur Wim de Bie) en dokter Clavan (Kees van Kooten) tijdens een tv-uitzending van Keek op de Week (12-11-89), maar veel recente opmerkingen van Schoen echoën het typetje van Van Kooten na:
Hobbema: “Dokter Clavan, het gaat allemaal ongelooflijk snel hè?”
Clavan: “Meneer Hobéma, het gaat eh, ongelooflijk snel.”
Hobbema: “In een week tijd treedt de regering af, er komt een nieuw Politbureau, een vervroegde Partijconferentie… het is toch niet gering, hè, wat daar gebeurt?”
Clavan: “Als u nagaat dat in één week tijd de regering aftreedt, dat er een nieuw Politbureau wordt benoemd, dat er een vervroegde Partijconferentie wordt uitgeschreven… Dat is niet gering hoor, wat daar gebeurt.”
Hobbema: “En dan de Muur, die eigenlijk geen functie meer heeft…”
Clavan: “De Muur heeft eigenlijk geen functie meer.”
Taalhistoricus Ewoud Sanders schreef in zijn boek Jemig de pemig! (2000, etymologiebank.nl) dat de personage van dokter Clavan voortkwam uit het feit dat de ontwikkelingen (in Oost Europa red.) zo snel gingen en zo onduidelijk waren dat de gemiddelde leek die z’n krant had gelezen en naar CNN had gekeken, er evenveel zinnigs over kon opmerken als een wetenschapper die er jaren voor had doorgeleerd. Het was alom koffiedik kijken, speculeren en zinnen vullen zonder veel te zeggen.’ Schoen is dan wel geen wetenschapper, hoewel hij soms MA (Master of Science) achter zijn naam laat zetten, maar gebruikt veel van de technieken van dr. Clavan.
In het artikel van Smeets over Sotsji, hoewel geen tv/radio, lijkt de conversatie van Hobbema en Clavan te worden gespiegeld. Smeets schrijft: ‘De politie krijgt ondersteuning van 23.000 mannen en vrouwen van het paramilitaire Ministerie voor Noodtoestanden.’ Smeets gaat verder over de draconische maatregelen die de Russen hebben afgekondigd. Dan volgt een vraag aan Glenn Schoen over de beveiliging van de Nederlandse hoogwaardigheid bekleders in Sotsji. Het antwoord van Schoen is dan zoals boven weergegeven: “Neem van mij aan dat de Russen voor een goede package zorgen: politieauto’s, motorrijders, busjes.”
Op 17 maart 2014 wordt Schoen uitgenodigd door BNR Nieuwsradio voor een item over de verdwenen Boeing 777 van Malaysia Airlines (MH370) vanwege de lading en of het vliegtuig gekaapt zou kunnen zijn. De interviewer: “Want die theorie van die kaping is een hele serieuze aan het worden?” Schoen antwoordt: “Ja, dat is een hele serieuze aan het worden. Als we kijken naar hoe het toestel is gevlogen, wat er nodig moest zijn om het te veranderen. Welke route die initieel heeft gekozen? Het moment van de vlucht waarop het is gekozen?”
De Nuclear Security Summit van 24 en 25 maart in Den Haag vormde een van de hoogtepunten voor Schoen. Veel journalisten vonden hun weg naar onze ‘terrorisme-expert’. Journalisten van onder andere het Dagblad van het Noorden, diverse edities van het Algemeen Dagblad, het Parool, De Nieuws BV van de VARA en het NOS Journaal raadpleegden hem. In het Parool (22-03-14) wordt Schoen geciteerd: ‘Volgens Schoen draait het allemaal om het afdekken van voorspelbare en voorstelbare risico’s. “De groepen moeten van elkaar gescheiden blijven; je wilt niet dat een Amerikaanse delegatielid wordt aangereden door een bakfiets.”’
‘Gevaarlijke wereld’
De gemeenplaatsen die Schoen keer op keer herhaalt, lijken voor de media aantrekkelijk. Hij spreekt heldere en duidelijke taal. Er is echter ook iets anders waarom de man een graag geziene gast is. Hij vertegenwoordigt een groot deel van de journalistieke wereld die geen kritiek heeft op politie, justitie en inlichtingendiensten. Woorden als repressieve tolerantie, repressie, doorgeslagen veiligheidscultuur, gewelddadig politie-optreden en overmatige inbreuk op de burger- en mensenrechten wensen veel media niet langer in hun programma’s horen. Het gevaar van nu vormt bij de media het islamitisch terrorisme, de zelf ontbrandende burger, de eenzame waxinelicht-gooier en andere randverschijnselen van deze samenleving.
Schoen sluit naadloos aan bij deze ideologie van de veiligheidsstaat. In het Financieele Dagblad (20-08-13) wordt hij geciteerd: “Als een van de kernactiviteiten houdt Al Qaida zich al tien jaar bezig met het kijken naar treinen als doelwit.” Voorbeelden hiervan zijn de aanslagen op treinen in Madrid in 2004 en op de Londense metro in 2005. “Dergelijke aanvallen zijn moeilijk te voorkomen. Het spoor is onderdeel van onze kritische infrastructuur, het is kwetsbaar, een aanslag werkt ontregelend. En helaas heeft een aantal incidenten laten zien dat je veel slachtoffers kunt krijgen”, aldus de veiligheidsexpert. Het artikel is geschreven naar aanleiding van een artikel in het blad Bild waarin beweerd wordt dat ‘veiligheidsdiensten gewaarschuwd hebben voor mogelijke aanslagen op zowel treinmaterieel als spoorinfrastructuur.’
Veel van wat Schoen zegt is een open deur: “Een aanslag werkt ontregelend, je krijgt veel slachtoffers”. Het ontbreekt de man aan kritische analyse: “Dergelijke aanvallen zijn moeilijk te voorkomen.” Analyses van de aanslagen in Madrid en Londen, en de betrokkenheid en het falen van politie en inlichtingendiensten daarbij, zijn niet besteed aan Glenn Schoen.
“We leven in een gevaarlijke wereld”, zegt hij aan het eind van een tv-uitzending van Dit is de dag met Tijs van den Brink (02-12-13). Het item gaat over het benaderen ven studenten die protesteerden tegen het bezuinigingsbeleid van de regering door de AIVD. Natuurlijk vindt Schoen het goed dat de dienst alles doet om de veiligheid van Nederland te waarborgen. Van den Brink is het helemaal met Schoen eens en stelt geen enkele kritische vraag aan de ‘terreurdeskundige’. Ook vraagt de interviewer niet naar het bedrijf waar Schoen voor werkt. De EO heeft Schoen in de Rolodex staan, want hij treedt er geregeld op bij ‘veiligheidsvraagstukken’.
Dubbele tong
Niet alleen de media zijn van hem gecharmeerd, ook in de semi-academische wereld van inlichtingen- en veiligheidsstudies is Glenn Schoen veelvuldig te vinden. Assistent Professor Giliam de Valk, docent aan de UvA, geeft samen met Schoen les aan de European Security Academy. Hun module is ‘Direction’ genaamd: ‘Voorafgaand aan het diner wordt een praktisch verband gelegd via global threats.’ De module behandelt onder andere de dreigingsmatrix en informatiepositie. Over Schoen staat geschreven dat hij ‘G4S Risk Advisory’ is en blijkbaar kennis heeft over ‘global threats’ en informatieposities van overheden en bedrijven.
Enkele jaren geleden heeft Professor Dr. Rob de Wijk van The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies Schoen uitgenodigd voor de derde internationale masterclass over ‘International Emergency Management and specifically Consequence Management: try to prepare for the unthinkable disaster!’ Schoen sprak tijdens dit evenement in december 2011 over de bedreigingen van de moderne samenleving. Een jaar eerder waren de heren al gezamenlijk naar buiten getreden met het verhaal dat er sinds 11 september 2001 “zeker vijftig omvangrijke terroristische aanslagen van moslimextremisten in Europa voorkomen” (AD, 25-09-10). Schoen stapte in 2010 over van Ernst & Young naar G4S. Ook Edwin Bakker, hoogleraar Terrorisme aan de Universiteit Leiden, kent Glenn Schoen al jaren en deelt vaak zijn mening over veiligheid en terrorisme in de media.
Hans Beerekamp schrijft in zijn tv-rubriek van 11 februari 2014 dat Schoen zo vaak optreedt omdat ‘de meeste mensen die er echt iets vanaf weten er niet over mogen praten.’ Volgens de NRC-journalist zouden mensen van de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten de mensen zijn ‘die er echt iets vanaf weten.’ Wie de kritische literatuur over het veiligheidsbeleid volgt, zal concluderen dat geheime diensten het meestal niet echt zo goed lijken te weten. De mogelijke val van de Muur ontging de CIA in het geheel, evenals de aanslagen van 11 september 2001. Ook de AIVD en haar voorloper de BVD hadden veel zaken niet door, zoals de moorden op Pim Fortuyn en Theo van Gogh.
Het gaat dus niet om de expertise van Schoen, maar om zijn mening die werd gevormd door zijn ‘professionele’ carrière. En daar doet zich iets geks voor. Wie in de krantenbank zoekt op de naam Glenn Schoen komt de expert of deskundige Schoen vaak tegen. Dat de man deskundige is, wordt overal vermeld, maar slechts in een derde van de artikelen over Schoen in Lexis Nexis van de afgelopen jaren wordt tevens de naam vermeld van het bedrijf waarvoor hij heeft gewerkt. Ook op radio en tv wordt vaak niet vermeld dat Schoen werkzaam is voor de beveiligingsindustrie.
Is dat dan zo belangrijk? Als Schoen zegt dat ‘we in een gevaarlijke wereld leven’, ‘treinen gevaar lopen’ en ‘elke massa is doelwit’ (Parool, 11-07-05), moet de mediaconsument weten dat hier iemand spreekt die zijn boterham verdient met beveiligen. Het aandikken van het gevaar kan, indirect, extra inkomsten voor het bedrijf waar Schoen voor werkt opleveren.
Inlichtingen- en beveiligingsadviezen in de commerciële wereld, maar ook in de publieke sector hebben zowel te maken met omzet als met politieke kleur. Glenn Schoen werkt al sinds 1988 in dienst van de commerciële inlichtingenwereld. Eerst onder de vleugels van Noel Koch, een hard-liner die diende onder president Nixon en Reagan, en sinds 2006 als beveiligingsanalist voor Ernst & Young en G4S. Het feit dat hij voor G4S, het grootste beveiligingsbedrijf van de wereld, werkzaam is, maar ook nog eens een groot deel van zijn professionele carrière bij bedrijven van een conservatief uit de rangen van Nixon, zegt iets over zijn mening omtrent beveiliging en hoe de wereld in elkaar zit.
Private inlichtingenwereld
Schoen kan dus in principe over alles meepraten. Of het nu gaat over Sotjsi, verdwijntips voor Holleeder, benaderen van studenten door de geheime dienst, Osama Bin Laden, een verdwenen Boeing, beveiliging rond de Olympische Spelen of de NSS; hij heeft een antwoord paraat. Hij werkt al vele jaren in de wereld van het op commerciële basis verzamelen van inlichtingen en adviezen geven over beveiliging. Een lucratieve wereld, zoals hij zelf ooit eens als veiligheidsadviseur van Ernst & Young duidelijk maakte. “Wereldwijd gaat er 53 miljard om in de beveiligingsindustrie”, zegt Glenn Schoen, terrorisme-expert van Ernst & Young. “Meer dan in de film- en de muziekindustrie bij elkaar.”(Vrij Nederland, 10-02-07)
Schoen begon zijn analytische carrière in 1988 bij International Security Management Inc. (ISM Inc.), een bedrijf uit het Amerikaanse Maryland. ISM Inc. is een zogenoemd beveiligings-adviesbedrijf. Het verdient zijn geld met het verkopen van reis- en veiligheidsadviezen aan bedrijven en vakantiegangers. De meeste van die adviezen bestaan uit het opnieuw verpakken van overheidsinformatie, maar ook uit het bijhouden van berichtgeving door de internationale media.
In 1998 legde Schoen uit dat het beter is om het Midden-Oosten te vermijden. ‘Certain Islamic countries pose the biggest threat, security consultants like Schoen say, especially Iraq, Jordan, Yemen’, tekent de Seattle Times News Services (15-02-98) op uit de mond van Schoen. Schoen’s informatie is echter grotendeels afkomstig van overheidsorganen en uit de media. ‘The State Department has issued an alert urging American travelers to be aware of government warnings and travel advisory updates stemming from anxieties in the Persian Gulf’, wordt enkele regels eerder aan de opmerking van Schoen vermeld.
In het algemeen volgen private inlichtingenbedrijven de overheidsinformatie op de voet en ‘verkopen’ die door aan bedrijven en individuen. Een woordvoerder van het State Department legt Schoen bijna de woorden in de mond, al gebruikt die dan niet de namen van specifieke landen: ‘“While at this time we know of no specific threats to U.S. citizens or interests overseas in relation to the present situation in Iraq, we cannot discount the possibility of random acts of anti-American violence”, a spokesman said.’
De baas van International Security Management Inc. is Noel Koch die in 1986 ook de president wordt van een ander commercieel inlichtingenbedrijf, Transecur inc. Dit bedrijf wordt omschreven als een ‘web-based’ beveiligings-/adviesbedrijf dat inlichtingen over mogelijke gevaren verschaft aan bedrijven, overheden en rijke families. Koch werkte in de jaren ’80 onder president Reagan als assistent van de minister van Defensie en als directeur speciale planningen van het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie. Daarvoor was hij tevens speciaal assistent van president Nixon. Hij leidde het eerste onderzoek naar de aanslagen op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Beiroet in 1983. Koch is duidelijk een hardliner en warm pleitbezorger van de private beveiligingswereld. Schoen heeft vanaf eind jaren ’80 voor hem gewerkt.
Eind jaren ’90 verkaste Schoen van International Security Management Inc. naar Transecur inc. waar Koch ook de baas van is. In 2004 opent Transecur een Europees kantoor in Den Haag. Koch benoemt Schoen tot directeur analytische diensten. Business Wire (01-06-04) omschrijft Schoen als een expert op het terrein van ‘European and Middle Eastern sub-conflicts, and special interest activism’.
Dat Schoen een goede leerling van Koch is geweest, blijkt uit een presentatie tijdens een conferentie in Polen, oktober 2012. Onder de titel ‘Terrorism in Europe: Perspectives on 2013-2014’ vertelt Schoen over hoe “the terrorist threat from various quarters – leftwing, rightwing, Jihadist, separatist, activist – is evolving.” Links, rechts, activist, of separatist, het zijn allemaal jihadi en gevaarlijk, zo is de ‘overtuiging’ van Schoen.
Media-carrière
In 2005 verlaat Schoen, na 18 jaar werkzaam voor Noel Koch te zijn geweest en na een jaar als Europese directeur van Transecur, zijn post en treedt in dienst van Ernst & Young als veiligheidsadviseur. In dat jaar begint ook zijn Nederlandse media-carrière. In Amerika had hij ook al een status als mediadeskundige opgebouwd, maar de Amerikaanse Nederlander moet in Holland natuurlijk een nieuwe status zien op te bouwen.
Dit gaat hem goed af, mede dankzij de hoogleraren Rob de Wijk en Edwin Bakker. In 2010 beweren de Wijk en Schoen beiden dat de inlichtingendiensten vijftig aanslagen hadden weten te voorkomen sinds 2001. Veel bewijs hadden ze er niet voor, maar de twee ‘terreurdeskundigen’ uit zowel de publieke als de private sector kregen veel aandacht in de media. In 2010 stapt Schoen over naar G4S om daar de post ‘risk advisory’ in te vullen. Op de website van G4S is te lezen dat ‘Security en Safety Risk Management een groeiende noodzaak’ zijn.
Glenn Schoen werkt ondertussen bijna vier jaar als veiligheidsadviseur bij het grootste beveiligingsbedrijf ter wereld. G4S is daarnaast de een na grootste werkgever op aarde met meer dan 600.000 werknemers en biedt oplossingen voor zo’n beetje alles, waarbij het niet altijd alleen om veiligheid draait.
G4S verzorgt de beveiliging op vliegvelden, voor de Olympische Spelen, regeringsgebouwen, havens, allerlei instituties van de Verenigde Naties, niet gouvernementele organisaties, banken en andere commerciële bedrijven, mijnen, olievelden en installaties, kerncentrales. Maar het bedrijf is ook actief bij het geldtransport, in het gevangeniswezen, politiewerk, ambulancewerk, vluchtelingengevangenis en uitzettingen, huisarrest toezicht. G4S is op vele plaatsen doorgedrongen in de haarvaten van de samenleving. Een allround bedrijf, net als Schoen die van alle markten thuis is en overal kan aanschuiven.
Bij al die mediaoptredens werd Schoen sinds 2010 nooit iets over zijn eigen bedrijf gevraagd. Tijdens de elfde European Security Conference & Exhibition in april 2012 hield hij een lezing over ‘Olympic Terrorism Concerns – Past & Present’. Niemand in de zaal zal hem lastige vragen hebben gesteld over het aanstaande debacle dat G4S in de zomer van dat jaar ontketende. Het bedrijf bleek niet in staat om genoeg beveiligers te rekruteren en voor een deugdelijk veiligheidsplan te zorgen. Het Britse leger moest uiteindelijk uitrukken om de Olympische Spelen in Londen door te kunnen laten gaan.
Iedere burger kan bedenken dat een van de eerste vereisten voor het voorkomen van aanslagen een goede beveiliging is. Daar hoef je geen deskundige of expert voor te zijn. Schoen is nooit over het disfunctioneren van G4S bij de Olympische Spelen in Londen ondervraagd. Ook rond het WK voetbal in Zuid-Afrika (2010) en de Olympische Winterspelen (2014) is Schoen over terreurdreigingen in de media verschenen.
Schandalen
Na het fiasco rond de gebrekkige beveiliging rond de Olympische Spelen van 2012 in Londen stapelden de schandalen rond G4S zich op. De schandalen speelden zich vooral af in Engeland, maar dit is deels bedrog aangezien de Britse media veel publiceren over het bedrijf en haar medewerkers. Het gaat dan om uiteenlopende zaken, zoals het oplichten van de overheid bij een programma voor het controleren van mensen onder huisarrest. G4S heeft de overheid rekeningen gestuurd van mensen die allang geen huisarrest meer hadden, of die overleden waren.
De dood van een invalide man die werd vervoerd door een ambulance van G4S, het uitzetten van een zwangere vrouw die op het punt stond te bevallen, de dood van een vluchteling door toedoen van G4S-bewakers die de man voorafgaande ook nog racistisch zouden hebben bejegend, de slechte staat van de opvang voor asielzoekers waarbij de lokale overheid moest ingrijpen, zijn slechts enkele andere voorbeelden van de vele schandalen rond het bedrijf.
In het buitenland is het niet veel beter gesteld. G4S stuurde slecht getrainde labiele bewakers naar Irak die elkaar doodschoten en verwondden. In de VS konden mensen zomaar het terrein van een uraniumverrijkingsfabriek, beveiligd door G4S, oplopen. In Israël werkte G4S mee aan de afsluiting van de bezette gebieden, de West Bank en de Gaza-strook. Ook verzorgde het bedrijf de beveiliging van gevangenissen waar Palestijnse politiek gevangenen en kinderen worden opgesloten.
In Australië stierven vluchtelingen en gevangenen in de slecht geprivatiseerde gevangenissen van G4S, terwijl in Zuid-Afrika gevangenen werden gemarteld middels elektroshocks en plat spuiten. De meeste media schreven een nieuwsbericht over de martelingen en noemden G4S. In De Groene Amsterdammer beschrijft freelance-journalist Ruth Hopkins het onderzoek naar de behandeling van de gevangenen door G4S. Enkele media besteedden er iets meer aandacht aan, maar Glenn C. Schoen is in het openbaar nooit naar de situatie in de gevangenissen in Zuid-Afrika gevraagd.
Kritiekloze media
Begin dit jaar stonden de kranten vol van een personeelsstaking bij G4S wegens dreigende ontslagen. Dit als gevolg van de bezuinigingen en sluitingen van gevangenissen door het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Door middel van bezettingen, demonstraties en picket-lines probeerden de werknemers de directie van G4S op andere gedachten te brengen. De media-aandacht voor werknemers die worden ontslagen staat in schril contrast met de aandacht die de vele burger- en mensenrechtenschendingen door G4S krijgt.
Schoen’s regelmatige mediaoptredens blijven ondertussen gewoon doorgaan. Op 8 maart 2014 treedt hij op als veiligheidsdeskundige in het NOS radioprogramma Met het Oog op Morgen, zonder de vermelding dat hij voor G4S werkt. Hij wordt gevraagd naar de mogelijkheid van een terroristische aanslag op vlucht MH370 van Malaysia Airlines. Op 11 april 2014 zit hij in de uitzending van WNL Opiniemakers van de publieke omroep over het feit dat er geen particuliere beveiligers worden toegelaten op Nederlandse koopvaardijschepen.
Tussendoor verschijnt er een interview met hem op de G4S website. Schoen geeft daarin aan dat “G4S zowel in een adviesrol als een operationele rol betrokken was bij de NSS. Als kleine schakel in een enorme operatie, heb ik persoonlijk invulling mogen geven aan de adviseursrol.” Naast zijn eigen ‘bescheiden’ rol, noemt Schoen ook de rol van het gehele bedrijf waar hij voor werkt. “Naast de massale inzet van politie en defensie, droegen ook veel beveiligers uit de private sector een steentje bij op het gebied van security en safety. G4S leverde ongeveer 1.100 extra diensten tijdens de NSS”, wordt uit de mond van Schoen opgetekend.
Natuurlijk wordt Schoen niet gevraagd waarom G4S eigenlijk niet de gehele beveiliging heeft mogen uitvoeren. Het Olympisch debacle zal G4S zo snel mogelijk willen vergeten. Over wat er dan met de adviezen van Schoen is gebeurd, wil de tekstschrijver van de website van G4S ook al niet weten, maar het artikel is dan ook bedoeld als promotie van de beveiligingsbranche en specifiek G4S.
Toch is er niet zoveel verschil tussen het optreden van Glenn C. Schoen op de website van G4S en zijn optreden in de Nederlandse media. Waarom de beveiliger met alle egards wordt ontvangen, lijkt minder met zijn expertise te maken te hebben dan met zijn onkritische houding ten aanzien van de veiligheidsstaat. Als beveiliger is het logisch om de wereld als het inferno van Dante te omschrijven, hoe gevaarlijker, hoe meer business. Voor de journalistiek lijkt in principe hetzelfde uitgangspunt te gelden. Geweld en ellende verkopen nu eenmaal beter dan het verhaal dat de meerderheid van de Nederlanders elke dag zonder problemen zal doorkomen.
Toch verwacht je van de journalistiek wel enige mate van feitenonderzoek, en op z’n minst dat de achtergrond van de ‘deskundige’ of ‘expert’ expliciet wordt vermeld. Het weglaten van de naam van het bedrijf waar Schoen voor werkt, geeft eigenlijk aan dat de media niet geïnteresseerd is in de werkelijke feiten ten aanzien van de veiligheid, maar graag een mening wil horen die overeenkomt met die van de journalist. Bij de berichtgeving over het veiligheidsbeleid in Nederland of elders wordt bijna nooit voor een kritische insteek gekozen. Het optreden van Schoen in de media is daar dan ook een schoolvoorbeeld van.
Find this story at June 2014
or as pdf

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

The United Nations is coming under criticism for failing to investigate allegations of sexual exploitation of children by French peacekeeping troops in the Central African Republic between December 2013 and June 2014. The Guardian obtained a leaked report that says French soldiers raped and sodomized starving and homeless young boys who they were supposed to be protecting at a center for internally displaced people during intense fighting in the country. Even after the exploitation was brought to the attention of senior U.N. officials, the U.N. never reported it to French authorities — nor did it do anything to immediately stop the abuse. So far, the only person to be punished is a U.N. aid worker, Anders Kompass, who stepped outside official channels to alert French authorities about the sexual exploitation. Kompass has since been accused of leaking the confidential report in breach of U.N. protocols and now faces dismissal. We speak to Paula Donovan, co-director of AIDS-Free World, which has launched the Code Blue campaign.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The United Nations is coming under criticism for failing to investigate allegations of sexual exploitation of children by French peacekeeping troops in the Central African Republic between December 2013 and June 2014. The Guardian obtained a leaked report that says French soldiers raped and sodomized starving and homeless young boys who they were suppose to be protecting at a center for internally displaced people during intense fighting in the country. Even after the exploitation was brought to the attention of senior U.N. officials, the U.N. never reported it to French authorities, nor did it do anything to immediately stop the abuse. So far, the only person to be punished is a U.N. aid worker, Anders Kompass, who stepped outside official channels to alert French authorities to the sexual exploitation occurring. Kompass has since been accused of leaking a confidential report in breach of U.N. protocols and now faces dismissal.
The Guardian obtained the leaked report from Paula Donovan, who will join us shortly. She and other activists have just launched a new campaign called Code Blue, which seeks to hold the United Nations accountable for sexual misconduct. Earlier this month, the group held a press conference to announce the campaign. This is Stephen Lewis of AIDS-Free World, followed by Theo Sowa of the African Women’s Development Fund and Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury of Bangladesh.
STEPHEN LEWIS: Never, but never, can sexual exploitation and abuse be subject to immunity. That’s the first step. The second step flows logically. Once the immunity is removed from non-military personnel, then the military will be under tremendous pressure to expunge sexual exploitation and abuse from their ranks.
THEO SOWA: When the U.N. becomes the protectors of predators instead of the prosecutors of predators, that destroys me, because I believe in the U.N.
AMBASSADOR ANWARUL CHOWDHURY: Transparency, I think, is the keyword here. We need to be open about how many such cases are there of sexual abuse and exploitation, which countries are involved in it, what they are doing, and how the cases now being sent by the U.N. to them are being handled.
AMY GOODMAN: United Nations peacekeeping missions have long been dogged by allegations of sexual abuse, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Kosovo to Bosnia, also Burundi, Haiti and Liberia. In March, the U.N. came under criticism for ignoring an internal report that called sexual exploitation, quote, “the most significant risk” to peacekeeping missions across the globe. The leaked document described a culture of “impunity” when dealing with sexual misconduct cases among U.N. peacekeepers, saying, quote, “UN personnel in all the missions we visited could point to numerous suspected or quite visible cases of [sexual exploitation and abuse] that are not being counted or investigated.”
For more, we go to Boston, Massachusetts, where we are joined by Paula Donovan, co-director of AIDS-Free World, which has launched the Code Blue campaign.
Paula Donovan, in the last two weeks, you’ve issued major findings. You first held a news conference at the U.N. and now released another report. Tell us what you have found.
PAULA DONOVAN: What we’ve found overall, Amy, is that there is a tremendous amount of lip service given to the zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse policy by the United Nations. And that really came to light over the past month or so, when we received leaked documents about this U.N. official, Anders Kompass, who was under fire, ostensibly for having leaked a document that demonstrated how serious, very serious, documented cases of the rape and sodomy of children, of young boys in the Central African Republic, had been known to the U.N., had been documented by the U.N., and had been completely ignored by them for eight months. And what it shows is that when the United Nations learns of these abuses, it seems to be that the first—the first response is to simply lie low and see whether or not they can get away with not reporting it to governments and not alerting the public about the danger, the imminent danger that they’re in, and just sort of maintaining almost a forensic view that “we’ll watch as these abuses go on and develop, and maybe record them, but we have no obligation to intervene.”
And the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNICEF were taking these horrible testimonies from children, as the abuse was continuing, mainly by French soldiers, also by Equatorial Guinean and Chadian soldiers, and simply sitting on the reports for a month at a time, continuing to take these documented cases and testimonies from the children, and then eventually sending them on to Geneva to the headquarters of the human rights office, where only one person stepped up and said, “I need to alert the French right away and get an investigation started.” He’s now, months and months later, under review for having handed over the document with the information about the kids and the soldiers they described to the authorities who could—in France, who could take things into hand.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And how have the French authorities responded since this has come to light?
PAULA DONOVAN: They have—initially, they opened an investigation, a preliminary investigation, in July of 2014, when Anders Kompass first handed the document over to them. It seems as though that was stalled almost immediately by the refusal of the United Nations to allow them to—to allow the police to talk to the people who had interviewed—the U.N. staff who had interviewed the children and could give them more information about their whereabouts and about the soldiers. Then there was a long period of silence, when no one appears to have done anything. And once AIDS-Free World exposed this to the media—and that was only on April 29th, 2015—then things kicked into gear, and the French have now taken up their investigation again in earnest.
AMY GOODMAN: Paula Donovan, we only have about two minutes to go. You’re leading a campaign to get rid of immunity in the United Nations around sexual abuse and exploitation. Explain how the U.N. shields its own members from due process when they are accused of sexual assault.
PAULA DONOVAN: Under an ancient convention from 1946, the U.N. staff are all protected from being involved in any sort of legal process. So whether they’re witnesses, whether they have evidence, whether they’re the perpetrators themselves, if it has to do with sexual exploitation and abuse, then the secretary-general has to, on a case-by-case basis, decide to waive their immunity and allow them to be subject to what the rest of the world is subject to—called in to testify, cooperating with a criminal investigation, or actually arrested, in the case of perpetrators. And this just infects the entire U.N. system, and the way they deal with sexual exploitation and abuse is such a sham that we’re essentially saying it needs an external, independent investigation from top to bottom.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And so, what do you think the U.N.—what kinds of internal changes are you calling for within the U.N. so that these allegations can be dealt with in a better way in the future?
PAULA DONOVAN: I think—right, so as the Central African Republic case shows, serious member states of the United Nations have to take hold of things, and they need to move in and figure out: When an allegation of sexual abuse is first brought to light, what are the—what are the mandated protocols? How do we respond? And then, what do the various agencies and institutions within the entities within the U.N. have to do? Should UNICEF—and my answer is absolutely yes—should they have to move in immediately to protect—
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
PAULA DONOVAN: —children from further abuse? The whole U.N. needs to be looked at from top to bottom by an external commission.
AMY GOODMAN: Paula Donovan, thanks so much for being with us, co-director of AIDS-Free World, which has launched the Code Blue campaign, seeking to end sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. military and non-military peacekeeping personnel.
FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2015
Find this story at 29 May 2015

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

On April 29, 2015, the world learned of disturbing accounts of sexual abuse of young boys by French, Chadian, and Equatorial Guinean peacekeepers at a displaced persons camp in the Central African Republic (CAR). The interviews, which had been conducted nearly a year earlier by staff from the UN’s Office of the High Commission for Human Rights and UNICEF, were leaked to the Guardian newspaper by AIDS-Free World. The resulting article also detailed the account of Anders Kompass, a career human rights official from Sweden, who had been suspended and was being investigated by the UN for his role in passing details of the abuse to the French government.
For the past month, Anders Kompass has remained silent on his role in this affair, even as the UN publicly blamed him for ‘leaking’ the report. AIDS-Free World has since obtained and is releasing today a series of incriminating internal UN documents, memos and email correspondence—including Kompass’ own account of the events—that expose the UN’s inaction. They also point to efforts by several senior UN officials to silence a staff member who could expose their failure to sound the alarm or protect children from imminent harm.
This is the untold story.
———————————
In early May of 2014, an international NGO requested help from MINUSCA, the UN’s peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic: several displaced children in the capital, Bangui, had reported that they and their friends were being raped by international forces in exchange for food.
On May 19, 2014, a junior OHCHR Human Rights Officer on temporary assignment with MINUSCA and a UNICEF staff member conducted an interview with an 11-year-old boy. The child reported that a French soldier promised him food in exchange for oral sex, negotiated with a guard to bring him onto the base, raped him, and then gave him biscuits and cash. The boy gave a detailed description of the soldier and said he could positively identify him in a photo.
The human rights officer ‘immediately’ relayed her interview notes to a MINUSCA official who acted as her supervisor in the Central African Republic. By all accounts, Renner Onana, Chief of Human Rights and Justice, did not take action: No warning was sent out to soldiers, no effort was made to inform the French or other authorities, nothing was done to prevent ongoing abuse, no alert was issued to the tens of thousands of internally displaced adults in the camp that sexual predators were disguised as protectors and posed imminent danger to children and other civilians. There is no record that on May 19th, 2014 that first child interviewed was offered the immediate protection he required.
Over the next five weeks, the Human Rights Officer and UNICEF staff members interviewed multiple known child victims as they were tracked down by a volunteer for the NGO that had requested the UN’s assistance. Several child victims known to the volunteer couldn’t be located. After each interview—on May 19th, May 20th, June 5th, June 17th, June 18th, and June 24th—the OHCHR human rights officer delivered her notes to MINUSCA; the UNICEF staff members wrote up their own notes of forced oral sex and anal rape of boys aged 8 to 15—and still no action was taken.
During the June 18th interview, a 13-year-old boy said he couldn’t number all the times he’d been forced to perform oral sex on soldiers but the most recent had been between June 8th and 12th, 2014—several weeks after the UN’s first interview. Even with solid proof that the crimes were still occurring as they gathered additional testimonies from children, MINUSCA, OHCHR, and UNICEF took no action. (UNICEF is cited in the human rights officer’s reports as having plans to attend to the interviewees’ education, family reunification, and psycho-social needs. UNICEF spokespeople have since been directed, ‘if asked,’ to state that those needs were met. No specifics are included about which children received assistance, or how many in total.)
Leaked documents show that additional UN officials in MINUSCA, Geneva, and New York received the human rights officer’s official final report of interviews with child victims before her departure from CAR, on July 14th, 2014. It is not known which UNICEF officials received final reports. In total, the interviews document sexual abuse of 13 children by a total of 16 peacekeepers: 11 were French, 3 were from Chad, and 2 were from Equatorial Guinea. Another 7 peacekeepers solicited children or acted as accomplices. The report implicates 23 soldiers in all.
By agreeing to be interviewed by the UN, the children expected the abuse to stop and the perpetrators to be arrested. When children report sexual abuse, adults must report it to the authorities. A child needs protection and, by definition, does not have the agency to decide whether to press charges. They deserved the protection they assumed they would receive once the UN knew of their abuse.
Instead, more than a year passed before their stories came to light, and the investigations began in earnest.
———————————
By mid-July 2014, at least 12 UN staff had received the human rights officer’s report. All were aware that no action had been taken, no authorities had been alerted, and the abuse was ongoing. One of the 12 recipients, Roberto Ricci, brought the report directly to the attention of his supervisor in Geneva, Anders Kompass. It was then that Mr. Kompass informed French diplomatic authorities, who requested a copy of the report in order to launch an investigation. Kompass delivered the report to the French authorities in July with a written and signed cover note and received written acknowledgement and thanks on July 30th from the French government, informing him that an investigation was underway. That official letter was stamped as received on August 5th and entered into the OHCHR correspondence log.
French investigators arrived in CAR’s capital, Bangui, on August 1st and questioned Renner Onana, MINUSCA’s Chief of Human Rights and Justice—the official who had received a summary report from the Human Rights Officer after each interview. The investigators were referred by MINUSCA to the Human Rights Officer, who asked first Renner Onana, and then Cecile Aptel, OHCHR’s Senior Legal Advisor, about whether to speak to the police. After consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs in New York, Aptel instructed her to reply to the French authorities that they should present any questions in writing through UN lawyers; the legal office would convey written answers.
The Human Rights Officer’s UN immunity from legal process had been invoked. The UNICEF staff members who had taken part in the interviews were similarly approached by French investigators. They too referred investigators to the Office of Legal Affairs.
The French investigation stalled.
———————————
Anders Kompass. UN Photo/ Violaine Martin
Anders Kompass. UN Photo/ Violaine Martin
On August 7th, 2014, Anders Kompass briefed OHCHR Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri and emailed the report to her on August 8th. The Deputy High Commissioner’s assistant, acknowledging receipt, informed Mr. Kompass by email that same day that the Executive Office of the Secretary-General had been briefed.
Despite Kompass’ definitive assertion and reference to an August 8th email, Pansieri testified in her official account of events—submitted months later to ‘inform’ the investigation into Kompass’ actions—that she first “became aware of the situation some time in early fall, most probably September 2014 (I regret I do no[t] recall the exact date)” through Cecile Aptel, in the context of a leak. Pansieri expressed regrets for having failed to follow up once she learned about the abuses in CAR, (citing a ‘very hectic’ period dealing with budget cuts and the inherent staff tensions and stresses), and attests that her attention was only turned to it again many months later, in early March 2015.
———————————
In his statement to the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein also claims to have learned about the allegations of sexual abuse in CAR in “Autumn of 2014,” shortly after he took over the post.
Around the same time, OHCHR formally requested that the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigate Anders Kompass regarding ‘leaked cables’ in an incident involving Western Sahara.
———————————
On December 22, 2014, just before the UN offices closed for the holiday break, the Secretary-General submitted the final report of the International Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic (S/2014/928). While the commission did not reference the MINUSCA/OHCHR/UNICEF report of abuse by international peacekeepers, it did provide a very specific recommendation: “The Secretary-General’s periodic reports on peacekeeping operations in the CAR should include an analysis of any violations that are alleged to have been committed by both UN peace-keepers and non-UN peacekeepers authorized by the Security Council.”
Three months later, when the Secretary-General submitted his annual report on the UN’s response to sexual exploitation and abuse for 2014, it contained no mention whatsoever of the reports of child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic.
———————————
In early March 2015, High Commissioner Zeid learned informally from UN Chef de Cabinet Susanna Malcorra that Anders Kompass had been cleared of wrongdoing in the Western Sahara case because the investigation “could not substantiate any responsibility for Kompass.”
On March 6th, a full eight months after she’d last heard any news about the CAR case, the Human Rights Officer who had interviewed the child victims spoke with two senior OHCHR lawyers. They questioned her about her report and her assignment in CAR, and then they briefed both Zeid and his deputy, Flavia Pansieri.
On March 12th, on Zeid’s orders and at the request of UN Peacekeeping head Hervé Ladsous, Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri asked Anders Kompass to resign.
———————————
In demanding Kompass’ resignation, the UN made a grave tactical error: a career human rights official from Sweden, Kompass was so trusted that he’d been put in charge of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) just weeks before his abrupt dismissal, when the High Commissioner and Deputy High Commissioner were both absent from the office. The sudden move to terminate him stunned Kompass; the reasons given outraged him. He was being accused of having inappropriately alerted the government of France, nearly a year earlier, to the discovery by OHCHR and UNICEF staff of rampant child sex abuse by French soldiers who’d been sent to protect civilians in the war-ravaged Central African Republic.
Kompass refused to resign, and he threatened to go to the press.
On March 13th, Pansieri briefed High Commissioner Zeid about her interaction with Kompass. Zeid decided that the situation was serious and that they should brief Chef de Cabinet Susanna Malcorra and “other senior colleagues” in person.
———————————
High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. Photo: UN Photo/Violaine Martin
High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. Photo: UN Photo/Violaine Martin
The following week, at the Secretary-General’s Senior Staff Retreat in Turin, Italy on March 19-20, 2015, Chef de Cabinet Susanna Malcorra arranged a meeting between Zeid, Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri, Under-Secretary-General (USG) for OIOS Carman Lapointe, and the UN’s Director of Ethics, Joan Dubinsky, to discuss Anders Kompass.
At the meeting, these senior UN officials decided to open an investigation into Kompass—a fact made even more striking by the knowledge that OIOS and the UN Ethics Office are meant to operate at arm’s-length from the rest of the UN system, in order to ensure accountability and transparency.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Deputy High Commissioner, and the most senior officials of the UN in New York had known for many, many months about Kompass’ ‘inappropriate’ emergency transmittal of a report documenting the child abuse. And they knew that it was only thanks to his transmission of that report to the government of France that the French had immediately reacted and sent an investigation team to the CAR.
With the High Commissioner’s ill-considered demand that Kompass resign, and Kompass’ unexpected refusal to do so, the UN’s most senior officials were finally forced to pay long-overdue attention to the contents of the document they were claiming he had leaked. That was enough to instill panic: clearly, they had all ignored and neglected the appalling crisis it described. If their negligence became public, the UN would face questions for which there were no reasonable answers.
———————————
In Turin, it was decided that Zeid and Pansieri would collect statements from a select group and would send them on with a request for a formal OIOS investigation. Pansieri asked Kompass to write an account of his role in passing documents to the French and suggested he send it to her at her personal email account, rather than her UN account. When Kompass gave his statement, he was not informed that it was intended to be used as part of an investigation against him.
———————————
On April 7th, the Deputy Swedish Ambassador to the UN called Chef de Cabinet Susanna Malcorra. Unable to reach her, he called Joan Dubinsky, Director of the UN Ethics Office. He told her he was informed about an OHCHR report about paedophilia alleged against French soldiers in MINUSCA. Furious that Kompass had been asked to resign without any trace of an investigation or due diligence, he warned that “it would not be a good thing if the High Commissioner for Human Rights forced Mr. Kompass to resign. If that occurred, it would go public, and a harmful and ugly debate would occur.”
———————————
Following the initial meeting in Turin, the group continued corresponding via email about an investigation into Kompass. Two weeks later, on April 9, 2015, Zeid formally requested an OIOS investigation into Kompass for his ‘leak’ of the report of sexual abuse in the Central African Republic.
Attached to the High Commissioner’s official request for an investigation into Kompass’ actions are six statements: a statement from Anders Kompass, the subject of the investigation; a long and a short statement from the Human Rights Officer who conducted the interviews; a statement from High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein; a statement from Deputy High Commissioner Flavia Pansieri; and a joint statement from two OHCHR lawyers recounting their conversation with the Human Rights Officer about her request from the French investigators and the fact that the request had immediately been turned over to the UN Office of Legal Affairs. The request for investigation and the statements were sent together as one package, first to the Director of Ethics, then to OIOS.
The statements conflict dramatically, with one exception: throughout the period when the abuse of African children first came to the attention of numbers of people within the UN, senior officials who were informed seem to have kept no records of meetings or discussions, and recollections are vague. The child victims receive no mention in the statements, nor are there any expressions of concern or curiosity about their welfare. No one providing testimony claims to have inquired about the status of any investigations, about any protection measures enacted, or about any tracing, prevention or support provided to child victims; those omissions are neither noted nor explained. The sole focus of concerted attention is on the alleged ‘leak’ by Anders Kompass.
———————————
During the week of April 13, 2015, a month after his refusal to resign, Kompass was suspended with pay and escorted from his office. He challenged OHCHR’s actions against him before the UN’s Dispute Tribunal; a judge subsequently found in his favor and demanded his reinstatement—pending the outcome of the investigation that is now under way.
The Director of the Investigations Unit in the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), who would normally oversee such a case, recused himself from involvement in the investigation. He had protested in writing to his supervisor, OIOS USG Carman Lapointe, that a decision had been made at the highest levels to investigate Kompass, that the requisite intake process to first determine whether an investigation was warranted had been bypassed, that due process had been abridged, and because of this, any investigation would be prejudiced and improper. The USG for OIOS replied that while she agreed that such processes are usual, the senior management had decided to bypass these processes, and the Director of the Investigative Unit should abide by senior staff’s wishes. She wrote, “Agreed; however in this case I have decided.”
When questioned by Member States in mid-May about why her Director of Investigations had recused himself from the investigation of Kompass, OIOS Under-Secretary-General Lapointe responded that she did not know why.
———————————
Since the Guardian reported on the information provided by AIDS-Free World, the High Commissioner, his spokesperson, a UNICEF spokesperson, the Secretary-General’s spokespersons, and officials from Peacekeeping have addressed the media. There is ample reason for Member States to question the answers given.
UNICEF statements regarding the agency’s involvement in the interviews raise grave questions about UNICEF protocols and mandatory disclosure regulations when dealing directly with children in general, and with child victims of sexual abuse in particular. The fact that a child victim of sex abuse by soldiers still at-large was interviewed in the MINUSCA offices, ushered past military and civilian peacekeepers—many of whom could have been perpetrators, their accomplices, or friends—raises critically important questions about the training and skills of all involved. Also of concern is the fact that there appear to have been no ‘mandated disclosure’ guidelines for OHCHR or UNICEF staff, making clear the obligation to report, without delay, any allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities. The interviewing also raises questions about whether protocols exist regarding the interviewing, by UNICEF and OHCHR staff, of minors who are unaccompanied by an appropriate adult and whose legal parents or guardians may not have consented to the interview.
The investigation is currently underway to determine whether Kompass is guilty of any wrongdoing. Susana Malcorra, who occupies one of the most powerful positions in the UN system as Chef de Cabinet for the Secretary-General, is publicly stating to governments and the media that Kompass is being investigated because he is guilty of wrongdoing. This suggests a pre-determined, inevitable outcome of the investigation and calls into question the judgment of the Chef de Cabinet regarding public statements. More seriously still, it should cause Member States to wonder whether the entire system of adjudication in the UN has become a kangaroo court.
———————————
The account above, the leaked documents linked to it, and the strong implications of misconduct and impunity at the very highest levels of the UN may come as a shock to many readers. The grim reality is that those with experience within the UN system are unlikely to be surprised. They know that this is not an unusual case; it is simply one that has come, partially, to light. For those of us who are staunch believers in the UN’s critical purpose and noble ideals, this case is deeply troubling because it is not unique. It is part of a continuing and disturbing pattern afflicting and endangering the entire UN system. That pattern is never more overtly on display than in the UN’s handling of sexual exploitation and abuse. The starkest miscarriages of justice and disregard for victims of UN sexual abuse occur within peacekeeping operations.
The UN secretariat exists to serve the collective interest of the world’s governments, to uphold their highest standards, and to implement their agreed actions.
Today, those Member States are balanced on a precipice, in imminent danger of losing all control over a UN secretariat that acts without discretion, without governments’ full knowledge, with no real oversight, and with increasing levels of impunity.
Member States must commission an external investigation into the whole UN system, at every level, in headquarters and country offices, to review all components related to sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping, the UN’s most costly undertaking. Investigating this CAR case is critically important, but insufficient; the external investigation must focus on the handling by the UN system of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations in all peacekeeping operations. That investigation must comprise—and be administratively supported by—entirely external, totally independent, impartial experts, with no past or current conflicts of interests, and no future interests that would hamper their ability to judge, critique, demand accountability, and recommend harsh sanctions if and where necessary.
This account raises the tragic spectre of countless children in the Central African Republic who will be scarred for life by sexual abuse. They were betrayed when they disclosed to the UN, and it failed to protect them. In the life of a 9- or 12-year-old, a year waiting for protection from an abuser is an eternity. In the life of a serial rapist, a year provides countless opportunities to abuse and exploit more children and become more practiced at escaping detection.
The events and their gross mishandling have done tremendous damage to civilians, and to the UN’s reputation and credibility. They call into question the top leadership, while casting a dark shadow on the many thousands of principled, hard-working UN staff who report to them.
If these dreadful revelations aren’t enough to press Member States to initiate an external investigation and take back control of the United Nations, nothing will.
###
POSTSCRIPT: On June 3, 2015, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced plans for an external independent review to examine events following the sexual abuse of children in the Central African Republic. AIDS-Free World welcomed the UN’s response and issued the following statement:
The announcement from the Secretary-General today of plans for an external, independent review to examine events following the sexual abuse of children in the Central African Republic is to be welcomed. It responds to one of the urgent demands that AIDS-Free World has been making over the last several weeks, and since we launched our Code Blue campaign.
The Secretary-General has three challenges.
First, this must be a truly external and independent inquiry. No member of existing UN staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat.
Second, it must be understood that top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff will have to be subject to investigation. This must go right up to the level of Under-Secretaries General. No one can be excluded, whether the Director of the Ethics Office or the USG of the Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Secretary-General’s own Chef de Cabinet. It would appear that all of them and more acted inappropriately in response to the dreadful events in CAR.
Third, the reference in the Secretary-General’s announcement of a review to ‘the broad range of systemic issues’ is crucial to the inquiry. What happened in the Central African Republic was an atrocity, but the fact that the UN stood silent for nearly a year after its own discovery of widespread peacekeeper sexual abuse (even if by non-UN troops) is itself a bitter commentary on the Secretary-General’s declared policy of ‘zero tolerance’.
If Mr. Ban Ki-moon and Member States want to rescue zero tolerance, they must cleanse the UN system of negligence and misconduct once and for all.
May 29, 2015
Editor’s note: For the full list of internal UN documents leaked to AIDS-Free World, visit: www.codebluecampaign.com/undocuments
Download the PDF version of the statement here.
Find this story at 29 May 2015

Medewerkers van de Vrije Universiteit en het NSCR hebben in samenwerking met het Openbaar Ministerie ruim 2.000 personen geënquêteerd over cybercriminaliteit. Een aanzienlijk deel van de respondenten is niet verteld dat zij benaderd zijn omdat zij als veroordeelden of verdachten te boek staan.
lees meer

On the 23rd of June 2014, I opened Facebook and found news that two friends had been arrested after participating in protests on the other side of the world. Natalie Lowrey is an Australian environmental activist who was arrested in Malaysia on 22 June during a peaceful action against Australian-owned Lynas Corporation’s rare earth plant in Malaysia. Yara Sallam is an Egyptian feminist activist who was arrested in Egypt on 21 June during a peaceful demonstration against the country’s anti-protest law. These two women human rights defenders (WHRDs) and friends who I had met at different moments in my activist life were now in jail, and I was alarmed and worried. lees meer

As is widely warned, your social life can easily be mapped if you are active on Facebook. This article shows how it happens. It is translated from the original in Dutch posted at Bureau Jansen & Jansen. [https://www.burojansen.nl/artikelen_item.php?id=523]

You leave metadata traces when you communicate over the internet and telephone. These are mostly individualised tracks, information about yourself and the direct contacts that you maintain with other people. Of course the results can give a picture of your social world but for that, the data must be gathered for a long time.

Individual data is hard data about where, at what time and with whom you spoke. This data can be used by investigative agencies to profile you as a suspect, a witness or an unknown participant in an event. Whether you’ve been around when other people said stuff, you’ve called someone, you’ve sent a whatsapp message or you received an SMS you didn’t even respond to , everything gets collected for the investigation.

lees meer

In Amsterdam Oost vonden te weinig geweldsincidenten plaats om preventief fouilleren op straat toe te mogen passen. Het was de reden dat de gemeente het middel in 2014 niet langer inzette.

In 2009 concludeerde Buro Jansen & Janssen dat de overheid op zijn minst jongleert met cijfers als het gaat om preventief fouilleren in Amsterdam. Eigenlijk kun je stellen dat de onderbouwing van een zwaar ingrijpend middel als preventief fouilleren faalt en op zijn minst leugenachtig is. De Amsterdamse gemeenteraad heeft zelf als criterium gesteld dat er minimaal één incident per hectare moet plaatsvinden voordat de overheid over kan gaan tot preventief fouilleren.

lees meer

Twee jaar geleden werd het Veiligheidsarchief opgericht. Doel is het blootleggen van theorie, praktijk, effectiviteit en rechtmatigheid omtrent het functioneren van inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten in Nederland.
Op de officiële internetpagina van de archieven van de Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD) worden op dit moment drie inzageverzoeken weer gegeven. Het gaat om het verzoek over het Interkerkelijk Vredesberaad (IKV) vanaf 1977 tot 1988 rond de ‘campagne tegen kernwapens’ (sinds maart 2015 online), de FNV in de jaren ’70 en ’80 (sinds juni 2014 online) en Stichting Opstand (sinds mei 2014 online).

lees meer

Het weblog justitieenveiligheid.nl is een initiatief van Buro Jansen & Janssen. Een blog met reacties op gedane uitingen van politie-, justitie- en inlichtingendiensten over het Nederlandse en Europese beleid en praktijk. Daarnaast wordt er bericht over de wijze waarop de media zich op dit terrein bezighouden.
lees meer

Al enkele jaren staat het politieoptreden in sommige buurten van Den Haag ter discussie. De overheid (gemeente, politie, openbaar ministerie en anderen) spreken van incidenten en niet van structureel buitenproportioneel optreden. Terwijl slachtoffers, verschillende organisaties en zelfs ex-agenten wel degelijk spreken van een structureel probleem, blijven burgemeester en politie dit ontkennen en bagatelliseren.
lees meer

Dit stuk zal gaan over benaderingen door de politie in Utrecht. Aanleiding voor ons om ons hier mee bezig te houden waren enkele benaderingen de laatste tijd van mensen in Utrecht in een nogal korte periode.

We vinden het van belang om het verhaal over de benaderingen naar buiten te brengen. Belangrijk voor zowel de benaderden als voor andere mensen in de axiescene. Belangrijk voor de benaderen omdat ze zo laten zien dat zij zich niet laten intimideren door de wouten. Dat zij, ondanks de schok en angst die vaak samengaan met deze benaderingen, met hun verhaal komen en daarmee een mogelijkheid geven om de werkwijze van de p.i.d. in de openbaarheid te brengen.

lees meer

Stel, je maakt gebruik van Gmail. Google, het bedrijf achter Gmail, kijkt met je mee zodra je aan het mailen bent. Gmail is weliswaar gratis, maar Google wil in ruil wel graag jouw data inzien waarmee het onder meer gericht en op persoonlijke maat adverteerders kan binnenhalen. Voor Google betekent gratis dus niet voor niets. Google heeft een betaalde versie van gmail waarbij het bedrijf zegt dat het de e-mails niet scant.
lees meer

Sympathie voor het werk van Buro Jansen & Janssen? Wordt dan nu donateur.
Wordt donateur of vraag familie, vrienden en bekenden donateur te worden. Bankrekening NL56 INGB 0000 6039 04 (ING 603904 BIC: INGBNL2A) ten name van Stichting Res Publica, Postbus 11556, 1001 GN Amsterdam. Res Publica is de stichting van Jansen & Janssen.
Buro Jansen & Janssen is aangemerkt als ANBI (Algemeen Nut Beogende Instellingen) instelling. Dit betekent voor mensen die ons willen steunen het volgende:
– Als een instelling door de Belastingdienst is aangewezen als een ANBI, kan een donateur giften van de inkomsten- of vennootschapsbelasting aftrekken (uiteraard binnen de daarvoor geldende regels).
Voor Buro Jansen & Janssen betekent dit:
– Een ANBI hoeft geen successierecht of schenkingsrecht te betalen over erfenissen en schenkingen die de ANBI ontvangt in het kader van het algemeen belang.
– Uitkeringen die een ANBI doet in het algemene belang zijn vrijgesteld voor het recht van schenking.