REGULAR PRESS BRIEFING BY THE INFORMATION SERVICE

Rhéal LeBlanc, Chief of the Press and External Relations Section, United Nations Information Service in Geneva, chaired the briefing which was attended by spokespersons for the World Health Organization (UNICEF) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

Yemen

Rhéal LeBlanc, for the United Nations Information Service in Geneva, said that members of the Redeployment Coordination Committee (RCC) had held their fifth joint session from 14 to 15 July on board the vessel of the United Nations Mission to Support the Hudaydah Agreement (UNMHA) on the high seas off Hudaydah. The parties were keen on finding ways to de-escalate tensions. They had agreed on a mechanism and new measures to reinforce the ceasefire and de-escalation, to be put in place as soon as possible with support from UNMHA. The RCC members had finalized agreements on concepts of operations for Phases I and II of the mutual redeployment. Thus, the RCC had finalized its technical work and was awaiting decision of the respective political leaderships to proceed with the implementation. Yesterday, the Security Council had extended the RCC’s mandate until 15 January 2020.

Mr. LeBlanc also said that United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths had concluded yesterday a visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where he had met with Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, in Ryad, and Saudi Vice-Minister for Defence Khaled bin Salman, in Jeddah. He had held productive meetings and discussed ways to keep Yemen out of regional tensions, make progress in the implementation of the Stockholm agreement and support the peace process. He had left Saudi Arabia this morning and was on is way to Sana’a.

Responding to questions, Mr. LeBlanc said there were still lots of i’s to be dotted and t’s to be crossed, as the RCC was trying to get the parties to take action on the commitment they had made in Stockholm. The process continued. It was important to note that the committee had not met since February. It was encouraging, therefore, that there had been a joint meeting of delegations and that the Security Council had yesterday extended the UNMHA. As the Special Envoy, Martin Griffiths was playing his mediating role, meeting with the relevant parties and encouraging them to move forward with the implementation of the agreement. And mediation was lengthy and time consuming, but that was how conflicts were resolved.

Ebola’s impact on children

Marixie Mercado, for the United Nations’ Children Fund (UNICEF), read out the following statement:

I returned from Democracti Republic of Congo on Sunday. While I was there, I spent 10 days in North Kivu and Ituri, the two provinces affected by Ebola, and spent time in Goma, Beni, Butembo, and Bunia.

Why the Ebola outbreak response needs to focus on children

This outbreak is infecting more children than previous outbreaks. As of 7 July, there had been 750 infections among children. This represents 31% of total cases, compared with about 20% in previous outbreaks. Young children – those below five years old, are especially hard hit. Of the 750 cases among children, 40% were among under-fives. They, in turn, are infecting women. Among adults, women comprise 57% of cases. According to the latest data I have, the case fatality ratio for under-fives is 77%, compared with 67% for all age groups. Preventing infection among children must be at the heart of the overall Ebola response. Young children are at higher risk than adults – which is why they need specialized attention.

But Ebola also affects children very differently from adults, and the response needs to also factor in their very specific psychological and social needs. Children infected with Ebola need child-specific medical care. Same drugs, but different dosages, but also need zinc to treat diarrhea, as well as treatment against intestinal parasites. Already malnourished children – which is far too common in DR Congo – require treatment with food specifically formulated for children. Children who are separated, often abruptly and brutally, from their parents due to Ebola, need dedicated care and attention while their parents undergo treatment. Children who are orphaned due to Ebola need longer term care and support. This includes mediation with extended families that refuse to take them in; health and nutrition support to make sure they stay healthy; and, for those who need it, school fees and other material aid to enable children to go back to school, which is so critical to their overall well-being. Virtually all of them need help to counter the debilitating effects of the stigma and discrimination that taints children affected by Ebola, so that they are accepted, valued and loved by their families and communities.

What we’ve done in response:

We have dedicated pediatricians working within the Ebola Treatment Centers to provide child-specific medical care. Every child under treatment has a dedicated caregiver who is also an Ebola survivor. We provided the equipment and supplies to convert one of the treatment “cubes” at the Beni Ebola Treatment Center into a delivery room for pregnant mothers, and are procuring similar material for the ETC in Katwa, which also handles similar cases from Butembo. We have incorporated teams of nutritionists to work alongside the Ebola Treatment Centers to provide individualized, specialist nutritional care for children (and adults) who are suspected or confirmed to have Ebola. This is the first time an Ebola outbreak response has included this kind of care, and there is growing recognition among responders that it plays a vital role in the overall health status of patients. We have provided every child known to us who has been separated from their parents or orphaned due to Ebola with dedicated care at specially set up child care facilities located alongside the Ebola Treatment Centres. To soften the trauma of separation, the facilities are staffed with Ebola survivors, who are now immune to the disease, and able to hold children, and bring them to see their parents at the Ebola Treatment Centers. We work with trusted community-based psychosocial workers to counsel children and families before, during, and after treatment, to explain the process and support them every step of the way.

Replying to journalists’ questions, Ms. Mercado said that children were particularly affected because those who were affected by common childhood diseases such as measles were seeking care in facilities where adequate prevention control measures were not always in place, and that was how quite a large number of them were getting infected. Northeast Democratic Republic of Congo was contending with many threats against children: measles, for instance, had already killed more people than Ebola. That is why UNICEF was carrying out a major vaccination campaign in Bunia, notably in displacement camps. The risks faced by children were obviously greater in those conditions.

Health workers needed to be equipped with the capacity and resources to implement basic infection prevention and control. That was not happening enough. There was also a need to do more prevention against the other diseases affecting children: measles, malaria, and cholera. There were also major nutrition problems. Addressing these issues would do a lot to make the response stronger, not just against Ebola, but also against all the threats that children faced.

She added that access to safe water was a huge problem, which could hardly be underestimated. The work of UNICEF focused specifically on health facilities, schools and transit sites. It had installed hand-washing units in over 2,600 health facilities, 2,400 schools and over 5,000 sites. Through different programmes, UNICEF had enabled 2.1 million people to have access to safe water. More, however, needed to done to, especially as regarded infrastructure. Ms. Mercado recalled that they were dealing with a huge expanse of territory, which included several remote and rural areas. The need was massive.

Ebola Outbreak

Fadela Chaib, for the World Health Organization (WHO), read out the following statement:

WHO is convening for the fourth time the Emergency Committee on Ebola. It will take place from 12 pm to 5 pm on Wednesday 17 July and will be followed by a Virtual Press Briefing (VPC) at around 7 pm. A statement on the recommendations of the Committee will be sent and posted just before the VPC. The previous Emergency Committees took place in October 2018, 24 April, and 14 June 2019.

WHO is constantly assessing the situation and the Director-General said on many occasions that he will not hesitate to call another Emergency Committee if needed.

A media advisory will be sent to you later in the day with the details of the VPC.

The WHO Director-General has convened the International Health Regulations (IHR) Emergency Committee three times and has been advised each time by the expert panel that the situation did not meet the technical criteria to be considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The committee made its decision based on a technical data presented and an analysis of the situation, and a balance of the risks and benefits of declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

This does not mean that WHO thinks the outbreak is not an emergency. WHO has put tremendous resources into the response, including more than 600 staff. Internally, the outbreak is classified as a Level 3 emergency (our highest level).

Responding to questions, Ms. Chaib said the WHO had decided to meet regularly to assess the Ebola situation, to hear from partners the country that was contending with the outbreak, the Democratic Republic of Congo, surrounding countries, researchers, and WHO experts. The emergency committee was a forum where different partners could talk about and assess the situation, identify gaps and determine which shifts, if any, were required.

The Committee’s decision about the PHEIC status was based on technical data. It also assessed the risks and benefits of declaring a PHEIC, as it wanted to avoid isolating a country in a way that might impede the response. In that context, it was important to understand what was feasible and what was not, from a technical point of view. During the meeting, issues such as security, vaccinations and finance would also be discussed.

Replying to a question on the situation in Rwanda, Ms. Chaib read out the following statement:

WHO continues to support preparedness activities in neighbouring countries. We’ve seen concretely in Uganda how this investment saves lives. In Rwanda an updated preparedness plan (Phase 3, July – December 2019) has been agreed upon by national authorities and is being implemented.

Rwandan authorities have already strengthened coordination, developed and disseminated technical documents and awareness messages, approved the vaccination protocol and vaccinated health workers in high-risk areas, trained health staff in priority areas.

At the border with DRC, people travelling are checked for Ebola. An estimated 100,000 people cross the border each month into Rwanda. An Ebola Treatment Center (ETC) developed in Rubavu District

Ms. Chaib added that there were full preparedness plans for nine countries surrounding the Democratic Republic of Congo. The WHO had sent teams to work with national authorities to assess their level of preparedness. For instance, they verified that the local authorities were able to test for Ebola cases in their laboratories and that health workers were properly briefed. She added that there had been 2,489 cases of confirmed or probable Ebola infections, which had led to 1,665 deaths. There had been 698 survivors.

Ms. Chaib, responding to other questions, said that representatives of the Democratic Republic of Congo, neighbouring countries, and United Nations organizations would be present at the Emergency Committee Meeting. Usually, everyone that was involved in the Ebola response was invited. The format of the Emergency Committee included a briefing which would cover vaccination, as well as health workers, community engagement, epidemiological trends and other aspects of the response.

The final decision to introduce a second vaccine rested with the national regulatory bodies. WHO had not experienced any shortages of vaccines so far. Whether the available doses would be sufficient depended on the evolution of the situation. If the outbreak continued, additional supplies might be needed.

WHO and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs were compiling information about the pledges that had been made yesterday. Among the main donors were the African Development Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ECHO, Gavi — the Vaccine Alliance, the Paul Allen Foundation, USAID, the United Kingdom Department for International Development, the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund, the Wellcome Trust, the World Bank, and the Governments of Australia, China, Germany, Norway, Republic of Korea and Sweden.

The WHO’s Strategic Advisory Committee on Vaccines had said that it was important to advance to clinical evaluation of other vaccines against Ebola and to try to obtain additional information on their safety and efficacy. There was a vaccine that had already shown its efficacy, but it was nevertheless important to continue research on other vaccines.

United States

Replying to journalists’ questions, Elizabeth Throssell, for the United Nations’ Refugee Agency (UNHCR), said that the UNHCR had expressed its concerns about the new asylum restrictions put in place by the United States administration. It understood that the U.S. asylum system was under strain, and remained ready to help alleviate this problem. However, the UNHCR believed that this measure put vulnerable people and families at risk. It was also undermining efforts across the region to devise a coherent and collective response to deal with the movement of people coming from the north of Central America towards the U. S. This measure was severe. It was not the best way forward.

Ms. Throssell added that the interim rule excessively curtailed the right to apply for asylum. It jeopardized the protection from refoulement. It significantly raised the burden of proof on asylum seekers, beyond international legal standards. It also sharply curtailed the basic rights and freedoms of those who had managed to meet the burden of proof. It was not in line with international obligations. Many people were fleeing violence and persecution and were in need of international protection. The UNHCR had issued a call to all governments in the region to get together urgently to develop and implement a coordinated regional response to the growing numbers of people leaving Central America. A consistent approach was needed and the reception conditions in various countries had to be improved. The UNHCR was working with the Guatemalan and Mexican authorities, inter alia, to that end.

The asylum system in Guatemala was nascent and therefore not capable of dealing with huge numbers of asylum seekers. When such a fragile system was put under great strain, it would backfire. That is why there was a need for a coordinated regional response.

The people showing up at the U.S. southern border were required to have applied for asylum in a third country. The countries these people had gone through may have signed the 1951 Convention. But that was not sufficient. There had to be effective international protection in place, that is a system where asylum claims could be judged in a fair and effective manner.

No regional response had yet been offered to this situation. UNHCR was continuing to call for it. It had been advocating for years for regional responsibility-sharing, and for an efficient and robust asylum system across the region in response to forced displacement in Central America.

Regarding the potential meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Guatemala, Ms. Throssell said that, while it was positive that governments talked, a region-wide response was necessary to avoid merely displacing the problem to a third country. The UNHCR’s office in Washington was in close touch with the various branches of the U.S. Government and the agencies that dealt with asylum and migration issues.

With regard to the policy whereby people were sent back to Mexico while their asylum claim was processed, it was concerning that some of the areas to which asylum seekers were returned were quite violent. The authorities must ensure the protection of the people who had been returned. In that regard, the Mexican authorities could consider moving them or giving them the option of going to cities that may be considered safer. On Guatemala’s status as a safe-third country, the UNHCR welcomed any moves towards stepping up their efforts and building up their asylum system, and would continue to support it in that regard, as it would other countries in the region. However, UNHCR believed that Guatemala’s asylum system was a work in progress and had a limited capacity to process claims. It was best not to put such a system under the stress of many more claims.

Ms. Throssell added that the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees was an innovative instrument for Latin America that expanded the definition under which people could claim asylum, including the issue of gang violence. It was important to understand that there were also many thousands of internally displaced people in these Central America countries: at the end of 2018, for instance, there were 245,000 internally displaced people in Honduras and El Salvador. Having to move because of the violence, sometimes people moved first within their own country but then felt like they had no other option but to move on. This was a huge, complex problem — hence the UNHCR’s call on governments to start developing a regional, coordinated response.

Geneva announcements

Rhéal LeBlanc, for the United Nations Information Service in Geneva, said that this morning, the Human Rights Committee was working on its General Comment related to the right of peaceful assembly. Another public meeting on the same subject will take place next Tuesday, 23 July.

Mr. LeBlanc also said that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women would be meeting in private until next Friday, 19 July. It would then issue its concluding observations on the countries reviewed during this session: Qatar, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Austria, Cabo Verde and Guyana.

Mr. LeBlanc added that the Conference on Disarmament would resume on 29 July for its third and last part, until 13 September. Viet Nam would hold the presidency until 18 August, to be followed by Zimbabwe (19 August-13 September).

Mr. LeBlanc said that, as 18 July marked the Nelson Mandela International Day, the Palais des Nation was hosting the 11th Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition until 19 July. On that occasion, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right Michelle Bachelet and former South African Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs would give the Nelson Mandela Human Rights Lecture on 18 July at 6 p.m. at Maison de la Paix.