Dead…But Alive?

By Aaradhya Korti (Del of The Wire)

A new issue arose for the United Nations because the recent problem was about a former living person instead of the dead. A worker at the UN building discovered the existence of a person who had been waiting at the unloading bay for approximately 19 hours. When asked about his identity, the individual revealed that he was an officer from Mali, Sergeant Ibrahim Gandina, believed to have died because of an attack in Bamako carried out by the extremist group JNIM. However, Gandina stated that he was responsible for killing the UN Secretary General.

During his testimony, Gandina claimed that he was influenced by a deal that offered him money and assurance to evade prosecution not only for himself but also for his family. He said that his payment as opposed to cash would be four gold bars, which originated from a small-scale mine in Mali overseen by the Chinese government. Even after giving this testimony, Gandina maintained that he did not receive anything of the sort. The inquiry discovered that the killing was perpetrated with an army knife that belonged to Sudan; the serial number was rubbed off. Additionally, Gandina produced a proof of death in spite of being in the office of the UN.

The introduction of Claude Jepetier, believed to be a former operative of the French security forces has come as a surprise. The French were expected to provide assistance in a very short period of time after the assasination  whereas they claimed the opposite. However, doubts regarding the role of the French secret service linger.

In no time at all, the two nations ended up in a situation of diplomatic impasse. Mali maintained that it had no involvement in the assassination and insisted on the inability of the United States to protect the UN headquarters during the attack. The United States responded to Mali’s claim by describing it as a "two-faced country, just like the two id cards the delegate was wearing" wondering how it was possible for a soldier to be both dead and alive in an international assassination. Both sides kept blaming each other without any progress.

The committee observed Sudan's hold on the matter. The Sudanese representatives questioned the integrity of the United States and asserted that the murder took place under the United States' protection. France opposed Sudan's stance, asserting that Sudan was acting hypocritically. The representatives from Sudan did not refute the claim, but instead pointed to France's military actions. The delegates also asked if China could have been behind the assassination, citing that they heard that the funds used in the assassination had been sourced from gold mined in the areas run by China.

The group had the chance to listen to the controversial words of the orator from ISWAP who contradicted the notion of terrorism and highlighted the moments of hypocrisy of some countries. According to the orator, those countries that spoke against the actions of armed forces had already infringed the rights of civilians in their countries. The statements made by ISWAP changed the direction of the discussions that were being held into the more abstract discourse of opposition to terrorism and violence on the part of the countries along with some reference to the double standards in international relations.

At the conclusion of the meeting, those attending ended up more puzzled than before the event. A soldier who was claimed to be dead had admitted to killing the Secretary General of the UN. The soldier had a dagger made in Sudan and claimed he had received gold from the mines safeguarded by China. The person was also waiting for the arrival of a French intelligence officer who didn’t show up. Whether the soldier acted alone or was part of an international plot remains unclear. What the committee has achieved in this stage of the investigation is a growing number of unanswered questions.