INNER CITY PRESS Global Inner Cities Archive 2006 - 2012 -- Click here for current ICP Global Inner Cities Report, reports from the United Nations

Inner City Press welcomes readers' comments or critiques.


December 31, 2012

As UN Squeezes Press Out, Gives Space to NYT Which "Never" Comes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 27 -- The UN, which preaches for rule of law all over the world, says that media organizations must come to its headquarters at least three days a week to be given office space and resident correspondent status.

  But as Inner City Press raised to the UN on December 27 during the UN's meeting announcing the layout of media space in the refurbished headquarters, the New York Times has not used or even entered its UN office since at least October.

  For more than a year, the New York Times has failed to comply with the three days a week rule. So why it is being assigned its own office, while other media have been told to leave?

   Inner City Press prefaced its question with "all due respect;" the Times is fine newspaper. But shouldn't they want to play by the rules? Shouldn't they have to, at the UN?

  A check by Inner City Press on December 26 found months' old fliers sticking out under the door of the New York Times' office, Room L-231. A long time correspondent concurred, "the Times is never here any more." UNTV archived video bears this out. Only the UN, applying a double standard it won't admit to, is in denial.

  This obvious double standard is emblematic of the UN. As regards media accreditation, 2012 saw an attempt to "review the accreditation" of Inner City Press, filed by Voice of America which said it had the support of Reuters and Agence France-Presse.

  All three are members of the UN Correspondents Association's executive committee, which on December 19 extended its term in office, to continue unchange, even nominating its successors.

  Even after the New York Civil Liberties Union asked the UN what rules applied to accreditation, and if Inner City Press was being challenged based on the content of its publications -- which among other things question the performance of Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row atop UN Peacekeeping -- the UN never responded with a set of rules.

  The UN, it seems, is all about who you know. How else to explain some freelancers being granted accreditation, and others being kept outside?

  After its experience in 2012, including on December 18 seeing Ladsous' Peacekeeping spokesman attempt to seize the UN TV microphone so that Inner City Press could not ask a question about UN inaction on the Congolese Army rapes in Minova, Inner City Press and others have founded the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA.

  FUNCA has so far raised to the UN, for action, the appropriateness of Ladsous seizing the microphone and refusing to answer questions, the double standards in accreditation and now in the assignment of space, using the New York Times as the example.

 In full disclosure, while Inner City Press for FUNCA on December 27 raised cases of an Egyptian journalist on the now-longer waiting list for a space, and a photographer forced through the metal detectors, Inner City Press is depicted sharing space with an Asian news service, which is fine. Advocacy should be for those who need it.

  Under this UNCA's executive committee's watch, media space at the UN is being reduced by 40%. After this loss, rather than look at which media actually come to cover the UN, favoritism is the rule. The UNCA executive committee members have been well taken care of (by themselves).

   Voice of America is depicted with its own office with four seats, as is Agence France-Presse (which tried to coax or coach the UN into describing its criteria as something other than favoritism).

  Photographers and staff of AFP and Reuters, no matter how infrequently they come to the UN, are given White passes to allow them in without metal detectors, while smaller media who are denied space must pass through metal detectors and experience other barriers to coverage.

  In the floor plan, there is not only an UNCA Club -- there is an UNCA office, and even an UNCA Pantry. Why would the UN need to brand its kitchenette with its company union? What's going on here?

  There is not enough coverage of the UN -- on December 24, Inner City Press was the only media organization in front of the General Assembly covering its meeting on the UN's $5.4 billion budget. The answer is to allow in more people, and to treat them fairly. Watch this site.



December 24, 2012

Refusing Rape Qs, Ladsous Has Mic Removed from Press as UNCA Watches

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- Top UN Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous hit a new low on Tuesday, directing his spokesman to physically remove the microphone so that Press questions about the UN's knowledge of 126 rapes by Congolese forces in Minova could not be recorded. Video here.

  Afterward staff said in 13 years at the UN, they had never seen anything like it. Inner City Press was told that it, or the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, should file a complaint.

  The larger questions are why has Ladsous refused to answer questions about these rapes, by the Congolese army that the UN works with, on November 27, December 7 and now December 18?

  On November 27, Inner City Press asked about rapes at Minova, which the UN then downplayed as being 22. Ladsous refused to answer, then summoned favored correspondents, including one from Agence France-Presse who re-appeared on December 18, out into the hall for a private briefing. Video here.

  On December 7, after the UN had been forced by questions to up its estimate of the rapes to 70, Ladsous refused four times to answer a simple Inner City Press questions about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, which would preclude Ladsous' MONUSCO mission from working with these Congolese Army units. Video here.

  Ladsous refused to answer. Since then, a profile of his stonewalling and abuse of UN Peacekeeping for the political interests of his native France has been published by Billet d'Afrique, here.

  On December 18, with the UN having just had to increase the count of rapes up to 126, it seemed inconceivable that Ladsous would not offer at least some answer.

  Two journalists were notified by Ladsous' office and appeared at the stakeout, including Tim Witcher of AFP who as an executive committee member of the UN Correspondents Association on May 25, 2012 signed a letter against Inner City Press, following a September 2011 a dispute about reporting on Ladsous.

   When Ladsous came out, these and Inner City Press went to the UN Television stakeout, where only the day before Inner City Press had asked another UN official, Valerie Amos, about the rapes in Minova. Since she does not run MONUSCO, she said she would have to look into it. Video here, from Minute 17:10.

But once at the microphone on December 18, Ladsous directed his spokesman Andre-Michel Essoungou to pick up the UNTV microphone and move it away from Inner City Press. The UNTV cameraman told him to put it back, that he had no right to touch it.

  Then Essoungou tried to use the boom microphone himself, even offering coaching on (non rape) questions that could be asked.

  Four times, when there was a lull, Inner City Press asked about the rapes in Minova, which FARDC units were involved. Ladsous never answered, finally walking away.

    Inner City Press was told it or FUNCA should file a complaint. Tim Witcher left - UNCA, which used to but no longer defends journalists' rights, is preparing a $250 a plane dinner-dance for December 19, honoring not a journalist but Arnold Schwartzenegger.

  It is worth nothing that it was only after the May 25, 2012 letter by five including Witcher, Lou Charbonneau of Reuters and Margaret Basheer of Voice of America -- these three went into the hall with Ladsous on November 27, video here -- did Ladsous decide he would no longer answer Inner City Press' questions.

  These questions have included his MINUSTAH mission's introduction of cholera into Haiti and why he has General Shavendra Silva of the Sri Lankan Army, depicted in the UN's own report as engaged in war crimes, as an adviser, now also inspecting Ladsous' Lebanon mission UNIFIL.

  This same UNCA, back in September 2011, allowed Silva to screen a war crimes denial film in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, the fallout from which was reported by the Sri Lanka Campaign here.

  In June 2012, Voice of America stating in writing it had the support of "colleagues" at Reuters and AFP asked the UN to "review" the accreditation of Inner City Press. Letter here.

    The two other May 25, 2012 signers and UNCA Executive Committee members are, notably, receiving UNCA monetary prizes on December 19.

Ladsous and UNCA deserve each other, and flock together, in the hall. Video here. But shouldn't the UN be at least a bit better than this? The Free UN Coalition for Access will be pursuing this. Watch this site.

At UNCA, of Lyall Grant & Rice, Sri Lanka & Expulsion Links, Schwarzenegger Prized

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 19 -- As Ambassador Susan Rice entered Cipriani's on 42nd Street Wednesday night, Cipriani's security told a couple also trying to enter to wait, "Susan Rice is going in."

  "Are you joking?" retorted UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant. As he went in, the Cipriani's security guard said, "You don't have to touch me."  Inner City Press video here. Embedded below.

   Inside, the UN Correspondents Association was holding a $250 a plate dinner and giving an award to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

   Inner City Press, which in full disclosure has been questioning UNCA since it screened in the UN a Sri Lanka government film denying war crimes, treated this UNCA Ball as a news event, standing in front of Cipriani's and asking questions.

To a question about Arnold Schwartzenegger as a UN role model, is it appropriate, many entrants laughed and asked to go off the record. The majority then said No, it is not appropriate.

  German Permanent Representative Peter Wittig, who to his credit did not ask to go off the record, said diplomatically "I don't know him well enough."

  Another Security Council Permanent Representative was more emphatic, saying, "No, it's totally inappropriate, UNCA is a joke, come inside and I'll tell you more over a scotch."

   But Inner City Press did not accompany him in. After Inner City Press reported on the Sri Lanka propaganda film, and that Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona had in the past paid rent for a luxury apartment to UNCA's president, a process began to try to expel Inner City Press from UNCA, to whose Executive Committee Inner City Press had been elected.

   Then on June 20, 2012, after UNCA Executive Committee member Margaret Besheer told her employer (and US government agency) Voice of America that her colleagues from Reuters and Agence France-Presse supported her, VOA asked the UN to "review the accreditation" of Inner City Press. Click here to view VOA's letter to the UN.

   After Inner City Press obtained related documents under the US Freedom of Information Law, these three and other UNCA executive committee members did not respond to requests to explain or comment on the documents.

 (Nor have they answered two requests to know the agenda of their December 21 general meeting, or what they propose to vote on, even as they purported to remain in office past the December 31 expiration specified in the UNCA Constitution.)

   So is their UNCA a freedom of the press organization? Why did they choose Arnold Schwarzenegger to receive their award? Why did they award prizes to their own Executive Committee members, two of whose media organizations have purchased full page advertisements in the UNCA Ball publication?

   These questions were not answered. Outside, a habitue recounted how at the previous night's Cipriani event, for the Humane Society featuring Mike Bloomberg, a woman incongruously walked in wearing a fur coat. The crowd stopped talking; she left.

   Meanwhile Sri Lanka's Ambassador Palitha Kohona went in to the UNCA Ball -- without answering Inner City Press' question.

  If his deputy General Shavendra Silva of the Sri Lankan Army, depicted in the UN's own report engaged in war crimes, showed up, wouldn't it be similar to the lady in the fur coat? Except there would be no reaction. This is UNCA.

   Press freedom must and will be better defended at the UN in 2013.

  At a press conference earlier on Wednesday, Inner City Press on behalf of the newly launched Free UN Coalition for Access -- yes, FUNCA -- asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to ensure that his Under Secretaries General hold press conferences and answer questions without discrimination or censorship.

  This was a reference to USG Herve Ladsous of UN Peacekeeping, who has repeatedly refused to answer Press questions, about Silva, cholera in Haiti and most recently the Congolese Army rapes in Minova.

  Inner City Press' reporting on Ladsous gave rise to a process within UNCA, initiated by Tim Witcher of Agence France-Presse (on one of whose boards Ladsous once served, in another conflict of interest), to censure Inner City Press.

  On Wednesday night, Inner City Press did not witness Ladsous entering the UNCA Ball, but his spokesman Kieran Dwyer did go in. Shouldn't this be seen like the lady in the fur coat going into the Humane Society ball?

   But this is 2012's UNCA -- those engaged not only in war crimes but also censorship are invited and celebrated. But did they pay $250 for their tickets?

   Ban Ki-moon himself graciously invited Inner City Press to enter. In truth, it was cold outside. But it was from there that Inner City Press watched the spoof "BanFall" film produced by CNN's Richard Roth.

  And yes, not left on the cutting room floor but broadcast was a segment in which Inner City Press says "UNCA, you'll never take me alive," on the roof of the very same Dag Hammarskjold Library where UNCA screened the Sri Lanka war crimes denial film, with commentary from only Kohona and Shavendra Silva.

   It is full circle, and it is enough. 2013 will be different. Watch this site.


December 17, 2012

UN Elections Scams from DRC, Pension to UNCA, Banning Democracy

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 15 -- What is it about election scams and the UN? On December 14, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky about today's Egyptian constitutional referendum.

  Closer to home, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the UN Correspondents Association violating their own constitution and purporting to remain in office after January 1, having ignored the December 15 deadline to hold an election.

   Nesirky was dismissive -- see transcript here -- and hadn't even been asked yet about the UN's questionable role during the last two elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  Today there UN beneficiary Joseph Kabila gave a speech entirely taking for granted more UN collaboration with his army, which committed mass rapes in Minova which the UN's Herve Ladsous refuses to answer questions about.

   Meanwhile it emerged on Friday that even the UN's own election for its Pension board has been extended, mis-run according to staff by previous vote player Bibi Khan.

  So the UN can't correctly hold its own elections, and enables scam elections in the Congo.

   Even on an absolutely clear violation in not holding an election by the deadline by its Media Access Guidelines partner, UNCA, the UN refuses to take action or comment, calling a blatant legal violation a personal matter.

  Here's from UNCA's Constitution, Article 3, Section 3:

"The members of the Executive Committee shall assume their duties on the first day of January following the election and shall hold office until the last day of December of the year. Elections of the Executive committee shall be held between November 15 and December 15."

  This is simple, and is one of the only acts this Executive Committee is required to do (the $250 a plate reception for Arnold Schwarzenegger they've set for December 19 is entirely voluntary.)

  But on December 14, the day before the election had to be held, this UNCA Executive Committee simply announced that it would not hold the election before the end of the year.

  There is an obvious legal problem: they have no powers after January 1, they have no power to run an election after January 1. They are, in essence, trying to stay in power unconstitutionally. And their partner the UN refuses to comment.

  UNCA's president or figurehead, when asked directly to about violating the terms of UNCA's constitution, had no response.

   It has been suggested to Inner City Press that what brings these together is an implicit claim of powerlessness: the UN can do nothing, and UNCA does little.

   But UNCA could and should do things, like make sure that UN officials like Herve Ladsous cannot openly refuse to answer questions about how to avoid bringing cholera to new countries, and to not work with units of the Congolese army guilty of mass rape.

   Instead, top UNCA officials follow Ladsous into the hallway for private briefings, video here.

  These three -- Voice of America, supported by Reuters and Agence France-Presse -- urged the UN to dis-accredit and expel Inner City Press, and met with still un-named UN officials in furtherance of their plan.

   Since their UNCA attacks rather than defends investigative journalism, the beta Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, has been launched, online and in action, Friday here then here.

   The UNCA executive committee announced a purported general meeting for Friday, December 21 at 4 pm, but didn't even say what the agenda is, nor what they propose to be voted on.

   This microcosm of lawlessness takes place right in the UN, with an entity Ban Ki-moon spoke before on December 12 (more on this anon), and will party with on December 19 along with, yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

   Other such events celebrate actually investigative journalists not affiliated with or buying advertisements from the prize-giver. For example the CPJ event recently at the Waldorff, which Inner City Press covered as a journalist.

   This UNCA is quite different: prizes to Schwarzenegger and its own Executive Committee members, no provision for press coverage. Is it any wonder? Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, UN Review to 2Q 2013, Any Silva Visit Screening & Kilinochchi Qs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 13, updated -- A week ago, Inner City Press asked the UN what it would do in the face of the troubling report on its actions and inaction in Sri Lanka, penned by sometime UN official Charles Petrie.

  The UN answered that Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson would lead a team to review the report.

   Today, the UN announced a bit more: that Eliasson has asked UN departments, funds and programs to nominate people to participate in the review, and that the review is due in the second quarter of 2013.

   Inner City Press immediately asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if any UN specialized agencies would be involved, for example the IMF (which stands accused of lending into increased military spending by the Rajapaksa government, even after 2009).

   Nesirky reiterated, only funds and programs, and not agencies like the IMF.

   Inner City Press asked how it was that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations allowed General Shavendra Silva of the Sri Lankan Army, showing up in the UN's report as engaged in war crimes, to "inspect" its troops in the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon.

    Doesn't DPKO have some type of review?

   Nesirky said he would ask DPKO. The chief of DPKO Herve Ladsous has refused to answer any Press questions, including  about Silva as a "Senior Adviser on Peacekeeping Operations" and other human rights issues, see recent video here. How about Silva as a UN troop inspector?

  The lack of standards in the UN was exemplied by a Shavendra Silva appearance in September 2011, complaints about which started a series of anti-Press moves profiled by the UK based Sri Lanka Campaign, here. Months later this has led to a new move in the UN: the Free UN Coalition for Access.

   After a troubling report forwarded by the SlC, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about at least 20 women brought into a military wing of a Kilinochchi hospital and not allowed visits.

   For the record, the SLC recites

Of the women recently recruited to the 6th Brigade of the Sri Lankan Army (SLA), 20 were admitted to the Kilinochchi district hospital on December 11, 2012 between 11.00 pm and 12.30 am.

They had recently been trained in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts

They were brought from Navam Arivu Koodam located in a village called Krishnapuram. Killinochi West

Upon arrival at the hospital, some of the women were unconscious.

They were immediately isolated from the other patients and subsequently detained in a small room in the hospital’s northern section.

The northern section of the hospital is not accessible to the public; it is used exclusively by army personnel.

Shortly after the group of women was admitted, a large group of army personnel (male and female) gathered at the hospital.

Only SLA doctors and nurses are looking after these female patients.

   Nesirky said that the Eliasson review is separate, but that the UN maintains a presence in Sri Lanka. So do THEY have anything to say about the Kilinochchi hospital? Watch this site.

Update of 6:30 pm -- Here was Thursday's evening's UN answer to Inner City Press' noon question, note the last line:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Your question at the noon briefing - a reminder
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The Spokesperson later said that Major General Shavendra Silva was part of the Military-Police Advisors Community (MPAC) delegation visiting the United Nations Interim Force Mission in Lebanon from 28 Nov - 4 Dec 2012. The official MPAC programme included briefings and visits to UN positions. The MPAC is a group comprising permanent missions' military attaches and police advisors, and the UN had no authority over the group of visitors that included Gen. Silva.

  "Had no authority?" The UN has no say over who visits and inspects its peacekeepers? Watch this site.

December 10, 2012

FOIA Appeal Shows UNCA Tried to Throw Press Out of UN, So FUNCA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 6 -- For four months, Inner City Press has not published one additional word about the United Nations Correspondents Association, even after the organization's treasurer Margaret Besheer had US government Voice of America (on behalf of her and so-far unnamed others) meet with and ask the UN to "review" Inner City Press' accreditation to enter and cover the UN.

   Documents obtained this week under a Freedom of Information Act appeal prove that Besheer wrote that her Reuters and Agence France Presse colleagues, Lou Charbonneau and Tim Witcher, supported ousting Inner City Press from the UN.

  Only this week did the overseer of Voice of America, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, finally rule on Inner City Press' FOIA appeal, and release additional documents.

  The ruling on the appeal, which can be challenged in a Federal District Court, is here; some of the improperly withheld but now released documents are here and here and here and here.

  The newly released documents show that Voice of America was given a Congressional heads-up that "the work of VOA correspondent on this peer review panel at the UN, it has the potential to kick up a storm up here. For my part, I think it's terrible judgment on the part of your correspondent to participate."  Click here to view that newly released document.

  Even the VoA official who later made the request to the UN to "review" Inner City Press' accreditation stated in writing, it has now been revealed, "Puzzling that Margaret would take up against a reporter who would... be aggressively questioning UN officials and would call on him to write more positive stories about the UN."

  But then Voice of America was told that AFP was ready to join the attempt to throw Inner City Press out of the UN and that "I think Reuters is up for sending a letter too."  Click here to view that newly released document.

  When Inner City Press complained to Voice of America, including that it was and is unconstitutional to spend US government money to seek to eject a journalist for what he or she writes, the internal VOA memo was "All: Please disregard and do not reply to any email from Matthew Lee or Inner City Press, no matter how insistent."

   This is how a US government agency responded to a petition for redress of grievances? It was and is actionable. And in that connection, more documents have been requested and are expected.

  Given these and other anti-press freedom moves by this UNCA Executive Committee, its legitimacy is and will be challenged, including by a new FUNCA: the Free United Nations Coalition for Access, being launched in beta here.

   To quickly recap: in September 2011, UNCA's outgoing president Giampaolo Piolo threatened that if an article about him was not removed from the Internet, he would get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. He invoked an archaic provision of the UNCA constitution; the resulting letter of denunciation has remained posted on UNCA's glassed-in bulletin board for six months. What kind of correspondents' association is this?

  Eight month ago, Pioli's handpicked successor Louis Charboneau of Reuters, after telling Inner City Press in an UNCA meeting that it is too critical of the French mission to the UN, filed a stealth complaint with the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit over a merely verbal disagreement. (An UNCA "examiner" then filed a similar specious complaint with UN Security, which was released under FOIA; it was dismissed as frivolous by UN Security. But there was no reason for any similar verbal exchanges.)

  Then on June 20, Besheer had Voice of America formally asked the UN, on behalf of her and "others," to review the accreditation status of the UN of Inner City Press.

  Inner City Press immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request, including to learn the identity of these unnamed others. Pioli and Charbonneau then asked Inner City Press to withdraw the FOIA request, while threatening to go forward with a Kafka-esque "Board of Examination" report and trial against Inner City Press for what it had said and written.

   The BBG, on which Hillary Clinton has a seat, initially denied and then after appeal granted Inner City Press "expedited treatment" of its FOIA request.

  This came after the New York Civil Liberties Union wrote to the UN citing Voice of America's complaint against Inner City Press and demanding the the UN have content neutral rules for accreditation.

   The first round of documents arrived on August 7, and Inner City Press wrote a short piece that day, linking to some of the documents. Then it appealed the withholdings and redactions, and requested additional documents.

    Then as noted this week the BBG finally ruled on Inner City Press' appeal, and release additional documents. Again, the ruling on the appeal, which can be challenged in a Federal District Court, is here; some of the improperly withheld but now released documents are here and here and here and here.

  The entire UNCA Executive Committee has been asked, twice in writing, to respond to and explain earlier documents which already were "evidence of certain wire services' support for and involvement in the request by US agency Voice of America for 'review' of UN accreditation. The documents also state that UNCA is 'now discussing with UN officials (very quietly)' just that."

  Inner City Press submitted to each UNCA Executive Committee members three of the documents obtained under FOIA "for your response" -- but received none.

   UNCA under Pioli, Charbonneau, Besheer and others such as Tim Witcher of Agence France Presse has devolved into a club for self-protection and censorship. Witcher tried to censor Inner City Press' reporting on the French Mission and its last minute nominee for UN Peacekeeping chief, Herve Ladsous.

On September 18, Ladsous who has sought to bootstrap on UNCA's witchhunt to not answer Press questions about UN Peacekeeping, refused to answer Inner City Press' question about his DPKO helping recruit militias in the Congo and turned to Witcher, who said, "Thank you, sir."

  More recently on November 27, when Inner City Press asked Ladsous about raped committed by his MONUSCO's partners in the Congolese Army in Minovia, Ladsous refused to answer and then summoned a handful of hand-picked journalists into the hall, including Besheer, Charbonneau and Witcher. See video here. These are leaders of the UNCA Executive Committee; this is what they have turned UNCA into.

  And now on December 19, their UNCA will celebrate none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why?

  Because repeated UNCA meetings to demand censorship, even of photographs that Inner City Press ran, came to take up more and more time, Inner City Press sought to put the ugliness into the past by unilaterally ceasing to write about it.

    But now, with UNCA "leadership" sneaking around with Ladsous and the new documents released, action must be taken, including by the new Free United Nations Coalition for Access, being launched in beta here.

   First up: how can the UN delegate administration of passes to cover the UN General Debate in the North Lawn building to UNCA, an organization which now has demonstrably sought to get Press expelled from the UN and claims it is separate from the UN?

   Relatedly, why is this UNCA given special rights to ask the first question at press conferences, and to be the "pool" at other UN events? In fact, a small group of Western wire services masquerade as UNCA, as took place when Ban Ki-moon met Syria envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.

  Inner City Press asked the UN MALU, who said Reuters and AFP asked and were given access, in a role that is (wrongly) supposed to be for UNCA. More recently, longtime UN-based photographers were barred.

   The UN and this UNCA cannot have it both ways, and we and FUNCA will be pursuing this. Watch this site.

Ladsous Now Admits Minova Rapes, But Won't Say by Whom, If Works With

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 7 -- The UN claims to have a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy under which it will not work with or support military units or personnel who engage in abuses like rape.

   But Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous four times on Friday refused to answer a simple question: which Congolese Army units were in Minova during the 70+ rapes, and what's being done to ensure the UN does not work with them?

  See video here, and below, at Minute 0:22, 0:40, 1:34 and 1:49.

  Ladsous was at the UN Television stakeout ostensibly to answer questions about the Congo. After on November 27 refusing questions about the rapes in Minova, earlier video here, Ladsous on Decmeber 7 conceded rapes there, by the Congolese security forces.

   But he would not answer the key UN question: what meaning does the supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, announced by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, have?

  Afterward a range of diplomats from Security Council members and Troops Contributing Countries told Inner City Press Ladsous' stonewalling and choosing friendly questioners is making them look bad.  One used the old saw, "A fish rots from the head."

  Yesterday the UN Secretariat confirmed to Inner City Press that Ladsous' DPKO now allows Sri Lanka General Shavendra Silva, whose troops were depicted engaged in war crimes in the UN's own report, to "inspect" Ladsous' peacekeepers in Lebanon.

  Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' question about Silva. Yes, a fish rots from the head.

Previously on November 30, the military adviser of a a major TCC told Inner City Press Ladsous is the worst DPKO chief "ever," much worse than his predecessor Alain Le Roy.

   Le Roy was the third Frenchman in a row to head DPKO, but at least he was vetted. Ladsous as it turned out was rejected as a candidate by previous Secretary General Kofi Annan, a senior Annan aide has described to Inner City Press.

   And this time, he was a last minute, no-check fill in for Jerome Bonnafont, who bragged in India that he had the post. Clearly, this is no way to choose senior UN officials. But this UN is so out of control, it seems, no one can stop it.

  Ladsous began refusing to answer Press questions in late May, right after and latching onto other anti-press moves in the UN. These moves are related, and due to the vacuum of leadership will be confronted in 2013.


 On December 7, while refusing four times the Press question on the rapes at Minova and his Department's role and follow up, Ladsous and his spokesman directed the UN microphone to other questioners -- two of whom retreated to the hallway with Ladsous on November 27, video here -- and took questions not about the Congo.
 
  Ladsous was asked about Northern Mali, on which while in Paris he said nothing could be done under September 2013. When Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky on whose behalf Ladsous was speaking, since the Security Council has not decided that, and some members think that too slow. Inner City Press asked if there was a transcript. But none has been provided.

  Ladsous also took a question about Syria -- anything but the Congo and his failure and cover up there, it seemed -- and repeated the answer in French and English, without including what he said in Paris about Salafists. And he was not asked. This is how this UN works, or doesn't.

  At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey questions about the supposed Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (that he counldn't answer without DPKO, which has not been answering these questions), and if Ladsous would evenhandedly take questions, including on Minova.

"Mr Ladsous manages his own stakeout," Del Buey replied. But isn't there some absolute minimum that is expected of a UN official, given how much they get paid, taxfree?

The briefing itself saw TCCs disagree with some others on the mandate of MONUSCO. Ladsous is in no position to show leadership, and isn't, sources say. And so civilians suffer, under this UN. Watch this site.

December 3, 2012

On Rapes in Minova, Ladsous Calls Situation Fluid, Won't Say Which Units, Policy Question Dodged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 30 -- When top UN Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous took questions Friday across First Avenue from the UN, he said apparently without irony that the MONUSCO mission has done a good job in Eastern Congo in the last two weeks.

  Inner City Press asked Ladsous about two specific places in the Kivus: Pinga, on which Ladsous previously refused to answer a Press question, and Minova where at least 22 women were raped after the Congolese Army retreated from Sake.

  Since the UN, specifically Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations, says it has a Human Rights Due Diligence Policy under which it will not work with or support rights abusers, Inner City Press asked Ladsous whether the Congolese Army units at issue will be named.

  Ladsous dodged the question - better than refusing it, as he did before - saying that the situation was "fluid." He said that Policy will be complied with.

  But when Inner City Press asked again the unanswered question, whether the units of the Congolese Army or FARDC in Minova at the time will be named, Ladsous did not answer at all.

  As Ladsous continued, including to say that he has no problem with the media, his spokesman seem to indicate that more information may be available.

   We hope it is, and await it, having two days ago emailed three of Ladsous spokespeople, and the two spokespeople of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon whom they copied, these questions on Minova:

"On Minova, (a) which FARDC units were present in Minova when the 21 rapes took place? (b) What was MONUSCO's presence in Minova during this time? (c) What and where are the "appropriate processes" through which DPKO will report? Are any of them public, so that compliance with the Human Rights Due Diligence Policy can be assessed?"

   As soon as these questions are answered, we will report the answers in full. Until then, we will keep asking.

   Inner City Press had to leave Friday's event, after several more statements, to continue to cover the Security Council debate on Women, Peace and Security. Ladsous spoke there, with no mention on Minova or abuses by the Congo forces that MONUSCO works with.

   Nor did no respond on the reports, including in TIME Magazine, that Mai Mai Cheka rebels decapitated civilians in Pinga and the MONUSCO peacekeepers there did nothing.

The event, entitled "Telling the Peacekeeping Story Better," was held across First Avenue at the International Peace Institute, on whose Syria program Inner City Press also recently reported / tweeted.

  The program of theStorytelling on Peacekeeping event is or will soon be here -- several of the other panelists and participants spoke movingly, for example about winning over a BBC reporter to the UN's work in Sierra Leone by actually explaning and answering questions about it -- and video should be available shortly (though UN Peacekeeping's link to it wasn't working at press time.) We may have more on all this. Watch this site.

On Palestine, US Pressure Gets Pacific Abstentions, Scorn at Slovenia, ICC Games

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, November 29, updated Nov 30 -- When finally the UN resolution on Palestine as an Observer State came to a vote, it passed with 138 in favor, 41 abstentions and only nine against.

  Inner City Press had predicted ten negative votes, even days before the vote. But things change.

  Ultimately the negative nine were the US, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands. Panama, Nauru, Canada, Israel and the Czech Republic. Sources in the EU tell Inner City Press that the Czechs were flirting with abstention, but fell back to no.

  There were 138 votes in favor, and 41 abstentions. List here.

  A well placed European Permanent Representative, speaking exclusively to Inner City Press, expressed particular scorn for Slovenia, which after almost voting Yes, ending up abstaining.

   He told Inner City Press the Slovenian mission at the UN in New York pushed for a Yes vote, but couldn't get the capital to agree. And not having an Ambassador here, he said, was a problem.

  US pressure didn't get even ten "no" votes. But many Pacific Island states abstained. And, it was noted, Liberia did not show up. But neither did Ukraine, nor Madagascar. Two of these three accounted for small gap between Palestinian Mission's internal projection of 140, and the final 138 Yes votes.

  After the vote, Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about his statement about abstaining because he could not get assurances such as Palestine not rushing to the International Criminal Court.

   Doesn't this cheapen the ICC and make it look like a political chip to be played?

   Lyall Grant gamely answered that the assurances sought were in order to permit the peace process.

   Inner City Press asked the Ambassador of Sudan, which introduced Palestine's resolution as this month's head of the Arab Group and whose president Omar al Bashir is under ICC indictment for genocide, about the UK's position.

  He replied that it is strange that a country that is a member of the ICC would ask another not to take a case there.

  Indonesia's Foreign Minister, when asked by Inner City Press if the blockage of Palestine from UN membership by the US veto in the Security Council militates for reform said, the rules are the rules. But for how long? One wanted to ask him about the Rohingya in Myanmar. Next time.

   When Palestine's Rial Malki came to speak, Inner City Press asked him about the ICC. He said that if Israel doesn't continue with settlements and aggression, then Palestine won't go to the ICC. And if they do? Watch this site.

One wag joked that perhaps Hamas, for Gaza, could go to ICC.

Footnote: more transient insights remain on Inner City Press' Twitter feed, here.

November 26, 2012

In DRC, UN Spun Failure As Allowing Monitoring, Then Silent on Minova

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25, updated -- The inaction of UN peacekeepers under Herve Ladsous as M23 took over Goma and then Sake is one of the biggest UN failures in some time.

  A member of the UN's C-34, to which Ladsous first proposed drones in March of this year, has analogized it to previous UN breakdowns, such as in Srebrenica (not to say as in Congo's neighbor Rwanda in 1994).

  While the numbers in Srebrenica, which some put at 7000, were higher the structure is the same: the UN says it will protect a place, people gather and remain -- then the UN does nothing when the place is attacked. Here, the UN ended up saying it was better it did not fight. Better for whom?

  The UN also said that by not fighting, it could remain and "keep records." But how? And for whom?

  After Herve Ladsous refused again on November 21 to answer any Press questions, including "would MONUSCO defend Bukavu" and about the protests against the UN, Inner City Press on November 23 submitted simple questions in writing to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's three top spokesmen.

  They forwarded the Congo questions to Ladsous spokesman Kieran Dwyer, who had been the one to tell UN personnel to make sure not to give the microphone to Inner City Press, to instead search for a friendly question "en Francais."

  Dwyer, who by that and other acts appeared to become something other than a spokesman, emailed a response to basic questions, I am looking into that, before 4 on November 23.

  A day and a half later, despite major developments and more UN failure on the ground, and the statement issued by a meeting of the International Conference of the Great Lakes Region, neither Dwyer or the other UN spokespeople have provide any of the promised responses to the questions.

  One awaits as of 11 am on Sunday at the UN in New York even any comment on the ICGLR plans, on which Inner City Press asked the three top UN spokespeople for UN "comments and plans on the roles assigned to it by what was announced."

  Surprising in light of its failure, the UN's MONUSCO mission, which did nothing as the M23 took over Goma, was assigned the task of standing between the new territory taken by M23 and the city of Goma, which the statement says M23 should leave - except, paradoxically, for its airport. So far, a full 24 hours after the communique, the UN has had no response.
 
  And now DRC President Joseph Kabila has said there will only be talks with M23 if they leave Goma first.

  On November 23, Inner City Press asked the UN to "please describe any and all of MONUSCO's interaction with or support of elements of the Mai Mai or NYATURA so far this year."

  On November 23, Ladsous' Kieran Dwyer replied, "I am looking into this." In the 43 hours since, no information has been provided. But it is widely reported that NYATURA fought alongside the Congolese army in Sake; and that the Congolese army when it retreated to Minova robbed people's houses and stores and committed rapes.

  And so questions have had to be asked, on the morning of November 24, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including that "in Minova, there have apparently been rapes and looting by FARDC units as they retreated. Has anyone from OHCHR visited Minova?" No far, nothing.

  What was that again, about a benefit of not fighting being the ability to keep records?

  The UN has refused even to provide its records of its own damages. Inner City Press also asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokespeople to "please specify all damage or injury to UN system staff, facilities or property in the Democratic Republic of Congo since November 20, including but not limited to in Bukavu, Bunia, Goma, Kinshasa and Kisingani."

More than three hours later, all Dwyer responded with was, "I am looking into this." And as with the question above about Mai Mai and NYATURA, no information was provided in the 43 hours since.

  How could the Department of Peacekeeping Operations purport to have no answer to this? UN buildings have been set aflame, rocks thrown at cars, mortars reportedly fired at the MONUSCO base in Monigi. But after 43 hours, no information at all was provided.

  Back on November 21, it was Kieran Dwyer who for Ladsous asked UN personnel to not give Inner City Press the microphone as its question "would MONUSCO protect Bukavu" was asked.

  Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's three spokespeople to "please state the Secretariat's position on its Department of Peacekeeping Operations' spokespeople directing staff of the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit and UN Television / audio to hold the Security Council stakeout microphone away from Inner City Press, most recently by spokesman Kieran Dwyer on November 21."

  This question was paradoxically referred to Dwyer himself, and he did not purport to answer it or even claim "I am looking into it."

  There was another, entirely factual question about Herve Ladsous, including his role during and public (and private) communications about, the Rwanda genocide in 1994, to which Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office has replied only that "We do not comment on recruitment processes." We'll have more on this.

   Meanwhile, Ladsous' Department of Peacekeeping Operations is issuing short statements about the "background" and mandate of MONUSCO. When a Tweeter with three followers asked online why the UN and its humanitarian chief Valerie Amos didn't respond as in Somalia,  with AMISOM, the UN Peacekeeping account replied with MONUSCO's mandate.

   But when asked by a more active Tweeter with hundreds of followers why Ladsous does not resign after his failures, here, there was no response from UN Peacekeeping. And so others online answered the question themselves. Who will be held accountable? Watch this site.

Update: more than 24 hours after the ICGLR communique, and still without any responses from Ladsous' DPKO, the UN put out a statement in which Ban Ki-moon "calls on the M23 to immediately lay down their arms in accordance with the agreements reached in Kampala, and comply with the immediate withdrawal of their forces from Goma" and "is also determined to ensure that the United Nations presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo be adjusted to respond to the evolving challenges in line with relevant Security Council resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

  So why did the UN, evne under its mandate, do nothing in Goma, and why does it not answer since?


After Gaza Deal, Israel Talks Iran, Rice Opposes Observer State Status

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 21 -- For a week on Gaza, the Security Council met behind closed doors. Finally on Wednesday after the ceasefire was announced in Cairo, the Council agreed on a Press Statement.

  After President Hardeep Singh Puri read it out, Inner City Press asked him about the delay, and what role if any he thought the Council had in the reaching of the ceasefire. He said it was not yet time for assessments, but at least "we got an outcome."

  But what outcome? Inner City Press asked Israel's Deputy Permanent Representative Waxman is the deal means ships to Gaza will no longer be intercepted, but only inspected. He answered that the week showed the volume of weapons Iran is getting into Gaza.

  When Moroccan Ambassador Loulichki, who represented the Arab Group throughout the week, came out Inner City Press asked him what impact he thought the week would have on the November 29 voting on Palestine's resolution to upgrade to Observer State status at the UN.

  Loulichki said that it should be kept separate, that the position of regional groups remains the same. Earlier in the day Hardeep Singh Puri, this time representing the IBSA grouping of India, Brazil and South Africa, read out a statement on Gaza that included support for the Palestine move for Observer State status.

  When US Ambassador Susan Rice came out, and after she gave a well-prepared answer to a question on her TV appearances on the attack on Benghazi, Inner City Press asked her about Palestine's application:

Inner City Press: I'm going to ask you a Gaza question although I definitely respect the right of people to ask a follow up to that [Benghazi]. I just wanted to ask you one-on Palestine, the controversy here at the UN about Palestine seeking observer state status. You heard Ambassador Loulichki say there's no relation between the fighting in Gaza and the vote, and Israel obviously said states should think again. The U.S. opposes the vote, but what effect do you think this week of fighting-do you agree that this shows that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza? Should it make fewer states vote in favor of Palestine becoming a state observer at the UN?

Ambassador Rice: Well, I'll let other states comment on how they see the Palestinian bid for observer state status in the General Assembly. From the United States' point of view, we've been very clear. Our goal remains a negotiated, two-state solution. A Jewish democratic state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, viable Palestinian state. The only way to accomplish that in the real world is through direct negotiations, and we continue to urge the parties to come back to the table and to resume those direct negotiations. We view unilateral steps, including the bid for upgraded status to statehood-observer state status at the General Assembly-to be counterproductive and not take us closer to that goal, and, therefore, we strongly oppose it.

We'll be here on November 29, and until and after then. Watch this site.


November 12, 2012

At UN, States Get Palestine Resolution for Observer State Status, Vote "Near Future"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, November 8 -- Two days after the US elections, Palestine's Observer Mission to the UN on Thursday sent to UN member states its draft resolution to upgrade its status in the General Assembly.

  Inner City Press has obtained a copy of Palestine's draft resolution, and puts it online here.

  After recalling and stressing many things, the resolution would grant Observer State status, and hope that the Security Council grant full status.

  In the interim, Palestine has had win and losses in getting seated in UN bodies, as Inner City Press has reported, from the Arms Trade Treaty through the Law of the Sea to Geographical Names.

Now, Palestine has written to member states:

Attached please find note verbal MI.274/12 regarding a draft resolution on the enhancement of the status of Palestine in the United Nations General Assembly to be considered by the Assembly at a date to be announced in the near future

Best Regards,

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations

How will the US (and EU and others) respond? Watch this site.

At UN on Genocide, Burying Sri Lanka Report, Rwanda's French Connection

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 7 -- It was a snowy Wednesday evening when the UN held a screening and panel discussion entitled "The Holocaust by Bullets: Uncovering the Reality of Genocide."

  The event was sponsored by the French Mission to the UN; the short but moving films were on Holocaust killings of Jews in Ukraine and of Roma.

  After the first film, UN official Gillian Kitley told the snow-limited audience that the UN's now combined Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect advises Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of development in which mass killing may become possible.

  Inner City Press asked Ms. Kitley, what happened with Sri Lanka in 2008 and 2009, when the UN pulled its workers out of northern Sri Lanka, then concealed and denied casualty figures -- Inner City Press got and published a leaked OCHA count of over 2000 civilians killed in a short period -- and then didn't even call for a ceasefire.

  Ms. Kitley replied, "I understand there's been a very thorough investigation" into the UN's actions and inaction in Sri Lanka during that period, and that she'd be very interested to see it. But what about the public, to try to ensure that the UN does a better job in future cases?

  Inner City Press asked Ms. Kitley to have her Office and Adama Dieng, the Under Secretary General for Genocide Prevention (USG for R2P Ed Luck appears to have rather quietly left for an academic job in San Diego) inquire and urge Ban Ki-moon to make the so-called Petrie report on the UN in Sri Lanka public.

  Ms. Kitley did not answer the plea, and the event moved on. Video here, from Minute 1:03:11.

  Alongside the Holocaust, Rwanda in 1994 was repeatedly mentioned (though France's role in supporting the genocidal government, including in the Security Council where current UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous was then France's Deputy Permanant Representative) -- and Syria was mentioned, by Ms. Kitley.

  Earlier on Wednesday Inner City Press was told by a Sri Lankan diplomat that its close coverage, for example of its recent Universal Periodic Review (#UPRLKA) is not fair, in that it took the richer UK 30 years to deal with its "Irish troubles." We report this in fairness; duly noted. But it is also worth comparing responses to events in Syria and Sri Lanka. We'll have more on this.



November 5, 2012

On Somalia, With EU & US "Too Cheap" for Naval Component, Amendments?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1 -- At the UN on Somalia, it's war. Not on Al Shabaab, but about the Kenyan naval component of the AMISOM mission.

  In the UN Security Council, African sources in and beyond the Council say, European members and now the United States are "too cheap" to pay for the Kenyan naval assets they "used" to take and hold Kismayo.

  The AMISOM mandate was set to expire on October 31. In a rare session outside of Security Council chambers, with a short text "put in blue" by UN staff working from their homes, the Council agreed to roll over the mandate for a mere seven days.  Click here for Inner City Press in-person coveage of that meeting and vote.

  But, sources say, there is a move to put a longer resolution into blue -- without including the "naval component" of AMISOM.

  The non-Europeans are incensed; there is talk of amendments "from the floor of the Council" to put the naval issue forward.

  This follow-the-money issue is alongside another, about an exemption to allow the sale of charcoal built up in Kismayo. But to reduce this story to "paternalist" EU and US only caring about the welfare of Somalia -- can they buy weapons, can they sell charcoal -- would be misleading.

   As several African diplomats put it to Inner City Press on Thursday, "the Europeans are just cheap." Watch this site.



October 29, 2012

As UNSC Speaks on Ceasefire But Not Terrorism, Al Qaeda OK in Some Places?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 24 -- After envoy Lakhdar Brahimi told the UN Security Council by video to await an official Eid ceasefire response from the Syrian government tomorrow, the Council agreed on a press statement directed particularly at the government, as the stronger party.

  After the statement was read out, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was asked of the reported rejection in advance of the ceasefire by the Al Nusra Front, which claimed credit for deadly bombings in, among other places, Aleppo in an attack the Council condemned in a statement.

  Churkin said those with influence should speak with such groups. Inner City Press asked Churkin about his other draft Council statement on "Terrorism in Damascus," which the Council did not agree to.

  Churkin said there is a trend of not denouncing some acts of terrorism. He said some find attacks by Al Qaeda OK in some places but not in others: there is, "say that Al Qaeda cannot do certain things in one place but is welcome to do them in another place."

  Minutes later, Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari told the press, "There will be an official statement tomorrow" - that is, the day before the Eid holiday begins. Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press exclusively reported on and put online a list Syrian Mission filed with the Security Council of 108 "foreign nationals" arrested in Syria. Click here for that.
 
  Wednesday the Mission said nothing had been done on the list; it filed a letter about the killing of some 25 civilians in Douma, in an area it says there is no government army presence. Don't expect a press statement any time soon.

On Sri Lanka, Heyns on 40,000 Dead and Video Half-Shown in UN, UPR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 25 -- The UN system's Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions has inevitably dealt with Sri Lanka for some years, given the mandate.

  Inner City Press on October 25 asked Christof Heyns what he has done, to follow up on his predecessor Philip Alston's work on video footage of executions, and otherwise. Video here, from Minute 32:25.

Alston deemed the executions video authentic, in a session in the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium. Heyns on Thursday told Inner City Press that he followed up on new video which came out after he took up the mandate in 2010, and subsequently appeared "in the Channel 4 documentary."

  That was never shown in the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium, while the government's purported rebuttal to it was.

Heyns said, "in the meantime as you know the Secretary General's panel reported that up to 40,000 people were killed in the last days of the war." This is a figure that whenever used, push-back and vitriol results. But that's what Heyns said. Video here, from Minute 37:45.

While there is a so-called Universal Periodic Review coming up at the Human Rights Council in Geneva with a mere 72 seconds per speaker, Heyns looked forward to "next March, 2013" when the "High Commissioner needs to report back. The issue is again on the table."

  Heyns said that this year's HRC resolution "requests Sri Lanka to engage with special procedures on a road map dealing with reconciliation and dealing with the past."

  Earlier on October 25 Inner City Press asked the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Heiner Bielefeldt about Sri Lanka. He said there are "religious elements" to conflicts and spoke of "national mythologies," seeing "the Other as acting in the interest of a colonial power." He said the UN should "have witnesses planted in those areas." He mentioned the UPR, without mentioning it's only 72 seconds per speaker. Video here, from Minute 32:54.

While it may be unlikely that Bielefeldt will visit Sri Lanka, Heyns said "I am willing to go, the same applies to other mandates as well." He said "the reconsideration next March is important." He called Sri Lanka's "one of the largest reported killings in the world in recent times" that has yet to be "sufficiently dealt with."

  But with Ban Ki-moon's view of accountability, as not requiring punishment of anyone, what will the UN do? For now, it looks like the report prepared by Charles Petrie as he set sail to Myanmar will be buried. Watch this site.




October 22, 2012

Defending Drones at UN, Koh Says Transparency Is Aided by US on HRC, 2d Term Promises

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- When Harold Koh came to the UN on Friday to pitch the US' candidacy for a second term on the Human Rights Council, his opening statement did not mention an issue with which he has become associated: drones.

  Nor did the moderator's question to him -- Koh was asked what the US would do on its HRC campaign pledge about torture. While important, this seemed a softball focused on the previous Bush administration. (An ACLU question extended it to what the Obama administration will do to hold accountable those who tortured in the past.)

  There were only ten minutes left when Inner City Press was able to ask Koh to "address drones, on which there's been controversy at the Human Rights Council and elsewhere, whether their use complies with human rights law. Would the US support a special session or inquiry into the use of drones to commit executions?"

  When it was Koh's turn to answer -- he was moved up in the queue -- he cited to his own speech "in March 2010, echoed by John Brennan at the Wilson Center....The point is, all killing is regrettable [but] not all killing is illegal."

  He said that killings by drone "in the course of armed conflict or in self defense is consistent with international law." He cited Al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated forces" -- presumably including Al Shabab in Somalia and forces in norther Mali or Azawad -- and said it is "not illegal to target an individual who is leader of an opposing force."

  What about a 16-year old who is not a leader? What about "collateral damage"?

  These weren't answered. Rather, Koh said he thought he questions were "ask[ed] in friendly way." He closed with the pitch that it would easier to work on the issue and get "transparency" if the US remains on the Human Rights Council. And then he left.

  Inner City Press had also asked, "if the others running [for the Human Rights Council had] a interest in having drones addressed at the Council, the use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries."

  But the other candidates present did not address this in their answers after the question. Germany's Permanent Representative Peter Wittig answered a question about vote-trading by saying that Permanent members of the Security Council don't have to engage in it, but others do. Estonia and Montenegro addressed this and other points, but not drones.

  Argentina acknowledged that the Latin slate is "clean" -- three candidates for three seats -- just as it ran unopposed the day before for a two-year seat on the Security Council.

  Ireland's closing statement concerned the "style" it brings; the moderator's Irish question about about food security." Sweden focused on Internet freedom -- the country hosts, for example, sites that Russia argues are subject to UN Security Council sanctions.

  Greece spoke about the difficulty of being besieged by immigrants. There were echoes of the previous Romney - Obama debate, to which Koh jokingly referred. But drones are no joke. Watch this site.



October 15, 2012

On Sri Lanka, UN's 4 Month Report Not Done in Year, Petrie on to Myanmar

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 12 -- The UN's acts and omissions during the killing of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka in 2009 has given rise to criticism, to which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded in September 2011 by saying UN official Thoraya Obaid would investigate and issue a report in four months time.

  Nine months later, no report was issued and Inner City Press asked why not. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said for the first time that Obaid had not been able to do the report, but that Charles Petrie was not on the case and would issue a report shortly.

  That hasn't happened either, and Inner City Press has since learned that Petrie has another job, with the Norway government funded Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI), which is also controversial.

  But it's made Inner City Press wonder: how can Petrie do two jobs at once? How he work for the UN and, essentially, for the Norwegian government at the same time, in seeming violation of Article 100 of the UN Charter? And where is the report on the UN in Sri Lanka?

  On October 11, Inner City Press asked Nesirky:

Inner City Press: I had asked about this report that was supposed to be now done by Charles Petrie into the UN’s performance in Sri Lanka in 2009. And I went back and looked at it. It seemed like it was supposed to be finished in August and you had said that when it is finished it will be up to the Secretary-General whether to make it public or not. One, so I want to know the status now that we are in October. But also, I didn’t know this, but Mr. Petrie has another job, which is to be the head of the Myanmar peace support initiative, Norwegian. Did he do this at the same time? Was this a full-time position? Has he finished the report and what is going to happen with the report?

Spokesperson Nesirky: The work with that Norwegian organization has absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations. It is the work that is being carried out on the report and continues to be carried out is obviously entirely separate and is not a full-time role. So I think that covers that. The first part of your question, yes, it is still in the works, and when it is ready, it will be ready, but it is still in the works.

Inner City Press: Okay. So it hasn’t been finished and given to the Secretary-General?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Not yet. It has not been given to the Secretary-General at this point, yeah.

  If the long delayed report has not been given to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, then mustn't it still be with Charles Petrie? But where IS Charles Petrie? He is being quoted at the director of the Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI).

  On October 12, Inner City Press asked Nesirky again: what is the UN's view of the Myanmar Peace Support Initiative, and how can Petrie work there and for the UN at the same time?

  Nesirky said he has answered the question yesterday -- see transcript above -- so Inner City Press followed up and asked what is Petrie's status with the UN, and about Article 100 of the UN Charter, essentially requiring serving only one master.

  Nesirky insisted he had answer the question, and that if he has anything more he will provide it. We'll see. Watch this site.




October 8, 2012

As France Spins 2-Step on Mali, ECOWAS Frustration, What of Algeria and Chad?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 4 -- When Thursday's Mali consultations of the UN Security Council broken up near 5 pm, French Ambassador Gerard Araud emerged and confirmed that France would circulate a draft resolution shortly (in a day or two) but NOT yet to deploy ECOWAS forces.

  Why the delay? Araud twice said, we've been waiting for some time for details from ECOWAS. He said the resolution might specify, deliver the delays in 30 days or as soon as possible.

  Inner City Press asked Araud, what about Mali neighbors which are not members of ECOWAS, like Mauritania and Algeria?

  Araud replied that any and all countries are invited to be involved. He mentioned the European Union, then circled back to Chad.

  But again, what about Algeria? The country has long opposed interventions, especially involving former colonialism France. While pretending not to take the lead or play any special role on Mali, it was Araud who came to the stakeout; it is France which is drafting.

Then again, MUJAO in Northern Mali last month executed an Algerian diplomat. Araud said that there is unanimity in the Council on Mali, and afterward Cote d'Ivoire Ambassador Bamba, who was not allowed in the meeting, emphasized to the press that at the Sahel meeting at the UN during General Debate week, there was a strong political demand a resolution authorizing force.

But what about the neighbors, which are not members of ECOWAS? Watch this site.



October 1, 2012

At UNGA's Surreal Stakeout, Swiss Small 5 Lost in Translation, Morocco Runs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 25 -- Even penned in cavernous Conference Room 1 during a badly administered first day of the UN General Debate, opportunities that seem potentially newsworthy crop up unexpected.

  Between scheduled "media availability" stakeouts by Julia Gillard of Australia and Guatemala's president, Switzerland's president Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf appeared on UN Television speaking at the stakeout microphone.

  After first her answers were in German. But then an Australian journalist asked if Europeans would vote, in the current Security Council seat race, for Luxembourg and Finland rather than Australia.

  She declined this question, but half-answered the next one, about Obama or Romney. She said they would be the same on banks, that she has a preference but will not say it.

  As she responded to a question about sanctions on Iran, Inner City Press ran from the Media Center along a corridor of blue painted barricades to the stakeout and asked a Swiss question: does the "Small Five" effort to reform the Security Council's working methods survive its withdrawal earlier this year?

To be diplomatic, it seems the question was misheard. She answered "2022," apparently that Switzerland is running for a Security Council seat in a decade's time. She called it a "one year term," when the terms are for two years.

Afterward a spokesman told Inner City Press, "you can't use that." If agreed in advance, Inner City Press always respects that.

  But in this case, the comments were already broadcast on UN Television. And this comes shortly after hoopla about Switzerland's ten years in the UN -- click here for decade's review by Inner City Press. For the record, Inner City Press has had praise for the Swiss Mission to the UN and related community. But answers to questions on UN TV are for use.

  Minutes later the foreign minister of Morocco Saad-Eddine El Othmani appeared. Inner City Press has previously filmed Q&A with him, and this time ran to the stakeout as for Switzerland's president.

 But this time a signal was given and the media availability abruptly called to a close. There are questions. Hey, it might have been a softball about Morocco's position on a UN envoy for the Sahel. Maybe --watch this site.

* * *

As Wittig Takes Abyei Question Ladsous Refused, DPKO Tries Edit UNTV

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 28 -- The dispute between Sudan and South Sudan about Abyei has been the subject of UN talk and spending at least since the time of the defunct Peacekeeping mission UNMIS.

   But on September 27, when Inner City Press asked "on Abyei, what is the UN's role?" the chief of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous refused to answer.

   On September 28, after belatedly obtaining a response to the same question from outgoing Security Council president Peter Wittig, Inner City Press learned that Ladsous' DPKO had hit a new low.

   DPKO asked to get even Inner City Press' question about Abyei removed from the UN webcast archived video.  That is the strategy: to censor or modify the UN's video production to make it appear that no question was even asked. A new low.

   But here, even if this new low for the UN is achieved by Ladsous and (at least) three spokespeople he has debased is successful, is YouTube video of that Abyei question stakeout. Video here.

  And German Ambassador Wittig, while seeking to focus on the congratulatory aspect of the UNSC Press Statement he read out, said that the Security Council will meet again about Sudan and South Sudan, and Abyei, and get a briefing from envoy Haile Menkerios. Apparently, the bi-weekly meetings on the Sudans will continue.

  But what of Ladsous and his refusal to answer Press questions about his job, and then attempts to get even the questions censored or edited out of the UN's webcast video? Who is hurting the UN's credibility?

  On Thursday evening, Ladsous' spokeswoman told the UNTV boom microphone operator not to give the mic to Inner City Press, and tried to convince the two other correspondents present to ask questions. But there were no other questions. Ladsous walked away from the microphone as Inner City Press asked the Abyei question. Now DPKO has asked to have the question edited out.

  Ladsous is hitting a new low. Beginning in late May, after Inner City Press ran an exclusive article about Ladsous' proposal behind closed doors that DPKO use drones, Ladsous had refused to answer any Inner City Press questions, no matter how simple.

Inner City Press asked Ladsous why his Department flew Congolese military officials to a meeting to recruit the Mai Mai militia to fight another group, the M23. Ladsous refused to answer.

But on Sudan and South Sudan, on which the member states which pay Ladsous' tax-free salary have spent billions, after millions of people have been killed, Ladsous' refusal to answer the basic question -- "on Abyei, what is the UN's role?" -- is particularly troubling.

By contrast, at the very same stakeout area earlier on the same day, Inner City Press questions were taken and answered by the foreign ministers of Jordan and Italy, Australia and the Netherlands. But Ladsous, ostensibly an international public servant, won't answer.

  A fish rots from the head, as the old saw goes. And this old saw, more than one diplomat has said, should go. Watch this site.

September 24, 2012 -- for UNGA week coverage, click here.

As Ban Ki-moon Meets UAE & Arab League, Roed-Larsen at Both, Ladsous UAE

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- As this Fall's UN General Assembly begins, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and different members of his team met back to back Friday with the United Arab Emirates' foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan then with an Arab League delegation led by Nabil Elaraby.

  Inner City Press covered both as photo-ops, being confined between the two in a holding room with an Egyptian videographer in the office of Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson. Questions arose about Ban's different line-ups for the two meetings.

  Ban's uncommunicative top Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold the post, attended the meeting with the UAE but not with the Arab League.

  Since the UAE is hardly big in UN Peacekeeping, one thought the rationale would be to talk about Syria. But Ladsous was absent from the more Syria-focused Arab League meeting.

   Terje Roed-Larsen, whose mandate under Security Council resolution 1559 Syria has repeatedly sought to reign in, was present for both meetings.

  Ban's top lawyer Patricia O'Brien, also uncommunicative in that she has repeatedly refused requests to do a press conference or take questions, arrived for the Arab League meeting, of which Inner City Press made a 3-minute video, on YouTube here.


  The head of the UN Department of Political Affairs, former US State Department official Jeffrey Feltman, was understandably present for both meetings. The UAE foreign minister called out to him, "Jeff, I just sent you a text message," which Feltman acknowledged receiving. For Iran - LOL?

  Here was Ban's spokesperson's office's read-out of the UAE meeting:

"They discussed several regional issues including Syria, and the Middle East Peace Process. The Secretary-General thanked Sheikh Abdullah for hosting the UN presence in the UAE and welcomed the newly established UNOCHA Gulf Office. He also noted the important role the UAE is playing in humanitarian financing through its Office for the Coordination of Foreign Aid."

So that's why the UN's top humanitarian Valerie Amos was there. But why was Ladsous at the UAE meeting? Watch this site.

Update of 6:36 pm -- the UN spokesperson has put out this read out of the Arab League meeting:

They discussed first and foremost the situation in Syria, with its political impasse, widespread human rights abuses, and growing humanitarian crisis.

They expressed serious concern about the question of Palestine, the lack of progress in peace negotiations, and the alarming economic situation as well as the absence of hope in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Finally, they discussed the rioting that recently erupted following the posting of the irresponsible and provocative video on the Prophet Mohammed, which they condemned, while deploring the violence that ensued.

But what about France Banning even peaceful protests? Click here for that.



September 17, 2012

After Benghazi Killings, US Proposed Criticizing Denigration of Religion, France Said No: Likes Denigrating

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 14, updated below -- Two days after the UN Security Council issued a press statement on the "Attacks against U.S. Diplomatic Personnel" in Libya, Inner City Press has learned of a telling back-and-forth in the Council prior to adoption of the statement.

   The US Mission to the UN proposed the initial draft, which included a phrase against the denigration of religion, Inner City Press has exclusively been informed, then France opposed inclusion of that phrase, arguing among other things that the French constitution is secular.

  While this action too will have its reaction -- three Council members paraphrased French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud that he likes and takes pride in the freedom to denigrate religion, and two called this outrageous -- the Council Press Statement was issued on September 12 without anything on denigration of religion.

   It is newsworthy, Council members emphasize to Inner City Press, both that this US Mission to the UN proposed the phrase criticizing denigration of religion, and that France -- where the Sarkozy-era spats about religious jewelry and even halal butchers are apparently not over -- opposed it.

   "There are other statements coming," a Security Council member told Inner City Press at 4 pm on Friday. Watch this site.

Update of 7 pm -- Council members tell Inner City Press there IS another press statement under the silence procedure, about the attacks on embassies in Sudan.

  Meanwhile the US had Vice President Biden call Sudanese Vice President Taha. President Omar al-Bashir, of course, has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide. But that didn't stop Ban Ki-moon from greeting, if not meeting, Bashir. Priorities...


As 3 More Afghan Audits Leak, UNAMA Deputy Says UN Should Disclose Risk

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 14 -- Exposing a series of audits of the Law & Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan over the past 11 weeks, Inner City Press has received a few responses from the UN Development Program but no direct comment on the exclusively published leaked audits.

  On Friday, Inner City Press asked the UN's Afghanistan deputy Michael Keating about them. Video here, from Minute 11:07.

   Keating said "we need to be more explicit in acknowledging... the risks that are inevitably there with a program of this size and complexity and not try to hide those risks."

   But as donors threaten to stop funding LOTFA, a question is whether disclosing the risks would be enough, or whether some of the corruption like double payments and "missing assets" would have to curtailed.

   Today Inner City Press exclusively publishes three more audits. In "Observation 19," the auditors drily note:

"During the course of our physical verification of assets, we noted that some of the assets, which were appearing in Statement of Assets, were not physically present."

  This diplomatic "not physically present" phrase, if accepted, would have a good future on all manner of criminal defense.

In Observation 18, the auditors state that "during the course of our audit we noted certain instances where purchase orders were not raised in respect of procurement of goods," including over $300,000 for the purchase of Toyota vehicles.

   Observation 17 "note[s] instances where evidences of required approvals by Special Procurement Commission were not available with the contracts" and "recommends that the provisions of the Afghanistan Procurement Law should be complied" with. Ya don't say.

  Beyond this UN system corruption, there is a more serious debate about the proposed spending on constructing a new electoral roll -- would it be done fairly for all groups and how much would it cost.

  But with this clear example of UN corruption not yet addressed, and with UNDP declining to directly address the audits, the questioning of the UN's role(s) in Afghanistan inevitably takes place in the aura of these, shall we say, irregularities.

  Inner City Press had been informed by sources in Afghanistan that Keating, after working for the Africa Progress Panel with Robert Rubin, among others, on its board, got the post with the support of Tony Blair (Blair also works for JP Morgan Chase and ostensibly for the UN on Palestine) --  and that he is now leaving the Afghanistan Deputy post. So Inner City Press asked. Video here, from minute 17:22.

  Keating confirmed that he is leaving, saying it is after two years in the post, calling leaving "absolutely normal." Watch this site.



September 10, 2012

On UNICEF's Syria Death Count, UN Says It's Not on Ground, Cites Ban in GA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 5 -- UNICEF on August 31 and September 2 offered Syria casualty figures -- 1600 killed in a week -- that it refused to explain, but which went out all over the world.

  The figures were in fact derived, Inner City Press persisted and on September 3 learned, from the media itself.

 At UN headquarters on September 5, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky about it:

Inner City Press: on Friday, UNICEF said there had been 1,600 people killed in the previous week, the highest week so far; and then when asked, UNICEF said, about the basis of the figures, they said, 'ask OCHA.' So I did ask OCHA, and they said it’s based on UNICEF’s monitoring of media reports. The numbers are high, definitely. But the UN’s numbers, are they based on media reports, or are they based on the Syrian Observatory?  What’s the UN standard for putting in a UNICEF report that’s on ReliefWeb, which was announced in Geneva as a solid number?  Is it really just the UN reporting to the media what the media already reported?

Spokesperson Nesirky:  Well, I think you need to ask UNICEF precisely on their sourcing.  Let me simply say that it’s obvious that the United Nations does not have the kind of presence on the ground that would be needed if it would be possible at all to establish accurate figures.  I think that’s obvious to everybody.  It’s also obvious that there are many people who are monitoring what’s happening inside Syria and are providing figures which obviously need to be treated with appropriate caution.  I think you are absolutely right that the figures are high. We heard the Secretary-General and Mr. [Lakhdar] Brahimi say this in the General Assembly just yesterday.  The tragedy is that those numbers continue to climb, and yet it’s almost got to the point where it does not create the waves in the media that it should do, because it has become almost grotesquely commonplace.  And that’s what the focus should be on.  That’s where we need to focus our efforts to try to stem the bloodshed and move things onto a political track.

  To some, even inside UNICEF, it also seems important that the numbers announced by the UN be credible, or at least that their sourcing be disclosed as the same time they are announced. The worst is the mis-direction in which UNICEF engaged, saying "call OCHA" when they weren't OCHA's numbers at all.

  After UNICEF's Patrick McCormick was quoted that "at least 1,600 people were killed in Syria last week" and Reuters said he was "citing a U.N. document," Inner City Press early on September 2 asked McCormick, which document? And how was the data collected?

   McCormick replied to Inner City Press, "call OCHA" -- the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  This seemed strange anyway: in 2009 OCHA refused to release very specific casualty figures -- 2,683 --  it had collected in Sri Lanka.

  At the time, the UN told Inner City Press it is not in the business of counting the dead -- Inner City Press thought and thinks the UN should at least do this, where it can. But in a credible and transparent way.

  In this case, Inner City Press' initial questioning was picked up by the UK Guardian, as was the above-quoted OCHA response

Still UNICEF's number continues to proliferate. Voice of America at 2 pm on September 2 dutifully quoted McCormick on the numbers for UNICEF, headed by Anthony Lake. Click here for Washington Post; UNICEF's one-week 1600 death count has since been in, among others, Canada's big newspapers, GlobalPost, IBT, Slate, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast - and in the UN's host city, New York Post and New York Daily News.

  Since then, the Jamaica Observer, VOA-affiliated Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, San Francisco Chronicle, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Detroit Free Press, South China Morning Post, and more.

 More doubts should have been raised: in Syria in 2012, the UN's mission has left after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous said that even observers in armored cars can't get around. How would OCHA have collected figures of the type it refused to release in Sri Lanka in 2009, and why would it (well, UNICEF) release them about Syria in 2012?

  Despite OCHA's belated response to Inner City Press after UNICEF's, in context, deception play, will this be like the Inner City Press exposed but never corrected claim that new UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is a "Nobel Peace laureate"? Click here for that. And watch this site.



As Feltman Jogs Into US Mission, Need for UN FOIA, & Schedules Online

By Matthew Russell Lee, View

UNITED NATIONS, September 5 -- The UN claims to be transparent, but it has no Freedom of Information law. So its steps toward transparency are small and random.

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has a "public" schedule, but for example his recent encounter with Sudan's Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, was not disclosed.

 When Inner City Press asked about it, it was called a mere handshake. But Sudan issued a read-out of four issues covered.

  Ban's new Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson also has a public online schedule. But recently Inner City Press was told that a visiting foreign minister had met with Eliasson -- and it never appeared on his schedule.

  Wednesday morning Inner City Press happened to see Ban's new chief of the Department of Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, jogging into the US Mission to the UN on 45th Street. It seemed noteworthy, since most missions come to meet Feltman in his UN office.

  When Inner City Press asked, it was informally told that Feltman goes out to meet with other missions beyond the US, his native country whose State Department he served until earlier this year. Inner City Press asked, which ones? But that, seemingly as a matter of policy, is not public.

  Under Eliasson, the UN DSG position has a political component, which Inner City Press compared to that of Feltman. Why does one make his schedule public, and the other not? Why isn't the schedule of top UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, resistant to Press questions, put online?

  Both Under Secretaries General, we have noted, made themselves present at a sculpture exhibition opening Tuesday night at the UN, along with Ban Ki-moon and ambassadors including that of North Korea.

  Ban, Feltman, Ladsous and other USGs will retreat to Torino this weekend. Increased transparency should be in their agenda.

  Inner City Press asked on Wednesday, why doesn't Feltman put his schedule online, at least as DSG Eliasson does? We need to keep some secrets was the affable but unsatisfactory answer. Secrets on behalf of whom?

  It is time for a UN Freedom of Information Act, which Inner City Press has long asked for. In the interim, Feltman should consider putting his schedule online. Watch this site.


September 3, 2012

On Syria, UNICEF's 1600 Death Count Came From Media, Not OCHA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 3 -- On Syria, the UN announces to the media death figures which are derived, Inner City Press has learned, from the media itself.

  Then these are circularly sourced to "UN documents" and given more weight than they should be.

  UNICEF on August 31 and September 2 offered Syria casualty figures it refused to explain, but which went out all over the world.

  After UNICEF's Patrick McCormick was quoted that "at least 1,600 people were killed in Syria last week" and Reuters said he was "citing a U.N. document," Inner City Press early on September 2 asked McCormick, which document? And how was the data collected?

   McCormick replied to Inner City Press, "call OCHA" -- the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  After three separate inquiries with OCHA, and McCormick refusing to respond to follow-up questions, Inner City Press has just been informed by OCHA's spokesman in Geneva that

"The estimated figure of 1,600 persons was arrived at from UNICEF's own internal monitoring of different media sources. The figure does not come from OCHA."

   The key phrase here is "media sources" -- UNICEF took the number from news reports, despite the adjective "different" and the reference to "internal monitoring OF media sources." Essentially, UNICEF reads reports on the Internet.

   But where do these news reports come from?

  Increasingly, Western wire services take their casualty figures from "non-governmental organizations" or, more accurately, "activists."  Sometimes, at least, the sourcing is disclosed as such.
  
    But by laundering the activists figures through the UN system, as UNICEF has done, the figures take on the veneer of objectivity.

   Reuters' report said that McCormick has "citing a UN document."

   Inner City Press repeatedly checked, and fourd on OCHA's ReliefWeb site a UNICEF report stating that "a record death toll of 1,600 persons was reported." So it appeared even then that UNICEF's McCormick was quoting a UNICEF report.

  But, tellingly, UNICEF's spokesman McCormick could or would not explain UNICEF's own numbers. Why else pass the buck to OCHA?

  This seemed strange anyway: in 2009 OCHA refused to release very specific casualty figures -- 2,683 --  it had collected in Sri Lanka.

  At the time, the UN told Inner City Press it is not in the business of counting the dead -- Inner City Press thought and thinks the UN should at least do this, where it can. But in a credible and transparent way.

  Inner City Press immediately on September 2 did try to contact OCHA. But OCHA's lead spokesperson is away, as was one of the two referred-to replacements. The other did not initially respond. Nor did McCormick, to follow-ups.

Inner City Press asked OCHA:

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you on a Sunday, but when I asked UNICEF for the source of its figure of 1,600 killed last week in Syria, I was told to "call OCHA." I checked ReliefWeb and found a UNICEF report where it's stated "A record death toll of 1,600 persons was reported."

Press question on deadline, I'm sorry to say, since this figure is going out all over the world: reported by whom? Where do the figures come from? Does the figure cited include military deaths? Deaths among armed groups?

Seems important to answer this, especially since the UN system in other contexts has said it does not have access (in Syria at least since UNSMIS left) and / or does not count the dead (I was told this regarding Sri Lanka in 2009 -- I thought and think that UN should at least do this, where it can. But in a credible and transparent way.

Does OCHA has casualty figures beyond the above-quoted (but unsourced) UNICEF report?

The next day, OCHA replied:

Subject: Re: I was told to "call OCHA" about UNICEF's statement of 1,600 killed in Syria last week: reported by whom? Thanks
From: Jens Laerke [at] un.org
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Date: Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM

Dear Matthew

At a media briefing in Geneva last Friday, a UNICEF spokesperson gave an estimated figure for the number of deaths in Syria over the previous week.

The estimated figure of 1,600 persons was arrived at from UNICEF's own internal monitoring of different media sources.

The figure does not come from OCHA.

Hope this helps, Best regards

Jens Laerke, Spokesperson & Public Information Officer OCHA Geneva

  Inner City Press' initial questioning was picked up by the UK Guardian, as was the above-quoted OCHA response.

  Still UNICEF's number continues to proliferate. Voice of America at 2 pm on September 2 dutifully quoted McCormick on the numbers for UNICEF, headed by Anthony Lake. Click here for Washington Post; UNICEF's one-week 1600 death count has since been in, among others, Canada's big newspapers, GlobalPost, IBT, Slate, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast - and in the UN's host city, New York Post and New York Daily News.

 Since then, the Jamaica Observer, VOA-affiliated Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, San Francisco Chronicle, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Detroit Free Press, South China Morning Post, and more.

 More doubts should have been raised: in Syria in 2012, the UN's mission has left after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous said that even observers in armored cars can't get around. How would OCHA have collected figures of the type it refused to release in Sri Lanka in 2009, and why would it (well, UNICEF) release them about Syria in 2012?

  Despite OCHA's belated response to Inner City Press after UNICEF's, in context, deception play, will this be like the Inner City Press exposed but never corrected claim that new UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is a "Nobel Peace laureate"? Click here for that. And watch this site.

Rwanda's Mushikiwabo Says UN Looks for Excuses, Hege is Ideologically Bankrupt

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 29 -- The day after a Rwandan delegation sharply criticized the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions Group of Experts and its coordinator Steve Hege, Rwanda's Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo said that Hege and his report are "ideologically bankrupt." Video here.

  Inner City Press asked Minister Mushikiwabo four questions after her closed door meeting interacting with the UN Security Council.

  While she did not answer if the Rwandan government believes that Hege (and his Group of Experts colleague Marie Plamadiala from Moldova) met with Jean Marie Micombero, she called Hege's "ideological leanings troubling."

   She said, "for anybody who is sympathetic to the genocidal militia FDLR, which is proven through his writings, to be the man who is at the head of this Group of Experts is just an aberration... We have signaled our concern to the appointing authorities and we will wait to see what the reaction is. But I will find it deeply troubling that the Security Council could not look into how this man was appointed"

   Hege spoke to the DRC Sanctions Committee on August 28. Inner City Press previously first pointed to two articles he published in 2009 about the FDLR -- one was taken down quickly off Scribd after Inner City Press linked to it. We continue to await an explanation of this. The UN told Inner City Press it vetted Hege.

  Last time she was at the UN, Mushikiwabo was critical of the performance of the UN mission in the Congo, MONUSCO. On August 29, Inner City Press asked her specifically about MONUSCO chief Roger Meece, and the Mission's admitted flying of Congolese officials to try to recruit Mai Mai militia to fight the M23.

  Mushikiwabo said that, while failing in their missions, MONUSCO and some in the Congolese army FARDC are looking to "find excuses."

  She said much the same when Inner City Press asked how the M23 rebellion should be addressed, saying solutions should come from within the DRC, not by blaming the neighbors.

   Inner City Press asked of media reports that the SADC has offered to send troops along the DRC - Rwanda border. Mushikiwabo said she is not aware of such an offer, but rather since four SADC members are also members of the Great Lakes groups ICGGLR, then SADC -- of which the Congo is a member -- could offers support and advice.

  On August 28, it was Patrick Karuretwa, Defense & Security Adviser to Rwandan President Paul Kagame, who told Inner City Press regarding Hege that "a line that has been crossed by the coordinator of the Group of Experts. We expect any member to have views, baggage, but here a line has been crossed. You [pointed to] two of his articles.... in one of them he said the international community is souring on Rwanda. We say he's been given the tools to do precisely that."

   There are other questions for Hege, ranging for alleged radio intercepts to claiming the presence of one Jack (or "Jacques") Nziza on the Congolese border when Rwanda says there are more than 100 alibi witnesses, including diplomats.

 We'll have more on this.  Inner City Press believes there is a need for more accountability at the UN, including of sanctions "experts." Watch this site.

August 27, 2012

On Eve of Return to NY at 81, Brahimi's Jordan & Anti-Election Links Eyed

By Matthew Russell Lee, 1 in a series

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- With Lakhdar Brahimi on his way to the UN in New York, already some bad-mouthing of him has started. The opposition's critique is not only of his statement that it's too early for him to say that Assad must go, but is more fundamental.

  "Wasn't he part of annulling the Islamists' electoral victory in Algeria?" one source pointedly asked.

  Another pointed out Brahimi's connection by daughter's marriage high into Jordan's royal family.

   Inner City Press, which has pointed out that contrary to wire and then other reports Brahimi is NOT a "Nobel Peace laureate" was itself corrected, for having said Brahimi is 78.

  "He's 81," a source said, noting that in 2004 Brahimi presented himself in Iran as being 73 years old. Once this is confirmed, as the Nobel Foundation confirmed to Inner City Press that Brahimi is NOT a Nobel Peace laureate, we will have more.

   So why did Brahimi take the job? One source said, "These guys just can't stand to give up power, even if it is only the UN kind of power."

  It was predicted Brahimi will try for a smaller team than Annan, perhaps keeping on Ahmad Fawzi and trying to place three or four people in Damascus. That, like after his meeting with Francois Hollande, he will now present himself as in the "listening mode."

   And that it is late, too late, for a mediated solution. "This will be decided," a well placed UN source said, "on the ground."

   The problem is that there are many, many armed groups in the opposition, he said. There's an Al Qaeda-like movement; there's the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Egypt and Qatar. And then there are 200 groups, who control areas here and there and will not bow down to any Syrian outside. So even if a deal is cut, "these guys won't stop."

   "This will be a failure for the UN," the UN source concluded. "It will be seen as weak and ineffectual. Ban Ki-moon is trying to avoid the fall-out by appointing one high profile envoy after another, and letting them take the heat." The source paused and then marveled, "It's actually pretty smart."

  These are some views; there are others. Watch this site.


UN Confirms Flying DRC Officials to Meet Mai Mai, Says Didn't Know Topic

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 24 -- The UN flew Congolese government officials to meet with a Mai Mai militia leader, Janvier Karairi, who afterward said "they came to ask me to form an alliance with the army to fight M23" mutineers.

  On August 23, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky, "given the history of criticism [by] the UN [of] many of the Mai Mai factions, is it true that the UN is assisting the Government of the Congo to recruit these militias to fight another militia?"

  Nesirky first referred the question to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- whose chief Herve Ladsous has twice said on camera he will not answer any Inner City Press questions -- then on August 24 offered an amazing answer.

  Nesirky confirmed that the UN Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo "provided transporation and security" for the Congolese officials to meet with Javier and the Mai Mai, but said that MONUSCO is "not aware of any initiative to recruit Mai Mai."

  So what did the UN think the meeting with militia leader Javier was about? Especially AFTER Javier said publicly that it was a request that what he says are his 4000 fights to take up arms against M23?

  Inner City Press asked Nesirky this, quoting Javier that "they came to ask me to form an alliance with the army to fight M23." Video here, from Minute 12:15.

Nesirky repeated that MONUSCO did not know what the meeting was about. But why then did they fly Congolese government officials to the meeting? What type of meeting WOULDN'T the UN fly government officials to?

Nesirky said, "ask the DRC." But it is a UN question. How can the UN ask anyone to be accountable, when it is not? We'll have more on this, which again highlight how the UN has lost its way in the Congo.

  After nearly being thrown out of the country by President Joseph Kabila, the price for staying in has been to slavishly support the government and its often undisciplined army, the FARDC.

  As previously noted, DPKO chief Herve Ladsous has said openly, twice on camera, that he will not answer any Inner City Press questions. Video here, at Minute 28:10. And Ladsous spokesman Kieran Dwyer reiterated this in writing, and on camera. Video here, Minute 6:50.

  But this is a question that should be answered: how can the UN be playing a role, even a transportation and facilitation and "security" role, in recruit a militia that the UN itself has been highly critical of?

  In Sudan, the UN provided free helicopter flights to Ahmed Harun, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, click here for one of Inner City Press' exposes on this.

  This year, Ban Ki-moon and Ladsous accepted as a Senior Adviser on Peacekeeping Operations the Sri Lankan general Shavendra Silva, whose battalion is depicted in Ban's own Panel of Experts report as engaged in war crimes.

  Ladsous specifically refused to answer a question about Silva - this was the first time Ladsous said, "I will not answer questions" from Inner City Press. Video here, at Minute 28:10

  But in the Congo, the UN is going "hands on," flying Congolese officials to meetings with a militia leader who says the meeting was to recruit him and his 4000 fighters to join the bloody fight with the M23? How much lower can DPKO go, under Ladsous? How much more unaccountable can this UN become? Watch this site.

August 20, 2012

Brahimi Is Not a Nobel Laureate, Nobel Foundation Tells ICP, Who Corrects?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 19 -- Two days after Lakhdar Brahimi was named Joint Special Representative on Syria and a wire service called him "a Nobel Peace Laureate," and a day after Inner City Press twice questioned this designation, the Nobel Foundation has told Inner City Press that Brahimi "has not been awarded a Nobel Prize and should therefore not be referred to as a Nobel Laureate."

  The Nobel Foundation's public releations manager Annika Pontikis also said that, until Inner City Press' question, no one had asked her this question.

  So the initial wire story wasn't fact checked -- in fact, that Brahimi is not a Nobel laureate is clear from a simple search of the Nobel web site -- and those who ran it did not check either.

  The "Brahimi as Nobel Peace laureate" phrase continued to proliferate, from Reuters to SABC, Malta Today, Euronews, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, Eyewitness News, Channel 4

  Nor did any of these respond to inquiries, nor apparently run any correction.

   As Inner City Press has previously asked without answer, how are these things supposed to work?

  There is the media, then there is the source or subject. Should Brahimi, personally involved in his public relations machine, have reached out to correct the inaccurate description of himself receiving a prize he never received?

  Inner City Press before and just after Brahimi took the job wrote that it would be a form of "Nobel Prize lottery" for him - if anything good happens, he might be in line for the Nobel Peace Prize; if not, expectations are low.

  Further lowering expectations, Brahimi did phone interviews: first with French state media France 24, telling them that the UN only cares about helping the Syrian people.

   On August 18 Brahimi called Reuters, which then wrote for yet another time that Brahami is "a Nobel Peace laureate."

  Finally, Inner City Press asked the Nobel Foundation "whether former UN official (and incoming Syria envoy) Lakhdar Brahimi was or is a Nobel Peace laureate" and "if others have asked you this." The reply:

From: Annika Pontikis [at] nobel.se
Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Subject: SV: Is Lakhdar Brahimi a Nobel Peace laureate?
To: Matthew R. Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com

Dear Matthew Lee,

As you probably know the United Nations, as an organization, has been awarded the Nobel Prize. This, however, does not mean that persons affiliated to the UN can call themselves Nobel Laureates.

The person referred to below has not been awarded a Nobel Prize and should therefore not be referred to as a Nobel Laureate.

I have not received this question from others.

Kind regards,

Annika Pontikis

   As Inner City Press wrote before this answer, a "Nobel was given in 1988 to UN Peacekeeping, but if that makes Brahimi a Nobel laureate many others can claim that same prize. So why the designation? We'll wait and see." And now we see. What next? Watch this site.

At UN, Tale of 12 Twitter Feeds, Missions Tweet Stakeouts, Facebook Start-Ups

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 15 -- It was by Twitter alone that the French Mission to the UN announced two press stakeouts last Friday by its Permanent Representative to the UN. Not surprisingly, the turnout was low -- in fact, only Inner City Press at the second of the two stakeouts, on Mali.

   So it seems timely, especially in this mid-August lull, to review some UN Mission's twitter accounts, and wonder how long it will be until all 193 UN members -- and Palestine and the Holy See -- establish their twitter feeds.

   Beyond its many spokespeople, the US Mission to the UN maintains @USUN, the most recent tweets of which involve Ambassador Susan Rice's time representing President Barack Obama as the closing of the London Olympics.

  The UK Mission to the UK tweets frequently on @UKUN_NewYork, for example yesterday about Ali Saleh supporters' assault on the Yemeni Defense Ministry, about which the UN at its noon briefing said it was not even aware.

  On the Latin tip, @GuatemalaONU while serving in the Security Council last tweeted about its vote for the Syria resolution in the General Assembly on August 3. This even is its affable expert greeted Inner City Press on her way into the GRULAC Third Committee meeting about the rights of the child.

   The Syria GA vote is @NorwayUN's second most recent tweet, superseded by an announcement of the sheathing of the Empire State Building in Norway's colors for its participation in the Olympics.

  One wondered: couldn't many other countries get that as well? Former Permanent Representative of Norway Morten Wetland, a tweeter himself, has gone back to work at First House, from which one hopes he'll tweet. Robert Mood began but stopped.

   Going Germanic, @GermanyUN's last tweet is about a meeting on, what else, the future of the Euro.

   Targets of Security Council sanctions can have their twitter too, although @EritreaUN's only tweet so far this year involves their cycling team.

   While not a member state, though sometimes said to seek to speak like one, the @EUatUN has announced it is moving this month from its offices on 41st Street -- but the new address, on Third Avenue, didn't fit in the tweet, ran over its the EU's page on Facebook. (Inner City Press, with voluteer help, is just starting Beta dabbling in Facebook, here: http://www.facebook.com/innercitypress

  Poland's @PLinUN covered Beyonce in the GA, as did Inner City Press. @SwedenUN did indigenous. @PalauUN promises sub-tweets, with Ambassador Stuart J. Beck notated as SJB.

  South Africa's @SAMissionNY hasn't tweeted since February, but when it did it was about Palestine.

  Italy's @ItMissionUNNY does a lot of re-tweeting, but had an exclusive last month about Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson at the UN Staff College in Turin.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself is often (mis) represented by @secgen, which merely takes his daily public schedule and puts it online, even if the events are canceled or don't fit into 140 characters. And so it goes, with the UN and social media.

  We will have more on this. Watch this site - and pitch us your feeds!


August 13, 2012

On Syria, ICP Puts Ban's Letter Online, No Answer on Brahimi & Feltman

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 10 -- More than a week after the Syria report of top UN Peacekeeper Herve Ladsous, who seems to have gone missing, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on August 10 turned in a bilingual update to the UN Security Council. Inner City Press is putting it online before 10 pm, here.

  Meanwhile amid reports that long time UN official Lakhdar Brahimi is to be named to replace Kofi Annan as envoy to Syria, Inner City Press at 11 am Friday witnessed the entry of Syrian Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar Ja'afari to meet with UN political chief Jeffrey Feltman. A well placed source exclusive told Inner City Press: Brahimi will be discussed.

  And so at Friday UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey

Inner City Press; I was just in the North Lawn and I was told that Mr. Jeffrey Feltman of DPA [Department of Political Affairs] is meeting…I saw Bashar Ja’afari go in. I’m told that the topic is Mr. Brahimi. So my question to you is: because Martin Nesirky was willing to say that there are consultations with the permanent members of the Security Council about such an appointment, is Syria and its permanent representative, will they be conferred with prior to an announcement, whoever the name is?

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: I will have to check on that. I don’t know exactly who the consultation list is comprised of.

  Nine hours later, no response. But a well place Gulf source tells Inner City Press Brahimi is the Arab League's nominee, and will a more anti-Assad mandate than Kofi Annan had or acted under.

  It is still time to speed through some of Brahimi's positions. The US, Hillary Clinton in particular, opposed General Douglas Lute favoring Brahimi over Holbrooke on Afghanistan in 2010.

  Brahimi also said, in a 2008 interview, that Europe is a political midget.

Brahimi to his credit in March 2009 wrote, of Sri Lanka, "being a spectator when 150,000 thousand people are trapped in a death zone is not an option."

  That is, sadly, what the UN did, and now even has as a Peacekeeping adviser to Ban Ki-moon and Herve Ladsous one of the generals responsible for the killing, even according to Ban's own experts' report: Shavendra Silva.

  Brahimi is on the Advisory Council of the Sri Lanka Campaign, which of attacks on Inner City Press wrote this, about those who "played straight into the hands of the Government of Sri Lanka's attempts to silence its critics."

So which Brahimi would it be? Watch this site.

Reuters & AFP Sought Ouster from UN of Inner City Press, US Records Show

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 8 -- When the US government broadcaster Voice of America asked the UN on June 20 to "review" the accreditation status of Inner City Press, the UN Correspondents Association's president Giampaolo Pioli and first vice president Louis Charbonneau of Reuters claimed they had nothing to do with the request.

   On June 30, however, the two demanded that Inner City Press withdraw a Freedom of Information Act request it had filed for records related to VOA's complaint, or face a release of a one-sided UNCA report and a subsequent show trial seeking to vote Inner City Press out.

   Inner City Press did not withdraw the FOIA request. It stopped writing about the dispute until now, on August 8, when some 800 pages of documents requested under FOIA were released, while at least 150 pages have been withheld. (An appeal is being prepared).

   Even on first review, the documents show that Reuters and Agence France Presse, among others, were part of the campaign to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN. They conferred with "UN officials," yet to be named; Reuters conferred with the US Mission to the UN.

  On June 18 at 12:40 pm, VOA's Margaret Besheer e-mailed her editor Steve Redisch that "My Reuters colleague just told me his people are probably going to go the same route - to press UN to pull Mr. Lee's UN accreditation." Click here for that e-mail, released August 7 under FOIA.

   The "Reuters colleague" is UNCA president in waiting Lou Charbonneau, who expressed outrage at Inner City Press complaining of his byline on unauthorized uncredited use of Inner City Press exclusive reporting, then said he has a policy of not crediting Inner City Press.

   When Besheer, Charbonneau and others -- the names have been redacted -- received a complaint about their censorship campaign that was send to Capitol Hill and to the US Mission to the UN, Besheer recounts that Charbonneau "asked the US Mission" about the complaint.  Click here that e-mail, including a threat that Reuters would sue Inner City Press.

  Reuters' threats came after Inner City Press several times requested a copy of the company's policy for crediting the exclusives for other, smaller media from four Reuters officials: Stephen J. Adler, Editor in Chief; Greg McCune, Ethics & Training; Walden Siew, Top News Editor; and Paul Ingrassia, Deputy Editor in Chief.

  Reuters never responded, but rather sought to "press the UN to pull" Inner City Press' accrediation, along with Agence France Presse.


Charbonneau shakes -- on what? -- with Ban Ki-moon, (c) Luiz Rampelotto

   As to Agence France Presse, on June 18 at 12:58 pm, Besheer wrote to VOA's lawyers that

"My AFP colleague asks if they could possibly get the tenor of our letter so they can stay on message and ask In the same way. Their legal dept is in France, so It would be their regional director in Washington contacting UN on their behalf."

  The "AFP colleague" is Timothy Witcher who previously sought to use the UNCA bureaucracy to admonish Inner City Press for an accurate article concerning the French Mission to the UN and Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping.

  They couldn't stop Inner City Press from reporting, so they sought to get it thrown out of the UN.

 On June 11, citing Bloomberg News, Besheer wrote that "UNCA now discussing with UN officials (very quietly) next steps... They will have to step up and do their part -and pull his accreditation. It is my understanding that UN legal dept is now involved." Click here to view this troubling e-mail, regarding which we will have more.

   Who were these UN officials discussing quietly with the UN Correspondents Association the planned ouster from the UN of Inner City Press?

  The documents produced include a response to VOA's Redisch from UN official Stephane Dujarric, formerly the spokesman for Kofi Annan, referring to Redisch's emailed complaint against Inner City Press of the previous day, stating "Dear Steve, thank you for your email. I will call you later this week. Click here.

  But also on June 21, the records also show, once Inner City Press obtained and published the (first) complaint on the same day it was filed, VOA received nearly immediate inquiries from Capitol Hill about its attack on freedom of the Press and in particular Inner City Press' investigative journalism at the UN.

  On the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which ostensibly oversees VOA, demands were made for copies of Besheer's and her editor Steve Redisch's e-mails.

  In one e-mail, Redisch wonders how the requesters on the Hill would like Inner City Press if it were covering the Senate.

  At the UN, the official to whom the request to "review" Inner City Press was directed, Dujarric, first denounced Inner City Press for obtaining and publishing the request, then ultimately begrudgingly granted Inner City Press a shorter extension of credentials than in previous years, while leaving the VOA threat pending.

  Dujarric's incoming boss Peter Launsky- Tieffenthal has been asked by the New York Civil Liberties Union to describe the UN's process for accrediting journalists, with specific reference to Voice of America's complaint against Inner City Press. Click here for that.

  The UN and UNCA both claim to be unrelated, as regards accrediation. But not only is this UNCA a party to the UN's Media Access Guidelines - the records released today should the submission of UNCA supposedly internal documents to VOA in support of its complaint to try to get Inner City Press expelled by and from the UN. We will have more on this.

  Perhaps most unseemly for the UN, at the heart of the dispute is an attempt by UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli to get removed from the Internet a factually accurate September 21, 2011 Inner City Press story that Pioli in the past rented one of his 12 Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona, then the chief of the UN Treaty Section.

  In September 2011 Pioli without first checking with elected UNCA Executive Committee members like Inner City Press granted the request of his former tenant Kohona, now Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the UN, to screen a Sri Lankan government propaganda film denying the very 2009 war crimes that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was forced to commission a report about.


Pioli behind UNCA banner, Kohona & Silva not shown, (c) Luiz Rampelotto

  At the screening Pioli granted, Kohona was joined by General Shavendra Silva, reportedly responsible for 4500 deaths in May 2009, who is now on Ban's Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations. Ladsous has refused to answer Inner City Press questions on this, or anything else.

  On June 1, Lynne Weil wrote to three Voice of America officials that UNCA was"moving to expel a member whose apparent aggressiveness in interviewing a UN official prompted a UNCA investigation." E-mail here, emphasis supplied.

  Pioli told Inner City Press to take the story down, or he would get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN.

  The Voice of America documents released today under FOIA make plain that the basis for trying to throw Inner City Press out of the UN was entirely what it wrote or in one case said.

  Inner City Press commented to Besheer that some on Capitol Hill might question the use of taxpayer money to try to throw an investigative reporter out of the UN. Besheer trumped up this remark as a "threat" -- which VOA has since described as such in the course of the resulting inquiry (on which we'll have more soon.)

  That there would be Congressional interest turned out to be accurate, and within days of the June 20 complaint, VOA's lawyers were preparing a draft memo for the BBG Governors which include, among others, Dana Perino and Hillary Clinton.

  Then it was decided that "less is more." There follow a slew of heavily redacted pages. Inner City Press is preparing a FOIA appeal of these withholdings, and will continue to report on the documents.


Besheer in front of UNCA logo, taxpayer $ not show, (c) Luiz Rampelloto

  Questions include is it legitimate not only for a US government broadcaster like VOA but global wire services like Reuters and Agence France Presse (which derives over 40% of its income from French government "subscriptions") to meet secretly with UN officials conspiring to get a smaller, investigative web site thrown out of the UN? Watch this site.



August 6, 2012

On Syria, As Russia Nixes Ahtisaari, India On Abstention, Strange Rights of Reply

By Matthew Russell Lee, Partial exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 3 -- When the UN General Assembly reconvened for speeches after the Saudi resolution on Syria was adopted with 133 in favor, 31 abstaining and 12 against, Inner City Press asked Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin what his country thought of Maarti Ahtisaari as a replacement for Kofi Annan as envoy to Syria.

   "No, no, he is in deep retirement," Churkin told Inner City Press. Russia clashed with Ahtisaari over his position on Kosovo.

   Inner City Press asked Indian Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri about his country's abstention. He indicated that if the "welcoming" of the Arab League's resolution had instead been "noting," India might have voted yes. He also, in the GA Hall, condemned terrorism in Syria.

   India's abstention allowed the argument, made to Inner City Press at the beginning of the afternoon's session, that more the half of the world's population did not support the Saudi resolution.

   Inner City Press asked the Saudi Permanent Representative about this and he said, Then they could change the way we vote. India's Hardeep Singh Puri added, we believe in One Country, One Vote.

   Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari indicated that this couldn't be an Arab League resolution, since two Arab countries had not supported it. Beyond Syria's negative vote, Algeria abstained.

   Inner City Press was asked via Twitter why Yemen sponsored the resolution but then did not vote. The answer is that Yemen is behind in due and not allowed to vote, despite being pointed to as one of the UN's few "successes" this year.

  Tanzania also abstained, explaining it was due to resolution's lack of focus on "external forces."

  Argentina, whose opposition to the stronger version of the draft had an impact as exclusively reported by Inner City Press, voted yes but said afterward the resolution does NOT in any way authorize force to protect civilians. Thou dost protest too much?

  Similarly, Nigeria said it does NOT support the Arab League's July 22 decisions or telling the Syrian opposition to unify. But Nigeria voted yes.

  New Zealand said that it "joins China" in regretting Kofi Annan quitting. Why China? Well, New Zealand will be running for a UN Security Council seat in a year. That's often what these speeches are about.

  Canada opined that "Annan" Six Point Plan is dead. But like Russia's Churkin said of the UNSMIS mission, it could just be renamed.

   Libya's Ibrahim Dabbashi -- many are unclear if he or Shalgam is the Permanent Representative -- called on the General Assembly to do two things it can't -- impose sanctions and make referrals to the International Criminal Court -- and one thing it could do: try to strip credentials, as happened also for Laurent Gbagbo's Cote d'Ivoire.

  At the end there were Right to Reply statements. Iran trashed the "Zionist Regime." Germany spoke, but did not reply on Syria's statement about its sale of nuclear submarines to Israel.

  The EU deputy representative spoke, but did not reply to critique of EU sanctions. Afterward he told Inner City Press that under the current resolution, the EU does not HAVE a right to reply. That might be a problem.

  Bahrain replied that the forces in its borders "are from Al Jazeera." One wag mused, well that clears it up. And then the debate ended. We will have more on this -- watch this site.


At UN, Broken Elevators, Hot Offices, No Drinking Water After Capital Master Plan

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 2 -- Returns to the UN Headquarters tower have been less than smooth, after a rehabilitation which Inner City Press showed featured massive cost overruns. UN staff have exclusively complained to Inner City Press of getting stuck in the "renovated" elevators, about uncontrollable window blinds which leaves the offices overheated, and now about a lack of drinking water.

According to staff, after bad-tasting water was repeatedly noted, the UN shut down the system and ordered bottled water to be trucked in and taken upstairs. All this while yet more staff are slated to move in this coming weekend.

"Where did all the money go?" a staff member demanded to know. "Two billion dollars for this?"

The UN's Fifth (budget) Committee, now slated to be taken over by a Sri Lankan diplomat named in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on war crimes in that country, has until now raised numerous questions about cost overruns in the Capital Master Plan, run by American Michael Adlerstein.

The US quietly let the UN keep tens of millions of dollars in so-called Tax Equalization Funds, but for securing the Conference Rooms over the East River. But no drinkable water? Watch this site.

July 30, 2012

On Syria, Mood Has Changed, UN Front-Runner, Rwanda Like Exit?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- Norwegian General Robert Mood, after having declined to renew his contract to head the observer mission in Syria which is being dismantled by UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, made this observation, dateline Oslo:

"In my opinion it is only a matter of time before a regime that is using such heavy military power and disproportional violence against the civilian population is going to fall."

   While prefaced with "in my opinion," the verdict within an hour was getting big play in Western media, akin to an endorsement late in a political campaign.

   But one wonders: did the UN say this about, for example, Sri Lanka's Rajapaksa government's use of even heavier military power killing 40,000 civilians, nearly all of them Tamils, in northern Sri Lanka in May 2009?

   The answer is, No. And the reasons, we posit, is because the UN did not think the government would fall. The UN in this view is like a casual sports fan coming to loudly root for the team it thinks is about to win.

   And in the nitty-gritty decision making of Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping, the goal seems to be not doing what is possible to protect civilians but rather to get out of the way, or look the other way, and let this overthrow take place.

   Even as the UN Security Council debated two competing draft resolutions to extended the mission in Syria UNSMIS, the UN under Ladsous had three planes deployed in Beirut, ready to pull all UN observers out.

  Some ask: how is this different from the UN's pull out from Rwanda, which the UN has had to live down and apologize for since 1994?

  As Inner City Press has noted before, Ladsous in 1994 was France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, supporting the murderous Hutu government in the Security Council. Noting this historical fact and others has led Ladsous to refuse all questions from Inner City Press.

  And coming full circle, in his analogy how does Mood, the Oslo Oracle, compare with General Romeo Dallaire? We will continue on this. Watch this site.



July 23, 2012

To Extend Syria Mission, West Drops Troops to Barracks Condition

By Matthew Russell Lee, Partial exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- In order to avoid a second day of vetoes, the European sponsors of Friday's Syria mission resolution made a significant change to their draft.

  As Inner City Press first reported, putting the new draft online prior to the vote, they dropped the condition that Assad's troops should leave cities and return to barracks. Click here to view the final text, compared to the draft. Also see below.

  Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice about dropping the condition of "pullback of military concentrations in and around population centers, as well as to withdraw its troops and heavy weapons from population centers to their barracks."

  Rice emphasized that the US was not a sponsor of the resolution -- in fact, as Inner City Press first reported, Rice on Thursday when asked if the US wanted the UNSMIS mission extended said no -- and urged Inner City Press to "speak to the author, who I think will be coming behind me.  We frankly prefer the text that included all of paragraph 2 [of Resolution 2043], but we were able to accept the draft that was voted today."

  The UK's Mark Lyall Grant was next, and to his and his spokesman's credit took the question. Lyall Grant said Syria must comply with all aspects of the Six Point Plan, including "paragraph two which as you rightly say... including return of troops to the barracks."

  He said "some Members of the Council argued that we were setting the bar too high for a possible extension of UNSMIS, so we decided to focus that condition on the one posed a direct threat to the Security of the mission."

  Germany's Peter Wittig followed, and also took the Press question, unlike previously. He said, we had consultations this morning, so we tried our best to come together. That was a change in the spirit of compromise to get everybody behind the draft.

  Inner City Press asked China's Permanent Representative Li Baodong about the change. He said, there are a lot of new developments, we want to see Kofi Annan's mediation continue.

  When Russia's Vitaly Churkin came out, Inner City Press asked him about Thursday's statement by US President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney that the Annan plan "failed thus far, yes. And the failure of the Security Council to support this resolution means that it can't go forward."

  Churkin disagreed, saying "Kofi Annan continues his work, the key ingredient is to try to put together a dialogue between the government and the opposition."

  Churkin was told that he'd said "this extension gives Kofi Annan a chance," and was asked if "the new meeting of Friends of Syria might disrupt this process." Churkin scoffed, let's not make a rigid linkage between Kofi Annan and the monitoring mission.

Later Inner City Press asked Churkin specifically about what was deleted from the UK draft, and why. He smiled and said, "Matthew, the Security Council holds closed consultations to keep some secrets. You want us to give you all the secrets about the work of the Security Council. Then we could invite you... to answer all your questions." Well, why not?

  From the outside it seems that faced with the threat of a second day of vetoes, and with the prospect of the UN and Security Council become even more irrelevant to the Syrian crisis, the European agreed to this change, and the US went along, while calling it 30 days to pull out. So the can is kicked down the road; there will be more Security Council fights around Ban Ki-moon's 15 day report, and whether to extend further in 30 days. Watch this site.

  Here is the modified draft approved on July 20, 2012:

Commending the efforts of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS),

1.Decides to renew the mandate of UNSMIS for a final period of 30 days, taking into consideration the Secretary-General’s recommendations to reconfigure the Mission, and taking into consideration the operational implications of the increasingly dangerous security situation in Syria;

2.Calls upon the parties to assure the safety of UNSMIS personnel without prejudice to its freedom of movement and access, and stresses that the primary responsibility in this regard lies with the Syrian authorities;

3.Expresses its willingness to renew the mandate of UNSMIS thereafter only in the event that the Secretary-General reports and the Security Council confirms the cessation of the use of heavy weapons and a reduction in the level of violence sufficient to allow UNSMIS to implement its mandate;

4.Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of this resolution within 15 days;

5.Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  Dropped is the reference to "full implementation of paragraph 2 of resolution 2043."

As Ladsous Justifies Refusing Press Qs, Stonewalls on Mercenaries & DRC Killings

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- Can it be legitimate for a UN official paid hundreds of thousands of dollar a year, tax free, to refuse to any and all questions from a UN accredited journalist based solely on the journalist's critical coverage?

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous have taken this position for eight weeks now. Yesterday the position was reiterated, and requested answers not provided.

  Ladsous' spokesman Kieran Dwyer on July 19 wrote that Inner City Press' written coverage of "Ladsous since he took up his position have made it impossible to have a professional engagement with Inner City Press on the substance of peacekeeping work."

  A question is, whose lack of "professionalism" was on display on June 17, when at a stakeout on UN Television Inner City Press asked Ladsous for his response to Spain cutting its troop contribution to the UN Mission in Lebanon in half, and if his Mission in the Congo had as reported killed civilians.

Ladsous refused to answer either question, and Dwyer quotes himself as saying, "we are on the record as not answering your questions due to your personal attacks." Video here, Minute 6:50.

 Ladsous began this strategy of explicitly conditioning answering or even taking question on getting positive -- and we and others posit, as yet unmerited -- coverage on May 29 in a televised press conference, and has continued it off camera since.

   Can critical coverage of the job performance of a international civil servant be called the type of "personal attack" that justifies refusing to answer questions about job (and Department) performance?

   Dwyer writes that his on-camera July 17 refusal to answer was "in line with Under-Secretary-General Ladsous’s response to your noon briefing question of 29 May, when he said 'I will start answering your questions when you stop insulting me and spreading malicious and insulting insinuations.'"

   Again, can the publication of reviews of DPKO's performance under Ladsous, and his plans for example for the use of drones which several member states have criticized as not having enough safeguards be construed as "malicious and insulting insinuations"?

  By contrast, at the same stakeout position where Ladsous and Dwyer on July 17 refused to answer basic questions about the UNIFIL and MONUSCO missions, on July 20 Ambassadors Rice, Lyall Grant, Wittig, Li and Churkin all took and answered questions from Inner City Press.

  Diplomats employed by their own nations -- in these cases the US, UK, Germany, China and Russia, respectively -- might more easily say they can openly refuse to answer particular journalists' or media's questions.

  But Ladsous is paid by the UN, that is, by global taxpayers. He claims that he does not work for France.

   So on what basis does he refuse to do what Ambassadors Rice, Lyall Grant, Wittig, Li and Churkin do? (It might be worth noting that of all the Ambassadors who spoke at the Security Council stakeout in the past two days the only one who, through his spokesman, refused to take any question from Inner City Press was French Ambassador Gerard Araud.)

  After receiving Dwyer's justification for his and Ladsous' refusal to answer questions, which was copied to Ban Ki-moon's two top spokesmen, Inner City Press replied that it is "opposed to conditioning answering or even taking questions on the content of press coverage" and "will continue to ask questions, including about DPKO and its missions, and to report on the responses, or lack of responses."

   Inner City Press then after Thursday's Security Council meeting asked four questions of DPKO, and two of Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat, none of which have been answered or even acknowledged by mid-Friday afternoon:

I would still on Syria like a description of USG Ladsous' role in the June 15 notification to the Security Council that UNSMIS has limited its mobile operations in Syria as of 18:00 hours local that day, see http://www.innercitypress.com/icp1syriadpko061512.pdf

and an explanation of the steps taken since the S-G (and presumably USG Ladsous) received UNSMIS' report on Houla, where in the UN he referred it and why it has not even now been provided to the Security Council, according to several Council members.

  Also from today, I'd like an answer how SRSG Martin Kobler's stakeout statement that UNAMI does not use private military (or security) contractors other than for dogs comports with these two budget lines:

HART SECURITY LIMITED    CYP    Training, other    $437,444    11AMI-20387    UNAMI

HART SECURITY LIMITED    CYP    AMI/CON/2011/041    Provision of Security Awareness Induction Training Training (SAIT) for UNAMI    1-Aug-11    31-Jul-12    $1,143,682    UNAMI

  This last seems to runs through July 31, 2012 - still in force.

I am also requesting to be informed whenever MONUSCO finishes its review of the effects of its use of helicopter gunships / missiles in North Kivu. 

  And, to those you cc-ed, I'd like like answers to the two non-bomb questions I emailed in yesterday afternoon.

  Those were:

what is the UN's response to this criticism from Sierra Leone (here), and to the Staff Union's statement yesterday urging the S-G to do more on staff detentions in Myanmar and prison term in Ethiopia?

 No noon briefing questions were taken on Thursday, and there was no noon briefing at all on Friday -- the point here is that there might have been time to answer at least one of these questions. But at least as to Ladsous, there is a stated "on the record" policy of not answering Press questions. Is that legitimate? 

  As Inner City Press wrote on July 18, we'll pursue this -- and, we hope, answers to the questions Ladsous refused to answer or even take, on top of the unanswered questions about DPKO introducing cholera into Haiti, and Ban and Ladsous having as a Senior Adviser on Peacekeeping Operations an alleged war criminal, Sri Lankan general Shavendra Silva.

 Notably Ladsous did take Press questions earlier in May, and what he fastened on between then and May 29 is mysterious and / or troubling. Watch this site



July 16, 2012

At UN, Still No Answer to NYCLU on Accreditation Rules, 48 Hours Notice

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 11 -- One week ago today, the New York Civil Liberties Union wrote to UN officials asking for a public explanation of their standards for revoking media accreditation.

  NYCLU's request was explicitly triggered by Voice of America's executive editor Steve Redisch's June 20 request to the UN's Stephane Dujarric, on behalf of VoA's Margaret Besheer and unnamed "others," to "review" the accreditation status of Inner City Press. (While the Broadcast Board of Governors has sought delay, Inner City Press' Freedom of Information Act request to determine among other things the identity of these "others" is proceeding.)

  On July 6, Inner City Press asked the Office of the Spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for their response to NYCLU's request. In the five days since there has been no response at all.

   But on July 11, Ban's lead spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press, "I'm going to have another word with Stephane Dujarric about this" -- apparently because he didn't like how Inner City Press asked a question about Western Sahara.

  This shows the lack of awareness by the UN, at least by the Secretary General's lead spokesman, that there is a problem turning a disagreement about press questions or coverage into complaints to the UN's media accreditation officials.

  Now Inner City Press has become acutely aware of another sample problem of UN media accreditation, the case of a journalist covering the UN for 17 years on issues ranging from disarmament and develoment to the indigenous who has now been told, with only 48 hours notice, to either produce a new letter of accreditation or give up not only his cubicle office space but also his accreditation.

  Inner City Press interviewed the journalist at issue on Wednesday night and was shocked by the lack of notice, and by the lack of support he received from the Correspondents Association, whose president merely advised him to "get another letter."

   The reality is that other reporters at the UN, including non UNCA members, have been given far longer to regularize their status, after a former employer either disavowed them or went bankrupt. It's as the NYCLA has asked: what ARE the rules?

  If there are other unstated reasons for this "purge," some raised behind the scenes by Xinhua and the Correspondents Association's president against one of his own members, they should be disclosed and a response allowed -- that's what the NYCLU letter and applicable case law requires. Watch this site.



July 9, 2012

After NYCLU Writes to UN, UNCA Files Bogus Report With Government, "Judge" With DSS, New Lows at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 5, updated -- Tuesday afternoon the New York Civil Liberties Union put out a press release questioning US government agency Voice of America's complaint to the UN to review the accreditation of Inner City Press.

Three hours later someone in the UN Correspondents Association filed a copy of the bogus report commissioned by UNCA President Giampaolo Piolo and his Big Media puppet masters / Hamptons house guests with government authorities to try to get them to act against Inner City Press.

The report is marked "confidential," and as announced by Pioli's Secretary Barbara Plett of BBC on Tuesday afternoon, is only for "UNCA members in good standing." So one of them is responsible for the (anonymous) retransmission to government authorities.

Was this the goal of the report all along?

In fact, Inner City Press at 4 pm on Thursday went to UNCA's office and asked how seeing the report worked. The office worker, seemingly paid by Pioli himself (as reported, he is renting out a Hamptons mansion for $90,000 a month) fumbled around and was unable to find the copy of the report she was in charge of. How to listen to the UNCA audio recording of the Executive Committee's Kafka-esque July 3 meeting was also unclear.

Inner City Press' request to see the "information available on request" cited in the report, ignored by the Board of Examination chair William M. Reilly and the two remaining Examiners, was conveyed to Pioli through his Secretary, so far without response.

Simultaneously, one of Pioli's three "Board of Examination" members, Ali Barada of An-Nahar,  filed a complaint against Inner City Press with the "Special Investigations Unit" of the UN Department of Safety and Security.

  The only basis? What Inner City Press said when Barada bragged that he immediately deleted without opening Inner City Press' email requesting to see the "information available on request" listed in the report Barada signed off on - and which was then sent anonymously to the government against Inner City Press.

  In fact, while all Inner City Press responded with was a run of the mill host country insult, Barada cited his involvement with a "terrorist" group, as a reason Inner City Press shouldn't express its opinion.

Update: And on Friday, July 6, Inner City Press had to spend two and a half hours with UN Security responding to Barada's frivolous and pretextual complaint. Then at noon Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesman had no response to the NYCLU's request.

This gang gets more and more anonymous, just as the supposedly "for UNCA members only" June 14 letter got posted as an anonymous "Mundo111" comment on a story about UNCA anti-Press campaign on the Guardian.co.uk.

Barada's complaint is similar to one by Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, copied to Pioli, his Treasurer Margaret Besheer of the aforementioned VOA and AFP's Tim Witcher, claiming that Inner City Press saying "you disgust me" when Charbonneau tried to organize a session to oust Inner City Press without informing it the WORST thing Charbonneau has seen in 20 years of reporting.

  Really?

  Charbonneau's complaint was to the Department of Public Information, but now the NYCLU has written there. So Barada's complaint, also only about speech, is directed to the Department of Safety and Security. Once out on First Avenue and west, the NYPD would laugh at a complaint about such speech.

  But ironically, while the First Amendment stops on First Avenue, pathetic attempts to file complaints about mere speech and get the Press ejected are even entertained here east of First Avenue, in the Alice in Wonderland that Ban Ki-moon's UN has become. Watch this site.



July 2, 2012

On Syria, As Clinton Claims Text Ousts Assad, Lavrov Laughs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- When six hours late Kofi Annan emerged from the Action Group on Syria to speak, his key line to the press when asked if Bashar Assad will end 2012 in power or at the International Criminal court was that he'd left his crystal ball at home.

  The real news was in the back to back press conferences of Hillary Clinton and Sergey Lavrov. Clinton, who took only two questions, claimed that despite agreeing to significant Russia demanded changes to Kofi Annan's draft, Assad still couldn't remain in power under the "mutual consent" clause. She then took questions from AP and Saudi-funded Al Arabiya and moved on.

  Lavrov came out and mocked those who'd claimed they wouldn't agree to change "even a comma," noting the major changes Russia got.

  The draft would have "exclude[d] from government those whose continued presence and participation would undermine of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation." Russia got this removed.

He focused on those funding the opposition who want a spiraling of violence, and chided those - Hillary - who blocked the presence at the Action Group of Iran.

  In the crowd was General Robert Mood, who as Inner City Press exclusively reported yesterday should be leaving on July 20, as the UN Secretariat has proposed to downshift UNSMIS to a political mission.

  There were a lot of UN alumni in the crowd: former Deputy Permanent Representatives of China and of the UK (Karen Pierce), as well as former UK political coordinator David Quarrey. Click here for that, and watch this site.


After Voice of America & UNCA Seek to Oust ICP from UN, Legal Notification

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 28 -- The five Big Media representatives on the UN Correspondents Association Executive Committee who started a "Board of Examination" probe of Inner City Press a month ago claimed that was not to oust the Press from the UN.

  But on June 20 the executive editor of one of the Five, Voice of America, filed a complaint with the UN seeking just that: a review of the status of Inner City Press' accreditation to the UN, based entirely on things the Press has written. Click here for full text of VOA complaint to the UN.

  Eight days later, the UNCA Executive Committee & Board of Examination have received a legal letter notifying them of violations of free speech, free press and due process: click here to view.

  Precipitating this letter was word that this Board of Examination would issue its report, without even having informed Inner City Press of the charges against it, on Friday, June 29, unless Inner City Press agreed to blanket apologies and even a censorship commitment not to ever write about other media organizations.

  On June 21 Inner City Press told the four remaining members of the Board of Examination that this VOA complaint and challenge to its livelihood made it nearly impossible to continue discussions with UN Correspondents Association president Giampaolo Pioli about how to "clarify" the fact that he rented his apartment to Palitha Kohona, then a UN official, now Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN.

  Pioli in September 2011 granted Kohona's request to screen inside the UN a Sri Lankan government propaganda film called "Lies Agreed To," which purports to rebut a UK Channel 4 documentary that was NOT screened inside the UN.

  On the podium were only Kohona, Pioli, and alleged war criminal Sri Lankan General Shavendra Silva, who subsequently became an adviser to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on peacekeeping operations.

   These are facts; the UNCA Executive Committee on June 14 issued a letter "for UNCA members only" which is now their response to the media and which claims Inner City Press never objected to the "Lies Agreed To" screening.

That is false.

  Inner City Press has shown the Executive Committee and now the Board of Examination that "before the screening, Inner City Press wrote to Pioli, Charbonneau, Voice of America's Margaret Besheer and others about 'the UNCA screening of the Sri Lankan government's rebuttal to Channel 4's "Killing Fields": -- I don't remember any email asking if that screening should happen in the UN auditorium, given that the underlying Channel 4 film not not shown in the UN.'"

   The circulation of an "UNCA members only" letter, with this falsehood, and the failures to explain or act on the VOA / UNCA attempt disaccredit me and deny me my livelihood, have come to the fore.

   And so here is the UNCA Board of Examination's June 25 inquiry, and Inner City Press' response:

Dear Matthew, A few days ago, as chair of the Board of Examination of the UN Correspondents Association's Executive Committee I asked if you had any submission's for the panel. There was no response.

June 21 you responded to a verbal invitation from other board members and you met with the remaining four of us.

At the end of the 2.5 hour session you said you would give us a proposal on ending the confrontation between the Executive Committee and you. The board members left with the understanding there would be a cooling off period marked with an absence of charges and counter charges by both sides. That apparently was not the case. Are you going to submit anything more to us?

Sincerely,

William M. Reilly, Chair
Board of Examination, UNCA

cc: board members

   Inner City Press immediately responded and asked questions that have yet to be answered:

I am surprised by this message. First, on June 21 you said that given the Voice of America / Margaret Besheer written request to the UN that it review my accreditation, you understood that addressing that threat to my livelihood, which I ascribe to the UNCA Executive Committee and this process that you continue to chair, came first.

What can you tell me has been done in that regard?

I was told on Thursday to draft (or even just "think") about possible clarifications, and that I have done. I was told it was understandable I would just not submit such drafts in writing -- as I told you, a reporter was misled by the UNCA Executive Committee, based on a prior draft submission I made, that I had signed an apology.

Speaking of reporters, and VOA, I wish to bring this to your attention, and I paste it below: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303940/time-us-take-stand-press-freedom-un-brett-d-schaefer

You say that before June 21 you asked if I "had any submission's for the panel. There was no response."

When and how are you saying your request was made? While the membership in the Board of Examination has repeatedly shifted, I have made a number of submissions, of questions that I contend must be examined, and of my right to be informed of the charges and witnesses against me, before the 10 day period can begin.

What are the charges? Who are the witnesses? And who will rule on the conflicts of interest and disqualifying pre-judgments that I have identified?

I am covering the current Security Council debate on the Protection of Civilians, at which among others Sri Lanka (which I cover) is about to speak... I request your responses in writing; I made a similar request to the UNCA Executive Committee, to which they have not responded at all.  I ask that you respond in writing to the points above. Thank you in advance.

Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press

And so, the legal letter has been filed. Watch this site.



June 25, 2012

Voice of America Complaint to Get ICP Out of UN Violates 1st Amendment

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21, updated -- After five Big Media members of the UN Correspondents Association on May 25 started a "Board of Examination" to investigate Inner City Press with an eye toward expelling it from UNCA, they claimed there was no intention to try to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN itself.

  But on June 20, the executive editor of Voice of America, one of the Big Five along with Reuters, Bloomberg News, Al-Arabiya and Agence France Presse, wrote to the UN's Stephane Dujarric, supervisor of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, asking him to "review Mr. Lee's status as an accredited U.N. correspondent."

  It is now apparent that the UNCA "Board of Examination" process has been a set-up.

  Inner City Press' participation in the meetings they summoned it to, its e-mail responses to questions they sent, its urging Voice of America to comply with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are all now being used against it, to ask the UN to review its accreditation.

In the letter, editor Steve Redisch claims VOA correspondent Margaret Besheer was harassed by e-mail. But Inner City Press never sent a single email to Margaret Besheer was wasn't part of the UNCA Executive Committee list, on which members as in a witch hunt were demanding answers from Inner City Press.

Redisch, who has never once spoken to Inner City Press, purports to complain on behalf not only of VOA's Besheer but "others" -- with whom he presumably HAS spoken. It may be that he conferred the UN's Dujarric before filing this complaint.

The "unprofessional and borderline harassing email correspondence" to Redisch "and to other senior VOA management" were, in fact, requests that VOA as a government funded media comply with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Beyond freedom of speech and of the press, the First Amendment protects the right to petition the government -- including this state media Voice of America -- for redress of grievances.

Already in this time of fiscal austerity, there have been calls to defund and eliminated Voice of America. As simply one example, VOA at the UN has hardly broken any news.

Inner City Press, by contrast has broken stories about Syria, Libya, the selection of US official Jeffrey Feltman to head the UN Department of Political Affairs, 14 kilos of cocaine in the UN mail room in January 2012 (a scoop taken without credit by the Big Five and others), the fight in September 2011 between the guards of Turkish president Erdogan and UN Security, and UN corruption generally.

Particularly in these times of fiscal austerity, does it make sense -- and is it legal -- to spend US taxpayers' dollars on a campaign to oust from the UN an investigative journalist who exposes waste, fraud and abuse?

Update of 12:27 pm -- At the June 21 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press after asking questions on Sudan, Syria and the UN's plans to use drones, asked about the Voice of America complaint, citing UNCA.

In the briefing room and asking a noon briefing question, which is rare, was UNCA President Giampaolo Pioli and compatriots. Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky, as prepared (video here, from Minute 16:53)

I've asked whether journalists here at the UN have a right to know when complaints are filed against them, especially by competitors. Your Office has not answered; nor has the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit nor Stephane Dujarric.

Now I've learned that Voice of America has asked Dujarric to review my accreditation at the UN, essentially for things I have written. What are my rights in this regard? What weight does the UN give to such a complaint, with no specifics, filed by a big media -- actually, at least five of them -- against a small investigative web site? What does Ban Ki-moon think of all this?

And Nesirky replied, "I don't have anything to say on this at all" and "I have nothing to say on the matter."  Video here, from Minute 17:57.

Here is the text of the complaint:

Subject: Matthew Lee
From Steve Redisch [at] VOAnews.com
To: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Cc: Kataryna Lyson, Michael Lawrence
Date: June 20, 2012

Mr. Stephane Dujarric
Head of News &. Media Division
United Nations
300 East 42nd Street, Room 518
NY, NY, 10017

Dear Mr. Dujarric:

I am writing because it has come to my attention that a United Nations accredited journalist, Matthew Lee of the Inner City Press, has exhibited disruptive and unprofessional conduct towards Voice of America (VOA) U.N. correspondent Margaret Besheer. Over the last several weeks, Mr. Lee has also sent frequent, unprofessional and borderline harassing email correspondence to Ms. Besheer, to me and to other senior VOA management regarding the United Nations Correspondents Association's internal business matters.

Although Mr. Lee has not physically threatened Ms. Besheer, I understand she and other reporters are, to be kind, uncomfortable with his behavior and feel that he lacks proper judgment and exhibits unprofessional conduct while at the U.N.

As an experienced journalist and leader of an organization dedicated to freedom of the press, it is difficult for me to make this request of you. But I would urge you to review Mr. Lee's status as an accredited U.N. correspondent. I believe his behavior is impeding the freedom VOA's correspondent and others need in order to report what they see and know from the United Nations.

I am copying VOA/BBG's Assistant General Counsel Kataryna Lyson and Director of Security Michael Lawrence so they are aware of the situation and its serious nature. Please don't hesitate to call or email to discuss further.

Best regards,

Steve Redisch
VOA Executive Editor
202-203-4500
sredjsch [at] voanews.com
June 18, 2012

UN Now Says Ready to Monitor in Syria, After Memo, Mood is Schizo?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- Two days after the UN Security Council was secretly told by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations that its Mission in Syria was limiting its mobile activities, now Mission Head Robert Mood says he's ready to monitor the release of trapped civilians in Homs and elsewhere. Which is it?

The DPKO memo to the Security Council, reported and published by Inner City Press ten hours before any other media, was followed by a YouTube press statement by Mood. Now, Mood seems to have reversed course (or gone schizophrenic, as one wag put it). This was released, minutes ago:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Subject: Statement by Gen. Robert Mood, head of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS)
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Date: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Statement attributable to the Head of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, General Robert Mood

Civilians continue to be trapped by the escalating violence in Syria. In Homs, attempts to extract civilians from the line of fire over the past week have been unsuccessful.

The Parties must reconsider their position and allow women, children, the elderly and the injured to leave conflict zones, without any preconditions and ensure their safety. This requires willingness on both sides to respect and protect the human life of the Syrian people.

I call on the Parties to take immediate action to ease the pain of Syrians trapped in the violence and the UN Supervision Mission in Syria stands ready to monitor their release, once the decision is taken by the Parties.

Sausan Ghosheh Spokesperson, UNSMIS

  So, again, why did Ban Ki-moon and his Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold that post, decide on June 15 to limit the mobility of the UN Mission in Syria, and to tell Security Council members but make no public announcement?

  Such Security Council documents routinely leak, predictably to the wire services affiliated with Western permanent members of the Council. But that did not happen in this case: rather, Inner City Press obtained a copy of the notification, confirmed and published it before 10 pm New York time on June 15.

  Eight hours later, still seeing no announcement by the UN or any Council member, Inner City Press asked the spokespeople for UN - Arab League Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan then for Ban Ki-moon and Ladsous to explain the notification, what lay behind it (i.e. what supposedly increased violence) and what they wanted next.

  Only Annan's Ahmad Fawzi replied, and only to say that UNSMIS and Mood would now be having an announcement.

  What explains the delay? And who made the decision?

  One working theory is that Ladsous, the head of DPKO whose notification it is, made the decision on behalf of his native France, for which he was an operative in the foreign ministry as recently as arranging Michele Aliot-Marie's flights on planes owned by cronies of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali.

  In this theory, though there was little INCREASED violence to point to, Ladsous and France wanted to raise the stakes for General Robert Mood's already scheduled visit to New York and the Security Council, to put it in the context of UNSMIS being OVER, no longer improvable.

  Otherwise, Mood should have given his public statement when the decision to limit his Mission was made, to obviate the risk of a Security Council leak on Friday.

  Such a leak did take place, but not in the most predictable way. Or, some wonder, did though Western-member aligned wire services know of the decision and not report it?

  And why, now, has Mood reversed course?

   Notably, the UN representatives of Reuters, Agence France Presse, (US) Voice of America and Bloomberg are four of five signers of a letter seeking to investigate and expel Inner City Press. We'll have more on this.

Ignoring Syria Scoops, Pioli's UNCA Tries to Pick 2 More Hanging Judges

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- As Press inquiries continued Sunday into the UN's leaked notice Friday that its Syria mission was limiting its "mobile activities," the UN Correspondents Association Executive Committee and President Giapaolo Pioli was engaged in trying to replace the second resigning member of the "Board of Examination" they established to investigate Inner City Press with an eye toward expelling it.

   The first of Pioli's five Examiners to resign was unilaterally replaced on June 15. By whom? By a close friend of a disgruntedly former UN reporter who recently resurrected a complaint about Press reporting of French mission briefings by Sarkozy Permanent Representative Gerard Araud.

  His offer of testimony is implicitly connected to an attempt to get another UN reporting job and return to New York. In the Wild West, now on the far East Side of Manhattan, this is called a hanging judge.

   But, tellingly, on June 15 a second examiner resigned, concluding that a mediated solution has become unlikely. Pioli has demanded a blanket apology for Inner City Press' factual reporting that Pioli rented his apartment to Palitha Kohona, now the Sri Lankan ambassador whose request to screen a war crimes denial film Pioli granted without consulting other Executive Committee members including Inner City Press.

  In order to tone down the death threats from Sri Lankan extremists triggered by the UNCA proceeding, Inner City Press offered a balanced clarification.

  But Pioli has demanded, among other things, that Inner City Press "guarantee that [any] future coverage of the UN" not even mention "other UN correspondents" - including, of course, him. This is censorship.

  But even on Sunday, amid questions raised by Inner City Press' world exclusive of the Syria shut down notice to the Security Council by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, led by the fourth Frenchman in a row Herve Ladsous, Pioli and this five big media entourage continued to try to push forward with their Board of Examination.

   Now the second resignee is proposed to be replaced by an individual who has already expressed a view of the outcome of the case. No jury would include such a person; nor should this UNCA Board of Examination, already a charade and kangaroo court. The individual has been informed of the threats triggered by the Board Pioli's asked him to join as a hanging judge. Now what?

  If it goes forward -- and under the most basic principles of protecting journalists, which UNCA's Constitution claims it does -- then the Examiners should be journalism ethics professors. Let them judge what the problem is: truthful reporting, or a journalist renting his apartment to people he purports to cover.

  Or, as in the case of Pioli, also making campaign contributions to a politician he writes about for the Poligrafici Editoriale Group and its Quotidiano Nazionale, La Nazione, Il Resto de Carlino, Il Giorno and, yes, Quotidiano.net?

   And we are still waiting for a response to formal question put to Pioli's hand-picked chairman, about conflicts and junkets, beyond his one-line answer that he worked for UPI for fifty years. Watch this site.

June 11, 2012

UN Uses UNCA to Ban Free Press, Hypocrisy Like Haiti, Astroturf like Darfur

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- The UN too often preaches one thing but does another. It preaches accountability, then covers up its proven role in introducing cholera into Haiti.

  At a different level, it criticizes governments for dictating with which groups they will negotiate -- for example these days in Syria -- while the UN in New York undermines free press by only negotiating such things as physical access and conditions for reporting with the one entity it has chosen, the UN Correspondents Association.

  The UN has "Media Guidelines," and claims these are legitimate because they were negotiated with "the media." But by "the media" the UN actually only means "UNCA."

  This is similar to the way the Sudanese government created then negotiated with the Liberty & Justice Movement in Darfur, thereby marginalize the actual opposition.

  LJM was founded and is headed, as Inner City Press exposed, by a former UN staff member who for a time was a UN-paid Darfur "rebel." LJM has been dubbed "Astroturf," a synthetic grassless sports surface: fake grassroots.

   The UN's Media Guidelines, formally the "Guidelines on Media Access at United Nations Headquarters," say they are an agreement involving the "Office of the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General" (Ban Ki-moon) and "the United Nations Correspondents Association."

  How can the UN's media access guidelines be dictated by an agreement with UNCA, which does not represent (or defend) all journalists at the UN?

  This is particularly problematic because anyone deemed, without due process, to have violated these UNCA-agreed guidelines will face "withdrawal of their accreditation."

  As previously exposed, a stealth allegation of violation was filed with MALU by Louis Charbonneau, UNCA's First Vice President. Charbonneau is the bureau chief of Reuters which on May 21 made unauthorized uncredited use of Inner City Press' March 28 exclusive story that US official Jeffrey Feltman will come work at the UN.

  So big media can use the UN-legitimated UNCA to seek to expel smaller media which beats them on stories. Then the UN's MALU does not even inform the small media (in this case Inner City Press) that the complaint has been filed. Due process? Not at the UN.

  As simply another example, the UN / UNCA rules agreed with UNCA state that "No cameras or photographers will be allowed in the cordoned off area by the stairs." But some are allowed, and others not.

  Likewise, those on the UNCA Executive Committee have been allowed by the UN to make decisions, fraught with conflicts of interest and payback, on which media get offices, big offices, studios.

  UNCA Executive Committee members have spend much time ensuring themselves big spaces, mostly furthering their own interests and not even those of the other "general" UNCA members, much less non-UNCA members.

  Then there is the question of accreditation of bloggers, which Inner City Press has fought for since arriving to cover the UN.

  The President of UNCA Giampioli Pioli first proposed agreeing with the UN on a rule that would not include bloggers, then would confine them to a footnote, and impose on them a different standard than is applicable to other media.

  In light of the special status the UN accords to UNCA, legally, UNCA's acts can be attributable to the UN.

(An aside on law: on June 8 UNCA's Pioli announced he was "suspending" Inner City Press, an act for which there is no provision in the UNCA Constitution. But he did it, and this is the organization the UN exclusively negotiates the rights of all journalists with.)

So, for example, when the UNCA Executive Committee proceeds with a witch hunt and kangaroo court against Inner City Press, and the process is amplified and turned into threats by Sri Lankan government media and Sinhalese extremists around the world, including in New York -- all of this is attributable to Ban Ki-moon's UN.

  This is particularly true because the UN Secretariat, its Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, senior advisers to Ban and others have all seen this witch hunt developing, have formally been given copies of the Sri Lanka newspaper articles, and have done nothing.

Apparently, they like it.

  When UNCA President Giampaolo Pioli on June 8 for the upteenth time threatened to sue and bankrupt small media Inner City Press if it did not take down its reporting that Pioli accepted rent money from Palitha Kohona, the UN official who is now, through another revolving door, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN -- this too might be attributed to Ban Ki-moon's UN, if not to the Sri Lankan government.

There are other connections. When Inner City Press tried to cover the meetings of Ban Ki-moon's Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations to see if alleged war criminal Sri Lankan government Shavendra Silva was still attending, Ban's MALU told Inner City Press No, citing a meeting with UNCA.

It's all very convenient. But in fact, the acts of UNCA are attributable in these ways and many others to the UN. Watch this site.



June 4, 2012

As UNCA Pushes Anti-Press Move, Sri Lanka Says ICP Faces Jail

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- As UN Correspondents Association officials Giampaolo Pioli and Lou Charbonneau of Reuters have proceeded against Inner City Press, they were told that could their campaign set anti media freedom precedents.

  Now, it has. Today a major pro-government newspaper in Sri Lanka, the Sunday Observer, quotes with approval the indictment drafted by Reuters' Charbonneau against Inner City Press.

  The newspaper says that "if the allegations against Lee are proven, the UN headquarters will be made out of bounds for him. If the harassment charges are proven he could face a jail term of up to six years." Click here to view the full article.

   Pioli, assisted by Reuters' Charbonneau and other corporate media which have used without credit Inner City Press' exclusive stories about the UN then retaliated when Inner City Press complained, has pursued a public witch hunt against Inner City Press. Click here for sample UNCA minutes released only tonight from behind Reuters' firewall.

   This has included mass e-mailing out the "charge letter" quoted by the pro-government Sunday Observer. The letter was signed by Charbonneau, Flavia Krause-Jackson of Bloomberg, Talal Al-Haj of Al-Arabia, Margaret Besheer of Voice of America and Timothy Witcher of Agence France Presse.

   Witcher, at the behest of the French Mission to the UN, began the push against Inner City Press for its reporting on French UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who has accepted Sri Lankan general (and alleged war criminal) Shavendra Silva as a Senior Adviser.

   Despite France's claim to support press freedom, not only has its Mission to UN sought to eject Inner City Press and even (unsuccessfully) to have it temporarily arrested. Now, the campaign they have pushed has created an environment in which political enemies can call for the Press to be jailed for six full years.

   Al-Arabiya is funded and controlled by Saudi Arabia, so its increasing involvement in this anti free Press campaign is perhaps not surprising. But that Voice of America, using US taxpayer dollars, would be one of five leaders of an anti Press campaign triggering such a threat is, we hear, becoming a matter of concern to some on Capitol Hill.

   Matthew Winkler of Bloomberg News has yet to respond to submitted questions the propriety of his UN bureau chief's involvement. As noted, there has been no response to two rounds of e-mails to Reuters "Ethics & Training" chief Greg McCune, Top News Editor Walden Siew, deputy editor Paul Ingrassia and big cheese Stephen J. Adler.

  The only Reuters response on this has been Reuters UN bureau chief Lou Charbonneau saying on June 1, before he voted to investigate Inner City Press and sent out the selective minutes, "you are a bad person."

  At Voice of America, before this executives David Ensor, Sonja Pace, David Jones and Steve Redisch were all told of the attacks and were asked to stop them, or least formally disassociate VoA UN bureau chief Margaret Besheer from these efforts resulting in governmental gloating about the possibility of jailing the Press.

   Before the publication of the pro government Sunday Observer's report about exclusion from the UN and jail time, Inner City Press asked the UNCA Executive Committee to desist or at least slow down, because it has "been the subject of extremely negative, unfair, entirely unfounded coverage in for example the Sri Lankan press." 

  But the UNCA Executive Committee has doggedly proceeded, going more and more public even with material they wree told in advance, and acknoweledged, was incomplete if not outright inaccurate.

  Since the origin of these disputes, UNCA president Giampaolo Pioli has repeatedly demanded that Inner City Press remove from the Internet its factual report that Pioli accepted money for rent from Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN.

  Pioli in an angry telephone call threatened to have Inner City Press thrown out of the UN, an ejection now positively viewed by pro government media in Sri Lanka.

   This calls into question not only the negligent management of Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, Al-Arabiya and Voice of America, but also WHO is the source of the threats cited in the pro Sri Lanka government Sunday Observer.

    If the Pioli proposed UNCA Board of Examination goes forward even now, it should investigate all of UNCA officials' communications with Palitha Kohona and other alleged war criminal. Watch this site.



May 28, 2012

At UN, Charges Against Investigative Press Undisclosed, Scoop Stolen by Reuters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 26 -- It seems that at the UN the publication of articles critical of powerful officials, countries or media organization can be construed as "harassment" and used as the basis to seek to expel the offending journalist.

  This takes place in the context of an Inner City Press investigative scoop, that US official Jeffrey Feltman will come work at the UN being stolen without credit by Reuters (unlike Foreign Policy's The Cable which did give credit), and a stealth complaint of harassment filed by the bylined Reuters correspondent Louis Charbonneau, using his position as Vice President of the UN Correspondents Association.

Reuters' Charbonneau's complaint has been put online here.

  After being informed in writing Friday afternoon that five UNCA Executive Committee members had referred "charges of harassment" against Inner City Press seeking to form a "board of examination" to "expel or impeach" Inner City Press, UNCA's President Giampaulo Pioli has three times refused to disclose who complained, what definition of harassment will be used, and what beyond written articles and the single verbal word "disgust" Inner City Press is charged with.

  Already some other reporters, readers and also diplomats have expressed surprise that a purported correspondents' association would try to censor a member journalist or define critical articles as harassment.

  By this definition, Inner City Press "harasses" Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and for example his head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous every day: it's called investigative journalism.

   One UN Correspondent, who will for now be nameless to avoid retaliation or charges against him, said

No excuse to steal an exclusive... I think UNCA should have a 'law that "expulsion" is "outlawed". There is not "expulsion" in journalism, we are not Stalin's CPSU...I find great help in reading your blog when I'm not at the UN. Especially I think our job is not "policing" other journalists but watching the UN, especially when they are not doing their job. Something that I think you are doing better than anybody else in all the press corps. I just reported two days ago your questions, crediting that you / innercitypress.com is a must read for all the UN permanent missions.

  This correspondent, like others, credits Inner City Press when using its exclusives. But Reuters' Lou Charbonneau says he has a POLICY of not crediting Inner City Press. It is unclear how this could be consistent with a Reuters-wide policy.

  But despite five days of requests, in the United States and then its headquarters in London, Reuters has yet to provide its policy on crediting -- or on its reporters using their positions in correspondents' associations to seek to have competitors dis-accredited.

  Inner City Press wrote to UNCA President Pioli:

This is a formal request to be informed who are the five people requesting to urgently "examine" me. I am also asking to to be informed immediately of the definition you are using of "harassment" and of any and all alleged acts of "harassment" I am charged with, particularly since the last UNCA meeting on this topic in April, other than material that I have written and published as is my right under freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

  After Pioli reiterated by voice mail his position that the empaneling of a "board of examination" -- which is supposed to be impartial -- will proceed the next day the UN is open, May 29, Inner City Press asked again:

Hi, at least for now I'm just requesting (and believe I have a right to) the names of those who have referred these charges of harassment against me... For your information, the complaint Lou filed with MALU and Dujarric I found outrageous; it was baseless, should not have been filed, and I should have been informed. While he says I am somehow making it hard for him and unnamed others to do their work, he was in essence trying to STOP me from doing my work, as well in my view stealing my work without credit. Please provide the requested information, thanks.

  Pioli this time did reply in writing, but without providing any of the information or charges. And so a third request:

Hi. I am asking that you send me the information -- names of accusers, definitions and description of charges -- in writing by email, in part because Lou's complaint to MALU and Dujarric, cc-ed to you, appears entirely based on something I said to him. You should understand I don't want to subject myself to any more such charges, however spurious. So I ask again: send it to me in writing the names of accusers, definitions and description of charges. Past deadline.

   Still, even the identities of those UNCA Executive Committee filing changes to expel Inner City Press have not been disclosed.  Here's the online list of Executive Committee members. Watch this site.

May 21, 2012

Amid Syria Failure, UN Demands Deletion of its Official's Name, Questions Sources

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- Amid charges from all sides that the UN's and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's activities in Syria are a failure, the UN's response on Thursday was to seek to censor press coverage of differing description of an upcoming UN trip to Damascus, then to question its sources.

  As Inner City Press reported yesterday -- and modifies at the UN's request in this version -- on May 16 a Security Council Permanent Representative told the press that

"in the coming days Jean-Marie 'Guehenno and DPKO,' the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, will go to Damascus, on the political track, with it was hoped Kofi Annan to follow. Later on May 16, Inner City Press was informed that the request was made [deleted at UN's request] on the issue of the observers, not the political track."

More than 12 hours later came this from DPKO's spokesman, copying Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Date: Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM

I have become aware of you[r] web article and tweets naming [individual's name included in DPKO's email, but deleted here] as planning to travel to syria along with dpko colleaugues. Your decision to publish this information in advance of a trip has created a potentially serious security situation for un personnel. I ask that you remove all such references from the inner city press website without delay, for the sake of the safety and security of un peacekeeping personnel.

  For the UN to request post-publication removal from the Internet of information, stated on the record by a Security Council's Permanent Representative, seems to implicate freedom of the press issues which seem not to be the UN's priority under Ban Ki-moon.

  But within minutes of receiving the above, Inner City Press modified the story, removing the name and an included critique of the individual specified in DPKO's removal request, then replied that the Permanent Representative

"yesterday morning on the record stated that Jean Marie Guehenno and DPKO were going to Damascus. Subsequent reporting found that the request was for Mr. Ladsous plus three. If you have a problem with names, you need to speak to Permanent Representatives, including among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council... I'm still waiting for the promised answer beyond Entebbe of DPKO's use of private military and security firms, and for the UN casualty estimate at Pibor. Please advise. I have immediately removed references in this article to Mr. Ladsous, which seems to be your major concern."

   Significantly, DPKO did not request the deletion of Jean-Marie Guehenno's name. The name it requested delation of it gave, obviously, to the Syrian government. So from where does the claimed danger come?

    Even with this change, the UN Peacekeeping spokesman persisted, now inquiring into what Inner City Press' "subsequent reporting" consisted of:

"Thank you for removing the name. However much of the damage has in fact been done already. I am very concerned that Inner City Press seems to wash its hands of responsibility for what it chooses to publish. By Inner City Press's own reporting, [the] Ambassador [misnamed by DPKO] did not appear to have named DPKO names. I do not know what you mean by 'subsequent reporting,' and given the lack of other reports I can only assume you mean your own decision to publish Mr [X's] name. The problem that I have is with the ramifications for UN peacekeeping personnel safety and security, and with Inner City Press's decision to publish in complete disregard for these matters. Your response below indicates a continued blithe recklessness with regard to the safety and security of UN personnel operating in highly volatile circumstances."

  In fact, while Inner City Press immediately made the deletions requested by DPKO despite their seeming basis in removing a single individual from the public eye, DPKO has for six months promised to sign a Status of Forces Agreement for the peacekeepers in Abyei, four of whom bled out and died due to slow med-evac due to the lack of a SOFA. No explanation has been provided, including after another request on Thursday.

  At Thursday's noon briefing, while deliberately as requested not using any individual's name, even that provided on the record by a Security Council Permanent Representative, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon spokesman Martin Nesirky to clarify if this visit to Damascus is about the political track, or only about observers.

  Nesirky refused to answer this, cloaking the entire question in an invocation of safety and accusing the previous publication as being "unacceptable." Inner City Press said it disagrees 100% with the attempt at censorship of information stated on the record by UN member states' Permanent Representatives, then asked on the issue of actual safety the question of why despite the public statement six months ago still no SOFA was in place for the peacekeepers in Abyei. Nesirky said when he has something he will say.

  Notably, under Nesirky the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General was thrown out of the Security Council and lost previous access. Perhaps this is why they cannot control what Council Permanent Representatives say on the record, but then seek to censor the subsequent press coverage.

  The response to censorship is, in this case, a description of the attempt at censorship, while accomodating the stated but not explained pretext for the attempt at censorship. Watch this site.



May 14, 2012

On Libya Sanctions, 5 UN SC Members Fail to File Reports, P5 Threatens S5

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 10 -- When Libya sanctions were adopted by the UN Security Council, all 193 member states were given until June 26, 2011 to file reports on their implementation.

  Now more than ten months after the deadline, it seems that only 57 countries have filed reports. At least five current Security Council members are not listed among those who have filed reports: Azerbaijan, Guatemala, India, Morocco and Pakistan.

Resolution 1970 provided:

"25. Calls upon all Member States to report to the Committee within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution on the steps they have taken with a view to implementing effectively paragraphs 9, 10, 15 and 17 above [of resolution 1970 (2011)]."

And so all member states have been reminded:

"Accordingly, States that have not yet reported to the Committee on the steps they have taken with a view to implementing effectively the paragraphs cited above, which set out the arms embargo, the travel ban and the assets freeze, are reminded to do so no later than 26 June 2011."

 And still -- five Council members are not listed as filing. The Permanent Representative of one of the N or Non-compliant Five sheepishly told Inner City Press that reporting is not that important. Another said he would go and find out. A Deputy Permanent Representative said "we have better things to do."

  Some wonder how the Security Council members can ask other states to follow its mandates if they themselves do not practice what they preach. Another said "as long as the Permanent Five members file, that's what's important."

   Outside the Council's session on Libya on Thursday afternoon, Inner City Press asked a number of non-filers who are not on the Security Council to explain themselves.

  The Permanent Representatives of a sample European nation, asking that he and it not be identified, said his country is waiting for greater Council transparency on sanctions before filing reports. The reform proposals of the so-called Small Five, which Inner City Press has covered, were cited among the reasons.

  Sanctions and due process are listed in Paragraph 9 of the Small Five's resolution's annex.

  Inner City Press' previous report, that the resolution will be put to a vote this month, appears to remain true. Sources say that the Permanent Five members of the Council have told the Small Five that if they go forward with the resolution, the P5 will still negotiating with them.

  A G4, meanwhile, loves this, and says it is "ready for the kill shot" once this happens. United for Consensus members shake their heads, bemoaning the Small Five's failure to take the time to get two-thirds support of member states, or to wait for a wider reform proposal. Watch this site.



May 7, 2012

In Myanmar, Ban Ki-Moon Praised & Partnered with Spying Company

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 4 -- While in Myanmar, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held an event with businesses, praising them for their Burmese engagements.

   Inner City Press asked Ban's Spokesperson, twice, which businesses were in attendance to receive Ban's thanks. After the second request a list was provided, and the delay perhaps became more understandable.

  Invited and thanked was a company which has sold surveillance and spying equipment, including to Gaddafi's Libya: ZTE Corporation. See this link and Wall Street Journal of August 30, 2011.

  With this company in attendance, Ban Ki-moon concluded on the 1st of May, "I wish you strength and success in your important efforts, and I very much welcome your partnership with the United Nations."

  Success for this company, it seems, is selling surveillance equipment, as for example France's Amesys / Bull SA. But a spy company partnering with the UN?

Already Ban's had of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to hold the job, has proposed the UN using surveillance drones. But wiretapping?

  Also in attendance and praised by Ban were, among others, SK Telecom, PTT International, Mitsubishi, GE, Total and Alcatel - Lucent.

In Tripoli as reported by the WSJ,

"on the ground floor of a six-story building here, agents working for Moammar Gadhafi sat in an open room, spying on emails and chat messages with the help of technology Libya acquired from the West. The recently abandoned room is lined with posters and English-language training manuals stamped with the name Amesys, a unit of French technology firm Bull SA, which installed the monitoring center. A warning by the door bears the Amesys logo. The sign reads: 'Help keep our classified business secret. Don't discuss classified information out of the HQ.'"

   This is more than a little ironic, given that outgoing French president Nicolas Sarkozy is now threatening to sue Mediapart for publishing Moussa Koussa's letter to Bachir Saleh. A documentary on the subject, including Sarkozy adviser Jean-David Levitte, is scheduled for broadcast on May 8, two days after Sarkozy's then  expected (and now confirmed) electoral loss despite his plea to National Front supporters.

  This has led to questions of whether not only Alain Juppe but at least some in the French Mission to the UN will also be replaced, by Fabius, Aubrey or whoever.  Watch this site.

From the UN's noon briefing transcript of May 1:

Inner City Press: On Myanmar, Ban Ki-moon gave a speech with the, promoting the Global Compact. But, is there a way to get a list of the businesses he cited? He said, I am here with these businesses, many people think that most of the businesses in the country are affiliated with the, you called it a dictatorship. But, the former military Government. You may not have it, but is it possible to get a list of the businesses in attendance or certainly the ones that he was citing as, you know, the future of a non-military Myanmar?

Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey: We’ll have to check on that, Matthew.

From the UN's noon briefing transcript of May 2:

Inner City Press: were you able to get the businesses that he was referring to when he introduced the Global Compact in Myanmar. Ban's speech definitely says "the businesses here," referring to particular businesses.

Deputy Spokesperson: Yeah, we’ll get that for you.


April 30, 2012

UN Admits Cluster Bombs in Sri Lanka, But Still Spin for Silva, Ban Silent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 26 -- With news that the UN Development Program in Sri Lanka has found and confirmed via a leaked e-mail cluster sub-munitions, General Shavendra Silva as a UN Senior Adviser on Peacekeeping takes on an even more sinister hue.

  As reported, Allan Poston, the technical adviser for UNDP's mine action group in Sri Lanka, wrote that "after reviewing additional photographs from the investigation teams, I have determined that there are cluster sub-munitions in the area where the children were collecting scrap metal and in the house where the accident [the death of a child] occurred. This is the first time that there has been confirmed unexploded sub-munitions found in Sri Lanka."

  Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Shavendra Silva, during this conflict commanded the 58th Division, depicted in Ban Ki-moon's report as engaged in war crimes. Now, cluster munition. Still, Ban Ki-moon's position remains that Silva being Ban's adviser is "up to member states."

  The Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense -- and Urban Development -- on the same day as the cluster bomb revelation breathlessly reported that all 54 nations in the Asia and Pacific Group support Silva's continued service. To Inner City Press' knowledge this was not true even prior to the cluster bomb confirmation, and should be even less true now.

  Earlier this month, the Permanent Representative of an Asia Group member told Inner City Press, of Silva,

"the gentleman's appearance is not welcome. They have chosen to escalate, sending public letters, casting doubt on Frechette's integrity. It becomes a big story, and member states in the end will say it's unacceptable... No one knew who Shavendra Silva was. Once you began to publish the stories, we came to know. If we had known from the beginning of course it would never have happened. If they continue to push it, there would be enough delegates in the Asia group to say 'enough.'"

Ban Ki-moon's acquiescence in accepting an alleged war criminal as his adviser becomes ever more troubling. Now Ban is on his way to Myanmar, where he and his adviser Vijay Nambiar have already given their full blessing to the still military dominated government, even as Kachin people weren't allowed to vote and face repression. What will Ban do? Watch this site.


April 23, 2012

Assad's Shabeeha Urged by Annan to Disarm & "Work With UN," More Mood?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- Kofi Annan's call to lay down weapons and "work with the UN" extends not only to Syrian governmental and opposition forces, but also to the pro-Assad shabeeha militias, Annan's spokesman Ahmad Fawzi told Inner City Press on Sunday.

  Earlier in the day Annan issued a statement that "I urge all forces whether governmental, opposition or others to put down their weapons and work with the United Nations monitors."

  Inner City Press wondered, and asked Fawzi, what forces with weapons are these "others," neither governmental or opposition?

Some hours later, Fawzi replied answer this (and three other question), starting that

"There are armed groups close to the government (shabeeha). Opposition and uniformed government forces do not have a monopoly on weapons."

The answer is appreciated. Still, it seems strange to also call on these militia mercenaries to "work with the UN monitors." How?

In terms of the now-approved monitoring mission's work, Inner City Press asked Fawzi, "on air assets, is the ideal / idea to use UN system aircraft from other missions?"

Fawzi replied, "The UN prefers to use its own chartered aircraft if and when possible."

Inner City Press also asked Fawzi, "what's the process for (and status of) choosing the force commander?"

Sources in Norway told Inner City Press that Robert Mood, the General who abruptly left Damascus leading Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin to call him unprofessional, appeared on Norwegian TV to say he is awaiting word from the UN and would return to Syria. What would Churkin and Russia say?

Here is what Fawzi said, in response to Inner City Press: "Force Commanders are, I believe, nominated by Member States via DPKO, and appointed by the Secretary General."

So will Norway nominate Mood? Watch this site

Here is Fawzi's response:

From: Ahmad Fawzi
Date: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Hi, Press Qs on "other" forces in corrected statement, Friday patrols, aircraft, thanks
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Hi.

1) There are armed groups close to the government (shabeeha). Opposition and uniformed government forces do not have a monopoly on weapons.

2) I put the following clarification out on Friday:

"Comments by UN Observer Team Leader Col. Himmiche today were taken out of context. There is no policy not to 'work' Fridays.

Today the UN Observers were regrouping, dealing with administrative and logistical issues, liaising with the UN country team and planning for their patrol (to Homs) tomorrow."

3) Force Commanders are, I believe, nominated by Member States via DPKO, and appointed by the SG.

4) The UN prefers to use its own chartered aircraft if and when possible.

Best,

Ahmad

On April 20 Inner City Press asked US State Department Spokeperson Victoria Nuland:

Inner City Press: The Moroccan colonel who’s leading the UN team there now has been quoted that he’s not going to take his team out on Fridays. He doesn’t want to be used politically. There’s a quote to that effect. And I’m just wondering, since it seems that one of the purposes of the observer mission is to allow people to protest, and that’s a big day they want to protest, what would the U.S. think of that?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I haven’t seen the comments of the Moroccan lead. As I said, all of the modalities for these peacekeepers are being reviewed based on the experience of the initial group, and they have to be worked out through a new Security Council resolution, and obviously, we have to see how it goes on the ground.

  Transcript here. More has been written since, about the Colonel's comments. So Inner City Press has asked Fawzi:

"do you have a comment or gloss on the Moroccan colonel saying the observers would go out on Fridays, to not be used? On Friday I asked the US State Department, particularly in light of Friday being a/the big protest day, but they hadn't yet seen the quote. Can you comment or explain the Colonel's statement?"

  The question was asked answered, and immediately published here. Watch this site.

April 16, 2012

On Syria, Mysteries of Mood, UK on Transition, Morocco Asked of Free Movement

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 14, updated with transcripts -- After the modified resolution on sending advance monitors passed the UN Security Council 15-0, Inner City Press put questions to the Permanent Representatives of the UK, United States, Morocco, Russia and Syria.

  Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Rice, this month's Council president, about need the approval of the Syrian government for the full observer mission. She said that "consultations" with Syria are required.

 (Inner City Press also asked about South Sudan not pulling out of Heglig; Rice answered that the Council also called on Sudan to stop aerial bombing and that neither side has complied.)

  When UK Ambassador Lyall Grant came to the stakeout, he used the phrase "political transition." Inner City Press asked him if this meant Bashar al-Assad stepping down, if the UK could imagine a political transition in which Assad remains.

  Lyall Grant said that would be hard to imagine, that under the Kofi Annan six point plan Assad is supposed to appoint someone else for political transition talks.

  The resolution speaks of freedom of movement for the advance monitors. So Inner City Press asked Morocco's Permanent Representative Loulichki to square this with the recent UN reports that in Western Sahara, the MINURSO peacekeepers do not have freedom of movement, are monitored and their communications with people impaired.

  Loulichki said this was entirely different, that he would address it after Syria questions. But he left the stakeout without answer the question. The Council meets about Western Sahara and MINURSO on April 17.

  Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, at the stakeout, hearkened back to Inner City Press' question to Ambassador Rice about Syrian government consent, saying that of course this is required for a mission under UN Charter Chapter Six.

  He chided UK Ambassador Lyall Grant for saying he couldn't imagine Assad staying in power, saying that this is dictating or trying to dictate from outside.

  Inner City Press asked Churkin about Kofi Annan's General Mood, who reportedly left Damascus while the Syrian foreign minister and first deputy were briefly away.

  Churkin said this happened and, stranger still, when a Russian diplomat inquired at Kofi Annan's office in Geneva when Mood would return to Syria, he was told that Mood's return "should not be anticipated." Churkin went on to say that professionalism is required and that "there are other people."

  Kofi Annan's spokesman has been asked to confirm this and to explain, as well as the outstanding questions about the Kofi Annan Foundation. We will have more on this, and publish responses on receipt.

   Finally, Inner City Press asked Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari about Mood. He insisted that Syria wants Mood back, and slammed the European Union for imposing unilateral sanctions on Syria's electricity minister. By 1:50 the Security Council stakeout was empty, the advance monitors on their way. Watch this site.

Update: From the US Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: In terms of the second resolution and sending the full team, this idea that it requires the consent of the Syrian government-at least that's what both Churkin said and that's what Syria said and under Chapter 6, it would seem to require that-how do you think that that's going to go? How do you think that-what will that mean in terms of the ability of the Syrian government to either dictate terms or block deployment?

Ambassador Rice: Well, what the resolution says is that the full monitoring mission will come after three things. One, a report by the Secretary-General; two, a sustained cessation of violence; and three, after consultation with the government of Syria. That would be the normal practice for a mission under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter. But the resolution also outlines the conditions that must be precedent for the advance team as well as the monitoring mission to effectively carry out its operations, and those are described in paragraph six.

So it will be important that the advance team get on the ground and then be able to report back as to whether that initial tranche is in effect able to operate freely and move as it must with the freedom to communicate internally as well as with the Syrian people, sufficient to fulfill its mandate. If that is indeed the case, that will provide the necessary assurances to members of the Security Council who must take a decision on authorization of the full mission.

From the UK Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: When you say political transition, is this to be interpreted as meaning Bashar al-Assad leaving power? Is there a political transition you can envision where he remains in power in Syria?
 
Amb. Lyall Grant: Kofi Annan’s plan makes clear that there needs to be the start of a political dialogue that leads to a political transition and the introduction of a democratic, plural political system in Syria. Frankly, it looks to us, the British government, most unlikely that that is going to be possible with President Assad still in office. But the Kofi Annan plan does not call for the president to stand down, it calls on him to appoint an interlocutor to start that political dialogue. So, by definition, that interlocutor would not be Mr Assad.


On Syria, Annan Spokesman Tells ICP Mood Is Out of Game, Colonel In

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 14 -- After the UN Security Council authorized an advance team of observers for Syria in a rare Saturday meeting, Inner City Press asked Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about envoy Kofi Annan's General Robert Mood, who reportedly left Damascus while the Syrian foreign minister and first deputy were briefly away.

  Churkin said this happened and, stranger still, when a Russian diplomat inquired at Kofi Annan's office in Geneva when Mood would return to Syria, he was told that Mood's return "should not be anticipated." Churkin went on to say that professionalism is required and that "there are other people."

  Inner City Press immediately wrote to Kofi Annan's spokesman Ahmad Fawzi to ask "Why did Mood leave when he did, and more importantly, why has he not gone back since? Is he going back? When? Is he going to be replaced?"

  Now, this answer has been received from Fawzi:

From: Ahmad Fawzi
Date: Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Subject: Qs on Gen. Mood, list of 50 violations, & still Kofi Annan Foundation
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Its really very simple. Major-General Mood completed his assessment mission and came back to Geneva to report to the JSE, before returning to Norway, mission accomplished. There was never any intention of him going back. The advance team of observers is being led by a Colonel.

The choice of Force Commander for the full observer mission will be made by the Secretary General, once the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing it.

  This will be news to Syria, whose Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told Inner City Press his government wants Mood to come back and keep negotiating "the protocol." Other diplomats at the UN on Saturday told Inner City Press that Mood was miffed that he wasn't accorded more pomp by the Syrian government; note that now the advance team is being led by a lower level Colonel (not named by Fawzi).

  Fawzi also answered Inner City Press' question on the "fifty violations" mentioned by Syrian Ambassador Ja'afari, and again didn't answer the questions about the Kofi Annan Foundation:

"50 Violations: there will violations by both sides. This is not unusual in this situation, both sides will be testing each other. We hope the arrival of UN observers will encourage the parties to exercise restraint and embark on the political process envisioned in the 6-point plan.

"Fund-raising by the KA Foundation: again, I don't speak for the Foundation. UN activities are funded either through the regular budget, or through extra-budgetary sources. For information on the latter please go to the Controller."

  But the Kofi Annan Foundation referred all questions to Fawzi. This is called a run around. But it is more responsive than the spokesperson team of Ban Ki-moon. Watch this site.


April 2, 2012

At UN, Quotes of Peacekeepers to Syria Point to DPKO Chief & His Country's PR?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 30 -- Amid complaints that Kofi Annan's mission to the Syria is meant to keep Assad in power, the UN has repeatedly refused to answer Press questions about who is part of Annan's team or whether the UN has any role in selecting or vetting them.

  Now there are quotes from a self-described senior Western Security Council diplomat that the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is sending an advance team to Syria, with an eye to shifting some 250 observers from its UN Peacekeeping Missions UNIFIL in Lebanon and UNDOF in the Golan.

  Because this seems a strange way for the UN to be communicating, Inner City Press on March 30 asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey to confirm these DPKO moves, and to state whether the chief of DPKO is sharing such information with all 15 Security Council members or other the Permanent Representative of his own country, which has appointed the last four Under Secretaries General for Peacekeeping in a row.

  Del Buey paused and then told Inner City Press to ask the Kofi Annan team: "There are reports that are coming from leaks or reported leaks from the Council... I believe that Mr. Annan is coordinating the efforts in Syria and I would leave it to his spokesman to comment on that. "

  While Annan's spokesman Ahmad Fawzi has for example been willing to confirm that Annan recently gave a six month UN contract to Martin Griffiths, who resigned from his last job in Geneva amid an embezzlement scandal, this is a question about UN DPKO and its chief, Herve "The Drone" Ladsous, so named because he had proposed the use of drones and even the interception of communications, without specifying if the information collected would go to all member states or only his own.

  Ladsous pointedly refuses to answer questions about his drone proposal, or other questions about peacekeeping, in Haiti and South Sudan.

  As first reported by Inner City Press, when Annan conducted meetings at the UN with diplomats from among others Syria, China and Iran, he then met with Ladsous, the only one of the meetings the Press was not allowed to photograph.

  Friday Inner City Press asked Del Buey, what is Ban Ki-moon's role in all this? Has Ban, as reported, lost control?

  Del Buey said that Ban and the Arab League appointed Annan, but Annan takes it from there: "Mr Kofi Annan is managing, is directing, is responsible for the peace process in Syria."

   Pro-Assad media, it should be noted, describe Annan as the "UN" envoy, and as Inner City Press first reported, Annan's Arab League selected deputy Nassar El-Kidwa has not been allow into Syria.

  El-Kidwa is in Istanbul, meeting with the opposition and Friends of Syria. Kofi Annan, not surprisingly, has not gone: his moves are not favorably viewed by the opposition.

  Intrigue and secrecy in mediation is one thing. But from a UN peacekeeping chief and his country's Permanent Representative, they may be quite another. Watch this site.


March 26, 2012

As UN Proposes Peacekeeping Surveillance, Opposition to DPKO's "Spymaster" Ladsous and His "Drones"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 23 -- In a recent closed door meeting of the UN's Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, the UN's top peacekeeper Herve Ladsous made proposals on "surveillance" that have stirred opposition.

  The opponents say Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to be put atop the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, is moving "to use drones and communications interception," as one well-placed Troop Contributing Country's representative complained to Inner City Press.

  "He can't even handle keeping South Sudan covered by helicopters," the representative said derisively. "And now he wants drones? What commercial interest is being this? And how could we be sure the information collected would stay with the UN?"

  These and other C-34 members' comments reflected a distrust of Ladsous, who last year replaced fellow French bureaucrat Alain Le Roy. Under the two men, the UN Peacekeeping Mission in former French colony Cote d'Ivoire helped turn out and then arrest anti imperialist Ivorian leader Laurent Ggabgo.

  Unlike Le Roy, however, Ladsous refuses to answer even the simplest of questions, such as whether his DPKO now belatedly has military helicopters flying in South Sudan, or why his mission in Haiti has no standing claims commission to handle the complaint it introduced cholera to the island.

   "Who would decide who they would spy on," the skeptic asked, "and who would get the information?"

   Another opined that this would be a way for "Western intelligence services" to drape themselves in UN blue - and immunity. A Secretariat staffer complained of a proposal for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to have his own intelligence service.

  There was opposition from within DPKO itself. One staff member said, "Ladsous already said he is not a visionary, fine. But now he wants to be a spymaster?"

  More sympathetic sources describe DPKO's first drone idea as being in the Congo but failing due to heavy jungle cover, with Ladsous' focus now shifting to where he has been under fire in South Sudan, particularly Jonglei.

  There are other issues slowing down the C-34 process, as Inner City Press reported last Friday. (Since then, Inner City Press has been inquiring into and being contacted about the surveillance issue).

  What's being called "Ladsous' drone" proposal is among the C-34 sticking points. It is not going anywhere soon -- but some wish Ladsous were, for the good of the UN. Watch this site.


March 19, 2012

As Annan Briefs UN SC, Syria's Six Point Response Put Online by ICP: Discussion in Damascus Sunday

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 16, updated -- Syria asked Kofi Annan as Joint Special Envoy of the UN and Arab League  to get guarantees from neighboring states not to arm the opposition, accoring to a translation of Syria's answer obtained by Inner City Press. Only after that could there be monitoring.

  Inner City Press obtained a copy of the "unofficial translation" of the "non-paper answer of the Syrian government," which ICP is now exclusively putting online here.

Update: Inner City Press asked Syrian Ambassador Ja'afari about the "non-paper." He said that this "Syrian answer" is in the nature of an "aide memoire," informal, and will all be discussed as a "comprehensive political process," not as preconditions, "on the technical level" beginning Sunday in Damascus. He did not answer if Arab League selected Deputy Nasser al Kidwa can go. Video here, from Minute 3:10.
 

  In Point 2 Syria stated:

"it is requested from the Special Envoy to provide guarantees to the Syrian government that the armed groups will cease all armed aggressions and give up their weapons to the dedicated authorities in exchange for a full pardon.

"It is also demanded from the Special Envoy that the neighboring countries take necessary measures to control the traffic of armaments through their borders.

"It will be requested from the Special Envoy that the countries who have called publicly to finance and provide weapons to the armed groups to stop from doing so.

"When the Special Envoy could provide the above-mentioned guarantees, the Syrian government can discuss with him the idea of putting in place a neutral monitoring system. Hence it seems at this stage too premature to discuss this mechanism."

  The answer does express a willingness to arrange another visit of the central prison in Allepo.

  Before Kofi Annan briefed the Security Council on Friday morning, German Permanent Representative Peter Wittig stopped and told the press of increased defections of Syrian soldiers who will not kill "for a ruling family."

An Annan press conference which had been expected for Thursday in Geneva was canceled, replaced by selective quotes from former UN communications official Ahmed Fawzi.

Update: When the Security Council session ended Friday morning, Inner City Press asked Council president Mark Lyall Grant about the non-paper answer. He would not comment on it. From the UK transcript:

Inner City Press: this non-paper answer of Syria to Kofi Annan. It says that he will have to get guarantees from neighbouring states that the the opposition wouldn’t be armed before they could even discuss monitoring. I just want to ask you: one, have you seen the document, and two: is that your understanding of what they’ve said to Kofi Annan?

Amb. Lyall Grant: I’m not going to comment on any details, you can ask Mr Annan that question.

 But no one in Geneva did ask Kofi the question. In New York, another Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that the Council members got nothing in writing.

Sources told Inner City Press that Annan had not directly conveyed to Council members Assad's first answer, but rather asked Russia to help with persuading Assad. Inner City Press obtained a copy of the "unofficial translation" of the "non-paper answer of the Syrian governemnt," which ICP is now exclusively putting online here.



March 12, 2012

UN's Pascoe Admits Failure on #Kony2012, Joins Ocampo in Praise, Ban Silent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 9 -- While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his spokespeople have had nothing to say about the #Kony2012 phenomenon, except to belatedly direct Inner City Press to a months-old report, on Friday Ban's outgoing Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe praised the video and initiative.

  Inner City Press asked Pascoe to respond to critiques of the 29 minute film including that it misrepresents the conflict in Uganda and now Central Africa. Video here, from Minute 13.

  But Pascoe said that the attention the video is getting will be helpful, after less than successful UN mediation with President Chissano, and ostensible coordination between UN Peacekeeping mission which as Inner City Press reports can barely do their current jobs in South Sudan and the Congo.

Pascoe said, "I watched it, I was impressed with the work that was done. I believe that one of our biggest problems with the LRA has been getting attention to it.... We've been working closely with the African Union, without great success. These are ferocious crimes that need to be finalized."

Also outgoing International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has also praised the film -- not surprisingly, perhaps, since he is in it. What does his successor think? Watch this site.

Footnote: Pascoe's comments came at a press conference on UN guidelines for mediators on sexual violence. Inner City Press asked why the UN team to Syria includes no women, but includes Congo envoy retread Alan Doss. "He may go in," Pascoe said, while playing up women's essentially back-office role.

  The third panelest Ould Abdullah did not answer, but off camera told Inner City Press of his recent work on the Sahel. The UN's sexual violence in conflict expert Margot Wallstrom spoke more directly, saying that the UN must do better. With this, we agree.



March 5, 2012

As UK Lyall Grant Regrets UN Envoy Banned from Sierra Leone, Of Meece's Meekness, Frechette in Breeze

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 4 -- After UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon capitulated to the government of Sierra Leone and abruptly removed UN envoy Michael von der Schulenburg from the country, some UN officials close to Ban complained to Inner City Press about "the S-G's weakness."

  "What kind of message does it send," a senior Secretariat official asked Inner City Press, "when Ban sells out his own appointees at at the drop of a hat?"

  On Friday, Inner City Press asked the Security Council president for March Mark Lyall Grant of the UK about Schulenburg's removal. Speaking in his national capacity because the Council won't discuss it until March 22, Lyall Grant did not directly criticize Ban, but said "the ERSG was put in a difficult position by the government of Sierra Leone.... We regret that, he left earlier than originally planned." Video here, from Minute 28:45.

  Lyall Grant went on to list other recent controversies about "host country consent," for example the Democratic Republic of the Congo where, he said, the government threatened that the UN Mission should leave. He added that was "resolved." But how?

  In DRC, Ban's envoy Roger Meece said almost nothing amid Joseph Kabila electoral controversy -- the blocking of opposition candidates, the torching of polling stations. While such meekness may be Meece's personality, Ban is sending the message that this is how to succeed in his UN.

  Notably, Ban has refused to support in any way his own appointee as chair of the Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations, Louise Frechette, when she belatedly rule inappropriate the participation of Sri Lankan General Shavendra Silva, whose 58th Division is depicted in Ban's own Panel of Experts report as engaged in war crimes.

  While other Permanent Representatives of Permanent Five members of the Security Council make excuses for Ban, intent only on securing top UN management positions from him, Lyall Grant has shown himself willing to speak some truth. Watch this site.


February 27, 2012

In Asia Group, Sri Lanka Says Stands Behind Silva, Group Letter Not Agreed To

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 24 -- Two days after Sri Lankan General Shavendra Silva was ruled "inappropriate" to participate as the Asia-Pacific Group's representative on the UN Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations, the Asia Group met Friday behind closed doors about the controversy.

For four weeks, Inner City Press has questioned the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon and diplomats from Asian countries how they could accept Silva as adviser on peacekeeping, given how he appears in Ban's own Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka, as commander of the 58th Division shelling hospitals and killing people trying to surrender.

And so on Friday afternoon Inner City Press stood outside UN Conference Room 4, posing questions to the Ambassadors who went in and out of the meeting. Then and afterward, a picture of the meeting emerged and is exclusively reported here.

  Sri Lanka, represented in the meeting by Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, Deputy Permanent Representative Shavendra Silva and other staff, wanted the Asia Group to write a letter to SAG chairperson Louise Frechette as well as to Ban Ki-moon. (Sri Lanka may also want to write to another on-the-record UN official; many have off the record condemned Silva's nomination, and Ban Ki-moon's silence.)

  Kohona reportedly said, you have to draw a line or only the small and weak will be targeted. Then he said that he had told "the capital" -- Colombo, the Rajapaksa government -- and the capital determined to stand behind Ambassador Silva.

  Kohona was chided for having "made representations" about solving the embarrassing standoff. But now he said that while those representations had been made, they weren't valid, only the Group could change its endorsement.

  Inner City Press has already reported that there was no vote on Silva, after Sri Lanka talked Saudi Arabia and Nepal, and now some say Fiji, into withdrawing their candidacy.

  Now, Inner City Press has learned that it was "Sri Lanka" that was "endorsed by the Group" on January 19, to participate in the first meeting of the SAG, held January 19 and 20, 2012 -- this according to the Asia Group's own minutes.

  Kohona has argued publicly that it was Silva who was endorsed, personally. Strangely, it was Deputy Permanent Representative Silva who negotiated with the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia on January 9 and 18. Still, after that, "Sri Lanka" -- not Silva -- "was endorsed by the Group."

  In the closed door meeting, Inner City Press has learned, Kohona asked for a decision that the Asia Group send a letter to Frechette and Ban Ki-moon.

  This was not agreed to. Rather, the chair of the Group for February, Maldives, said that there was no consensus on a letter, calling the situation a "minefield to maneuver."

Fiji, which has itself chafed when former Secretary General Kofi Annan said it might not be able to keep getting paid for sending UN peacekeepers after the coup d'etat there, spoke up for Sri Lanka, saying that there should be consultations including about sending a letter.

Kohona then shifted back and said there was no rush, there were "two months." Leaving the meeting room he told Inner City Press, "three months."

  Silva left the meeting room talking with Fiji's representative, with whom Inner City Press not infrequently converses. Silva, too, used to speak.

  As Inner City Press has told a Sri Lankan paper which has asked, it was nominating Silva to the SAG which stirred up the recent news here. Inner City Press is reliably told that External Affairs minister G.L Peiris was not in favor of Silva's nomination, but people above him were. Thus we can say: it is the Rajapaksa brothers themselves who have of late put civilians deaths in Sri Lanka back in the news, and brought Sri Lanka into some disrepute, now going back on representations and seeking support playing the "small and weak" card.

  Already, Maldives -- which suffering what is arguably its own coup d'etat during all this and was represented as chair by a junior diplomat who refused to summarize the meeting at its conclusion -- is preparing to "hand off" the issue to the Group's chair for March, the Marshall Islands. The "small and weak" indeed.

   So what of the other states in the Asia Group? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

Footnote: numerous diplomats told Inner City Press it was "outrageous," as one of them put it, that the Sri Lankan Mission had asked and gotten UN Security to prohibit the Press from covering the February 22 meeting in 380 Madison Avenue as it covered Friday's meeting in the UN North Lawn building.

  The same Sri Lankan mission personnel were present Friday but did not try. (There were no other media organization staking out the meeting, despite some belated and opportunistic pick-ups.)

  Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesman inserted into Thursday briefing transcript a kneejerk defense of the exclusion of the Press, then abuptly ended the briefing. This is Ban's UN. Click here for Inner City Press' February 24 interview with Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar -- and consider how the UN has come to this.


February 20, 2012

On Silva, Ambassadors Meet With UN Peacekeeping, Rice Says Concerned, Immunity Letter from USUN Surfaces

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 17, updated -- Three weeks ago Inner City Press began asking the UN and then the US Mission to the UN how they could accept as a UN "Senior Adviser on Peacekeeping Operations" General Shavendra Silva, whose Division 58 is repeatedly named in connection with war crimes in Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka.

  On February 14, Bangledesh's Permanent Representative told Inner City Press he, India and Pakistan were telling Sri Lanka to "fix it."

  On February 16, Pakistan's Permanent Representative confirmed this and said there was a meeting on February 17 on the topic. That meeting, of ambassadors with the two Under Secretaries General for peacekeeping, Inner City Press understands, took place Friday at 9:45 am.

At 10:30 am Friday, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice about a letter it found that that Russell F. Graham, Minister Counselor for Host Country Affairs at the US Mission to the UN, provided to Silva's lawyers to tell a US Federal Court that Silva, as Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative, has diplomatic immunity. On that basis, this case against Silva was dismissed.

  Inner City Press is putting the letter online, here.

Ambassador Rice took the question, some from Inner City Press on Sudan, and said, "These are two different things. The State Department has to respond on immunity. He unfortunately or fortunately is an accredited diplomat."

Then, more generally on Silva, Rice told Inner City Press, "it's very concerning that someone with his background would be selected to serve on this advisory group. We have conveyed this to member states, as well as to the Secretariat. There are a lot of efforts underway to address [this], probably best not to be discussed publicly."

Moments later, another Security Council Permanent Representative approached Inner City Press and said, "on the Sri Lankan, you have done well." Inner City Press has sent questions to USGs Malcorra and Ladsous:

"Hello. Asking for an answer before noon: I understand that on the matter of Shavendra Silva, who is named in the S-G's Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka as in charge of Division 48 which is described engaged in war crimes, ambassadors met with UN Peacekeeping today. I am asking you directly to confirm this, and to state the status of Mr. Silva on the Senior Advisory Group, and at this stage, your view."  

  At Friday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked again, and Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesman Eduardo Del Buey said he had no information, to "ask DPKO's spokesman."

Update of 6:34 pm: DPKO's spokesman has written in to note that in response to the request for a confirmation before the noon briefing, he "visited" and sent a text message. Noted. But the request was clear: confirm, which could be done even in a 160 character text message. The problem here is substantive: a UN Secretary General and Under Secretaries General who "have nothing to say" about an alleged war criminal -- or a commander of a division accused of war crimes - advising them.

  Inner City Press reiterated, it is a question for Ban and his spokespeople, including because Ban's own High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote him on this topic - as she told Inner City Press at the General Assembly stakeout on February 13 -- and because Silva is in Ban's own report.  We are still awaiting an on the record response, which has been re-requested from Ban's office as well as from USG Malcorra and her spokesman.

Update of 2:20 pm, Feb 17: Inner City Press has been sent this by the DPKO spokesman:

"I can confirm that DPKO-DFS leadership today facilitated a meeting with some Member States. As the spokesperson's office has previously said, the selection for this position on the Special Advisory Group is for the Member States. Since the selection has become known to the Secretariat, we have actively facilitated Member States in their discussions to consider this matter. We have nothing to say at this stage on our views of the membership of the Special Advisory Group."

   What does it say about Ban's UN that it "has nothing to say" about the nomination as a "Senior Adviser" on Peacekeeping of a military commander named in Ban's own Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka as engaged in the shelling of hospitals and presumptive execution of those seeking to surrender?

  Prior to these developments, the Sri Lankan Mission's action was to send a letter of complaint to Inner City Press, sending a copy to Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky as well as to some in the UN press corps.

Inner City Press in less than 24 hours published and responded to the letter, citing only some of the many references to Silva's Division 58 in the report.

Watch this site.



February 13, 2012
As Lanka Missive Blurs Silva Role in Ban's Experts Report, UN Omits to Check

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 11 -- For two weeks Inner City Press has covered the selection to the UN "Senior Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations" of Sri Lankan General Shavendra Silva, whose Division 58 is named in UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Panel of Experts' report on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.

  Late on February 9, after Inner City Press published brief questions and answers with Silva, Sri Lankan Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona and Ban himself, the Sri Lankan Mission sent a letter to Inner City Press, with copies to Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky and the President of the UN Correspondents' Association.

  These cc's may be as interesting as the letter itself. We publish the letter in full, here, and respond to it below.

   The Sri Lankan mission takes issue with Inner City Press' citation to Ban's Panel of Experts report, writing that

"Ambassador Shavendra Silva pointed out during UNCA's screening of 'Lies agreed upon,' that the POE report had inaccurately represented the facts with regard to the Divisions involved. Nowhere in paragraph 73 and 90 of the Report does it make any reference to his own Division being responsible for shelling the No Zones or the PTK hospital."

  The simplest rebuttal is simply to example the Panel of Experts report itself, online, which we will now quote from:

 In Paragraph 62, Silva appears: "six major battalions were active in the final stages of the war, including... the 58th Division (commanded by Brigadier Shavendra Silva)." That is Silva's Division.

  Here's from Paragraphs 90 through 92 of Ban's Panel of Experts report:

90. Fighting in the area intensified as part of the expressed efforts by the 55th and 58th Divisions to capture PTK by 4 February... in the week between 29 January and 4 February, PTK hospital was hit every day by MBRLs and other artillery, taking at least nine direct hits. A number of patients inside the hospital, most of them already injured, were killed, as were several staff members. Even the operating theatre was hit. Two ICRC international delegates were in the hospital when it was shelled on 4 February 2009. The shelling was coming from SLA positions.

92. The GPS coordinates of PTK hospital were well known to the SLA, and the hospital was clearly marked with emblems easily visible to UAVs. On 1 February 2009, the ICRC issued a public statement emphasizing that "[w]ounded and sick people, medical personnel and medical facilities are all protected by international humanitarian law. Under no circumstance may they be directly attacked."

  That is a war crime, and it is attributed in Ban's Panel of Experts report to Silva's 58th Division, as well as the 55th. That, it seems, is the Sri Lankan mission's defense: that war crimes were committed by other Divisions (too). Fine, then: the reference to Paragraph 90 should be to 90-92, with 62 as the intro to Silva.

  Likewise, the Sri Lankan mission crows that a lawsuit against Silva was dismissed without stating that it was strictly on grounds of diplomatic immunity: that Silva is now an Ambassador to the UN. The decision by Judge Oetken concludes:

"Notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this case, the diplomatic immunity mandated by 22 U.S.C. § 254d precludes this Court from considering the merits of their claims against Silva, at least while he is cloaked with immunity as a United Nations representative."

  On the killing of surrenderees, the Sri Lankan mission takes issue with the inference Ban's Panel of Experts draws:

2. The “White Flag” incident

170. Various reports have alleged that the political leadership of the LTTE and their dependants were executed when they surrendered to the SLA.[81] In the very final days of the war, the head of the LTTE political wing, Nadesan, and the head of the Tiger Peace Secretariat, Pulidevan, were in regular communication with various interlocutors to negotiate a surrender. They were reportedly with a group of around 300 civilians. The LTTE political leadership was initially reluctant to agree to an unconditional surrender, but as the SLA closed in on the group in their final hideout, Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh, were prepared to surrender unconditionally. This intention was communicated to officials of the United Nations and of the Governments of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as to representatives of the ICRC and others. It was also conveyed through intermediaries to Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil Rajapaksa, former Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona and senior officers in the SLA.

171. Both President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted. These were conveyed by intermediaries to the LTTE leaders, who were advised to raise a white flag and walk slowly towards the army, following a particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa. Requests by the LTTE for a third party to be present at the point of surrender were not granted. Around 6.30 a.m. on 18 May 2009, Nadesan and Pulidevan left their hide-out to walk towards the area held by the 58th Division, accompanied by a large group, including their families. Colonel Ramesh followed behind them, with another group. Shortly afterwards, the BBC and other television stations reported that Nadesan and Pulidevan had been shot dead. Subsequently, the Government gave several different accounts of the incident. While there is little information on the circumstances of their death, the Panel believes that the LTTE leadership intended to surrender.

  The (false) assurances "conveyed by intermediaries" were conveyed through Ban Ki-moon's own chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who has declined numerous requests from the Press to answer questions about his role. Kohona, too, the head of Sri Lanka's mission, is named in the paragraphs above.

  (Inner City Press was already the first to report that the reference to "Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa" was an error by the UN.)

   Now it must be stated, with all due respect but to provide context to the cc's, that it is not disputed that Kohona had a prior financial relationship with the President of UNCA; and that Ban Ki-moon's own chief of staff is at least a witness to the above-described war crime.

  What's strange is that Inner City Press has previously, including in the Q&A after UNCA screened in UN, without the normal approval process the government's "Lies Agreed To" as a rebuttal to a documentary that was NOT screened inside the UN, asked Silva about war crimes, and published all his answers.

   But only now does the Sri Lankan mission, by Waruna Sri Dhanapala the "Counselor to Permanent Representative" Palitha Kohona, write to Ban's spokesman and UNCA, not only the President with whom PR Kohona has a previously financial relationship, but also other UNCA members, who in turn forwarded it more widely.  Is the heat on?

On February 10, after received the above-quoted letter at 11 pm the night before, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about letters received, as partially recorded in the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: I wish I had been able to follow this up with Mr. Ladsous when asked about this selection of Shavendra Silva, who is inthe Secretary-General’s report on Sri Lanka as the head of a division, said that 'the matter is being considered further.' I wasn’t clear what that meant by the Secretariat, or by the Asia Group or by Sri Lanka. I wanted to know if you can find out what that is, and also I have been at least CCed on a number of letters that have been addressed to the Secretary-General about this issue, of taking what people seem to see as an alleged war criminal and making him an adviser, or selecting him or allowing him to be selected, and I wanted to know how many letters have you received and is it being reconsidered, where does this stand?

Spokesperson Nesirky: The Secretary-General himself told you, as you know, that this is a decision by Member States. At this point, that is the end of the story, okay.

Inner City Press: So there is no effort by the Secretariat, in any way, to speak to the Asia Group or to the country of Sri Lanka?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I also heard what Mr. Ladsous said, the Under-Secretary-General, as I was sitting right next to him..

  Then, on camera, Nesirky said he would inquire into what this meant, saying clearly "and I'll check if there's anything further on that." But that is not in the UN's transcript. Watch video, here at Minute 15:58, and watch this site.

February 6, 2012

Amid Move to Switch From Criminal Silva, Ban Dismisses Predecessor Criticism

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 -- For a week UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office has been questioned about accepting alleged war criminal Shavendra Silva as one of Ban's Senior Advisers on Peacekeeping Operations.

  While Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky has insisted that Ban is powerless to stop what several member states describe as a travesty or a "new low," some states asked by Inner City Press say they are pushing Sri Lanka to pull Silva back, even if only to replace him with Permanent Representative Palitha Kohona, who also played a role in the White Flag killing of prospective surrenderees, along with Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar.

 Acts of Shavendra Silva's battalion in 2009 are described in the UN's own Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka -- for example in paragraphs 73, 90 and 171, shelling hospitals and the killing those seeking to surrender, in which both Kohona and Nambiar played a role -- and lawsuits have been filed against Silva for war crimes. In September 2011, Inner City Press asked Silva about them, click here for that story.

  Nesirky told Inner City Press to "ask the Asia group" about their vote; Inner City Press did, and found that there was no vote, Sri Lanka convinced Saudi Arabia and Nepal to stand down.

  Nesirky told Inner City Press to look at the General Assembly resolution, and Inner City Press has, finding that nothing in the text says that Ban has to take whomever is referred to him, whatever their record.

 In fact, Susana Malcorra Ban's head of Field Support, and prospectively his new deputy replacing Asha Rose Migiro, met with member states and laid down criteria like "senior" status.

   Why didn't she and Ban say, don't nominate alleged war criminals?

On February 3, after trying to let the issue settle for a bit, Inner City Press again asked Nesirky:

Inner City Press: it has to do with, again, Shavendra Silva, but also something new. There has been an open letter by Edward Mortimer, who used to be the Communications Director for Kofi Annan, saying and stating as a fact that the UN investigating itself under Thoraya Obaid has been disbanded, did not proceed. I wanted you to confirm if that’s true.

Also, the organization that Mr. Mortimer is the chair of, called the Sri Lanka Campaign, has given a quote about Silva saying that it's very surprising that the Secretary-General would accept Mr. Silva given the allegations against him of war crimes in a Secretary-General’s report that hasn’t been acted on. [Response?] You said various things before. I have actually looked at the GA resolution; it doesn’t seem to on its face say that the Secretary-General has to accept it. So I want to ask you again, given that former UN officials are saying it’s a black mark for the UN to have an alleged war criminal as an adviser on peacekeeping, what’s the thinking in the Secretariat? Is there any attempt being made to defuse this, to seek another individual from Sri Lanka, or are you simply saying we have no power, we accept it whatever the consequences?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Matthew, it is not a question of accepting or not accepting. It is a question of the Member States deciding. It is a question for the Asia group among the Member States to decide — and that was their decision. And I suggest that you take it up with them.

Inner City Press: I have, and there was no election in the Asian group, and the reason I think it’s legitimate to ask you is this is that a former UN official is saying it is surprising that Ban Ki-moon accepts this, i.e. he thinks, having had experience in the UN system, that clearly the Secretary-General, he can make calls, he can attempt... I just wanted to know, if in fact there is a switch, which may take place to Mr. Kohona, is the Secretary-General in any way involved in that or entirely [powerless]?

Spokesperson: Well, with great respect to Edward Mortimer, whom I know, he is not in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General any more. And so he cannot be privy to what may or may not take place there, at all.

   So, under Ban the Office of the Secretary-General has gotten so much weaker? That was the question, and this so far is the answer. We will have more on this, and on the Campaign.

Here are on the record quote provided on this to Inner City Press by the director of the Sri Lanka Campaign Fred Carver:

"There are very serious allegations of war crimes leveled against Silva, allegations that the Secretary-General's expert panel has recommended be investigated - something that has not yet happened. There are also incredibly serious allegations leveled against Sri Lankan members of UN peacekeeping forces - over whom Silva would have oversight. This appointment therefore does not speak well for the UN's commitment to investigating atrocities, even when the perpetrators wear blue helmets."

And, after some back and forth, by Edward Mortimer, former Annan communications director:

“It’s disgraceful that someone against whom there are strong and credible charges of war crimes should serve as Deputy Permanent Representative of his country at the UN, and even more disgraceful that the Asian Group has elected him to serve on the Secretary-General’s Special Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations – disgraceful, and insulting to the Secretary-General. I’m surprised that he puts up with it.”

That is giving Ban (too much) benefit of the doubt, and still it raises questions. Watch this site.



January 30, 2012

In Addis, Ban Spins "Negligence" in S. Sudan As UN Stonewalls, Migiro Out

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- After charges of UN negligence in not ensuring that its Mission in South Sudan had military helicopters from mid November until the bloodshed in Pibor in Jonglei State, Ban Ki-moon on Sunday again put his spin on the issue.

  He told the AU Summit in Addis Ababa

"South Sudan is twice the size of Germany, with less than 100 kilometers of paved roads. Our peacekeepers are doing all they can — with what they have. Despite severe logistical constraints, particularly air transport, the mission succeeded in saving many lives during the recent crisis in Jonglei. Yet clearly: without air assets such as helicopters, we cannot do all that we must do to protect people. Today, I appeal once again to you and to all Member States."

  Meanwhile Ban's spokesman in New York Martin Nesirky after twice refusing to say when Ban knew that UNMISS had no military helicopters and when what Ban's called his "begging" belatedly began on Friday referred Inner City Press on this to UN Peacekeeping, "DPKO and DFS" which he said would provide "the details."

  And so Inner City Press wrote to chiefs Herve Ladsous and Susana Malcorra and agency spokespeople, asking

1) when was the UN told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

2) if different, when was Ban Ki-moon told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

3) when did Ban Ki-moon start "begging," in his words, for helicopters, before the events in Pibor?

4) what does the UN say was the impact on its ability to protect civilians in Pibor of not having military helicopters?

Separately, in her January 23 video briefing, SRSG Hilde Johnson said after being told that Russian helicopters wouldn't fly, she was "subsequently" told that they would. I asked what date, she said she didn't have it with her but it would be provided. It hasn't been; I've asked about it at the UN noon briefing: can that date now be provided?

  But rather than answer these questions, including for information that was already promised to the UN, DPKO's Kieran Dwyer provided more spin, entirely dodging the questions on which Ban's spokesman had publicly referring Inner City Press. Dwyer wrote:

Susana Malcorra has forwarded your email to me (copy below). I have spoken with her; she was on her way to the airport for official travel when she received it. I believe that her briefing to you on the topic of the helicopters earlier in January covered most of these issues.

  Not only wass there still no date provided -- it's that after Malcorra in a "briefing" that she asked be mostly off the record, Ban gave a speech entirely passing the buck, and the UN has since refused to provide the basis of what Ban is saying: what did Ban know, and when did he know it?

  Significantly, the UN didn't even mention its failure to get military helicopters to Pibor until it was exposed, by Inner City Press, in a January 11 story. Then, rather than make disclosure and say how this would be avoided in the future, the spinning and stonewalling began, and has spread.

  So less than an hour after DPKO's Dwyer's response, Inner City Press asked him, Ladsous, Malcorra and Johnson again:

This is not responsive to the questions asked, nor does it provide the information that Hilde Johnson said at the end of her January 23 video briefing would be provided.

-- WHEN did Ban Ki-moon start "begging," in his words, for helicopters, before the events in Pibor?

-- when was Ban Ki-moon told that the Russian helicopters would not fly in South Sudan?

  In the more than 36 hours and counting since these reiterated questions were sent to DPKO, Ladsous, Malcorra and Johnson, not one of the questions has been answered.

  Meanwhile Ban to the AU in Addis said, "our peacekeepers are doing all they can... Today, I appeal once again to you and to all Member States."

  Ban also said "I have made Africa a priority from day one" - less than a week after he belated confirmed that he is dropping Asha-Rose Migiro of Tanzania as his Deputy Secretary General, as Inner City Press first reported, likely for the aforementioned Susana Malcorra of Argentine.

  Nor despite repeated public requests from the African Group has Ban appoined, as required, a full time Special Adviser on Africa.

  But the claims in Addis, amid continued refusal to take and answer the simple questions about presumptive negligence in South Sudan, is becoming outrageous, and will continue to be pursued. Watch this site.


January 23, 2012

UN's Ban Knew Had No Copters in South Sudan for 6 Weeks, Now Passes the Buck

By Matthew Russell Lee, Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, January 19 -- When the bloodbath in Pibor in South Sudan began, local people blamed the UN for not arriving fast enough, and not acting to try to stop the attackers.

  On January 18, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, "at the critical moment, I was reduced to begging for replacements from neighboring countries and missions. With limited resources, we tried our best."

  Is this a rare candid statement, or a passing of the buck?

  After asking questions and writing about the UN's slow response in Pibor as early as January 2, Inner City Press on January 11 reported that the UN had known since mid November that the Russian helicopters would not fly anymore in South Sudan.

  Immediately UN officials pushed back, saying that it is customary for helicopters to fly for the UN even after the UN has, as here, allowed the Letter of Assist to expire. But the UN had been told that the Russian helicopters would not fly.

  Inner City Press repeated asked Ban's Office of the Spokesperson about this; lead spokesman Martin Nesirky claimed that the UN would not be discussing its negotiations about helicopters.

  The representative of another large troop contributing country told Inner City Press that under Ban, and his Department of Field Support, paperwork has gotten "sloppy," and the Secretariat has tried to play one member state off against another. "They are just using the UN as a platform, a launching pad," the representative told Inner City Press.

  As Inner City Press quoted in its January 11 story, "Maybe when asked to come and help civilians, [the Russians] should have," one Security Council member told Inner City Press. "But they weren't required to and it's [the UN's] fault that they didn't have an agreement with the Russians. Now they're trying to blame it on them." Click here for Ban's January 18 "Responsibility to Protect" speech.

  In a January 16 interview with Inner City Press, DFS Under Secretary General Susana Malcorra said on the record that she and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had contacted the Russians over Christmas about the issue.

  Malcorra described belated moves to get Bangladeshi helicopters from the UN Mission in the Congo, and Ethiopian helicopters from Abyei in north Sudan.  As Inner City Press put it to her, this seems akin to a City fire commissioner, knowing for six weeks that the city does not have fire truck protection, belatedly casting all blame elsewhere when the fire occurs, and he belatedly contracts for other trucks.  Click here for the interview.

  It remains unanswered: if the UN could get alternate helicopters now, after the bloodbath, why wasn't this possible before, in order to stop the bloodshed?

  Inner City Press has asked. Rather than answer, the Secretariat has written, and Ban delivered, a speech entirely passing the buck. This is why this UN does not improve. Watch this site.

In S. Sudan, Still No UN Count, "Not Smooth" But When Did Ban Take Action?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 20 -- With bloodshed continuing in South Sudan's Jonglei State, Inner City Press on Friday asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky what Ban meant when he said that while "we saw it coming weeks before... At the critical moment, I was reduced to begging."

  Specifically, Inner City Press asked if Ban had started this "begging" in mid November, when the Russians informed the UN they would not fly their helicopters in South Sudan any more, or only at Christmas, when after five weeks without UN military helicopter coverage, the bloodshed started in Pibor? Video here, from Minute 7:17.

  Nesirky didn't directly answer, rather than that it was "not just the Secretary General working the phone." This leads to the question: while Ban in his January 18 speech appears to shift all the blame elsewhere, did he get involved early enough in the critical lack of helicopters to protect civilians in one of the UN's high profile missions?

  Nesirky said, "no one is saying this went as smoothly as we had wanted," and noted that Ban's envoy Hilde Johnson will appear next week by video link and Inner City Press may want to ask her. Fine -- but what about being able to ask Ban Ki-moon about it during his January 25 Q&A?

  Nesirky also said that Johnson's deputy Lise Grande conducted a video briefing after visiting Pibor. She did -- but she didn't mention that the UN had not had military helicopters, and had not brought "lethal assets to dissuade" attacks. The UN only began to speak about that after the Press was informed about the lack, by a member state, and reported it.

  Despite South Sudan elected officials providing numbers, high in Pibor and 80 in Duk County, Nesirky did not answer Inner City Press' question if the UN has its own number(s) in Duk, and if it yet has a casually figure in Pibor.

  The UN goes on issuing casualty figures in places it has little presence on the ground, while not doing so in South Sudan where it has a large peacekeeping mission. There are many outstanding questions, that not only Hilde Johnson but Ban Ki-moon should answer. Watch this site.

January 16, 2012

As UN Downgrades Pibor Dead to 15, It Stonewalls On Russian Copter Contract Lapse

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13 -- After the UN was unable to send helicopters from Juba in South Sudan as 6000 fighters descended on Pibor, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous told the press that "dozens" had been killed there.

  After the Commissioner of Pibor County put the number of dead civilians at over 3000, the UN said that it would not make its own count of the dead, but rather focus on its belated humanitarian response.

On January 13, two days after Inner City Press exposed the reason for the UN's slow response -- that since mid November when the Russian helicopter pilots previously under UN contract in North Sudan told the UN Department of Field Support that they would not fly -- Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesman Eduardo Del Buey told Inner City Press that now the UN says that it found only fifteen bodies in and around Pibor town, and no witnesses to more.

  "The UN's cover up is complete," a whistleblowing UN official nearly immediately told Inner City Press. "For now."

  On January 12, after Inner City Press published its first story on what more than one Security Council members called DFS' and the UNMISS mission's "negligence" in continuing to reply on the Russian helicopter they had been told would not fly, Inner City Press asked Ban's main spokesman Martin Nesirky to explain how these UN actions were reasonable.

From the UN's January 12, 2012 transcript:

Inner City Press: I have some follow-up because it is a pretty serious matter, and there are…

Spokesperson: I agree, it is a very serious matter.

Inner City Press: So just the letters of assist; I wanted to say what the Russians say and I want to get your response to it, because otherwise I just have what they say. They say when they agreed to provide the helicopters they’ve never, we’re going to have machine guns on them, and, therefore, that it is not just a matter of a letter of assist not being signed, that there is a substantive change in what they were being asked to do and they made it clear to DFS that until this was approved in Moscow, they would not fly.

And therefore, according to them, DFS knew for since 1 December or at least the 15th until this incident took place in January that they had no helicopters and that’s what, I just, I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, but helicopters may fly in other instances after a signature, but in this case they were told it is too big a change, we won’t fly. And I wanted to know, what did DFS do when they knew that they had no helicopters?

Spokesperson: Well, Matthew, couple of things: one is that, while negotiations are going on, as I have just said, we don’t comment on negotiations between Member States and the Secretariat. I would simply say that there is more to this, and I think that you will be able to learn more about that.

  Inner City Press understood this last comment, that "there is more to this, and I think that you will be able to learn more about that," to mean that either the Department of Field Support or UNMISS, whose chief Inner City Press has in the past e-mailed only to be referred back to Ladsous' office in New York, would be providing the UN's explanation for it mis-reliance on the Russian helicopters from mid-November until the deaths, at least some of them seemingly preventable, in Pibor.

  But a full 24 hours went by with no word from DFS or UNMISS. So at Friday's noon briefing, with Nesirky traveling with Ban in Lebanon, Inner City Press asked Deputy Eduardo Del Buey when the projected explanation would arrive.

  Del Buey focused on another part of what Nesirky said, that the UN doesn't comment on ongoing negotiations with member states. Inner City Press began to ask a factual question about the UN's belated bringing in of Bangladeshi helicopters from MONUSCO in the DR Congo, but Del Buey ignored the question, trying to solicit other questions from other correspondents.

  When Inner City Press followed up, Del Buey asked, "Did you speak with DPKO?" Inner City Press has nearly given up trying to get DPKO chief Herve Ladsous to do what his predecessors did: answer questions from the media at least on the way in and out of Security Council meeting such as the one he attended on January 12.

  But Ms. Malcorra had said she would talk - and has yet to. Del Buey would not say when, but when Pressed about the UN's own count of the dead in Pibor can out with the "fifteen bodies" number, contradicting not only the Commission of Pibor County's 3000 figure, but Associated Press' figure of "hundreds if not thousands."

   And soon after Del Buey ended the wan briefing, a whistleblowing UN official told Inner City Press, "The cover up is complete....for now." Watch this site.

Footnotes: in other questions Del Buey did not answer at Friday's noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked about religious officials in the DRC demanding that the electoral officials there admit their errors or resign, Del Buey said that Nesirky "has explained MONUSCO's position and it remains the same." And what is MONUSCO's position on the legislative elections and what it called "lessons learned, for the future"?

  Inner City Press asked if Roed Larsen attended Ban's meetings in Lebanon and Del Buey wouldn't say. Inner City Press asked if Ban's five years in one position policy applies to the head of the Department of Management Angela Kane -- who Inner City Press has already reported may be headed to the Disarmament post in a form of musical chairs -- and Del Buey said "it applies," but declined to confirm anything else. Most troubling, however, was the UN's self serving minimization of the Pibor dead to fifteen. Watch this site.


At UN, Trip by Ban to Palestine & Lebanon Confirmed, Saleh Speaker, Who Pays Planes?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 6 -- Palestine will get a visit within the month from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Palestinian Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour confirmed to Inner City Press on Friday.

  Mansour said, on camera, that initially Ban was going to visit after Lebanon, Jordan and the [United Arab] Emirates, but now it would be delayed under late January or early February, in connection with Ban's trip to the African Union summit in Ethiopia.

  Earlier this week, when Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky was asked to merely confirm Ban's trip to Lebanon, Nesirky refused. Inner City Press asked him in the alternative to confirm the UN conference in Beirut, ostensibly on democracy, which Ban and others would attend, and to provide the speakers' list.

  You can look for it yourself, Nesirky said. The list is still not on the UN's ESCWA web site, but Inner City Press is told that the speakers include, paradoxically, an adviser to Yemen strongman Ali Saleh. We'll have more on this, once the UN system is able to provide the speakers' list.

  Inner City Press asked Nesirky last month to disclose going forward -- therefore on this trip -- which countries or persons pay for the travel and planes of Ban and his entourage.

  This came after Inner City Press asked the President of the General Assembly about his travel with Ban, and he acknowledged that Qatar provided a plane in connection with their trip to Somalia.

  Who will be paying on these forthcoming trips? It seems like basic transparency that a public figure should disclose who is paying for his travel. We'll see.

Footnotes: After Mansour's stakeout, Inner City Press asked him about its exclusive reporting earlier this week from sources inside the Department of Political Affairs and beyond that nominated to replace Lynn Pascoe as head of DPA is another American, higher profile: Alejandro Wolff. Click here for that exclusive must-credit story by Inner City Press.

(c) UN Photo
Mansour, confirmer of Ban trips, 2007 with Alex Wolff: to be confirmed, for DPA?

Wolff's role as US Deputy Permanent Representative was recalled during the all day Security Council fight about the assault on the flotilla to Gaza. Watch this site.

Ethiopia's Incursion into Somalia Draws No UN Comment, Garowe Sideshow?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- Now that Ethiopia has driving further into central Somalia, taking over the town of Beledweyne, neither the UN's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon or the Security Council have had anything to say.

  Rather, Ban on December 30 offered fulsome praise to the so-called Garoowe Principles, which are subject to some detailed criticism by Somali patriots.

Back on November 25, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky about Ethiopia:

Inner City Press: given the past impact of Ethiopia entering Somalia, the reaction of the populace to it. Doesn’t the UN, with an envoy, have some view of whether this is a good thing or should it come to the Council? Is it a positive step for Somalia to have the military involvement of its close and contentious neighbor?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it is not for me to say what should or should not be discussed by the Council; that’s for the Council to decide. As for the meeting that took place, the IGAD meeting that you are referring to, obviously we are aware of that and we are looking at that. I don’t have our readout of that yet.

Inner City Press: I just want to clarify. I am not asking you to say what they should discuss, I am saying, in upholding the UN Charter, should the entry militarily of one country into another… previous Secretary-Generals have spoken on that point, so I think it’s fair… I am just wondering if there is any statement by this Secretary-General on this incursion.

Spokesperson: Yes I do, I do, and I think as we have mentioned, with regard to Kenya, there was a clear understanding between the countries concerned.

But what about Ethiopia? There was never any response. When Ban traveled to Somalia, Inner City Press on December 8 asked if he would speak about Kenya bombing an IDP camp -- there was no answer -- and on December 9, about Somalis' protest to UN envoy Augustine Mahiga:

Inner City Press: Various Members of Parliament there say that they are petitioning Ban Ki-moon about problems they have had with Mr. Mahiga and UNPOS, saying that he has violated the Transitional Federal Charter by engaging selectively with parties, and that they don’t consider him an honest broker. I wanted to know whether the Secretary-General, in his visit, received such a petition and also when he met, whether or not he has, what he makes of this criticism by parliamentarians in Somalia?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I do not know whether such a petition was handed to the delegation or not. I am sure that we will be able to find that out. Mr. Mahiga obviously enjoys the full confidence of the Secretary-General in the work that he does in very difficult circumstances.

This was followed, on December 30, with Ban's unqualified praise of the so-called Garowe Principles:

"The Secretary-General commends the commitment by Somali political leaders, as outlined in the Garoowe Principles adopted on 23 December, to a clear process and timeline for the finalisation of the draft constitution, the reform of Parliament, and the conclusion of the transition."

  Of these, others have noted that powers are being transferred to six persons called stakeholders– three in the TFC (President, Speaker, Prime Minister) and three others (the Presidents of Puntland, Galmudug and an alternating representative from Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama).

  Decisions prepared by the UNPOS under the guidance of the UN Department for Political Affairs are or will be rubber stamped by the six persons. UNDPA is led by American Under-Secretary General B. Lynn Pascoe and, they say, Assistant Secretary General Taye-Brook Zerihou of Ethiopia.

  And so what of this failure to speak of the incursions into Somalia? We'll have more on this in 2012.

Footnote: At year end in the US, a drive to deny funding to Al Shabab has resulted in curtailing wire transfers and remittances to Somalis, including via Sunrise Community Banks.

  This collective punishment has some wondering: the Taliban now have a legal office in Doha in Qatar, which provided assistance to Ban's trip to Somalia. Why the different approach to Somalia? Watch this site.

December 26, 2011

UN Budget Adopted at Noon on Christmas Eve, R2P Fight, Distant Claims of Savings

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 24, updated -- After an all night UN Budget Committee negotiation in which the US pushed to cut funding including to the UN Mission in Ivory Coast and to give Secretary General Ban Ki-moon "flexibility" to cut more, Ban jogged up onto the General Assembly podium for the final votes.

  Ban offered thanks to Tommo "Menthe" -- that's Monthe, the Permanent Representative of Cameroon -- and to UN staff, who have protested his management style, taking sides and failing to protect them, and have threatened to go on strike.

  Ban put on an ear piece and heard Cuba, Venezuela and Iran rail against including Responsibility to Protect in his Office on the Prevention of Genocide. Ban gave no response, just as he has had no substantive comment on for example Sri Lanka's whitewash "Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission" report.

  When the vote occurred, joining those opposing having R2P in the Genocide Office were Ethiopia and Brazil (see below) which has proposed the concept of Responsibility While Protecting. Abstaining was Qatar, of which the President of the General Assembly -- not present for this budget "Super Bowl" of the UNGA -- is a national.

  While Ban waited backstage to miss it, the General Assembly voted on human rights in Myanmar. The 21 countries supporting Myanmar included Sudan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and Cambodia, whose Hun Sen has, analysts say, pushed Ban around on human rights and its UN-affiliated Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

  Apparently Ban came to say that this year's budget is smaller than that last. That'll also be a bragging point for the US Mission and its Ambassador on Management Joe Torsella. He was working it hard on Friday night, conferring with Susana Malcorra, viewed by many as Ban's new Deputy Secretary General, pacing around saying into his cell phone, it's more complicated than that.

  But neither during the votes in the Fifth Committee at 8 am, nor in the General Assembly at noon on Christmas Eve when the voting was finally over, was Torsella present. And after it was over, one female representative pleaded to change her vote on R2P. The acting PGA dismissed her, and afterward an ALBA country predicted it was Brazil, while two others said no. We'll have more on this. (See below)

Update: two hours after the final vote was cast, the US Mission to the UN put out a statement by Joe Torsella, along with two Internet links, neither of which yet had the December 24 statement up. Here is Torsella's October 27 statement. Watch this site.

Update: two hours after the final vote was cast, the US Mission to the UN put out a statement by Joe Torsella, along with two Internet links, neither of which yet had the December 24 statement up. Here is Torsella's October 27 statement. Watch this site.

Update of December 26, 4 pm -- On the question of Brazil's R2P vote, which we have already flagged in the above, we have received and immediately publish this:

Subject: Brazil's vote on Plenary regarding Office Special Adviser on R2P: Clarification
From: Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN, First Secretary (Fifth Committee)
Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Dear Matthew: Regarding your article "UN Budget Adopted at Noon on Christmas Eve, R2P Fight, Distant Claims of Savings", I would like to clarify that Brazil's vote on the Plenary meeting concerning the budget of special political missions, including the Office of the Special Adviser for Responsibility to Protect, was recorded incorrectly. The Brazilian delegation is in favor of said resolution. The votes registered at the closure of the Fifth Committee session, a few hours earlier, reflect correctly Brazil's position on the matter: 1) we voted against the amendment proposed by Cuba and other delegations; 2) and in favor of the resolution once the amendments were rejected. We will request the Secretariat to rectify our Plenary meeting vote at the earliest opportunity.

Best regards,

First Secretary (Fifth Committee)
Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations



December 19, 2011

After Sri Lanka Whitewashes War Crimes, UN's Ban Welcomes It, Counts on Government

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16 -- When Inner City Press asked the UN about the Sri Lankan government's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission report, the response was that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would comment on it when it was released.

  After it was released, with the claim that the government did not target civilians, Inner City Press at noon on December 16 asked Ban's Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq for comment. It took the UN nine hours to issue what many view as the quietest of diplomacy. First at noon there was this exchange:

Inner City Press: the Sri Lankan Government has now made public its Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission report. And it says that civilians were not targeted, which runs entirely contrary to the Panel of Experts report here at the UN. It was said that once it became public, the UN may have some response to it. Is the UN aware of the report, the commission’s report and do they think it is a credible report, and what is the next step for Ban Ki-moon’s stated interest in accountability for the force?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, we are continuing with our efforts at accountability. As you know, his advisory panel did come out earlier this year with their report on Sri Lanka. And we hope and trust that Member States will now again look to the contents of that report and see what can be done to follow up on the work being done by the panel led by Marzuki Darusman. Beyond that, in terms of the work done by the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation [Commission], we will need to study the full content of what this report say and may respond in due course.

Inner City Press: I want to ask just sort of related to that; at least one Member State on the Human Rights Council in Geneva has told me that this report, whatever, however it is called, doesn’t even have a UN stamp on it. It sort of has been really… they found it kind of strange how it was filed by the Secretariat with the Human Rights Council. It may seem like a small thing, but to them they read into it, as did other Member States, is that the case, is it a UN report, is the UN stamp on it or is it just a piece of paper?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: It is a UN report; you can find it on the UN website. We presented it here at the United Nations, as you are well aware, and it’s a panel that is an advisory panel to the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press: Does the Secretary-General, and maybe you will either know what he thinks or you can ask him — does the Secretary-General think the Human Rights Council should take up that report of many civilian deaths prior to the universal periodic review for Sri Lanka which is, you know, long away?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: As you know, it is up to the members of the Human Rights Council what they take up. Certainly the Secretary-General does want the Member States to look at this report and take it seriously and address the contents and the recommendations of that report. But, how they go about that, as you know, these are bodies of Member States and we’ll await what kind of decisions they take.

  After that exchange nine hours went by. Inner City Press reported stories on the International Criminal Court, Haiti and Ban's native South Korea. Then at 9 pm on Friday Ban's office issues this (non) statement:

Subject: Note to correspondents in response to questions on the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission for Sri Lanka
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply @un.org
Date: Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:56 PM
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com

Note to correspondents in response to questions on the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission for Sri Lanka

The Secretary-General notes that the report of Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was tabled in parliament today and welcomes that it has been made public.

The United Nations will be studying the report closely. The Secretary-General hopes that the Government of Sri Lanka will move forward with its commitment to address accountability concerns in good faith as an essential step towards reconciliation and lasting peace in the country.

  So Ban, despite the obvious whitewash in the government's report, "welcomes that it has been made public," and counts on the government to "address accountability." This goes beyond "quiet diplomacy." Watch this site.



December 12, 2011

Amid Jau Dispute, Sudan Beats S. Sudan to Stakeout, UN's Ladsous No SOFA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 8 -- After the representatives of Sudan and South Sudan traded divergent stories in prepared speeches inside the UN Security Council on Thursday, both emerged separately, eying the stakeout area and its UN Television camera.

  At first, neither would speak on camera; one of them speaking to Inner City Press insisted that he not be recorded.

  The questions in dispute ranged from whether the contested town of Jau is in Sudan or South Sudan, whether a separate human rights team should be let into the Abyei area, and whether Sudan's nominee to head the administration there is in fact a resident of Abyei.

   Even among Security Council members, positions on where Jau is changed throughout the morning. US Ambassador Susan Rice on her way into the meeting told Inner City Press of Jau, "it look like it is in Sudan."

  To her credit, she stopped on her way out of the meetings and told Inner City Press "I'd like to revise and extend my earlier remarks," saying "the bottom line is nobody knows" if Jau is in South Sudan or Sudan.

Another Council representative told Inner City Press, referring to UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous, "he's still going a survey, the guy doesn't even know where it is."

  Despite a request to the Office of the Spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that Ladsous do a stakeout and take questions, including about Jau and DPKO's failure to go to the site after days of deadly fighting, Ladsous once again did not do a stakeout.

   Last time on Sudan -- when Ladsous refused to answer a question about the UN being challenged for DPKO allegedly bringing cholera to Haiti and then refusing to set up a standing claims commission as provided for in the Status of Forces Agreement -- Ladsous answered Inner City Press that a SOFA for Abyei would be in place very soon.

   But the troop contribution country on Thursday told Inner City Press there is still in place no status of forces agreement, the lack that contributed to the deadly delay in medical evacuation of four peacekeepers. Ladsous should now answer: where is the SOFA he promised? Why has it not been finalized and signed?

   There were other important issues that Ladsous should have addressed and had answers to but didn't. South Sudan's David Choat said that Sudan is refusing to let in human rights observers; Sudan's Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman said such observers should only come in as part of the civilian component of the UNISFA mission.

While Choat for some reason never did a stakeout, Sudan's Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman emerged after all Council members had left and strode to the UN TV camera. The cameraman had left, but was summoned back.

   Inner City Press asked Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman why not allow humanitarian access to Jau. He said, "for our part, we would be happy to allow access to all those area, once we assure the safety and security of the personnel there."  Video here, from Minute 5:50. So when will the UN go there?

  On the question of the human rights observers, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman responded instead about how Sudan allows transit of South Sudan oil without charging a fee. He insisted that Sudan's candidate for the Abyei administration is a resident of the area.

 He told Inner City Press that South Sudan has asked "Russian pilots" employed by the UN to move material to areas UNMISS should not go. He did not

  Inner City Press asked, how that the Sudanese Defense Minister has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, how will he deal with the UN and its Peacekeeping missions, given the issues that arose when the UN Mission in Sudan twice used UN helicopters to fly ICC indictee Ahmed Haroun. Video here, from Minute 9:31.

  Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman said that the "ICC is not part of the UN system... it has to prove itself." Which seems to be the UN's or at least Ladsous' DPKO's, position too: asked twice by Inner City Press, the response was that nothing will change with how the UN deal with Sudan's defense minister since his indictment.

 Before he left the stakeout, Inner City Press asked Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman for Sudan's position on the sanctions adopted earlier in the week against Eritrea. Video here, from Minute 11:14.
 
  "Sudan was part of IGAD sub-regional organization, thank you very much, he answered and then left. IGAD pushed for the sanctions...


December 5, 2011

At UN on Ban's Shake Up, Short Lists Unclear, Applies to DSG & Nambiar?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 1 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon unveiled his management shakeup on Thursday, it was said that "the five year rule will be applied across the board."

  But when Inner City Press asked if it applied to chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who read out Ban's announcement, the question was not answered. Video here.

  In fact, Nambiar refused to answer any questions. When he finished his reading, with its references to transparency, Inner City Press asked him if short lists of candidates will be made public. Nambiar replied that he had been told not to answer questions.

  Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo del Buey minutes later declined to answer Inner City Press' question of whether the five year rule -- not staying in a senior post for more then five years, at least the same post -- applied to Ban's five year deputy secretary general, Asha Rose Migiro. Inner City Press is informed that Ms. Migiro has been lobbying for a second term. What will Ban do?

  The night before Nambiar's unscheduled appearance to read a statement but take no questions, Inner City Press was informed by sources that the head of the Department of Public Information Kiyotaka Akasaka would be leaving.

  Since his is one of the few high posts for Japan in the UN system, and Japan recently lost the UN Controller spot, would a Japanese replacement at DPI be enough?

It has been suggested that Japan might want the Department of Management. But the post filled by Angela Kane was not on Nambiar's list (even as Inner City Press is told by sources that Kane is being encourage to apply for the empty Lebanon / Resolution 1701 spot, along with Ban ally Y.J. Choi and Spain's former foreign minister).

  Also leaving, according to Wednesday's announcement, is the head of DGACM, the Egyptian Shaban Shaban, who lost a major UN internal justice case. The Chinese head of DESA is on the list, but seems to be given an extension for Rio + 20.

  That the affable Lynn Pascoe is done at head of the Department of Political Affairs has been widely known; while the UK had an interest, it looks to stay in US hands.

To say that the Economic Commission on Europe is open is old news: chief Jan Kubis has already been reassigned to the UN Mission in Afghanistan. Maybe that's the model: just move people around.

  Mr Duarte is ready to retire from Disarmament; the Special Adviser on Africa post, listed by Nambiar, has been sitting empty, or filled by a moonlighter who, Inner City Press is multiply informed, is slated to takeover the Economic Commission on Africa from Mr. Janneh -- who is set to meet with DSG Migiro at 3 pm on Thursday. To break the news, or to commiserate? Watch this site.

November 28, 2011

As Helen Clark "Opts Out" of UN Financial Disclosure, UNDP Brags About Its Own

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 23 -- Weeks after the absence of UN Development Program Administrator Helen Clark from the UN's Public Financial Disclosure web site was raised without answer by Inner City Press, UNDP on November 23 issued a press release about online financial disclosure:

New York, 23 November 2011— Members of the public can now access financial data on the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) development activities for the most recent fiscal period, thanks to a new open data portal... 'UNDP is committed to being transparent and to being accountable for all the contributions we receive,' UNDP Administrator Helen Clark said. 'Accountability ensures we can be more effective in our work.'

The questions about Ms. Clark's own financial disclosure, which even deputies of hers have made, cannot be unknown to UNDP. Back on November 8 at the UN's noon briefing Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: On public financial disclosure, what I wanted to ask you, I think earlier this year the Secretary-General said that 99 per cent of his officials had filed public financial disclosures in the system that he himself has filed in. And a more recent review shows that that’s not the case… Just as one example. Why is Helen Clark’s name not listed?

While the UN nine days later provided an answer about another official, nothing was provided about Ms. Clark.

    And so on November 22 Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: I still remain curious why Helen Clark’s name doesn’t appear on the list of high UN officials. And then I thought maybe the answer is that UNDP doesn’t file with the Secretariat, but has its own system. But then, I see Rebecca Grynspan, who is a UNDP official, with her filing on the Secretary-General’s public financial-disclosure page. I am asking, since the Secretary-General maintains this page and has made various representations about it, why isn’t this second or third highest official in the UN at least listed, even if she chooses not to disclose?

Spokesperson: I’d have to check; I don’t know the answer to that, Matthew. But, as you pointed out, there are many officials who are listed there.

Question: There seemed to be 23 that weren’t, and now Mr. Orr is listed, so now we are down to 22. But, it does seem, I mean, it seems, at least in this case, she is a pretty high officials and my colleague was just asking about her.

Spokesperson: Well, that’s fine, that’s fine. I’ll see what I can find out.

No answer was provided later that day, then the next morning came UNDP's press release about financial disclosure online, even quoting the elusive Helen Clark -- but no answer. As one observer put it, it looks like Clark has unilaterally "opted out" of Ban's already weak public financial disclosure program.

 Clark has refused repeated requests to hold a Q&A press conference at UN headquarters. Watch this site.November 21, 2011

At UN, Yemen Nobel Winner Tells Press PGA To Help Freeze Saleh Assets

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, November 18 -- Yemeni Nobel Prize winner Tawakkul Karman came to the UN on November 18, met with the President of the General Assembly Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser and then described the meeting to Inner City Press. Video here, and embedded below.

  Ms. Karman said the President of the General Assembly, formerly the Ambassador of Qatar to the UN, will "work with us to put pressure on the Saleh regime... He will help us find a way to freeze assets."  This is at odds with, or more detailed than, the PGA's Office's read-out, below.

  Earlier on Friday, Inner City Press had asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative Abdullah Y. Al-Mouallimi about the Saudi role in the Gulf Cooperation Council initiative on Yemen, that it provides immunity for Ali Saleh and his associates.

  Al-Mouallimi said that "the GCC agreement was signed by the relevant parties in Yemen" and now ostensibly belongs to "the Yemeni people." UN Video here, from Minute 7:50.

  Inner City Press asked Tawakkul Karman about this claim, that the GCC immunity deal "belong to the Yemeni people." Karman replied that "we are not talking about the GCC" anymore, but rather the Security Council's resolution which she said "removed" immunity, at least for "those who committed crimes." She said she was in New York calling for "implementation" of the resolution.


Tawakkul Karman by UN on Nov 18, 2011 (c) MRLee

  On Friday before Karman's meeting with the President of the General Assembly, Yemenis demonstrated across the street from the UN, chanting "Saleh must go" and that both the UN and "Obama must decide, human rights or genocide."


  Ms. Karman told Inner City Press, after the clip, that she met with US Ambassador Susan Rice. Close observers say that the US was behind the GCC initiative which offered immunity to Saleh. Watch this site.

This was the PGA's Office's read out:

STATEMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
United Nations
New York
18 November, 2011
President of the General Assembly meets with 2011 Nobel Laureate, Ms. Tawakkol Karman

The President of the General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, today met with 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ms. Tawakkol Karman of Yemen.

The President of the General Assembly hailed Ms. Karman as a global symbol of women’s empowerment who has brought honour and pride to all women, especially in the Arab world.  He congratulated her on the award of the Nobel Peace prize and highlighted the award committee’s acknowledgement of the importance of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

President Al-Nasser and Ms. Karman also exchanged views on the Arab awakening, developments in Yemen, as well as the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. 
 
  But see video...

November 14, 2011

As Sudan Claims Media Lies about Bombs, Ladsous Spins SOFA, Refuses Haiti Query

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 11 -- Sudan's and South Sudan's Ambassadors traded accusations Friday at the UN. South Sudan's representative David Choat spoke of the bombing of the Yide refugee camp in Unity State.

  Sudan's Permanent Representative Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman denied the bombing. Inner City Press asked about reports by BBC and Reuters, of bomb craters in the camp and a white Antonov-like plane flying away.

  Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman said these are "biased media." He counter-accused South Sudan of sending its "Battalion Number Four" to aid the SPLM-North in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan.

  He said the new UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous agrees that South Sudan is blocking access by the Miseriya herdsmen from the north. Video here.

  Inner City Press asked Choat about this, and he said that Ladsous praised South Sudan president Salva Kiir for saying that such blocking will not be a problem.

  When Inner City Press asked Choat about South Sudan's lock-up of journalist Ngor Garang for what he wrote about Salva Kiir's daughter marrying a foreigner, Choat said the case is being investigated. Video here. But investigated for what?

   When US Ambassador Susan Rice came out, Inner City Press asked her about Khartoum's crackdown in Southern Kordofan, and the lack of humanitarian access. Rice expressed concern about access in both Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile State, and said she hoped those in the UN in charge of humanitarian affairs would take action. Video here, Q&A below, full transcript on US Mission website.

   Speaking of UN officials were are supposed to take action, it was said that the new head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous would speak to the press on Thursday, but he did not.

 By noon on Friday, after the two Sudans and US Ambassador Susan Rice had all spoken, Ladsous had still not taken questions. So Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky a simple question: why hasn't the UN put in place a Status of Forces Agreement for its mission in Abyei, the absence of which played a role in the death of peacekeepers who bled out from a landmine during a medevac delay?

  You can go ask Mr. Ladsous, Nesirky said, if you put your skates on. But when Ladsous arrived to speak after 1 pm on Friday, the stakeout lights and camera were off. A question was asked, "Who is that guy?" One wag, not having seen Ladsous since he was handed the job months ago, wondered if he was a tourist asking to have his picture taken in front of the Council members' flags.

  Finally it began, with Ladsous speaking softly about the "mutual" accusations of the two Sudans who he said had "consummated their divorce."

   Inner City Press asked why there is no SOFA in place in Abyei; Ladsous said there is no problem, it is nearly done. Inner City Press asked whether under Ladsous' Department's SOFA in Haiti, a standing claims committee had been established, for the claims of those injured by cholera alleged introduced to Haiti by UN DPKO.

   (Ladsous previously urged the departure from Haiti of elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide, click here for that coverage.)

   On November 11 Ladsous refused to answer on Haiti, saying "that is a different issue, I am talking about Sudan." He left the stakeout. For video click here, from Minute 3:09.

  This compares unfavorably to Ladsous' predecessor Alain Le Roy, who spoke to the Press and took question on topics ranging from Cote d'Ivoire to Lebanon to Congo and Haiti. But so it is going at the UN -- watch this site.

November 7, 2011

At UN, Ban Defends Chair of BofA, Mountaintop Removal, Orr Unaware

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1 -- With Bank of America being protested not only for its bailout and corporate welfare but specifically as the largest funder of mountaintop removal coal mining, why did the UN make BofA chairman Charles "Chad" Holliday the co-chair of its "High Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All"?

  Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman on October 13, after attending a protest of Bank of America on the topic in lower Manhattan, across Broadway from the Occupy Wall Street encampment on Liberty Street. Spokesman Martin Nesirky said he would check with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  Hearing nothing back, when Ban held a press conference on November 1 about sustainable energy, Inner City Press sought to ask Ban the question directly. Nesirky did not allow the question from Inner City Press. But in the hallway outside, Inner City Press did ask Ban. As transcribed by the UN:

Inner City Press: [inaudible] Bank of America is considered number one taking off the tops of mountains to take out coal, and has been protested for that. So on October 13th I asked here, what do you think of taking off the top of mountains for coal, and why is the guy [Charles Holliday] co-Chairman of the Group [High-level Group on Sustainable Energy for All]?

SG Ban Ki-moon: His record is quite clear, in the area of development, and particularly on energy issues. He is the Chairman of the World Council for Sustainable Development. He was CEO of Dupont where Dupont set an exemplary record in terms of energy. I have been, we have been working with him quite a long time. That is why he is nominated as Co-Chair of this group. I am sure that he will lead this sustainable energy group very well.

While to some being the CEO of Dupont is equally dubious, Ban Ki-moon did not answer on the question on mountaintop removal coal mining. Inner City Press went back into the briefing room and asked Assistant Secretary General Robert Orr what he and Ban thought of mountaintop removal mining.

Orr said that "Chad Holliday is a giant in business around the world." Calling mountaintop removal mining "a specific question" that Inner City Press should ask Bank of America about, Orr went on to say "I am not even aware of the issue you are raising." Video here, from Minute 18:40.

  Not only did Inner City Press asked Ban's (and Orr's) spokesman about the practice on October 13 -- any cursory review of environmentalist literature identifies the issue. Inner City Press sought to ask a follow up, if there was any civil society or environmental activist input in the UN process, but spokesman Nesirky cut in.

  Some wondered why Nesirky went to such lengths not to allow the question to be asked of Ban Ki-moon. Did he not want Ban mouthing these answers to appear on camera?

  Soung-ah Choi of his (and / or Ban's) office tried to cut off the question even in the hall. First she claimed that Ban inside "answered all the questions." Then after the question was posed, and before Ban graciously if disappointingly answered, she said "we'll get back to you."

   Beyond claiming to be unaware of basic environmental issues, the UN's Ban Ki-moon team claims to be paying attention to Occupy Wall Street. Its knee-jerk defense and praise of Bank of America and its involvement in mountaintop removal coal mining are telling and troubling. Watch this site.



October 31, 2011

For ICC, France Offered to Support Unqualified Judge Quid Pro Quo for Cathala

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- In the run up to the election of six International Criminal Court judges set for New York in December, France offered to support a candidate found to be unqualified if his country would support the French candidate Bruno Cathala, Inner City Press has learned.

  There are 19 candidates for the six ICC judge seats. They were reviewed by the Independent Panel on International Criminal Court Judicial Elections and four -- from Tunisia, Cyprus, Costa Rica and Mexico -- were found to be "unqualified."

  The Panel's members include not only South African justice and international prosecutor Richard Goldstone, and ICTY and US judge Patricia Wald but also former top UN lawyer Hans Corell.

  Nevertheless, when one of the "unqualified" candidates met with France to try to make his case, he tells Inner City Press that he was surprised to be offered a deal: that if his country committed to vote for the French candidate, he could count on France's vote.

  France styles itself a champion of international criminal justice and accountability. But just as it asserted itself to place atop UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, the chief of staff of foreign ministers Alain Juppe and Michele Aliot-Marie including when she flew on planes owned by cronies of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali, it is seeking to its candidate Bruno Cathala as a judge on the ICC. Will it work?

  Beyond this quid pro pro, when Inner City Press previously asked Cathala when he was ICC Registrar about immunity given toLaurent Nkunda in the Kivus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he replied that the ICC was not part of the negotiation of that immunity which, he claimed, did not include war crimes or other ICC-relevant crimes.

  Cathala quoted the ICC's deputy prosecutor (and now candidate to replace Moreno Ocampo) Fatou Bensouda that the ICC's phase of investigation in Ituri was over. But indicteee Ngudjolo's co-warlord Peter Karim was and is still in the Congolese Army, despite having kidnapped and killed UN peacekeepers.

  Since Karim ultimately released some of the peacekeepers, it appears that he got some deal. So even beyond the quid pro quo, there are further questions to be asked. Inner City Press' series on the ICC and ICJ judicial elections and needed reforms will continue. Watch this site.

October 24, 2011

Yemeni Nobel Winner Visits UN with Press, Ban's Member State Requirement Bypassed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 22 -- When before the Yemen resolution vote in the UN Security Council Yemeni Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakul Karman asked the Office of the Spokesperson of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to hold a press conference, she was told it could only be done if sponsored by a member state.

  As Inner City Press previously reported, the head of that office Martin Nesirky has refused to disclose which member states sponsored press conference. Inner City Press was contacted and asked to sign Karman and those traveling with her into the UN as guests, so they could speak to the media.

And so at 3 pm on October 21 as the Yemen meeting began, Inner City Press waited for Karman in the General Assembly lobby. Video here.

  The door to the audience section of the Security Council was locked, though the meeting was supposed to be open. After an inquiry it was unlocked.

  When Ms. Karman and five others arrived, the meeting had yet to begin. UN Security kindly let Inner City Press sign in six people. Ms. Karman had her picture taken for this visitor's badge. Video here at Minute 3.

  They proceeded then through the General Assembly basement and security check, neck-area hallway and to the area in front of the Council where Inner City Press usually works. Karman sat down with the journalists, many of whom took pictures with cell phones, and spoke to them through a translator.

  After the resolution was voted on, and after some conference, Karman went to the UN TV stakeout and called the resolution week -- but that's another story, another video, here.


At UN, Top Peacekeeper Ladsous Dismisses Tunisia Scandal, Haiti & Rwanda Comments

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 13 -- Herve Ladsous is the fourth Frenchman in a row put atop the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, a Gallic functionary who was earlier this year chief of staff to disgraced French foreign minister Michele Aliot-Marie who flew during the Arab Spring on planes provided by allies of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali.

  Six weeks ago, Ladsous was suddenly given the UN job upon the nomination of the French government of Nicolas Sarkozy, after the UN rejected Jerome Bonnafont who had started bragging to diplomats in India about getting the post.

  Finally on October 13 Ladsous finally took questions from the press.

  Inner City Press asked Ladsous about l'affaire Aliot-Marie and Ben Ali, as well as about comments he made in 2004 urging elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to leave Haiti, and in 1994 defending France's position on Rwanda, which was to support the killings led by Colonel Theoneste Bagosora. Video here, from Minute 21:52.

  "I will not go into personal aspects," Ladsous replied, saying dismissively that Rwanda was 15 years ago -- of course, it remains a major scandal and trauma for UN Peacekeeping, pulling out as 800,000 people where killed -- and that, as with Haiti, he was only speaking for the French government, so he wouldn't respond.

  Structurally similar, in Sudan Ahmed Haroun says that everything he did was for the government in Khartoum. That doesn't mean that Haroun isn't held responsible. Why would it be different for Ladsous? Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky cut off the follow up question. Video here, at Minute 25:09.

  If even what Ladsous did earlier this year, presiding as chief of staff over flights in dictator's allies' planes, is somehow irrelevant, a "personal aspect," what ARE Ladsous' qualifications for the top UN Peacekeeping job, other than the endorsement of Nicolas Sarkozy?

  France, of course, has its own national interest in sites of UN Peacekeeping, for example in Cote d'Ivore, which Ladsous used as his first example of UN Peacekeeping success. Despite knowing that the question was coming, Ladsous did not deign to respond to the critique that the job shouldn't only be given out based on nationality, and now four times in a row to the same nationality. This does not bode well.

Footnotes: Ladsous said to show him "indulgence" and not ask about details, at least yet. And so Inner City Press directed its question about UN Peacekeepers' inaction in Southern Kordofan to UN spokesman Nesirky, who said he was "just making the point" that this should have been asked to Ladsous instead of the background and qualification questions. Video here, from Minute 37:57.

 There are other question, already: Ladsous is said to have told the Security Council that South Sudan forces are still in Abyei, but many think this was overplayed, that the South Sudan numbers are small and understandable. And why isn't DPKO flying in the Ethiopian deployment to Abyei? Ladsous continued to speak Thursday about flooded roads.

What of the discipline, if any, of Beninois peacekeepers repatriated from Cote d'Ivoire for buying sex for food from under-aged girls? How can an official who refused to address or explain his own actions implement a zero tolerance policy? We'll stay on this - watch this site.

At UN Palestine Application Stalled In Procedures, Strong 6, Shaky 3, Germany

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 7 -- When Palestine's application for UN membership was taken up Friday morning by the Security Council Committee on Admission of New Members, the press not only wasn't allowed in, it was told it could not wait outside the meeting room to ask questions.

  Inner City Press has nevertheless gleaned what took place inside Conference Room 7. The "Strong Six" supporters of Palestine's application -- India, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, China and Lebanon -- urged that the process speed up, and opposed a series of procedural issues and questions raised by the European members.

  The European members, the most questioning (or "obstructionist") of which sources say was Germany, asked Security Council Affairs a series of questions about deadlines, when the Committee must report to the full Council and to the General Assembly.

  Since the applicable rules were written when the General Assembly met only infrequently, the process is out of date. In any event, the Council has dealt differently with various applications for membership. As one of the "Strong Six" put it to Inner City Press, the Europeans should be not allowed to hide behind procedure. But for now they try. Then there's the US veto threat.

Significantly, the sources tell Inner City Press, two of the "Shaking Three" -- in this case, Bosnia and Nigeria, as Council president for October -- did not make statements. The other of the "Shaky" trio, Gabon, made a statement that did not tip its hand.

As the proponents of Palestine's membership interpret it, the International Court of Justice in 1948 ruled that only the small list of criteria in the Charter, Article 41, should be looked at in connection with the application for membership. Therefore, they say, there is little reason to get bogged down in procedure.

Germany, which along with the United States voted "no" on Palestinian membership in UNESCO in the run up to the October 25 full membership vote, has said that it opposes Palestine seeking membership other UN bodies because their main application is in the Security Council.

But now, the sources say, Germany is trying to stall and block its consideration there. They speculate about historical motivations of German policy. But the stalling remains, behind closed doors.


For Palestine in UN SC Only 6 Votes, Sources Say, Mere Update in 2 Weeks

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 30 -- For Palestine on Friday in the UN Security Council's Committee on Admission of New Members there were only six of the fifteen members who wanted to push forward on Palestine's application for full UN membership.

  With this surprisingly low vote count, the majority decided that the Committee will meet at a lower level, and merely "update" the Security Council in about two weeks.

  There is, sources told Inner City Press, no assurance even of a formal or listed meeting about the update; it could be quietly done under "Other Matters."

  A source in the meeting told Inner City Press that it was not only power, but numbers. Of the nine Council members which have recognized Palestine, three have been viewed as shaky: Nigeria, Gabon and Bosnia, due to the Republica Srbska portion of its government.

  For the pro-Palestinian membership vote count to be only six at Friday's meeting, it means that all three broke the other way. Some insisted that they support Palestine "in principle" -- but as one of the stronger six supporters put it, it comes down to supporting a piece of paper, and for that there were only six.

  Palestinian Observer Riyad Mansour came to the stakeout and made a statement in English, then as journalists tried to ask questions Mansour himself asked, "Arabic? Doesn't anyone read Arabic?" He then repeated the statement in Arabic and left without taking any questions.

  While Gabon has not filed a "reservation" to the Group of 77's statement in support of Palestine, it may be a question of when, not if.

  Non-Council member Barbados on Friday at noon confirmed Inner City Press' earlier exclusive story that Barbados is among the countries that has formally filed reservations to Paragraph 108 of the G-77 Statement, and named Antigua (and Barbuda) as another that has expressed reservations. We'll have more on this.

  Some of those in the Council bringing about this special "legal" delay -- a review of the Charter by experts that one of the six strong supporters of Palestine called entirely unnecessary -- say the delay is for the Middle East Quartet process.

   On Friday before Mansour spoke but did not take questions, Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky who reviews Quartet envoy Tony Blair's conflicts of interest, working for JP Morgan Chase and the Quartet. "Not the UN," Nesirky said, urging Inner City Press to ask Tony Blair or the other Quartet participants. Watch this site.

Libya TNC's Jibril Tells Inner City Press NATO Almost Done, Catching Gaddafi Is Key

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 23 -- When Mahmoud Jibril appeared for a UN press conference on Friday, it was the first since the Transitional National Council he heads was given Libya's seat at the UN. Inner City Press asked Jibril two questions, about NATO and the International Criminal Court.

  Jibril had said that the south is liberated, Sirte will be in 48 hours and Bani Walid is under seige, "we are squeezing it." Inner City Press asked if that is true, when will NATO's protection of civilians mandate end?

  "When the need [to protect civilians] is not there," Jibril answered, "I don't think there is a need for NATO... Once the whole Libyan territory is liberated." According to him, if Bani Walid falls after Sirte, that's it for NATO.

Inner City Press asked for Jibril's and the TNC's view on whether Gaddafi and the other ICC indictees should be sent to the Hague, if and when captured, or be tried in Libya. Jibril said, "the most important question is how to catch Gaddafi." After that, he said, it's up to "legal consultants" to consider "the supremacy of Libyan or international law" and "the national interest of the Libyan people." Video here, from Minute 18:04.


  This deference to consultants differed from Jibril's answers to other questions, on which he said it will not be up to the TNC, but to "the Libyan people" -- which was also Ian Martin's response to Inner City Press about the ICC - click here and watch this site.

At UN on Libya, As Khatib Resigns, TNC Wins Credential, Dabbashi No Vote Hope Dashed, SADC Deferral Rejected

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 16 -- The UN was loudly abuzz with Libya on Friday morning, while more quietly former mediator Al Khatib submitted a letter of resignation, sources told Inner City Press.

The General Assembly met on giving Libya's seat to the Transitional National Council, over the objection of Venezuela and other members of the Grupo ALBA. As the meeting began, Inner City Press asked TNC representative Ibrahim Dabbashi about ALBA calling a vote. "I hope not," Dabbashi said, going into the GA.

Moment later, Cuba's Permanent Representative said that NATO violated Resolution 1973 and Cuba does not recognize the TNC, product of "foreign intervention." Bolivia echoed the sentiment, noting "racism" in developments under the TNC.

Nicaragua's representative said her country "threw off the yoke of Somoza," but here NATO violated Resolution 1973 pushing for regime change "in the guise of protecting civilians."

Angola then pointed out that the rules require that requests for credentials be made by heads of state, heads of government or foreign minister, and ask who had made the request here? The new President of the General Assembly, from Qatar, said there should be two speakers on each side of this and a vote.

The Egyptian Permanent Representative, the same one who represented Mubarak, spoke in favor of the TNC. Zambia seconded Angola's motion; Gabon went on the other side.

When the vote was called, Angola's motion to defer lost with 22 in favor (including not only the ALBAs but also Indonesia, Congo and others), 107 against, and 12 abstentions. St. Vincent and the Grenadine spoke afterward, saying it abstained and that it and its sub-region have not recognized the TNC.

  Then the TNC was given the credential, with 114 in favor, 15 abstentions and 17 against including the DRC and Equatorial Guinea, whose golden glasses Permanent Representative spoke afterward.

  The Security Council scheduled a 3 pm meeting to vote on creating the UN Support Mission to Libya, modifying the arms embargo - but keeping the no fly zone in place. South African Permanent Representative Baso Sangqu told Inner City Press there are still problems -- not enough to protect African migrants, for example. But other Ambassadors said it was all systems go.

  And, Inner City Press learned, former mediator Al Khatib has submitted a letter of resignation, after being frozen out. We'll have more on this.

As Sudan Breaks Abyei Agreement, Susan Rice Says Obama Will Meet With Kiir, Focus Lost?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 16 -- When President Obama came to the UN a year ago, the meeting on Sudan was a focus. This year the stated focus is Libya, with elephant in the room in Palestine and a possible US veto of UN membership. But is Sudan in better shape?

  Inner City Press on Friday asked Susan Rice if Obama "that things are better there than they were last year?" Rice expressed concern, then said Obama will meet with the president of South Sudan Salva Kiir. It's sure to be a feel-good moment, but what about Sudan proper?

  Amid bombing in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile state, even the supposed good new in Abyei has fallen apart, with Khartoum negotiator Omar Suleiman saying that contrary to UN claims his country has not agreed to pull out of Abyei by September 30.

  Inner City Press asked Rice and the UN about this. The UN provided Inner City Press with a copy of the agreement, here. Earlier on Friday, Sudan's Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that the Sudanese Armed Forces will only leave once the UNIFSA mission is fully deployed, which the UN denied.

  Rice when asked hearkened back to the underlying June 2011 agreement and advised Sudan to comply. But what's the leverage, especially if Obama's focus has moved on?

From the US Mission transcript:

Inner City Press: On Sudan, I wanted to ask you this. That beyond just the fighting and bombing in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, there was an agreement that was announced by the UN in Abyei that Khartoum and Juba would both pull out, even before the UNISFA mission was fully implemented. And now Khartoum has said that that's not true-they didn't agree to that, that the UN misspoke. I wanted to know what's your understanding of when they committed to pull out. And, two, what-in President Obama's bilateral, what's the place of Sudan. I mean last year it was quite high profile on his visit. Does it remain that? Does he think that things are better there than they were last year? And what's he going to be doing here while he's here on Sudan?

Ambassador Rice: Well, with respect to the redeployment of forces from the Abyei area, the two sides signed an agreement and made a commitment to withdraw those forces, in fact, earlier in the process than we are today, and certainly long before the full deployment of UNISFA.

So we think that redeployment is overdue and needs to be accomplished urgently. And any suggestion that that wasn't in fact the agreement is belied by the document that both parties signed. Obviously, the United States remains very interested in, very committed to peace and security in Sudan, both the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan, and we're frankly quite concerned that many of the critical issues that need to be resolved between North and South remain unresolved. Many of the crucial aspects of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement remain unresolved and unimplemented and that, in and of itself, has the potential to be a spark that could ignite underlying tensions.

We're also very, very concerned by what is transpiring in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, where aerial bombardments, attacks on civilians and humanitarian crisis is continuing and intensifying. So that also is of concern, and, of course, we remain very much focused on what is transpiring in Darfur.

So there's no diminution in the U.S. government's focus on, or commitment to what transpires in Sudan. And as was mentioned today at the White House, President Obama will have the opportunity to meet briefly with President Salva Kiir of South Sudan during the United Nations General Assembly.

In Libya, UN Wants to Train Police, Confers with EU, Martin May Have 2 Rivals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 9 -- UN adviser on "post conflict" Libya Ian Martin briefed the Security Council on Friday and then took questions from the Press.

Inner City Press asked Martin if he wants to become the Special Representative for Libya, if that requires the National Transitional Council's consent, and what has happened to UN mediator Al Khatib.

Of those three questions, Martin's only answer was that it is up the the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. A well placed Council source told Inner City Press that while "the "Brit" Martin is the front runner, another UN official from the UK, Michael Williams, might also be considered, as well as Oscar Fernandez Taranco. Al Khatib, the source said, is entirely out of the picture.

  Inner City Press asked Martin if the training of police he described would be done by member states, or regional groups, or UN staff themselves.

  Martin said the UN is meeting with "actors" interested in training police in Libya. After the stakeout Inner City Press asked him if these actors included member states. Yes, Martin said, and the European Union. Inner City Press asked, "The Finns?" He said yes.

  Martin and Lynn Pascoe briefed the Security Council on a three month mission plan by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon which the UN withheld for 14 hours after Inner City Press published it on Thursday night.

  At Friday's noon briefing, another correspondent asked why the UN had not released, since it was already on InnerCityPress.com. The Deputy Spokesman said he didn't know; twenty minutes later, the UN belatedly put it online. Thus is transparency at the UN.

  The next step will be circulation as early as Monday of a resolution being drafted by the UK, about the mission and about removing some sanctions. Libya Sanctions Committee chairman Cabral told Inner City Press that travel bans on individuals would remain, and that some institutions are not yet under the full control of the NTC. UK Permanent Representative Lyall Grant said it will be important in revising sanctions to make sure all money goes to the Libyan people.

A European spokesman afterward said that the mandate of NATO will not be impacted, it has no sunset. Watch this site.

For UN Peacekeeping Post, How Ladsous Replaced Bonnafont, Who Now Returns Favor Under Juppe, Alliot-Marie Role?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10 -- The UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations remains at partially headless in the midst of mounting scandals of sexual abuse in Haiti, and inaction in Sudan.

  After leading the top DPKO post empty for four weeks after the departure of Alain Le Roy, on September 2 the UN announced his replacement. It was not fellow Frenchman Jerome Bonnafont, who had bragged that he had the job to diplomats in India where he's been French Ambassador, and been congratulated by, among others, French politician Jean-Marie Bockel, click here for that.

  Rather it was the French Foreign Ministry's chief of staff Herve Ladsous, who headed the staff not only Alain Juppe but also his predecessor Michele Alliot-Marie, who resigned after being exposed receiving gifts from now deposed Tunisia dictator Ben Ali.

  Ladsous' role in that is not yet clear, even as his statements in 2004 pushing for the ouster of elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide come into focus in Haiti. Others of Ladsous statements are starting to be reviewed, as it appears the UN in their rush did not do. Meanwhile, tellingly, Bonnafont has been named to replace Ladsous as chief of staff to Alain Juppe.

  Well placed UN sources have informed Inner City Press how Bonnafont was passed over at the last minute for Ladsous. These sources say that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon likes his cabinet members even lower key than he is, like his Deputy, and Lynn Pascoe in the Department of Political Affairs.

  Bonnafont was viewed, ironically, as too energetic. His bragging about having the job, first reported by Inner City Press, was also not helpful.

  So, the sources say, Ban told the French to propose another candidate. Miffed, Ladsous was proffered as "the one," and was quickly given the post, without word reaching many in the French foreign service outside of Paris.

  Kofi Annan "gave" DPKO to France as part of being Secretary General. From Jean-Marie Guehenno the post went to Alain Le Roy and now to the third Frenchman in a row.

   Owning UN Peacekeeping is useful to France: just this week in Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy bragged of his country's military action in Cote d'Ivoire as well as Libya. As reflected in documents exclusively obtained and published by Inner City Press, France has no problem using DPKO to advance its economic interests, click here for examples.

  It is noticeable that even after Ladsous was named, after the post was empty for a month, Ladsous has still not reported to work. He continued as chief of staff to Alain Juppe.

  And now Ladsous' replacement has been named. Who is it? Jerome Bonnafont, of course. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Watch this site.

As UN Hands Libya to Ian Martin, His Deputy'd be Finn Georg Charpentier, Who Hid Sudan Abuse, Sources Say

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 1 -- At the "Friends of Libya" meeting in Paris on Thursday UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that his adviser on post conflict planning Ian Martin is headed to Tripoli.

  Ban did not say for how long, but UN insiders who contacted Inner City Press complained this indicates not only that Martin has entirely eclipsed mediator Abdul Ilah Al Khatib, but is nailing down the UN Libya Special Representative or pro-consul role.

   "Why someone from a NATO country?" one senior UN official asked Inner City Press. "Why the lack of Africans or Arabs on Martin's team?" UN sources told Inner City Press that in line to be the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General, and Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya is a Finn, Georg Charpentier.

   One of Charpentier's selling points to Ban, beyond his need for a job after the UN was essentially thrown out Norht Sudan, is that Finland is not a NATO member. For that reason, too, sources tell Inner City Press that Finland was approached to provide troops under Martin's UN plan for Libya, exclusively obtained and published by Inner City Press.

   Inner City Press has previously covered and met Charpentier, most recently during a trip to Sudan during which Charpentier was downplaying the destruction of villages in Darfur. That he would now be sent to Libya may reflect his personal connections, but speaks badly of the Ban administration, even as to geographic balance.

From a previous report:

"The only reason Inner City Press learned of Charpentier's awareness of the destruction of villages in Jebel Marra was that he left a single copy a binder marked “Internal Use Only” on the Press bus in El Fasher on October 8, 2010. The internal document was from “September 27 - October 4 2010” and referred to “Sora” with an A, and spoke of “intense ground fighting and aerial attacks in Eastern Jebel Marra over the past week, with several villages heavily affected, including Sora, which was completely burned down.”

But in the Dubai airport on the way back to New York, Inner City Press managed to ask two Permanent Five members of the Security Council if Charpentier had mentiones this village destruction to them. One said plainly, 'no.'"

 With the UN now essentially thrown out of Northern Sudan, it seems it views Libya as the new goldrush.  (Sudan, meanwhile, recognized the TNC on August 24. Inner City Press asked a Sudanese diplomat about it on September 1 and he replied, Gaddafi always helped the Darfur rebels.) 

As previously reported, because those Security Council members dubious of the current Libya goldrush have chosen to call for more UN involvement as a way to try to limit NATO's role, they are hard pressed to publicly criticize Martin's statement in his report to Ban that NATO will have a continuing role in Libya even after Gaddafi's fall.

  Therefore for now the only check on le projet Martin is the National Transitional Council. Among their ranks are some UN experts, including tenth-hour defector Shalgam and the political coordinator during Gaddafi's Libya's recent time on the Security Council. Will they hold Martin in check? We'll see.

In Haiti, As Uruguay Repatriates 5 UN Peacekepers, New DPKO Chief Ladhous' Role During Aristide's Ouster Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 4 -- After video showing UN peacekeepers from Uruguay sexually abusing 18 year old Johnny Jean in Haiti surfaced, including unedited on a Uruguayan web site, that country's Minister of Defense Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro has announced five peacekeepers and their commander will be repatriated, sent back home.

  This action by the troop contributing country itself came two weeks after the UN and its MINUSTAH mission told Inner City Press that an investigation had found no wrongdoing.

  In fact, it is now reported that the UN "investigation" concluded despite the video footage that no violation occurred, only a joke (un broma) --

"Una investigación preliminar de las Naciones Unidas determinó que el video, pese a vulnerar varios reglamentos de la Misión de Estabilización para Haití de la ONU (Minustah), no registraba en realidad una violación sino una broma pesada llevada a cabo por los militares." (Translation of full article here.)

   Even when it is the UN which sends its peacekeepers home, the UN does not follow up to see if any discipline is imposed or even a trial held.

  Only last week when Inner City Press asked about 16 peacekeepers from Benin who were repatriated from Cote d'Ivoire after being show to have bought sex from underaged girls for food, new UN deputy spokesman Eduardo del Buey said that Benin has not told the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) what if anything has been done with the peacekeepers.

   DPKO on September 2 got a new chief, French official Herve Ladsous. As regards Haiti, further review has revealed that Hadsous was France's charge d'affaires in the country, and defended the coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the extent of justifying the involvement of Dominique de Villepins' sister Veronique Albanel, which Aristide sought to sue in French court.

  Since the African Union called Aristide's removal unconstitutional and UN Peacekeeping and DPKO work mostly in African, often with the AU, some now wonder about the wisdom of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon handing the top DPKO post to a French official linked among other things to the deposing of Aristide. Watch this site.

On Libya, Leaked UN Report Sees 200 Military Observers, NATO but Not AU Role Given by Ban Ki-moon: Exclusive

By Matthew Russell Lee, Must Credit ICP

UNITED NATIONS, August 26 -- Before rebel fighters entered Tripoli, and before UN Special Adviser Ian Martin traveled this week to Doha and Istanbul to belatedly meet with National Transitional Council officials, Martin on August 22 handed a detailed plan to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

  After its requests to the UN to release the document, at least to member states, were denied, Inner City Press obtained a copy of the report and is putting it online today, here (10 page Martin report) and here (longer background report).

  The UN Secretariat is proposing up to 200 Military Observers, to begin with a Multi-National Force led by two member states, up to 190 UN Police, and additional elections and other civil staff.

  The report estimates that Gross Domestic Production could decline as much as 47%. It puts frozen Libyan assets at $150 billion, and recommends that many of the assets not be sold and quickly returned to Libya (Paragraph 136).

  Martin's report offers some praise of the Qadhafi -- its spelling -- regime, for example in the fields of health and education (Paragraph 71). It speaks of "reforms" by Saif al-Islam, now indicted by the International Criminal Court, and former Prime Minister Ghanem.

   It asserts that the (TNC) opposition engaged in some killings and property seizures, even constituting war crimes, and like Qadhafi used child soldiers (Paragraph 88).  It several times expresses doubt about Qadhafi's "alleged" use of foriegn fighters or mercenaries.

  The report assumes at a minimum sending military and police advisers and liaisons, saying that "no specific [Security] Council mandate would be required for these type of tasks."

  It flatly says that "the Security Council's 'protection of civilians' mandate implemented by NATO does not end with the fall of the Qadhafi government and, therefore, NATO would continue to have some responsibilities." (Introduction, Paragraph 8)

  Significantly, while it envisions a continued NATO presence, particularly in Tripoli, it allows for no role for the African Union. It archly notes that only in Qadhafi's post-coup declaration was Libya said to be part of Africa. As Inner City Press has reported, even staff in the UN Department of Political Affairs Africa Divisions have expressed outrage at this, as well as the central role assigned to "the Brit" Ian Martin, to the agitated displeasure of DPA chief Lynn Pascoe when Inner City Press asked him about it on August 25, click here for that.

  Troubling, but perhaps indicative of Ban Ki-moon's UN, is the report's recommendation that non-State media be "monitored" lest it "rush to resort to public opinion."

  While Pascoe called "extraordinary" the failed mediation work of Ban Ki-moon's envoy for Libya Abdul Ilah Al Khatib, Martin's report mentioned Al Khatib only once, as a person consulted with. (Al Khatib has throughout remained a paid Senator in Jordan.)

  Also consulted were UN funds and programs (the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes wants in and UNDP plans a "Surge" and to play a role in procurement), the International Migration Organization and the World Bank -- but, despite discussion for example of currency stabilization and exchange rates, NOT the International Monetary Fund.

  Even to compile the report, the UN and Martin reached outside of the UN System and hired Dartmouth professor Dirk Vandewalle as a consultant. When Inner City Press first asked, UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq refused to even confirm Vandewalle's hiring.

  This week, when Inner City Press asked that the report be released in light of Vandewalle's public description of his role, Haq said no, and his associate spokesperson even claimed the report is "not a UN document."

  One of the many questions arising from the report is under what mandate, and with what accountability, the UN Secretariat developed this "post-conflict" Libya plan, and then refused to share it even with member states.

  There will be many other questions. For now, in advance of the (August 16 video) meeting convened by Ban Ki-moon, Inner City Press is making the UN's plan public, as it should have been. Watch this site.


At UN, Bonnafont Has Kudos of French Pol Bockel - & Peacekeeping Post?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 -- For the seven weeks after Inner City Press first reported that Jerome Bonnafont, France's ambassador to India, was being tapped to replace fellow Frenchman Alain Le Roy as chief of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the UN has refused to confirm it.

  Now with Alain Le Roy already gone from the UN, amid charges of covered up negligence by peacekeepers in Southern Kordofan, and a failure to plan in advance for medical evacuation of Ethiopian UN peacekeepers in Abyei in Sudan, the French political establishment has already started congratulating Bonnafont.

  Inner City Press is today putting online a letter of congratulations addressed to Bonnafont at the UN in New York from Jean-Marie Bockel, a former French minister and mayor of Mulhouse, now Senator from Haut-Rhin in northern France.

  Bochel wrote, "I am happy to learn that you have been [named] Under Secretary General of the UN, in charge of peacekeeping operations."

  Previously, Inner City Press quoted diplomats to whom Bonnafont had already bragged that he had the UN job. Now Bonnafont is receiving letters of congratulations.

  There are several questions: why has the UN left the top job in DPKO empty at this time, when they had ample notice that Le Roy would leave on August 10?

  Why hasn't the UN been willing to describe their process for selecting a replacement? (One UN-based Permanent Representative said that besides Bonnafont there were two other candidates -- both French.)

Why does the top Peacekeeping slot essentially belong to France? Inner City Press asked Le Roy in his exit press conference if he didn't think it would make sense that his successor come from a major Troop Contributing Country, like Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal or India. Le Roy said, "It is up the Secretary General." Is it?

  Some joke that in naming Bonnafont, Ban Ki-moon is trying to please two countries: France bien sur, but also India since Bonnafont has been ambassador to India and is known there. Cold comfort.

  This is more and more a pattern with Ban Ki-moon. When the top spot at the UN mission in Iraq opened up, when Dutchman Al Merkert said he wanted to leave after two years, there were only three final candidates: all German.

  Inner City Press on June 24 reported that Michael von der Schulenburg, the German atop the UN in Sierra Leone, wanted the Iraq post, perhaps due to its antiquities, and that "Dutch politician Bert Koenders is set to replace UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's ally Choi Young-jin" at the UN in Cote d'Ivoire.

  As it turned out, Ban for Iraq set up a German troika of candidates, just as he's said to have constructed a phantom French troika for DPKO. Ultimately Ban gave the Iraq job to another German, Martin Kobler.

  But for DPKO, Bonnafont is already being congratulated from within the French political establishment, click here and watch this site.

Amid Conflicts in Libya, Syria, Sudan & Kosovo, Horn of Africa Famine, UN Reduces Q&A by 40%, Has "Nothing to Say"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- As the Arab Spring turns to a bloody late summer, and according to the UN famine spreads in the Horn of Africa, UN headquarters in New York Friday confirmed it is moving to reduce its availability to the press by 40%.

  With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon back in his native South Korea, Inner City Press on August 12 asked Ban's acting deputy spokesman Farhan Haq to explain why two of the expected five daily briefings next week, and possible the week after that, are being canceled at this time.

  Haq replied that there would be "nothing to say," and accused Inner City Press of being the only one "worried about this one way or another," claiming to have polled journalists at the UN and gotten their agreement to cancel briefings. (See UN's partial transcription, below).

  Haq refused to provide any details of his polling; at a press-related event hosted by the US Mission to the UN the evening of August 11, there were a number of complaints about Ban's Spokesperson's Office refusing to even do a daily ten minute briefing, as Inner City Press had reported, despite events in the world.

  Even on the questions asked of Haq on August 11, few were answered. Inner City Press asked about the reported "buzzing" of the Zam Zam IDP camp in Darfur by Sudan's air force. Haq had no information on this, and said that "some of these reports have not checked out."

  Three weeks ago, UN official Ivan Simonovic said that the UN's human rights report about Southern Kordofan in Sudan, which includes descriptions of Egyptian UN peacekeepers doing nothing as civilians were kiled, would be formally released "in two weeks."
  
   Inner City Press asked Haq to explain the delay, one week and counting. Haq said it isn't delay, he'll announce when it's released.

   In the Security Council, there are countries dissatisfied by the UN's delay, and trying to get emergency meetings of the Council. The Secretariat's lackadaisical delay and Haq's statement that these weeks there's "nothing to say" sends a message: there is no emergency, or even urgency.

Any response to letters to Ban from municipal officials in Northern Kosovo? No, Haq said, the letters are being "studied."

  For months Ban's Spokesperson's Office claimed that a letter from the New York State AFL-CIO then a group of Congresspeople about UN attacks on the broadcast engineers' union was "being studied." On August 12, Haq confirmed Inner City Press' August 11 report that seven more engineers are being laid off, on top of 17 other posts lost, as a "cost cutting" move.

  Inner City Press asked Haq if the 40% reduction in briefings is a cost cutting move. Haq replied that it's "standard procedure."

  But what about Ban Ki-moon's repeated canned claim to be "deeply concerned" about the loss of civilian lives in a conflict in Libya in which under Security Council resolution 1973 Ban is to have a coordinating role? Because it's August (Haq said Ban's lead spokesman is out to August 29) -- and Ramadan -- will there be "nothing to say" about that?

 In fact, at least in Syria and Libya, it has been said that "every day will be protest Friday during Ramadan." Is this the time for the UN to cancel briefings and press question and answer sessions?

  Inner City Press asked, asks and will continue asking, what is the problem with devoting a ten minute briefing each week day to answering questions? Watch this site.

From the UN's transcription of its August 12, 2011, noon briefing, for video click here:

At UN on Sudan, Darfur in Darkness, Kordofan Report Delayed, Will Pillay Explain?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- At the UN less and less is done about Sudan, on government abuses in Darfur and Southern Kordofan, regarding which the UN is withholding a damning human right report, which criticizes UN inaction, for well more than a week now.

  Three week ago UN official Ivan Simonovic told the Press that the report, an advance copy of which Inner City Press had already put online, would be released in two weeks. Now it still has not been, but the UN will not explain and instead seeks to further limit questions from the press.

  Simonovic's boss Navi Pillay will brief the Security Council on August 18, along with top UN humanitarian Valerie Amos; the topic as bragged about by the French mission will by Syria, with nothing on Sudan.

   The withheld report, as "leaked," says that UN peacekeepers then under the ultimate control of now departed DPKO chief Alain Le Roy did nothing as civilians were killed. For example:

42. On 8 June, UNMIS Human Rights witnessed the movement of four armed men (two armed civilians and two Central Reserve Police) carrying weapons in and out of the UNMIS Protective Perimeter without any intervention from the UNMIS peacekeepers guarding the premises.

   With the top UN Peacekeeping post now empty at this important time, with another Frenchman, mostly likely Jerome Bonnafont, in waiting, perhaps this explains DPKO blocking-by-edits the report, and Pillay's so far limited August 18 agenda for briefing the Council.

At the UN's noon briefing on August 12, Inner City Press posed several Sudan questions to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's acting deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Sudanese armed forces helicopters are buzzing and making hostile movements around the Zamzam refugee camp in Darfur. So I wanted to know, is that something that UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] is aware of?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: We’d have to check whether it is. As is the case, some of these reports on the ground have not checked out. But we’ll check with UNAMID to see whether this is, whether this holds up.

Inner City Press: And what about the Southern Kordofan human rights report, I think Mr. Simonovic, it was three weeks ago today, was in here and said it would be released in two weeks. What’s the hold up?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: There is no hold up. It’s being finalized, and when we know for sure that it is coming out, we will certainly tell you.

  If there's no hold up, why does it take more than three weeks to "finalize" a completed report about a situation as grave as Southern Kordofan?

  Meanwhile in the Security Council on Southern Kordofan, the US only asked for a press statement, and according to the US Mission's statement given Friday to AP withdrew even that, blaming Russia and China. (For a UNSC Press Statement, any Council member can block it, not only the Permanent veto wielding members.)

  Now one wonders if the US, or France or UK, will at least have Pillay and Amos when they are in the Council give an update on Southern Kordofan, including the UN report that seems to be getting swept under the rug.

At UN on Syria, War of Spin & Briefings, Doubts on SyriaTel Sanctions, Ban's Call

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 10, updated with video -- As the UN Security Council met Wednesday about Syria, sources told Inner City Press from the outset to expect no formal Council Presidential Statement output at the end.

  A Western member's spokesman emerged and said "we just want to keep the pressure on Assad." When asked "how" he said, "through you, the media."

  Which a Council output not even on the table, inside consultations the issue became whether and how soon to get another briefing about Syria. A source told Inner City Press that the UK proposed another briefing in seven days.

  Inner City Press asked Baso Sangqu, the Permanent Representative of South Africa -- which along with India and Brazil has vice ministers in Damascus, click here for IBSA statement, put online by Inner City Press -- "will there be a briefing in seven days?"

  "No, not in seven days," Ambassador Sangqu said. "It's in the hands of the President, ask the President. But there's been a request for a meeting."

  When President of the Council for August Hardeep Singh Puri of India came out, Inner City Press sought to ask him. But US Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo engaged Puri in a heated discussion for several minutes, in the public hall outside the Security Council.  Click here for YouTube video.

  At the end of the exchange, Inner City Press asked Puri about a briefing. "There will be a briefing," he said, "most likely next week."

  Later the Deputy Permanent Representatives of the Council's four European members clarified that they except top UN humanitarian Valerie Amos and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to do the briefing.

  Wednesday's briefing was done by Assistant Secretary General Oscar Fernandez Taranco, who for some reason did not speak to the press. The Western spokesman who said the media should pressure Assad was asked to have his country urge Taranco to speak to the press. But it did not happen.

  A cynic might say that the four European countries wanted to be seen -- and filmed -- as doing something on Syria; urging a Secretariat official to come and take questions on camera was less important or appealing.

  One also wonders why, after the meeting, the four Europeans and then Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari were the only ones to come speak at the formal UN stakeout. Russia's Vitaly Churkin spoke, on the stairs outside the Council, and said among other things it is disappointing that the Syrian opposition has not responded to reform proposals.

Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parham to respond to this, and to complaints that sanctions against SyriaTel, the cell phone company, might make communications in the country more difficult, including for the opposition.

Parham noted his and his colleagues' previous statement that, in essence, violence and crackdowns have to stop to allow for dialogue. He said he could not respond on SyriaTel, not knowing the facts.

Ja'afari told Inner City Press, off camera, that SyriaTel is the regular cell phone company in his country. Inner City Press was going to ask him on camera, expecting him to come to reply to Parham's dismissal of his comparison between the London riots and events in Syria. But Parham was the last on-camera speaker.

Inner City Press asked Ja'afari if Assad would accept an envoy from Ban Ki-moon. Ja'afari replied that Assad's recent call with Ban was very productive. Quiet diplomacy? We'll see - watch this site.

As UN Admits Abyei Medevac Delay Was For Copter from Wau in South Sudan, What Safeguards Are In Place?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 5,updated -- As the delay associated with the death of three peacekeepers in Abyei garners more interest, the UN on Friday afternoon reversed its position of hours earlier, and admitted that it asked Sudan if it could medevac the injured peacekeepers using a helicopter from Wau in South Sudan, and that Sudan said no, "that is a different country."

  This is what UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant told Inner City Press on Thursday evening, but which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky denied Friday at noon, saying that the request had been to fly the helicopter from Kadugli in Sudan.

  If Khartoum blocked a medical flight entirely within Sudan it would be one thing; for them to deny access to a helicopter from a country which just broken away, while heartless, is not unexpected.

  So the question is, why did the UN not plan for it, not admit it when it happened, and try to dissemble about it even after the cat was out of the bag, due to the UK Ambassador's commendable candor?

  And what ensures that if a UN peacekeeper is injured today in Abyei, they too might not bleed out due to a lack of planning? Watch this site.

Note: The Council meetings on August 11 about Sudan -- but outgoing DPKO chief Alain Le Roy's last day is August 10. So once again at the UN: no accountability?

Footnote: Earlier this year when the Security Council traveled to Sudan, they intended to go to Abyei. But even before fighting flared up, there was controversy about whether they would fly in via Wau in the South, which has a shorter runway, or Kadugli, where ICC-indicted Southern Kordofan government Ahmed Haroun might greet them on the tarmac. Ultimately they didn't go: but they were on notice of the problems of air travel to and from Abyei. We will continue on this.

As UNSC Statement on Syria Opposes Attacks on State, Does UN Deem Assad More Legitimate than Gaddafi?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 3 -- After the Syria Presidential Statement was adopted by the UN Security Council Wednesday with Lebanon "disassociating" itself, Inner City Press asked Council President Hardeep Singh Puri why the investigation of human rights violations called for in the penultimate drafts had been dropped.

  Ambassador Puri replied that "there was an issue as to whom would do the investigation." Moments later when Inner City Press asked again, UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant acknowledged "there was a concern that Syria would be investigating itself."

  Inner City Press asked Lyall Grant for the UK's understanding of the PRST's call to refrain from "reprisals against state institutions." He said that "we do not expect to see attacks on state institutions, even from the protesters."

  On a second round of questions, Inner City Press asked Lyall Grant and the three European deputies with him, from France, Germany and Portugal, to compare this call with Libya, where they are supporting attacks on Gaddafi regime state institutions.

  Does this mean they -- and their PRST -- are deeming Assad as still fundamentally more legitimate than Gaddafi?

  Lyall Grant referred the question to French deputy Briand, even as he himself was asked to answer it for the UK. Briand said, "there is no comparison." Later a journalist questioned if he meant Assad is much more legitimate than, and cannot be compared to, Gaddafi.

   Later Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came to the stakeout. Inner City Press tried to ask him how he would provide the requested report or "update" to the Security Council in seven day if Assad does not even take his calls. But Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky did not call on Inner City Press for a question, just as he did not following Ban's re-appointment to a second term, preferring then to call on UN Radio for a request for Ban's message to children everywhere.

Beyond dodging questions, one again has to wonder about the wisdom of putting atop the world body an individual who can't even get his calls returned -- and then asking this individuals for reports about the countries concerned. To be continued -- watch this site.


South Africa Confirms Action on Syria with India & Brazil, IBSA Deputy Ministers on the Road to Damascus?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 -- Deputy ministers from India, Brazil and South Africa, the so-called IBSA, intend soon to fly to Damascus and address the situation in Syria, South Africa's Permanent Representative Baso Sangqu told the Press on Thursday.

 “This will have nothing to do with the Security Council at all,” he said, even though the three country's current sit on the Council.

  Sangqu said it will be “a trilateral engagement with the Syrian government... Demarche them, encourage them, see where they are on a number of things... As IBSA. Probably deputy ministers will be going to Damascus, it should be soon... to assist them to overcome the difficulties that they have.”

  Yesterday Inner City Press exclusively reported that the three countries were preparing a joint “demarche” on Syria, and quoted Western sources as complaining this was a way to take pressure off from supporting the European proposed resolution on Syria that is languishing in the Council.

  After a Council closed door consultation with UN political chief Lynn Pascoe on Thursday, a Western spokesman described a “heated... deadlock” on Syria, and Libya, inside the meeting. A list of the number of dead, by day, was read out.

  UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant told the Press that “Pascoe confirmed the situation is deteriorating, peaceful protests were being repressed. I made the case that the Security Council should not remain silent at this point, we hope members of the Council would rally to the resolution. If they have alternatives, we should hear about them and the success of those alternatives on achieving an end to the violence and a political dialogue between the government and those protesting going forward.”

Sources in the consultations said that while IBSA has been speaking “for four weeks” about their plans, they haven't yet gone. To some it seems a savvy move; to others it seems to undermine these countries claims to permanent seats on the Council, if they seek to bypass it. Then again, the US did in Iraq, and some say the French have bypassed or gone beyond Council resolutions in Libya. Watch this site.


As UN Sits on S. Kordofan Report Until August, Silent on Mass Graves, Sudan Blocks Visas to Abyei for Rights Monitors

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 -- The UN's report on war crimes in Southern Kordofan, including inaction by UN peacekeepers, won't be released until “the first days of August,” Inner City Press was told Thursday by Ivan Simonovic, the New York representative of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

  Thirteen days ago, Simonovic said it would be released in two weeks. After that, Inner City Press put a copy of it online, here. Still the UN calls it a “leaked” report that is being edited. Will the portions critical of UNMIS peacekeepers be excised?

  Simonovic also told Inner City Press he asked the Security Council for support of visa request for civilian supporters of the new UNISFA force of Ethiopian soldiers in Abyei.

  Meanwhile a Sudanese diplomat praised Simonovic to Inner City Press, quoting Simonovic as saying he "has no mandate" in Southern Kordofan.

  An unresolved question is who in the UN would be held responsible for inaction by UN peacekeepers in Abyei and then Southern Kordofan.

 A day after former UNMIS force commander Moses Obi refused to answer questions referred to him by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the overall UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press “you've made your point on camera” and declined to say who was responsible for the former UNMIS.

  It is often said that armies should hold commanding officers responsible after the fact. But the UN seems to be saying that once a peacekeeping mission expires, no one speaks for it anymore, and by implication, no one is responsible.

  This is a question that Simonovic should answer, as well as a question Inner City Press asked at Thursday's noon briefing with Nesirky, for the UN's response to Southern Kordofan's governor (and ICC indictee) Ahmed Haroun admitting moving and mass-burying corpses. Mr. Simonovic will make himself available and address it, Nesirky said. So we'll be waiting - watch this site.

Sudan Slaughter of 150 Nubans Frozen in UN Edit Room, Rudderless Peacekeeping

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 21 -- While the UN holds a report that that one of its staff members in Sudan saw the piled corpses of 150 people of Nubian descent in South Kordofan, it insists that because the report is a “leaked draft,” it cannot or will not take action on its yet.

  On July 21, the day after Inner City Press put the full report online, it asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky about this paragraph:

28. An UNMIS staff member who was detained by SAF at their military facility in Umbattah Locality reported during his detention, that he saw over an estimated 150 dead bodies of persons of Nuban descent scattered on the grounds of the military compound. Some of the bodies appeared to have bullet wounds and he reported a large quantity of blood on the ground. He reported a SAF soldier told them that they had all been shot dead.

  But Nesirky cut Inner City Press off in the middle of the paragraph, to insist this is only a draft. From the UN's July 21 transcript:

Inner City Press: I am still looking at this report that was put out by the human rights component of UNMIS [United Nations Mission in Sudan]. One of the many things said in it is that --

Spokesperson Nesirky: Let’s just roll back a bit, and I am sorry to interrupt you, but it is not a report that has been put out by UNMIS, it is an as yet un-finalized report that was leaked. So let’s get the context correct.

Inner City Press: Let’s say this: the leaked report says that an UNMIS staff member witnessed 150 dead bodies of Nuban descent in a military facility in Sudan. So, my question is, even though it’s a leaked report, it seems to be such a serious allegation that it seems strange that the UN would say, we’re going to wait two weeks to finalize it. What is being done, since that 150 dead bodies was witnessed by a UN staff member? What actions have been taken, even while the actual document itself is being finalized?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I am sure that the relevant people, and you’ve heard Ivan Simonovic speaking on this topic, will have been seeking to follow up on it. And as you heard Mr. Simonovic say, there are efforts to gain access, so that there can be the kind of follow-up that you are talking about. And if Mr. Simonovic has any further follow-up on that, then obviously I’d let you know.

Question: And just one more on peacekeeping. Today at the stakeout, Mr. Le Roy said that he’s leaving on 10 August. So that seems to be coming up pretty quickly. Without, I guess, getting into the names, is there are going to be a new Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations on 10 August, or when is the process thought to come to a conclusion? Is there a shortlist, et cetera?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I would doubt that there would be a new Under-Secretary-General in place to take over the day after Mr. Le Roy leaves office. Obviously there are, there is an established procedure for having an officer-in-charge until a new Under-Secretary-General is appointed. And when we get to that stage, an announcement will be made.

  At the Security Council stakeout on July 21, Le Roy told Inner City Press that the report would not be finalized by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations until two weeks after Mr. Simonovic spoke to the press last week. That would be the day after Le Roy's final press conference, and just before he leaves with no successor in place.

  Meanwhile, as to the future in Southern Kordofan, Inner City Press asked Nesirky:

Inner City Press: there has been this quote by the Foreign Minister of Sudan, Ali Karti, that there is an openness on the part of Khartoum to, quote, “foreign troops” in Southern Kordofan. Has the UN been informed of that? What does the UN think of that statement?

Spokesperson: We are certainly aware of the statement, and we’re following up with the Sudanese authorities to try to understand in greater detail what that means.

  But who in the UN is following up with what Sudanese authorities? Watch this site.

At UN, Eritreans Grilled in Sanctions Committee, Somalia on Tap for July 25

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 22 -- After UN Security Council members met behind closed doors Friday afternoon about Somalia and Eritrea sanctions, Inner City Press asked committee chairman Hardeep Singh Puri of India if new sanctions on mining and funds from the Eritrean diaspora were discussed.

We need a meeting on that,” he said, adding that he had invited Permanent Representative Desta and presidential adviser Yemane Ghebreab -- who Inner City Press interviewed on July 22, click here for video -- to respond to the “outlines” of the forthcoming monitoring committee report.

My goal is compliance with Resolution 1907,” Hardeep Singh Puri said, “not to box anybody in.”

The discussion take place as the Somalia's Al Shabaab, which Eritrea is accused of supporting, vacillate about allowing humanitarian groups in to the drought ravaged areas under their control.

Security Council sources told Inner City Press Friday morning that a briefing is being scheduled for July 25 at 11 am on Somlia -- “only on humanitarian issues.”

  Some said that holding the briefing might “raise expectations” that the UN could or would do something in the face of Al Shabaab's humanitarian blockade. But later Friday it was confirmed: the briefing will proceed.

Eritrea's foreign minister Osman Saleh Mohammed is slated to meet with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on July 25 at 3:30. And later in the week, sources say, the monitoring group's report should be made public. We'll see.


As South Sudan Celebrates Its Touchdown at UN, Darfur & S. Kordofan Face Deadly Blitz from Al Bashir

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- At the end of a long day and a much longer process, South Sudan Vice President Riek Machar told Inner City Press that people in Darfur could take hope from his country's admission to the UN on July 14. “It can be done,” he said. “Omar al Bashir needs peace.”

  Inner City Press asked Machar about the plight of Nuba peole in Southern Kordofan. “Bashir needs to abide by what was agreed in Addis,” Machar said. “If he does that, everything can work out.”

  But speaking to the Security Council on July 13, US Ambassador Susan Rice said Khartoum is “wavering” on the June 28 agreement with the SPLM-North. Inner City Press asked her at the Council stakeout, “they've actually kind of totally broken it. They've said that they don't stand behind it. What's your understanding of where it stands?”

  Ambassador Rice reiterated there, “the Government of Sudan did sign an agreement. And it would be most unfortunate if they formally reneged on that agreement.”

  South Africa's mission to the UN, preparing celebrations for the birthday of Nelson Mandela upon whose inauguration a song “Black President” was launched, took a lead in celebrating South Sudan's joining the UN on July 14. They wondered why, for example, the people of Western Sahara have had to wait so long, and those of Palestine.

  But Thursday was a good news day at the UN. Another longtime South Sudan proponent, Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, told Inner City Press that South Sudan is looking to rent space in Uganda House, next door to the US Mission.

  His minister Deng Alor, out on First Avenue, invited Inner City Press to visit Juba again, for what would be the third time. Then he got into an entourage of black limousine, the last of which had Virginia license plates.

  Months ago in the General Assembly lobby, Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping told Inner City Press that the strategy of the SPLM was never to go for the touchdown, but in an NFL football analogy to move the ball ten yards at a time, from first down to first down. This week they scored their touchdown.

  It was day for dancing, most notably by yet another longtime South Sudan proponent, Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth. But while the song “Signed Sealed Delivered, I'm Yours” had one meaning in Juba, it still rang empty Thursday in Kadugli, and through South Kordofan. These struggles continue -- watch this site.

After UN's Nuclear Meeting on Syria, Russia Calls It History, Damascus a Campaign

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- Even before the UN Security Council began meeting Thursday afternoon about the Dair Alzour in Syria, China's Deputy Permanent Representative Wang told the Press that “the issue shouldn't be here, it no longer exists.”

A Russian representative called Inner City Press aside and said, “We are only here because we are Council members. The Council is for threats to international peace and security, not for history.”

After Israel bombed Dair Alzour, the facility was destroyed. After the briefing -- and after for example French Ambassador Gerard Araud walked by the media assembled outside without saying anything -- Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari came out.

First he read to the press from former International Atomic Energy Agency director ElBaradei's book, “The Age of Deception,” about Israel's attack. Then he said that even if there were radiation at the site, it could have come from the bombs Israel had used.

Inner City Press asked Ja'afari if he thought the push to have this debate in the Security Council was related to the stalled draft resolution on the crackdown in Syria. Video here.

  Ja'afari said yes, it is an “orchestrated campaign against my country... They try to mobilize all agencies against Syria.” He spoke on (BlackBerry) camera about the European draft resolution, the attempt to put language about the crackdown into the UNDOF resolution (click here for Inner City Press' story on that) and to this “nucear” issues, adding, “they are so polite, they call it implementation of the safeguard agreement.”

Inner City Press asked him, “What's the next move?”

Ja'afari answered, “biological or chemical.” Video here. And then he was gone.

While France "Parachuting" Weapons into Libya is Criticized, UN Committee Does Not Act: Not "Masochistic," Chair Says

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 7 -- During an hour-long meeting of the Libya Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council behind closed doors on Thursday afternoon, France's admitted dropping of weapons into Libya's Nafusa Mountains was criticized by Council members including Russia, South Africa and India, as violating the arms embargo in Resolution 1970.

  But afterward when Inner City Press asked the Committee's chairman, Portugal's Permanent Representative Cabral, if the committee's requirement of consensus means that France could block any formal condemnation of its actions, Cabral said “we're not a kind of masochistic society.”

  One of the representatives criticizing France, who told Inner City Press that on this topic four spoke against France and three to varying degrees in support, said that “if a Permanent member violates sanctions, what can you do?”

  The representative pointed to paragraphs 13-16 of Resolution 1970 and said that if France thought that its provision of weapons into Libya was legal, it had a procedure to use, but didn't.

  Another delegation went further, saying that France “parachuted” weapons in, not knowing if they might fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, and asking, “why not weapons of mass destruction, too?” This representative said of Cabral, “He has to be serious, this is a precedent -- if you are not going to enforce them, why even have a committee on sanctions?”

  Inner City Press asked Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative what had been accomplished in the meeting. Pankin distinguished between interpretation -- “legal stuff” -- and the practical, that objections were voiced and “I hope we will not have such a [case] again, that's the most practical.” We'll see.

Gaddafi Gone By Mid-July, Libyan Rebel Diplomat Tells Press at US Barbeque in NY Zoo, of Penguins & Sudan

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 29 -- “We think we can take Tripoli by the middle of July,” rebel Libyan diplomat Ibrahim Dabbashi told Inner City Press in New York's Central Park Zoo on Wednesday night.

  “We were supposed to have finished already, but because of lack of financial resources, lack of arms, we were not able to make it to Tripoli yet.”

  Waiters offered black and white chocolate bonbons. The venue was a barbeque hosted by US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and her husband Ian Cameron.

  It was an eclectic crown. Not only Dabbashi, who defected from the Gaddafi goverment, but also sitting Sudanese Permanent Representative Daffa Alla Ali Osman were in attendance.

  “It is not easy,” Dabbashi continued. “Tripoli is huge. He [Gaddafi] managed to put arms, mercenaries and soldiers everywhere. So to have success uprising in Tripoli, uou need a lot of personal arms. Without help from outside of the city, it is very difficult.”

  In the middle of the Central Park Zoo seals swam in dark water. Several attendees, sipping Heineken and Amstel Light, joked about the seals being Navy Seals of the kind who killed Osama Bin Laden.

  “We think we can do it by middle of July,” Dabbashi repeated. “We have a city in the west part, we aim to move forward in the next two or three days. If we manage, the way is open... We are not counting on the east, it is too far, a small army , not enough. In the western cities -- we have enough people, we don't have arms.”

  Earlier in the evening, after touring the air conditioned hall of polar birds, Inner City Press was told by an African Deputy Permanent Representative that France's admission it is dropping weapons in Western Libya “must” be taken up by the Security Council's Libya sanctions committee.

  Inner City Press asked Dabbashi, what about recent speeches by India's Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri, present for the barbeque, and by African diplomats like Ruhakana Rugunda of Uganda?

  Of the African Union Dabbashi told Inner City Press, “I talked with their ministers when here [June 15], it is mostly personal reaction to their visit to Benghazi... We don't have protocol, we are in shortage of diplomats there. They felt they had been mistreated... I think with the warrant of arrest [of the International Criminal Court for Gaddafi], they will cool down, it will change them.”

  Daffa Alla Ali Osman of Sudan moved through the crowd. In a parallel universe, Georgia's Permanent Representative Lomaia and a minister in from Tblisi thanked countries which voted for or abstained from their resolution to return internally displaced people to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

  Inner City Press spoke with the Permanent Representative of the Maldives, who voted for Georgia's resolution on “humanitarian grounds,” he said, now that Maldives is a member of the Human Rights Council.

  Papua New Guinea voted with Russia last year, and this year abstained. “I'll get a visit,” the genial Permanent Representative said. “But we have to be for peace.”

  Also in the crowd was Rwanda's Permanent Representative, who again reminded Inner City Press of the Twitter back and forth with President Paul Kagame. Other Permanent Representatives shook their heads, chewing on cheese burgers, and some few on vegetable burgers.

 “You have to write about the aqua economy,” Papua New Guinea's ambassador joked, staring up at a blimp advertising Direct TV. Aqua economy indeed.

  Germany takes over the Security Council on Friday, after the Golan Heights peacekeeping force resolution is slated for vote on Thursday. Will the rebels take Tripoli by the middle of July? Will France face consequences for admitting dropping weapons into Libya, on which the Council voted an arms embargo? Watch this site.June 27, 2011

While Rebels Oppose Darfur Deal, US Supports It, Bassole to Send Letters

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- The day after UN Security Council heard about what's called the Darfur Peace Agreement from the foreign ministers of Burkina Faso and Qatar, Inner City Press put questions about the agreement and rebel group's opposition to both of them, and US Permanent Representative Susan Rice.

  When Ambassador Rice came out of the Security Council, Inner City Press asked her, “most of the rebel groups have spoken actually against the document. I wanted to know you know whether you think this will actually bring peace to Darfur.”

  Rice replied that “we are of the view that that agreement represents a step, an important step, forward. Obviously, in and of itself it is not sufficient to end the conflict in Darfur, but we think it was an important step and we have supported it.”

  But the Justice and Equality Movement, whose leader Khalil Ibrahim remains trapped in Tripoli which is being bombed by NATO, has spoken against the document, as have the rebel groups led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur and Minni Minnawi. Inner City Press put this question to the two foreign ministers.

  Djibril Bassole, who stepped down as joint UN-AU mediator earlier this month, said “I think so far there is no rejection... they need to sit with the government in Khartoum.” He added, “the armed movements are still divided.”

Qatar's foreign minister Ahmad Bin Abdulah Al Mahmoud said that the document represents what people in Darfur want, and therefore puts pressure on the rebels. He said, “for first time, all stakeholders were in one room. JEM they participated as well as LJM.. The movements are psay]ing they are looking for right of people of Darfur. They were there, expressed their requirements... as Brother Bassole said... we going to send letters to movements.”

After other media questions in Arabic and French, Inner City Press followed up, asking how they would reach out to JEM's Khalil Ibrahim trapped in Tripoli.

Bassole said that “we have been trying to get him out of Tripoli, it is not that easy. We will keep working on it with our partners to keep him out of there” to sign.

Would they only get him out of harm's way in Tripoli IF he signs? The UN was asked long ago to get him out, as the UN got its own international staff out. But he remains there. Watch this site.

June 20, 2011

UN Admits Kadugli Peacekeepers Refused Convoy Escort, France Downplays It

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- When the UN Security Council met behind closed doors Thursday about the humanitarian situation in South Kordofan, Sudan, much criticism was directed at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, whose troops in Kadugli reported declined to leave their base and do their jobs, as recently happened with the Zambian peacekeepers in Abyei.

After the meeting, Inner City Press asked DPKO chief Alain Le Roy about the criticism. He acknowledged that a UN battalion in Kadugli was “not willing to escort a convoy... there was heavy shelling.”

Moments later, Inner City Press on camera asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud if the Council discussed if a peacekeeper battalion declined to provide escort or come out of its base. According to the French Mission's transcript, Araud replied that

a question was specifically asked whether all the instructions had [always] been followed. Alain [Le Roy] told us 'yes, they have always been followed.' The only example - which was an example where the personnel was requested to evacuate, so it’s not a question of protection - was when the personnel hesitated for a few hours because of their own safety on the ground.”

  But Le Roy spoke about a battalion refusing to escort a convoy, presumably not only of soldiers. In fact, the UN evacuated -- or relocated, as UN OCHA put it -- international staff from Kadugli to El Obeid. In any event, refusing orders to escort a convoy is a “command and control” problem, as one Council delegation put it.

  Some skeptics wonder if the French Mission's and Ambassador's speed to speak on these issues is entirely attributable to a concern for protection of civilians, or might involve defending the performance of DPKO whose past, current and seemingly future chiefs as promised by S-G Ban Ki-moon seeking a second term are all French.

  Inner City Press asked Le Roy about the safety of Sudanese UN staff, who were not evacuated by the UN to El Obaid. Le Roy to his credit said that the UN was trying to contact all of them by radio, but had not been able to reach those in “downtown Kadugli because we have no access to downtown Kadugli.”

Some question how UNMIS can be said to be protecting civilians in Kadugli if it has “no access to downtown Kadugli.” Watch this site.

* * *

Hiring of Ban's Son in Law to Lobby UN Confirmed by IFRC, No Safeguards

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 16 -- With a second term for Ban Ki-moon stalled in the UN Security Council due to a lack of endorsement by the Latin American and Caribbean states group, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has now partially answered questions about their hiring of Ban's son in law as Chief Diplomatic Officer, including lobbying Ban and the UN.

  The IFRC says it doesn't see any need for safeguards, hiring a son in law to lobby his father in law at the UN. They also say the IFRC didn't initially know Siddarth Chatterjee is related to the Secretary General of the UN, until he was “shortlisted” for the Chief Diplomat Officer.

  Then they say this close family relationship played no role in selection, and requires no safeguards or recusals. We'll see.

Here are IFRC's response, from its (sole) media relations officer:

Q: At today's UN noon briefing I asked the spokesman for Ban Ki-moon to confirm that Ban's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee has been selected to work for IFRC, on information and belief as chief dipomatic officer, and if there are any safeguards in place regarding lobbying or diplomacy by a relative. On both questions, the UN spokesman said I should “ask IFRC.” So now I am, in writing 1) confirm that Ban's son in law has been selected by IFRC.

Confirmed.

Q2) please state what role his relation to Mr. Ban played in his selection. None.

Q3) Was IFRC aware? The search and short-listing of Mr. Chatterjee was carried out by an independent recruitment company. The IFRC has full trust in the methods and diligence of this company. When Mr. Chatterjee was shortlisted the IFRC became aware of his connection through marriage to the UNSG but this factor played no role whatsoever in Mr. Chatterjee’s final recruitment. Mr. Chatterjee’s professional background has been thoroughly checked and referenced by the independent recruitment company, the outcome of which showed conclusively that Mr. Chatterjee was a highly-accomplished and well qualified candidate for this challenging position at the IFRC. The IFRC will assess Mr. Chatterjee on his performance in his current role and not entertain unsubstantiated rumours which may have followed him from the UN.

Q4) Are there are safeguards in place? Safeguards against what?

Q5) please describe the position of chief diplomatic officer, including all ways it may intersect with the UN system.

The newly adopted Strategy 2020 established Humanitarian Diplomacy as one of the three enabling actions to deliver on the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent’s (IFRC) strategic aims and to strengthen the coherence and impact of our collective voice. According to Strategy 2020, Humanitarian diplomacy is a multi-directional effort that highlights the needs and rights of vulnerable people, whilst striving to give them a strong voice in all negotiation processes. IFRC seeks to prevent and reduce vulnerability by using appropriately the auxiliary role of National Societies in order to achieve greater access to people in need, and by drawing attention to the causes and potential consequences of emerging or re-emerging vulnerability. IFRC promotes the image of the Movement through its worldwide network of informed representatives who can project its work more widely. This is complemented by strong external partnerships and a diversified and expanded resource base.

Under the direction of the Under Secretary for Humanitarian Values & Diplomacy, the Head, International Relations (Chief Diplomatic Officer), will implement the humanitarian diplomacy goals of Strategy 2020. Working with such external actors as opinion leaders, decision-makers, policy-makers, corporate leaders, academics, think-tanks and other stakeholders within governments, international, multilateral, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, regional groupings, professional networks, representative organizations, and other global entities, he/she will leverage the Red Cross/Red Crescents’ collective voice at local, national, regional and global levels.

So -- Ban's son in law with “work with...intergovernmental organizations,” presumably including the UN, to “leverage the Red Cross/Red Crescents’ collective voice.” That's called lobbying, by one close family member of another. No need for safeguards? Watch this site.



June 13, 2011

Amid Ban's 1 Candidate Anointment, Global Model UN Had 10, Staff Union Charged With Just What Ban Does

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 11 -- With the UN Secretary General for the next five years about to be anointed with only one candidate and no competition, the ironies abound. Even the Global Model United Nations had ten candidates to lead its upcoming meeting in Incheon, South Korea.

  At a June 10 briefing, Inner City Press asked the winner, Tatiana Makarova of the Russian Federation, about the competition. Aswritten up by the UN itself, “Asked how she had been selected to be Secretary-General and if there had been more than one candidate, Ms. Makarova said that 10 people had been nominated from around the world in a long and difficult process. Debates and interviews had followed.”

  For Ban Ki-moon, by contrast, there have been no debates at all. He made his pitch in closed door meetings with regional groups, and now awaits a Security Council rubber stamp vote on June 16, when he won't even be in the country but rather visiting Security Council member Brazil.

  A Caribbean nation's Permanent Representative told Inner City Press later on June 10, “once the Big Five signed off on Ban, it was a done deal, the rest of us are just window dressing.” He referred to the second stamp, even more rubber, set for the General Assembly on June 21.

  But even without competition, sources in Ban's office tell Inner City Press that recently the re-appointment has been the focus of that offices work, putting pressure on member states to get instructions from their capitals within 24 hours and issue statements.

  Ironically, in the contested UN Staff Union election held from June 7-9, the incumbents who have been critical of Ban are charged with using their UN offices on 48th Street for campaigning - meanwhile, Ban's Office just to the south has long been devoted to politicking. What could happen, before June 16 and 21? Watch this site.

* * *

At UN, Ban Ki-moon 2d Term Set June 16 in Council, June 21 in GA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 10 -- The final steps of the one candidate reannointment of Ban Ki-moon as UN Secretary General have now been scheduled. The Security Council met behind closed doors on June 10 and decided that they will vote -- or merely “gavel” -- Ban has their single recommendation on June 16.

Then, they say, the General Assembly will take final action on June 21. There was no such scheduling of date for other candidates to be presented, as even the International Monetary Fund did. The IMF said candidates by today, June 10, interviews and a decision by June 30.

At the UN, Ban announced on June 6 in a press conference at which Inner City Press asked him if he didn't think there should be more than one candidate, given what he's said about democracy and the Arab Spring. Ban said it's up to member states.

After Ban held closed door meetings with regional groups, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Nesirky if he would be giving a speech or taking questions in the General Assembly.

Nesirky referred back to the meetings with regional groups and others, all of which were behind closed doors. Those, apparently, were the interview, except for commitments the Permanent Five members who could block Ban have extracted.

Among many of those working for the UN there is dissatisfaction with Ban for making the UN lower profile, less independent, more partisan. Many diplomats too, have voiced that, for example when the scathing review of Ban by outgoing Office of Internal Oversight chief Inga Britt Ahlenius was leaked.

But in the world of diplomacy, once the fix is in few see an upside to speaking out. “What can we do?” one Latin American country's Permanent Representative asked Inner City Press.

The deciders are the Permanent Five members, and clearly they like a relatively quiet and pliant Secretary General. To go otherwise would be akin to allowing a sixth veto. And so it goes.


June 5, 2011

Amid UN Complaints on Ban's Budget, Pre-Coronation Reported

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 5 -- Even before it is decided who should be UN Secretary General from 2012 through 2016, news wire services have predicted with “100%” accuracy that Ban Ki-moon will and should be re-appointed, quoting unnamed “UN diplomats.”

  But why? Beyond questions about silence on human rights issues, and compromising the UN's purported impartiality in Cote d'Ivoire and elsewhere, on June 3 members of the UN's budget advisory committee complained to Inner City Press about Ban's just-made budget proposal.

  “He said it would be a three percent across the board cut,” a member of the UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs told Inner City Press. “Then he comes in with three point seven, but implemented very haphazardly. There are no cuts to UN Women, but larger cuts to other departments.”

  Another ACABQ source wondered why member states would move so quickly to rubber stamp Ban for five more years right after he made a controversial but still secret budget proposal.

This wouldn't happen in any democracy in the world,” the source said. In these fiscal times, how leaders proposal budgets is the major issue to judge them on. "Ban just dropped this one on us, the member states haven't even debated or even heard it -- and they want to give him a second term?”

Beyond this, as Inner City Press has pointed out since the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the IMF and before, if that now vacant post goes to an Asian or even South Korean, it would change the UN balance, and quite possible bring out another candidate for the top UN spot.

If Ban is preaching democracy, why not at least wait to see if a competing candidate emerges? Watch this site.

* * *

At UN on 2d Term for Ban, “No One Else Wants the Job,” a P-5 DPR Tells Press, Asia Group to Prejudge IMF Race?

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 5 -- With Ban Ki-moon 24 hours away from seeking Asian Group backing for a second term as UN Secretary General, already arguments are being made that Ban this year made up for his quiet on human rights by promoting air strikes in Cote d'Ivoire and Libya.

  But the performance of the UN in Cote d'Ivoire under Ban's close ally Choi Young-jin, who acted as Ban's campaign manager to be selected Secretary General on 2006, has come into question explicitly on human rights grounds.

On June 2, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office for its response to charges that the UN stood by as Alassane Outtara's forces carried out reprisal killings in Abidjan. Their inaction in Duekoue is already under investigation.

  Ban appears to not even be monitoring the bombing of Libya, even amid reports of collateral damage and the use of mercenaries.

  On Friday June 3 after Inner City Press reported on the Asia Group's breakfast with Ban set for Monday morning -- not listed on Ban's schedule as of the weekend -- other reports followed quoting unnamed UN diplomats supporting and promoting Ban's bid.

  While no one, it seems, wants to speak entirely on the record about Ban, on Friday the Deputy Permanent Representative of a Permanent member of the Security Council told Inner City Press that there are no other alternative candidates to Ban, adding “maybe nobody else wants the job.”

  If you use the UN S-G post this way, some wonder, who but a red carpet and travel addict would want it?

  The structural problem is the need to please all of the Permanent Five during a first time, in order to get a second. A solution would be to limit Secretaries General to a single term, perhaps of seven years.

As to the Asia Group casting their lot with a second term by Ban on June 6, to some this seems to preclude the International Monetary Fund post going to an Asian, or perhaps even a developing world candidate. Is this the right move for the Asia Group? What exactly is the rush to act before the IMF decides on June 30, or even before the June 10 court decision on whether a case will proceed against Europe's, or at least France's, IMF candidate to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Christine Lagarde?

   Could it be, some ask, that those who most supported Ban's and his Choi's attack helicopter raids in Cote d'Ivoire feel similarly about this pre-emptive action in the IMF replacement race?

DSK is in court in lower Manhattan on June 6, but no final decision about his future will be made there. Must it be different in Turtle Bay? Watch this site.

* * *

At UN, Ban Poised to Announce for 2d Term on June 6, Amid Critiques & IMF Intrigue

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- After months of no-comments from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about seeking a second term, on Friday things heated up. A Security Council member's spokesman told Inner City Press to “be on the look-out early next week,” then specified that Ban would announce his intention on June 6.

  After Ban's office announced he will hold a press conference at 11:30 on Monday, June 6, another delegate told Inner City Press that an Asian Group breakfast is being organized for that morning, and said it was for Ban to announce.

  A Chinese diplomat told Inner City Press that his country firmly believes that the top position in the UN for the next five years belongs to Asia -- and that the next head of the International Monetary Fund should come from the developing world.

  Some are surprised that Ban would announce while the nomination process to replace Dominique Strauss Kahn at the IMF is still open. If that post goes to an Asian, from China or much less likely a South Korean, that would change Ban's claim to a second term.

  Since the IMF nomination process ends on June 10, and the winner will be named on June 30 or before, “what's the sudden rush?” a delegate asked Inner City Press.

   There are critiques of Ban Ki-moon circulating, among them his fast speaking out against any aid flotillas to Gaza, his inaction on his own Panel of Experts' report on war crimes in Sri Lanka and more general failure to speak out on human rights and media freedom (raised by the Committee to Protect Journalists, HRW and others)and a general lack of reform and pizazz.

  Perhaps this explains the rush, before these various issues develop further. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, Ban Passed Buck to GA, Whose Leader Passes It Back, Letter to US

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 27 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was urged by the UN Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka to establish an investigative mechanism, Ban claimed he couldn't do so without a vote by the General Assembly, Security Council or Human Rights Council.

On May 27, Inner City Press asked the President of the General Assembly Joseph Deiss about the Sri Lanka Report. “It's for the Secretary General to handle this case,” PGA Deiss said.

So Ban says it's up to the General Assembly, but the head of the General Assembly says it's up to Ban. This is called passing the buck.

   Meanwhile a slew of human rights groups have urged the US to raise the Sri Lanka report in the Human Rights Council in June, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Robert Blake, Esther Brimmer, Eileen Donahoe, Harold Koh, Michael Posner, Stephen Rapp and others.

  Inner City Press has asked the US Mission to the UN for its response, but none was received four hours later by press time.

Ambassador Rice held a “background” call for select media on May 26; it is not reported what was discussed, other than a US speaker (not Rice) chided even the select media for not covering her trip to Sudan, but not Abyei, or any attempt at Darfur. Watch this site.

As UN Council Cancels Abyei Trip, Georgian Echoes Amid AU Diagnosis of Narcissism

By Matthew Russell Lee, News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, May 22 -- What does it say about the UN Security Council that outright war broke out in Abyei between North and Southern Sudan just as the Council prepared to visit the contested area?

  Before the Council members left New York for Addis Ababa then Sudan, they negotiated the “logistics” of visiting Abyei while attempting to downplay the possibility of Ahmed Haroun, National Congress Party governor of South Kordofan and International Criminal Court indictee, showing up to greet and try to meet them on the way to Abyei.

  UN officials told Inner City Press confidently “we can definitely protect the Council in Abyei, it's only a question of landing first at the airport in Kadugli or Wau.”

  Things change, obviously. But why? An Council member left unnamed is quoted that the North invaded Abyei in order to discourage the Council's visit. Beyond what some see as the narcissism of the statement, even if true, would this mean that the Council's visit inflamed rather than de-escalated tensions?

  When President Barack Obama's Press Secretary said on May 21 that the initial May 19 attack in Abyei was the responsibility of “Southern Forces” but drew a disproportionate response, it brought to mind the Georgian - Russian conflict in which Georgia is said to have tried to retake South Ossetia, then Russia rumbled down into Georgia itself.

  In hindsight, some say Georgia erred in giving Russia the pretext to take land. So might the “attack by Southern forces” of May 19 be viewed in somewhat the same way?

  Or is Southern Sudan smarter than Georgia, triggering a response from Khartoum, under the nose of the Security Council, that will meaningfully rebound against Omar al Bashir, Haroun and the National Congress Party? Watch this site.

Footnote: In the Addis Ababa leg of the Council's trip, Ramtane Lamamra of the African Union derided the Council for overriding the AU in authorizing and not stopping the continued bombing of Libya by NATO. While numerous Council members including two with veto power agree that action has gone beyond Resolution 1973, others note that Lamamra's from Algeria, more supportive of Gaddafi than most AU members...

On Myanmar, as Nambiar of UN “Neglects Justice” & Minorities, Q&A Requested

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- As UN envoy Vijay Nambiar was on his way to Myanmar earlier this week, Inner City Press asked the UN if he would meet with ethnic minority groups including the Shan, whom the government is attacking. The UN said it didn't know yet.

Now Nambiar has left Myanmar, after issuing a statement that does not mention the Shan or the ending of ceasefires. At Friday's noon UN briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked again the Nambiar take questions from the media when he returns, for example about the situation of the Shan, Karen, Rohingya and other groups, especially since his statement did not mention them.

“How do you know he didn't mention them?” UN spokesman Martin Nesirky demanded.

Well, Nambiar's statement was sent to Inner City Press by e-mail, as were various statements from human rights groups critical of Nambiar's work.

Nesirky pointed again to Nambiar's statement in Yangon, where previously even Burmese press was excluded from Nambiar's press conference.

I'll relay your requests, Nesirky said. He told Inner City Press, you don't have to rely “on NGOs.”

This was ironic because later on Friday Ban Ki-moon met with Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, who had just tweeted that Nambiar “neglects justice for war crimes.” Is Roth aware of, and did he raise, other questions about Nambiar and human rights? It's not yet known, as there's been no read out. Watch this site.

UN Council Will Not Travel to Darfur, Meeting Gambari Outside Sudan, Doha Process "Collapsing"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- When the UN Security Council travels to Africa and Sudan later this month, it will not be going to Darfur. Inner City Press on Tuesday asked the Council President for May, Gerard Araud of France, if this reflects that France or the Council believes that the continued killing in Darfur is less important that before.

  Araud answered largely in terms of Sudan's North - South process, and the apparent need to convince Khartoum to allow the UN to keep a peacekeeping presence in the North. He said that “Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile” are still hot spots.

  Finally, Araud acknowledged that “the Doha process is more or less collapsing."  But why then is there no successor for Djibril Bassole, who stepped down as Doha mediator on April 30 to return to Burkina Faso as foreign minister?

Araud said, “Darfur, we are not going to avoid the problem. We will be in Khartoum, and raise to the authorities. We will meet [Darfur peacekeeping chief Ibrahim] Gambari, by chance, in Nairobi.”

But many feel that Gambari as head of UNAMID is not investigating or reporting on, much less stopping, the government's military and anti-humanitarian moves in Darfur.

  In just the past few days, Inner City Press has asked the UN about these claims, without answer. On April 28, Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: the Justice and Equality Movement has alleged that the Government has began using land mines in North Darfur. And they say that they have asked UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] to go and remove them or to verify them there. It’s been out for about 36 hours, this story, and I wonder: has UNAMID reacted to that? Is it true? Is it not true? What’s UNAMID doing about this?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq: Well, we don’t have any immediate reaction from UNAMID to this. Of course, demining is one of the tasks that UN missions tend to take once we have the ability and the mandate to do so. But I don’t have any particular reaction on…

Inner City Press: I’m sorry, they are saying that these are newly planted mines, that they are not old remnants of war, that, in fact, the Government is planting mines, and so I am just wondering, is that the kind of thing that UNAMID would go and check out?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first we would have to collect information to make sure that there is… we are always aware of reports from either side about different types of conflict or militarization, and then, first we would need to check those out. If there are mines in place, we would take action to make sure that they would be demined.

Five days later, even after Inner City Press reiterated the question to a Department of Peacekeeping Operations spokesman outside a French-sponsored session about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no answer.

On May 3, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's spokesman:

Inner City Press: there have been two separate reports of children dying in IDP [internally displaced persons] camps in Darfur due to, they say, lack of medical care, the residents of the camps. One is in the well-known Khor Omer camp, the other one is Mershing camp. And I am just wondering how to square with this, I saw a recent UN News Centre, UN press release, about increased humanitarian access. Is this… I mean, is UNAMID [African Union-UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur] aware of people dying in camps due to lack of medical care and if so, what is being done to gain access to those camps?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I’ll ask my colleagues in DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] to provide an update.

But when will the promised updates arrive? Inner City Press also asked Araud about the UN continuing to fly Ahmed Haroun, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur, to Abyei, after France's demarche and then more alleged murders in South Kordofan. Araud did not answer this part of the question. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, Ban Hasn't Asked UN Human Rights Council to Act, No Comparisons

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 29 -- Four days after he belatedly and apparently begrudgingly released the UN Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has not asked either the UN Human Rights Council or the Security Council or the General Assembly to take any action to investigate the war crimes detailed in the report.

On Friday Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press that rather than make any request for action on the report in these three intergovernmental forums, Ban is relying on the report being available on the UN's website, and for members states to take it serious.

But the report calls on Ban to begin an investigation, not member states. It is only Ban's cover letter which passes the buck to member states, or gives the Rajapaksa government a veto over any investigation.

Inner City Press on Friday asked Nesirky to explain why by constrast in the case of Cote d'Ivoire, Ban affirmatively met with General Assembly members and asked them to vote to strip the credentials of Laurent Gbagbo's diplomats and give them to those of Alassane Ouattara.

“It's not useful to make comparisons between completely different circumstances,” Nesirky replied, without explaining any difference.

In fact, Ban's own Panel's report describes tens of thousands of civilians killed by the Rajapaksa government. So why, if Ban believes he cannot take action but only member states can in an intergovernmental forum, is he not requesting such action?

Ban is now zero for three.

  First, Inner City Press first asked outgoing Security Council president Nestor Osorio of Colombia if Ban had asked the Council to take the issue up. No, Osorio said, we just took note of it, it was routine.

Then on April 28, Inner City Press posed the same question to the spokesman for General Assembly President Joseph Deiss:

Inner City Press: The report came out this week, it was issued at last by the UN on presumptive war crimes in Sri Lanka, and it said that the Secretary-General should implement an international investigative mechanism. The Secretary-General has said he will only do that, he believes he… he’s advised he can only do that if there is a vote, either Sri Lanka agrees, which isn’t happening, or there is a vote by Member States and an intergovernmental body, one of which is the General Assembly. So, I wanted to know, has the Secretariat made any request that you are aware of whether to Deiss or to any committee or in any way to the General Assembly for that this matter be taken up, that this 200 page war crimes report be considered in the General Assembly?

PGA Spokesperson: Three things: First, I will check and come back to you if there has been such a request. Second, you certainly do not expect me to comment on statements that the Secretary-General may or may not have made. The first thing is that, indeed, the Human Rights Council is a subsidiary organ to the General Assembly, and we’ll have to wait that initial steps be taken at the level of Geneva before we can jump into that.

Inner City Press: Ban Ki-moon asked for the General Assembly to consider the credentials on Côte d'Ivoire. That was very open, it was done immediately.... maybe I have missed it, has Ban Ki-moon made any similar request for General Assembly action on this matter?

PGA Spokesperson: We are not in disagreement, but even on the question of Côte d'Ivoire, I would like to add a caveat, that it was not that immediate as — in repeating the word that you used. What happened is that it first had to go through the Credentials Committee, and then the Credentials Committee had to submit a report, and a resolution was thereafter submitted and adopted at the General Assembly. So, these things always have to follow a procedure. I know, it can be sometimes frustrating for some, but we have to abide by what is set in the procedures.

Inner City Press: I just wanted to know whether any request is, are you aware of any request to the General Assembly as Mr. Ban did in that instance, I mean, he said publicly there was a meeting on the North Lawn Building with the General Assembly, and he said “I’d like you do x”, and they did it.

Spokesperson: On that, I said, I will check and come back to you, and if you can maybe call me this afternoon, we’ll find out.

Inner City Press waited for the rest of Thursday, finally speaking with the spokesman in the General Assembly President's office after 5 pm. He said, having checked, that the UN Secretariat has not made any such request to the General Assembly.

  Nor a full day after it was asked does the Secretariat yet have any comment on the shutdown of Lanka e-news. On April 28 Inner City Press asked Ban's acting deputy spokesman Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: since the publication of the Panel of Experts report there has been… the Lanka e-News, an opposition or non-Government-controlled media there has been ordered shut. There are also these calls for protests on 1 May by Minister [Wimal] Weerawansa and others. What would you have to say to Sri Lankan Government ministers planning protests at UN premises on 1 May?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, regarding these reports, we would need to check on that. But, of course, we want to make sure that all media are able to exercise, to go about their work freely, as in all countries. Secondly, regarding the 1 May demonstrations, in light of the demonstrations that took place in July, it would be unacceptable if the authorities failed to prevent any disruption of the normal functioning of the UN offices in Sri Lanka as a result of unruly protests. As the host country, the Government has responsibilities towards UN personnel and assets, so as to ensure the continuation of the vital work of the Organization without any hindrance or threats to the security of its personnel or facilities. And we have reminded the Government of its responsibility and trust that this will be done.

   This last was picked up in Sri Lanka -- but not by the shut down Lanka E-news.

Sri Lanka Report Held by UN's Ban & Nambiar Partially Describes White Flag Killings Nambiar Involved In: Conflicts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 -- With the UN still withholding its Panel of Experts' report on war crimes in Sri Lanka, The Island in its ninth day of publishing portions of the reported that were leaked, presumptively by the government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, has run the “'White Flag' incident” section (see below).

  This section raises questions about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not having required the recusal of his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, who was involved in the incident -- about the the Panel of Experts itself.

  The Panel's report as leaked to The Island describes part of the White Flag killings and lists by name the involvement of Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brothers Gotabaya and Basil and Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha Kohona, against whom a filing has been made to the International Criminal Court for his involvement in the presumptive war crime.

  As partially described by the UN Panel of Experts, “Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh” conveyed a request to surrender to an “official[] of the UN” and received assurances they would not be killed through “intermediaries.” They were then killed.

While the Panel's reports, troublingly, does not disclose the involvement of Vijay Nambiar, instead referring only to a UN intermediary as having conveyed assurances that those surrendering would not be killed, Nambiar has acknowledged being involved.

Inner City Press, which visiting Sri Lanka covering Ban's trip in May 2009, has followed this issue closely, repeatedly asking for a statement by Mr. Nambiar describing his role. Inner City Press was directed to a single filmed interview Nambiar gave, in which he acknowledged a role

  The Panel of Experts, named and essentially paid by the UN of Ban Ki-moon, was remiss in not naming Nambiar. Given how and by whom the Panel's members were named and paid, and their final work product, there was a conflict of interest.

  Ban Ki-moon, many now conclude, has been remiss in allowing Nambiar to remain involved in handling the report, even inreviewing it for what the UN should do next. It is a blatant conflict of interest.

Following numerous previous inquiries by Inner City Press into this, including Palitha Kohona heatedly disputing the account that Nambiar gave, on April 12 and 19 Inner City Press again asked Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq if Nambiar would be involved or recused.

Haq, who previously denied the existence of the filing with the ICC which details Nambiar's role in the White Flag killings, said that Nambiar is a senior advisor and was involved in reviewing the report.

Other leaked portions describe Nambiar interfacing about the review with Kohona and his Deputy, General Shavendra Silva, also reportedly involved in war crimes at the end of the conflict.

Still other leaked portions allude to a February 22 meeting, which Ban's lead spokesman Martin Nesirky in essence denied to Inner City Press took place, between the Panel of Experts and Sri Lankan Attorney General Mohan Peiris, in the office of another of Ban's advisers, Lynn Pascoe.

Late arriving on the scene, in Sri Lankan press accounts, is Ban's deputy chief of staff Kim Won-soo, perhaps in belated acknowledgment that Nambiar should never have been allowed to be involved in the report, which partially describes the White Flag killings in which he was involved.

Now it is said that Ban will take a call from Minister G.L. Peiris. Even if the report is released on April 25, along with a UN response in which Vijay Nambiar has clearly been involved, it is too late, and poisoned by the conflicted involved of Nambiar. This is all a new low for this UN. Watch this site.

From the leaked Panel of Experts report:

The "White Flag" incident

170. Various reports have alleged that the political leadership of the LTTE and their dependents were executed when they surrendered to the SLA. In the very final days of the war, the head of the LTTE political wing, Nadesan, and the head of the Tiger Peace Secretariat Pulidevan, were in regular communication with various interlocutors to negotiate surrender. They were reportedly with a group of around 300 civilians. The LTTE political leadership was initially reluctant to agree to an unconditional surrender, but as the SLA closed in on the group in their final hideout, Nadesan and Pulidevan, and possibly Colonel Ramesh, were prepared to surrender unconditionally. This intention was communicated to officials of the United Nations and of the Governments of Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as to representatives of the ICRC and others. It was also conveyed through intermediaries to Mahinda, Gotabaya and Basil Rajapaksa, former Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona and senior officers in the SLA.

171. Both President Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa provided assurances that their surrender would be accepted. These were conveyed by intermediaries to the LTTE leaders, who were advised to raise a white flag and walk slowly towards the army, following a particular route indicated by Basil Rajapaksa. Requests by the LTTE for a third party to be present at the point of surrender were not granted. Around 6.30 a.m. on 18 May 2009. Nadesan and Pulidevan left their hide-out to walk towards the area held by the 58th Division, accompanied by a large group, including their families. Colonel Ramesh followed behind them, with another group. Shortly afterwards, the BBC and other television stations reported that Nadesan and Pulidevan had been shot dead. Subsequently, the Government gave several different accounts of the incident. While there is little information on the circumstances of their death, the Panel believes that the LTTE leadership intended to surrender.

  On the morning of April 21, Inner City Press asked Ban's top two spokesmen to "please state the role of Mr. Nambiar in reviewing the report." No response has yet been received, more than 60 hours later. We will have more on this. Watch this site.

On Libya, US Says Arming Rebels Is Legal, Deferred Answer on Visas of d'Escoto

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON DC, April 14 -- While at its April 14 briefing the US State Department on Libya was primarily asked why it is not arming or funding the rebels, giving more planes or even “whacking” Gaddafi, described as “fist pumping” in a convertible in Tripoli, Inner City Press ask State Department spokesman Mark Toner if allowing funds to the rebels might not result in violations of the arms embargo in UN Security Council resolution 1970.

  While the idea is that arming the rebels would require another resolution, beyond 1973, Toner replied that arming the rebels is legal. See transcript:

MR. TONER: We believe that – our understanding of the sanctions and what was prohibited, that this was – this action was legal, that it was lawful.

Inner City Press: How about the arms embargo? How does – I mean, if this – both revenue streams, do you feel that the arms embargo under Resolution 1970, which is a total arms embargo on the country, is this something that you would be discussing with (inaudible)? Do you think – you keep saying that the revenue stream is only for the operation of the government.

MR. TONER: We’ve talked about this before, and what we’ve said is that 1970 – taken in totality, 1970 and 1973 – that it is permissible to get arms to the opposition, and that’s something that remains on the table, certainly. We’ve never taken that option away.

Inner City Press: And could I ask you about visas, too? So also on Libya, there – I’ve tried to ask this to the mission in New York --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

Inner City Press: -- but there was – there were stories saying that Ali Treki, who is the former foreign minister of Libya, was denied a U.S. visa, more recent stories saying that D’Escoto Brockmann, who was named to represent Libya, couldn’t get a visa. Is that true? And what’s the visa status of the two diplomats who left?

MR. TONER: D’Escoto Brockmann is the Nicaraguan?

Inner City Press: Nicaraguan. Absolutely.

MR. TONER: Okay. Yeah. I’m trying to remember, but this is a couple weeks ago, I believe, when this was in the news. But we had very real concerns about his status, and I believe we were looking into it, but at the same time, obviously, complying with our obligations as a host nation for the UN. But we felt that he had – we had concerns – there were concerns about his status here that needed to be addressed. I don’t know what the exact status is today of that, though. I’d have to check.

Inner City Press: (Inaudible) the Nicaraguan? His --

MR. TONER: Yes, the Nicaraguan. As far as the Libyan --

Inner City Press: The representatives – yeah, Shalgam and Dabbashi.

MR. TONER: -- representative – I’m not sure what the status of that is. I’ll have to check for you.

Inner City Press: : Okay. Yeah, thanks.

  Seven hours later there still was no answered. And while an official of the US Mission to the UN, which has rebuffed Press questions about visas for some time, told Inner City Press that on Libya the legality of UN envoy al Khatib also being paid by Jordan would be publicly addressed this week, it hasn't been. We'll see -- watch this site.

At UN, Susan Rice is Asked About Obama Order for CIA in Libya: Were Council Resolutions & Members Skirted?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 30 -- While the Obama administration argues that the UN Security Council resolutions on Libya provide the “flexibility” to allow arming of the rebels, a new question emerged on Wednesday.

After US officials told the press that Obama signed a finding two or three weeks ago authorizing Central Intelligence Agency activities in Libya, Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice on camera if that complied with the UN resolution, and whether it was or should have been disclosed to other Security Council members.

Ambassador Rice said she would not comment on intelligence matters, that President Obama said yesterday he has “not made any decision” on arming the rebels, has not “ruled anything in or out” but is “considering all forms of potential assistnace to the opposition.”

Inner City Press began to ask as a follow up whether the US thinks that arming the rebels is permitted by the resolution or requires a ruling or new resolution. But Rice moved on to a question about the visa status of Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, click here for that Inner City Press story.

Moments later off camera Susan Rice summoned Inner City Press and said that “we have not made any decision” about arming the rebels. She said she had not seen the story quoting US officials about Obama signing the finding allowing CIA action in Libya.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Inner City Press that the resolution do NOT permit arming the rebels, adding that the it “was the American who asked for the arms embargo.” How will he and other Security Council members react to the US officials' quotes about Obama authorizing CIA action in Libya, right while Security Council resolutions were being negotiated? Watch this site.

From the US Mission to the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: There are reports that President Obama signed a finding allowing the CIA to assist the Libyan rebels. Does this in any way implicate the two resolutions, including the arms embargo in 1970 that was modified by 1973? Is this something that you disclosed to other Council Members? Does it raise issues under the various prohibitions of the resolutions?

Ambassador Rice: Well, first of all, obviously, as is longstanding U.S. practice, I’m certainly not going to comment on any intelligence matters. I will reaffirm what President Obama said yesterday which is that we have not made any decision about whether the United States will provide arms to opposition elements in Libya. We have neither ruled it in, nor ruled it out. We are considering all forms of potential assistance to the opposition from humanitarian, which we are already providing, to political and other forms of support.


UN Now Says Envoy to Libya Khatib Still Has Responsibilities in Jordan, His Contract In Flux Amid Conflicts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- After dodging repeated questions about whether UN envoy to Libya Abdul Ilah Al Khatib is still paid by Jordan, where he is a Senator, when Inner City Press again asked the question on March 25, Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq said that “the terms of his contract are still being worked out... he still has some responsibilities in Jordan.”

To some, this implies that contrary to UN charter and rules, Khatib is at the same being paid by and serving a particular government and the UN. Significantly, in Jordan this week water cannons were deployed on protests, leading to the death of at least one protester.

Beyond the financial conflicts of interest, including Khatib being a director of Jordan Ahli Bank which is a co top 20 owners of Union de Banques Arabes et Francaises with Libya Foreign Bank, 100% owned by Gaddafi's Libya Central Bank, why would Secretary General Ban Ki-moon choose as his envoy to Libya the former foreign minister of a country his own advisers describe as an autocracy, which is itself now killing protesters?

Haq also on March 25 said that the decision about what political moves are acceptable to the UN in Libya will be up to Khatib. “Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house,” remarked one wag. The questions will continue to be asked.

From the UN's March 25 transcript:

Inner City Press: on the envoy, yesterday Martin [Nesirky] had said, it’s been going around for a couple of days, is… whether Mr. [Abdul Ilah] Khatib, what is his status with the UN? Is he a USG [Under-Secretary-General]? Is he a staff member? And is he still being paid by the Government of Jordan? It seemed like it shouldn’t be that difficult to get yes or no answers to those three.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, part of the thing is, because of the speed with which we felt the need to appoint an envoy, some of the terms of his contract are still being worked out. So I don’t have any firm answers about the nature of his contract to give right now, because that is being worked out with him. He does have some responsibility still in Jordan, as well as his position here with us.

    What ARE those responsibilities in, and payments from, Jordan? Watch this site.

At UN, As Libyan Resolution Passes With Five Abstentions, Half Answers by Lebanon & Dabbashi, Rice Chats with Sudan

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 17 -- The Libya resolution passed the UN Security Council Thursday evening with ten votes in favor and five abstaining: Russia, China, Brazil, Germany and India.

  Russia said that its ceasefire proposal had the support of “a number of (Council) members,” and that its questions on the resolution just adopted remained unanswered. What are the limits of the use of force? He said if things go badly, it will be the responsibility of those who use force.

  Brazil's Permanent Representative said her country is sensitive to the call of the Arab League for a no fly zone, but that the resolution in Paragraph 4 went beyond it.

  Germany's Permanent Representative Wittig also said that military force carries risks that have been under estimated.

India through its Deputy Permanent Representative criticized the whole resolution, saying the Council should have waited for the report of Ban Ki-moon's envoy Al Khatib, and that sanctions may hurt the Libyan people.

After the vote, Inner City Press asked Libyan diplomat Ibrahim Dabbashi to respond to India's statement about the sanctions hurting Libyans. Dabbashi's response was only that the resolution does not allow foreign occupation.

Inner City Press asked Dabbashi about the possibility at some point of UN peacekeeping mission. No, Dabbashi that, not that. He said it's the Libyan people against Gadhafi.

Lebanon's Permanent Representative took questions, and Inner City Press asked him about the critique of some of the abstainers that the resolution went beyond what the Arab League has asked for. He replied that the Arab League only spoke about a no fly zone. Exactly.

Susan Rice took a few questions then it was “last question.” Since she had said Gadhafi had lost legitimacy by attacking his own people, Inner City Press asked, “What about Bahrain... and the crackdowns there?” These have included attacks on hospitals, blatant violations of international law.  But Susn Rice was gone.

Footnote: Before she spoke at the stakeout, Susan Rice was speaking with a Sudanese diplomat from Khartoum. Inner City Press is seeking the US read out on the communication, and what the US is going to do, especially at the UN, about the stand off between SPLM and Khartoum on the reports of Khartoum aiding the two renegade generals in and around South Sudan, and on the crackdown on student protesters in Darfur that even UNAMID reported on earlier today. Watch this site.


UN New Libya Envoy Al Khatib Torn Between Politics & Aid, Too Big For Photos, Wants Via Rome Not Malta

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 11 -- As he prepares to go to Tripoli in the name of the UN, Jordan's former foreign minister, Senator and businessman Abdul Alah Al Khatib is having his wings clipped and is rebelling “like a prima donna,” a well placed source has told Inner City Press.

  Is Al Khatib's mandate political or humanitarian? Several UN Security Council members have stressed it should only be humanitarian.

  But the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to want to distance itself from Al Khatib's openly (if ill-thought out) political mission, in an attempt to keep humanitarian and political separate in a way they are being criticized for failing to do in, for example, Somalia.

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who offered Al Khatib the post after it was rejected by Lakhdar Brahimi and Kemal Dervis, and apparently without vetting Al Khatib's outside business interests, has assigned staff of his Department of Political Affairs to accompany Al Khatib on his trip to Tripoli.

  Perhaps in keeping with perks he gets as a board member of Jordan Cement and Jordan Ahli Bank, Al Khatib in his brief visit to New York was “very demanding, very high maintenance,” well placed UN sources tell Inner City Press.

  Two examples among many: to prepare for his trip, Al Khatib was supposed to go and fill out paperwork and have his photograph taken for his UN Laissez Passez passport. But Al Khatib thought he shouldn't have to go through this menial process, and shouted at UN staff. There were tears.

  Also, the UN by default is supposed to chose the cheapest flights. To Tripoli, this led to a booking through Malta. Al Khatib said this was unacceptable, he wanted to go through Rome. And so it was undone and rebooked, at extra expense.

  At the beginning of the week, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if Al Khatib would suspend his business interests, including service as a director of Jordan Ahli Bank which, along with Gaddafi's Libyan Central Bank, is a top 20 owner of Union de Banques Arabes et Francaises.

  Nesirky said that “those involved” would discussing that, presumably before al Khatib was unveiled and confirmed on March 11.

But at the UN noon briefing on March 11, after a press stakeout at which Nesirky's deputy Farhan Haq did not allow this outstanding question to be put to Al Khatib or Ban, Inner City Press asked Haq how and if Al Khatib's outside business interests had been vetted before he was given the post and sent to Tripoli.

Haq insisted that Al Khatib, like other UN envoys, will file a financial disclosure with the UN -- one that the Ban administration allowed to remain confidential, not available to the public.

  Inner City Press asked if Al Khatib had at least filed this disclosure prior to being given the post, so that the UN could assess if conflicts of interest exist.

  He just got the post, Haq answered, insisting again that Al Khatib will file in the future.

  Another journalists followed up, saying that conflicts of interest are serious.

Haq said dismissively that it was only something “he” -- presumably meaning Inner City Press -- was raising. But the need to vet outside hires' business interests is no small matter, as the Obama Administration found out when it sent Frank Wisner, from a law firm with interests in Egypt, as an envoy to Mubarak. (Weisner showed up since that at the UN at the Richard Holbrooke memorial, as exclusively reported on Twitter by Inner City Press.)

Haq did not say whether anyone at the UN had considered Al Khatib's possible conflicts of interest before he was given the job. As Inner City Press has reported, Ban first offered the post to Lakhdar Brahimi and Kemal Dervis before settling on Al Khatib. Being the fall-back, are conflicts of interest allowed? Watch this site.

From the UN's transcription of its March 11 noon briefing:

Inner City Press: On Mr. Al-Khatib, earlier this week I had asked whether his outside business interests in a Jordanian cement company, and in the bank, that actually he is co-owner of another bank with the Libyan Central Bank controlled by [Muammar al-] Qadhafi, whether these will be suspended during his service for the UN as an envoy to Libya. Is there an answer to that, given that he is [inaudible]…?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: No, not specifically to that. Just that he is a senior official, and just as with other officials of that rank, he would be required to fill out the standard financial disclosure. So, he will go through the same financial disclosure process as everyone else.

Inner City Press: On what time frame? Has he filled it out yet? Has OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services]…?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: He was only just appointed, Matthew!

Inner City Press: I understand, but it seems to raise possible conflicts of interest even as his service begins.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: You don’t file a financial disclosure the minute you get appointed.

Inner City Press: That’s only the UN, that’s an official has to file a form after the person is already named?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: If there is any particular conflict regarding Mr. Khatib, it would be incumbent on him to remove any particular conflicts before he begins work. However, in any case, any conflicts would be determined once he goes through the financial disclosure process, which he has to do, just as with any other senior appointment.

Question: A follow-up on that, follow up? There will be conflict of interest here. Someone going to Libya to mediate or work on the human rights issues and then he has interests in the regime, within the regime, if he is…

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: That’s not proven; that’s just based on something that, a report that he is saying. No, no, like I said, if there is anything that poses a conflict of interest, it would be incumbent on him to remove that before he begins his work. He is going through the same sort of vetting process as anyone else, which includes of course, the financial disclosures. Yes?

No. Watch this site.


UN Admits 2d Flight of ICC Darfur Indictee Haroun to Abyei in Sudan, Impunity

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 4, updated -- The UN has for a second time offered a free UN flight in Sudan to Ahmed Haroun, under indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur, the UN admitted Friday in response to questions from Inner City Press.

  On March 3 the UN Security Council met about renewed fighting in the disputed Abyei region. Back in January, Inner City Press got the UN to acknowledge they had flown ICC indictee Haroun from South Kordofan, where he serves fellow ICC indictee Omar al Bashir as governor, to Abyei.

  The UN has defended this controversial flight by saying that Haroun and Haroun alone could stop violence in Abyei. The UN never explained why the government of Sudan, which has an air force currently bombing civilians in Jebel Marra in Darfur, couldn't itself fly Haroun.

The UN said it was a scheduled flight, then UN Mission in Sudan chief Haile Menkerios admitted to Inner City Press that it was a special flight. Inner City Press is told such flights cost $40,000, and the UN has confirm no reimbursement has been sought from the Bashir government.

But now the violence has continued, making the UN flight of ICC indictee Haroun harder to justify even by the UN's own argument.

  March 3 in front of the Security Council, Inner City Press asked Council president for March Li Baodong of China if the UN Peacekeeping official who briefed the Council, Atul Khare, had mentioned if Haroun would again be flown in a UN helicopter. Li Baodong did not directly answer.

At the March 4 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm or deny that that the UN would once again fly ICC indictee Haroun to Abyei, even now that his work in connection with the first flight has proved ineffective.

Nesirky said he would check. Ten minutes later, Nesirky's deputy Farhan Haq announced by speaker to all UN correspondents that yes, Haroun attended today's meeting in Abyei, and yes, “he was transported” by the UN.

  This UN promotes impunity, even for one of the few people indicted for war crimes by the ICC. Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon brags about the Security Council's partial referral of the situation in Libya to the ICC -- a referral that Ban Ki-moon did not even call for until after the Council voted to make the referral.

  This UN is promoting and enshrining lawlessness, with no transparency or accountability. Watch this site.

Update of 3:48 pm -- Human Rights Watch, via Richard Dicker, submitted this comment:

This is the second time in recent weeks the UN has transported Ahmed Haroun who is charged by the ICC with war crimes in Darfur. We have real concerns because the U.N. should not be in the business of transporting Haroun. There needs to be an extremely high threshold of urgency for such action by UNMIS.”

Responses have been sought from the Missions to the UN of France, the UK and the US, with the latter two asked if they knew in advance of the UN's new flight of ICC indictee Haroun. Given her statements this year about social media, & after hours of non-response by the US Mission to the UN,@AmbassadorRice has been asked directly as well. Watch this site.

Update of 4:30 pm -- Then this, from UK Mission to the UN spokesman Daniel Shepherd:

As spokesperson, I would only reiterate the message that my two Ambassadors have both said on the record (and published by Inner City Press) first time around: that we aren’t going to second guess how UNMIS fulfills its mandate to provide good offices to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) parties in efforts to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiations. I’d only add that this work is particularly important at this sensitive time, to contain any potential escalation after the recent Abyei violence.”

We could note again that violence has persisted despite the UN flying ICC indictee Ahmed Haroun in the first time, and that it is the role of UN member states to oversee the UN Secretariat, not to defer in this case to what some see as its promotion of impunity - but at least the UK would put its position on the record.

Update of 4:43 pm -- this too has come in, perhaps in response:

Date: Fri, Mar 4, 201
Subject: Haroun and Abyei
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

You guys ask great questions! Have you noticed perhaps that the United Nations seems to be unaware of who is causing the violence in Abyei. And yet "diplomatic sources" report seeing the burial of 33 bodies - all southerners.

The Arab nomads say the violence started when SPLM police shot at them (Hitler used a similar ploy to invade Poland) - and today thousands of civilians fled Abyei fearing another crisis like in June 2008. The Dinka Ngok villages north of Abyei, such as Maker, have been burnt to the ground. The end explains the means. There is a creeping ethnic cleansing going on in the Abyei region despite the agreements of 2005 and the Court of Arbitration ruling in 2010.

Why fly Haroun to Abyei - what is his cv? It is, as you correctly point out, that of arming arab militias to burn villages. I hope to see more of your questions pinning the UN to the responsibility to protect.


In UN Libya Resolution, US Insistence on ICC Exclusion Shields Mercenaries from Algeria, Ethiopia

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 26 -- After passage of a compromise Libya resolution by the UN Security Council on Saturday night, Inner City Press asked French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud if mercenaries aren't let off the hook by the sixth operative paragraph, exempting personnel from states not members of the International Criminal Court from ICC prosecution.

  Araud regretted the paragraph, but said the the United States had demanded it. He said, “No, that's, that was for one country, it was absolutely necessary for one country to have that considering its parliamentary constraints, and this country we are in. It was a red line for the United States. It was a deal-breaker, and that's the reason we accepted this text to have the unanimity of the Council.”

  While a Bush administration Ambassador to the UN in 2002 threatened to veto a UN resolution on Bosnia if it did not contain a similar exclusion, the Obama administration has maintained this insistence on impunity, which in this case applies to mercenaries from Algeria, Tunisia and Ethiopia, among other mercenary countries.

 (In the case of Algeria, there are allegations of official support for Gadhafi).

   While Inner City Press was able to ask UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant about the exclusion for mercenaries from non ICC countries, US Permanent Representative Susan Rice did not take a question from Inner City Press, and none on this topic, despite having mentioned mercenaries in her speech.

  When Libya, but no longer Gadhafi, diplomat Ibrahim Dabbashi came out to take questions, Inner City Press asked him which countries the mercenaries used by Gadhafi come from.

  He mentioned Algeria, Tunisia and Ethiopia -- highlighted by NGOs as non ICC members -- as well as Chad, Niger, Kenya and Guinea. So some mercenaries could be prosecuted by the ICC, and not others, under language demanded by the US Mission to the UN. Watch this site.

Here is the US-demanded paragraph:

6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.

As Sudan Bombs Jebel Marra & Blockades Darfur IDPs, UN Won't Respond

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 19 -- Amid Sudan bombings and blockades of humanitarian aid in Darfur, the UN has done little on the ground while dodging questions in New York.

On February 18, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky admitted to Inner City Press that peacekeepers in Darfur had not gone to the Jebel Marra villages they had heard being bombed, and had done nothing as an Internally Displaced Persons camp at Zamzam was blockaded by the government.

Back on February 15, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: UNAMID, the UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur is quote, widely perceived sympathetic to the Government and on the whole is not trusted by Darfuris. The perception was undoubtedly made worse when the Government recently stated that UNAMID’s core job was to help the Government implement its strategy for Darfur. Can you respond? Isn’t, is it correct that UNAMID’s core strategy is to work with the Government to implement its strategy in Darfur which has been criticized as genocidal? And what is the response to this, to this, you know, to this study and to many of the questions still pending with your Office about Darfur, camp raids, et cetera?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Just two points: One is that I think I’d like to take a closer look at the report that you mention. And secondly, that UNAMID works under a very clear Security Council mandate, and I would refer you to that. It explains there precisely what its role is. But as I say, I’ll need to take a closer look at the report that you mention.

   But Nesirky never did respond to the report. Rather, when Inner City Press asked about it again on February 16, Nesirky claimed he had answered the questions the previous day, that is in the transcript above and referred to a press conference in Khartoum by UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari, that he was belatedly adopting a “more robust” approach in Darfur as demanded (with little follow through) by the UN Security Council. Then Nesirky turned away from the questions.

  Here is the UN's February 16 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you some questions about Sudan. One is that the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] in this new fighting with General [George] Athor, he is saying that Khartoum is providing him weapons and supporting him. I wonder what UNMIS has to say about that. And also what UNAMID has to say about reports of renewed fighting in Wadi Mora, and also this expulsion of Médecins du Monde from Darfur and the allegations by the governor there that Médecins du Monde with UNAMID was delivering expired medications. Does UNAMID, you know, deny that, and what have they said about this?

Spokesperson Nesirky: On the very last part, I am not aware of that particular aspect, but I know that Mr. [Ibrahim] Gambari was briefing correspondents today in Khartoum, and did address the question of the expulsion of Médecins du Monde. He said that this was most regrettable, and there is a mechanism when any NGO is facing such a dilemma that there should be some kind of negotiations between the central Government and local authorities — and that would include help from UNAMID on the ground. And this is something that I know that our humanitarian colleagues are looking at right now. Médecins du Monde has been playing a critical role in providing medical support. And they are obviously not the first NGO to find themselves in this position, and this is not something that we feel comfortable with because obviously they play an important role. Mr. Gambari did speak a little bit more about in Khartoum today.

Inner City Press: And what’s your response to that report that came out yesterday among other things, saying that UNAMID is perceived as being too close to the Government?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, I answered that yesterday, you know. UNAMID has a very clear Security Council mandate. I answered that question yesterday.

Inner City Press: [inaudible]

Spokesperson: I am just answering on Darfur here. What I can tell you is that on some fighting that has been taking place in Shangil Tobaya, and that we are certainly concerned about that fighting, and a humanitarian assessment mission is planning to visit the area tomorrow with UNAMID military escorts. And it is our understanding that the fighting that has been talking place there since the 15th — so that is yesterday — has displaced a large number of people from the local population. And we would certainly call on all the parties to cease fire immediately and resume negotiations, not least because these clashes between Government and rebel forces and air strikes by the Government have, it would seem, led to the loss of life; losses of life, and as I say, displacement of civilians. Yes, Sylviane.

Question: Sorry to interrupt, but I want to know, there is, next week, there is a Security Council on the Middle East. It seems that it is very important since the Security Council didn’t meet for the [inaudible] to discuss the Middle East. Do you know who will be briefing the Council on that matter?

Spokesperson: I don’t at the moment, but I am happy to find out.

  With the focus shifted, at the UN's noon briefing on February 17 there were no Sudan questions, much less answers. Finally on February 18 Inner City Press asked about (non) implementation of Gambari's new strategy:

Inner City Press: There are reports of Government airplanes with Antonov bombing in Wadi Mura and some other villages in Darfur. And I wanted to know whether UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] is aware of that, if they are sending anyone out, if they have any access to the area? There are also these reports of the ZamZam IDP [internally displaced persons] camp, which I think UNAMID has some protection role, being blockaded by the Government now for two days running. Is there some… can you confirm that?

Spokesperson: On the first, the bombing in the region of Shangil Tobaya and Wadimura as you mentioned, the mission is reporting that sounds of heavy explosions were heard at frequent intervals, throughout the day. And a patrol tasked to carry out investigation and verification of fighting in the area was advised by the Sudanese military at Shangil Tobaya that they should not visit Wadimura because these air operations were still going on. And the team was told that they might get clearance to allow a UNAMID patrol to visit Wadimura on 19 February — that’s tomorrow. They were trying to get that clearance from higher authorities at El Fasher if the situation comes under control. So that is what I have on that. We are fully aware, obviously, of what is going on and the need to be able to gain access to investigate and to verify what the cost is on the ground. So, that’s on the first thing.

On the second one that you talked about, about the ZamZam camp; well, our understanding is that the fighting has displaced — and I mentioned this earlier in the week, I think — a large number of the local population. And this has included a large influx of IDPs into ZamZam IDP camp, as many as 1,400 families, but it is the case, regrettably, that the Government of Sudan has suspended humanitarian access, that has been since 16 February — so that is two days ago. And we mentioned that a humanitarian assessment mission was planned for that day, and we understand from UNAMID that the patrol has so far not been able to get through beyond Dar el Salaam, which is about 45 kilometres east of Shangil Tobaya, and this is because, as I mentioned, there is still activity by the Sudanese Air Force in the area.

Inner City Press: Can I just ask one, because I did go and read what Ibrahim Gambari said in his press conference in Khartoum and he seemed to be announcing a new approach, in some way a response to criticism that was leveled by some Security Council members on being more active. But it seems like in both of these cases, you are saying like the Government said: “don’t go”, and so UNAMID said: “we can’t go”. Is it… How is this consistent with the new…?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, that’s not quite what I am saying. I hear what you are saying, and Mr. Gambari has been quite clear about the need for a more robust response, not just the need, but the intention to carry through and follow through on that. I think the point here is that there is bombing going on, not to put too fine a point on it. And that would obviously make it difficult to operate on the ground there. But Mr. Gambari has indeed been quite clear on what needs to happen. And as and when I have more details on whether this, one, the verification patrol has been able to get through, and two, the humanitarian assessment mission has been able to get through, then I would happily share that with you.

  If the past is any guide, with many Darfur related questions pending at the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General without any response, we won't be holding our breath. But we will continue asking. Watch this site.

UN MIssion in Sudan Flew ICC Indictee Haroun on Special Copter, Contrary to UN Claim, "There Are No Regular Flights"

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 12 -- Not only did the UN provide air transportation to Ahmed Haroun, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur -- the UN also lied or misspoke about it, Inner City Press has found.

After first obtaining confirmation from the UN that it flew Haroun to a meeting in Abyei of nomadic tribes of the kind he organized in Darfur to burn villages down, Inner City Press repeatedly asked for the specifics of the flight, and if the UN had sought or received reimbursement from the Sudanese government (which, it must be noted, has its own air force which could have flown Haroun, just as it bombs Darfur and the border with Southern Sudan).

After first refusing to answer, the UN belated sent this answer:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Your question on Ahmed Haroun
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com

In accordance with its mandate, the Mission provides the necessary support to those key players in their pursuit to find a peaceful solution. In this context, at the request of the Government and on a space available basis, UNMIS provides seats on its flights to Government officials on official business related to the peace process, without any financial implications to the Government and at no additional operational costs to the mission.

But on February 11 when Inner City Press finally had an opportunity to see and ask questions of the chief of the UN Mission in Sudan Haile Menkerios, he answered that there was no regular flights between Southern Kordofan State and Abyei, and that the UN had flown Haroun by special helicopter.

Menkerios told Inner City Press, “There is no direct flight to Abyei. We flew him there in order to take him... We flew him by helicopter to Abyei because there is no flight.”

That is to say, the answer provided by the UN in New York was false, apparently intentionally so, when it said “at no additional operational costs to the mission” and “on a space available basis.” There was only “space available” for ICC indictee Haroun because the UN made a special flight, which cannot have been “at no additional operational costs to the mission.”

While some argue, as Menkerios did on February 11, that it is a good or necessary trade off to provide transport and legitimacy to an indicted war criminal if it might forestall violence threatened (even if by the indictee himself), it seems clear that a public organization like the UN should at least be transparent about it.

The context here is that, apparently in exchange for the government of Omar al Bashir allowing the Southern Sudan referendum, the UN has stayed quiet as things have gotten worse for civilians in Darfur, where Haroun is accused of committing war crimes.

The UN has yet to answer if Menkerios checked with top UN lawyer Patricia O'Brien (who has refused to take questions from the Press) or with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself.

Note: ever since the Office of the Spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon provide the February 1 answer above, Inner City Press has repeatedly posed this follow up question in writing:

On your answer that Ahmed Haroun, indicted by the ICC for war crimes in Darfur, flew on a pre-existing UN flight, in light of footage from interview in South Kordofan which Haroun arranged with UN plane on camera behind him, please state who else was on the flight with him, how frequent UN flights between Abyei and South Kordofan are and what size aircrafts are used.”

Other than Menkerios on February 12, there has been not answer from the UN. Watch this site.


Blocked from Sri Lanka, UN Panel Now Offers Video Conference or Written Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- Seven weeks after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press that his Panel on Accountability could travel to Sri Lanka due to President Mahinda Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” the UN has sunk so low as to propose a conference call by video, or even just written questions and answer, instead of any visit, Inner City Press has learned.

In interviews with different sides, Inner City Press has learned that a series of options has now been proposed, starting with a visit to New York by Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission.

Rajapaksa's LLRC has said it will only speak with the Executive Office of the Secretary General, not Ban's panel -- the Panel would “sit in” on the talks, was the Sri Lankan proposal.

The UN has also proposed a video conference call, or answers to a series of written questions about accountability. All in all, strikingly different than what Ban claimed on December 17 -- that his panel could go to Sri Lanka -- and that Ban repeated to Inner City Press on January 14.

  After that, and after Ban's Spokesperson's Office refused repeatedly to answer questions about Ban's statement and who he'd spoken with before making them, while on his current ongoing trip Ban gave a speech at Oxford, after which he replied to a question by saying that his Panel “has not yet been able to complete its mission. They are still negotiating with the Sri Lankan Government.”

On February 4, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office in writing and in person to explain this statement (as well as Ban's statement that he had been in Sri Lanka twice since May 2009).

The UN did not answer the written questions -- and still hasn't -- so at the February 4 noon briefing Inner City Press asked how Ban's statement squares with the previous statement that travel to Sri Lanka, which has been blocked by the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa is “not essential.”

Ban's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq answered that Ban's Panel “has been discussing the proper arrangements to see if they can have such arrangements made.”

Haq said that of the Panel that “they do believe it is desirable to travel to Sri Lanka, but not essential.”

Now it seems that the UN would settle for a mere video conference call, or even written answers to questions. How could that constitute “completing the mission”?

From the UN's February 4, 2011 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask on Sri Lanka; there was some quotes given out of Ban Ki-moon’s responses at his Oxford speech afterward. He was asked a question about Sri Lanka, and he said that his panel, quote, “has not been able to complete their initial stage”. I just wanted to know if that’s actually what he said and if that, how that squares with the idea that it’s not essential to go to Sri Lanka.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq: In terms of what he actually said, it’s available in our — if you go to the off-the-cuff part of our website, the questions and answers that he had at Oxford are posted there. So, you could see it that way.

Inner City Press: How does that square with the idea that travelling to Sri Lanka is not essential? Why have they not been able to complete their work, if that’s not the thing missing?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: As you are aware, the panel has been discussing proper arrangements, to see whether it can have such arrangements made. The panel has made it clear that they do believe that it is desirable to travel to Sri Lanka, but not essential. And that has been their consistent position.

  Is it consistent to now be offering video conference or written questions? Watch this site.


As Egyptians Push for Change, UN Ban Warns of “Political Instability”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- As in Egypt protests calling for Hosni Mubarak to leave continue, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Addis Ababa was quoted that Egyptians “have the right to express their visions, in demonstrations, but all these should not lead to social instability and political instability.”

  Even in front of the empty UN in New York, hundred chanted “Mubarak must go.” The call is to end 30 years of rule under an emergency law allowing censorship, even if that was deemed politically stable. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, asked Friday by the press if Ban thought the emergency law should be eliminated, declined to answer the question directly.

  Midday on January 30, Inner City Press queried Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq about the status of the UN system's programs in Egypt, including a program which NGOs have criticized “as ineffective, complaining that it has BANned credible human [rights] lawyers from giving lectures to the police because of their political opposition to the NDP, and instead invites MOI officials complicit in torture to give human rights presentations.”

  But five hours later, there were no answers nor acknowledgment of the questions about the UN in Egypt.

   Even Ban's quote against political instability hadn't been distributed, perhaps understandably, to the UN press list by his Public Information and Spokesperson's office, which in the interim had sent the Press anodyne “read outs” of Ban's meetings with Rwandan President Paul Kagame and French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- with no mention of Egypt.

  With Kagame, Ban discussed only sexually based violence, and not counter reports of genocide and war crimes in Eastern Congo.

  With Sarkozy, Ban did not bring up Tunisia nor Egypt, but rather Lebanon, Haiti and Cote d'Ivoire. The interest of the UN under Ban in democracy seems to some to be limited to one country, and not extend to Tunisia, much less Egypt (or Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria -- or Myanmar). Watch this site.

* * *

As in NYC Police Guard UN Mission of Egypt, UNDP Banned Rights Advocates

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- As protests continue in Egypt, even in New York Egypt's Mission to the UN is guarded by police, some brought down from The Bronx. Inside an otherwise empty UN, Inner City Press fields messages from the Egyptian diaspora responding to its reporting earlier on Saturday, some pointing to UN system complicity in Mubarak's repression.

  Take for example the UN Development Program's work with Egypt's police, called BENAA, founded by Murabak's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to a UNDP website yet to be taken down as some have been, “media and Civil Society Organizations have been targeted, including the crucial group of university students.”

But a Wikileaked US embassy cable in a non-highlighted portion admits that

“NGO contacts have privately criticized the UNDP project as ineffective, complaining that it has banned credible human [rights] lawyers from giving lectures to the police because of their political opposition to the NDP, and instead invites MOI officials complicit in torture to give human rights presentations.”

So the UN system in Egypt “BANned credible human lawyers from giving lectures to the police because of their political opposition to the NDP, and instead invites MOI officials complicit in torture.”

No wonder then that BAN Ki-moon is so silent on whether Mubarak's 30 year emergency law allowing censorship should be eliminated.

  UNDP Administrator Helen Clark, notably, was in Yemen earlier this month praising the government, as if the protests there and in Tunisia and elsewhere were not taking place.

  There is more to be said about the UN's system's work including with BENAA, which lists as supporters the Ford Foundation, EU and members and others. Watch this site.

* * *

Amid Egyptian Protests, UN Dormant, Ban Silent on Emergency Law

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- Chants of “Mubarak must go” echoed Saturday against the white metal walls of the UN's temporary North Lawn building on 1st Avenue in Manhattan. But the UN was empty.

  Both Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his Deputy, Asha Rose Migiro were out of town. And the UN system has had little to say or do about the calls for an end of censorship and repression in Egypt.

  Friday in the UN's noon press briefing, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky was asked if Ban thought that Egypt's 30 year old emergency law should go. Nesirky said that "one of the ground principles of democracy is to protect and ensure the freedom of speech of the people," but refused to directly comment on the emergency censorship law.

  Earlier this month, Ban had little to say about Tunisia. He did not send an envoy to the country -- a decision taken, Inner City Press is informed by well placed UN sources, on the advice of Ban's chief of staff and Myanmar envoy Vijay Nambiar.

  The UN Security Council did not meet on January 27 or 28, and has not scheduled any meeting for January 31, the last day of Bosnia's quiet presidency.

 US President Barack Obama called Mubarak and talked to or at the press for four minutes on Friday, but did not mention the UN, just as he did not mention it and Darfur in his State of the Union speech earlier in the week. -- all men -- but not Susan Rice, his Ambassador to the UN.
 
  On Saturday Obama held a meeting on Egypt with "his national security team" which included eleven people

  In an interview for CNN's show GPS with Fareed Zakaria, the prime minister of the Permanent Security Council member United Kingdom David Cameron called Mubarak a “friend of Britain... We’ve worked together over many issues, not least the need to combat Islamic extremism.”

  A week ago and on Saturday morning, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Nesirky when Ban will act on the request by the UK, Mexico and others that he replace Nambiar with a full time envoy to Myanmar.

  Nesirky by press time did not answer that, nor a request for UN comment on Myanmar affirming the disbanding of the political party of Burmese democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi.

  And so as people take risks to oppose repression from Tunisia to Egypt and elsewhere such as Yemen, the UN is increasingly silent, un-transparent, marginalized. Saturday's chants echoed off empty UN buildings. How long can this go on? Watch this site.

Retaliation by Spokesman for "Transparent" Ban Ki-moon Typifies UN Decay

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 21 -- While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon runs for a second term claiming transparency and good government, he is represented by a spokesman who on Friday refused to answer questions after being asked about the applicability of a UN rule.

  As Inner City Press asked a question about the UN seeming cover-up of killings in Darfur, Spokesman Martin Nesirky stood up and left the briefing room, saying “I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate manner.”

  The only interchange earlier in the briefing had Inner City Press asking how UN Staff Regulation 1.2, prohibiting staff from public statements underlying impartiality applied to UN official (and Ban Ki-moon favorite) Michelle Montas going on CNN to say she would sue Baby Doc Duvalier.

  The previous day, Inner City Press has asked Nesirky what rule applied to Montas' actions. Nesirky did not provide any rule then, nor the next day.

  But Inner City Press was approached by outraged UN staff, who called Nesirky “the worst spokesperson the UN has ever had,” and provided the applicable rule. They also provided a precedent from last decade, when Doctor Andrew Thompson was fired under this rule for making public UN peacekeepers' sexual abuse of those they were charged to protect.

  On January 21, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the rule, and intended to ask about the Thompson precedent. But Nesirky said, “I don't want to talk about it further.” Video here, from Minute 18:30.

  Earlier in the briefing, Inner City Press had asked why the UN has said nothing about Sudan's Omar al Bashir's government blocking the printing of a newspaper directed at Southern Sudan, after they published articles about the secession referendum. Video here from Minute 16.

After the UN Rules question, despite having said he would take Inner City Press' question about Ban Ki-moon's humanitarian coordinator for Sudan Georg Charpentier's claims that the thousands of violent deaths in Darfur in the last 12 months were not the al Bashir government's fault, Nesirky refused to take the question.

  Rather he stood up to leave. Asked why, he said “I will take questions from you when you behave in an appropriate manner.”

   A spokesperson is paid to answer questions. It is particularly strange that the spokesperson for a Secretary General claiming transparency and good government would simply refuse to answer about the applicability of a rule to a public UN action.

  To then retaliate against the media asking the question about rule and refuse to take any question, including about a UN mission for which the UN charges its member states $1 billion a year is outrageous.

   But in Ban Ki-moon's UN, will a UN official who on camera refuses to do his job, explicitly retaliating against a question about Ban administration lawlessness suffer any consequences?

  Other organizations would fire such an individual, including it seems the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund. Inner City Press currently also covers the IMF, for example getting three questions answered on January 20 with no acrimony, retaliation or lack of professionalism. But in Ban's UN, officials like Nesirky are permitted lawless behavior that would not be allowed anywhere else.

Already, Nesirky has publicly yelled at Inner City Press, “It is my briefing! I run it how I chose!” For the week at the end of 2010, for which he was being paid, Nesirky left question after question unanswered.

Earlier this month, Inner City Press asked Nesirky for Ban's response to a New York Times article about bloat, overlap and waste in Ban's UN. Nesirky replied that since Ban was holding a press conference on January 14, Inner City Press could ask him then. But Nesirky did not allow Inner City Press to ask any question on January 14. Afterward, Inner City Press assessed the lack of transparency in Ban's UN for Swedish television, here.

Most recently, Nesirky said he would get an answer about Ban's staff's involvement in war crimes described in the New Yorker magazine - but has not provided any answers. Many UN correspondents have said he should not remain in the job. And yet he does, representing Ban Ki-moon and a UN that is, particularly on this front, in dramatic decay. Watch this site.


As JPM Chase Cuts Off UN Missions, US Says Bailed Out Banks Are Free

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 13, updated -- When JPMorgan Chase wrote to countries' Missions to the UN and told them accounts would be closed in March 2011, several countries complained, to the UN and to the “host country,” the United States.

Thursday US Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy came to the UN in New York to speak to countries' Ambassadors about Chase's move. Afterwards, Inner City Press asked Kennedy if he -- or Hillary Clinton or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, both of whom Kennedy said were involved -- had spoke with JPMorgan Chase.

  "We have had discussions with the major banks," Kennedy answered, later confirming that yes, this included Chase. But what was the response of Chase, whose CEO Jaime Dimon is often rumored to be a line for an appointment by the Obama administration?

Kennedy told the press that “we cannot tell a bank what to do.” Inner City Press immediately asked, What about the banks which took bailouts and still owe TARP money to the US and its taxpayers? "Could the government use its leverage?"

  Kennedy said he was not “technically competent to get into that level of detail," and told Inner City Press to ask the Treasury Department official who had also come to the UN. Video on Inner City Press YouTube channel here.

While the US Mission later said this Treasury Deparment official was Mark Poncy of the Office of Strategic Policy, Poncy never came to speak to the Press.

Inner City Press asked Kennedy if he thought the UN should go forward and re-rent space inside the UN under its Capital Master Plan to JPMorgan Chase, when this bank was turning its back on Missions of the countries which make up the UN.

Ask the UN,” said Kennedy, who has responsibility at the State Department for Management, including at the UN. At the US Mission to the UN in New York, the Management position has remained with only an interim person, the genial but part time Professor Joseph Melrose.

At the UN's noon briefing, Inner City Press did ask Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky if the UN would give space to JPMorgan Chase in the Secretariat building when it re-opens.

Ask Chase,” Nesirky said. But Chase is already in talks with the UN as to which space to get in the repaired building -- not, apparently, the fourth floor space it previously had, but some other location.

Nesirky now said that he would not comment on negotiations. But is Chase's closing of UN Mission's accounts, Inner City Press asked, even part of the negotiations? Nesirky seemed to say he would look into this.

  JPMorgan Chase is not only interested in re-entering the Secretariat building when it re-opens: Chase also has a branch on the first floor of the DC-1 building which houses the UN Development Program. Many countries' Missions to the UN opened accounts at Chase because they were thus inside the UN. Will the UN allow this to continue?

  After the meeting with Kennedy, Inner City Press asked Iran's Permanent Representative as he came out if he thought Chase should continue to remain in UN buildings. No, the Ambassador said, UN space should go to banks which will deal with UN Missions.

  He spoke of the UN Federal Credit Union -- currently embroiled in a dispute about the account of the UN Staff Union -- and was asked if the UN should withdraw its own funds from a bank which in effect redlines Missions, like Chase.

Egypt's Permanent Representative told the Press about “transfer fees” while Turkey's Deputy Permanent Representative shrugged that “there are Turkish banks in New York.”

   Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin, asked in front of the Security Council about JPMorgan Chase's move, laughed and said "the ruble is a very strong currency," when you have the ruble you don't need anything else. But the others? Watch this site.

Update of January 14, 2011: the following arrived:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:05 AM
Subject: Your questions on Chase Bank
To: Inner City Press

We can say the following in reply to your questions at the noon briefing:

Some ambassadors emerging from the US briefing about their accounts being shuttered think the UN should withdraw all its accounts with Chase. Has this been broached with the administration? Being weighed at all?

We understand that this was raised by one Member State delegate in the briefing with Ambassador Kennedy. The UN Secretariat has not been approached in this matter.

Will Chase open an office in the UN building after the CMP?

Under the CMP, the new UN building design includes space provision for banks. No agreements have been entered into with any banks for this space.

On Sudan, Questions of Expulsion of Darfur Rebels & Ocampo on Bashir's Billions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 6 -- As the UN and Security Council engage in happy talk about the South Sudan referendum, events in Darfur get worse and worse.
  
   On January 6 Inner City Press put questions to the UN Permanent Representatives of the US and Sudan, and to the UN itself. On background, a number of Council sources said that the African Union - UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur is not pushing hard enough for access to civilians in harm's way. But the focus is on the referendum.

Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice:

Inner City Press: this agreement by Salva Kiir to eject or stop the rebel groups from Darfur from being in South Sudan. Is it a positive thing? Does it help resolve things in Darfur, the idea that they wouldn't have to go back? It was announced by Salva Kiir.

Ambassador Rice: Our view has long been that it's vitally important that both parties to the CPA refrain from, in any way, direct or indirectly supporting rebel or proxy activity against the other. And so we urged that, to the extent that that has been the case, that it cease.

  But if the fighting that's hurting civilians is by the government against the rebels, how is pushing the rebels back into Darfur going to make things better? Inner City Press asked the UN:

Inner City Press: yesterday during a background briefing, a senior [UN] official said — about Sudan — said of Sudan that there had been, during the fighting in Khor Abeche in Darfur, that a Tanzanian battalion had fed IDPs [internally displaced persons] with their own rations and had been unable to be re-supplied due to Government restrictions on the re-supplying, it seemed to be, of the peacekeepers. Can you confirm that there was a time during that fighting that even the UN peacekeepers were unable to get their supplies in? And if so, was that ever said publicly, and — it seems like in other countries, they complained when its peacekeepers were being in any way blockaded. Did that take place in Khor Abeche, as it seemed to be said yesterday?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Let me find out.

But seven hours later there was no answer. Inner City Press asked Sudan's Permanent Representative about Khor Abeche, if Sudan had blocked resupply of peacekeepers. The Sudanese Ambassador again offered praise for UNAMID, then said that when there is fighting, movement is restricted for the peacekeepers' own good.

    While top UN peaceekeeper Alain Le Roy had told the press that he requested a boost in UN troop levels but Sudan would not agree, Sudan's Ambassador said he was in a meeting with Le Roy on January 5 and Le Roy made no such request. The UN should clarify this.

Inner City Press asked asked Sudan's Ambassador about the allegations by International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo that Omar al Bashir spirited $9 billion out of the country. He replied it was ridiculous, that Lloyds had immediately denied it.

(As Inner City Press reported at the time, Lloyds was in the news for violating sanctions in Sudan and elsewhere.)

Inner City Press asked about the meeting on this topic between Ocampo and Susan Rice and Alejandro Wolff at the US Mission to the UN, memorialized in a Wikileaked cable. (Ambassador Rice has twice said she doesn't recall the meeting.) Sudan's Ambassador said this showed that Ocampo was “taking his orders” from sources other than the ICC. We will have more on this.


On Sudan, UN Ends 2010 in Dream World on Darfur & Rape, Praising ICC-Indicted Bashir's "Leadership" & Courage

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- The UN in Sudan is living in a dream world. As President Omar al Bashir ended participation in the Darfur peace talks in Doha, UN envoy to Sudan Haile Menkerios praised Bashir's “courage” and leadership.

   The joint UN - African Union mediator Djibril Bassole issued a UN propaganda statement about the Doha process, entirely ignoring Bashir's move and the facts on the ground.

Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman about reported rapes near UN peacekeepers in Darfur and was told to just “ask UNAMID.”

  But ever since Inner City Press in October with the UN Security Council visited the Joint UN - African Union Mission in Darfur inquiring about UNAMID's Ibrahim Gambari's moves to hand five supporters of Fur rebel Abdel Wahid Nur over to Bashir, that Mission has refused to answer any of the questions Inner City Press has submitted.

  Meanwhile Ban's spokesman has simply ignored and refused to acknowledge receipt of this question:

On Sudan, please confirm or deny that the Department of Political Affairs in a recent briefing to NGOs said that

UN projects no consolidated results before end Jan – result likely to be announced February 2.

Major technical challenges now are training staff, deploying materials, and being ready to handle results management (this is still a serious risk because little done to prepare for results period)

Probability of extension to polling remains high

Arab League visit to Sudan (Qaddafi and Mubarak) - castigated Bashir, pretty clear now that LAS will not try to spoil what is almost international consensus on recognition - there is even talk they will offer an independent S. Sudan membership in the LAS.

Bosnian Presidency likely to take cues from US and UK.

  Ban's Spokesman's Office has now twice ignored this question about statements that NGOs have to Inner City Press attributed to Ban's DPA. The UN tries to live in its own world about Sudan. But in 2011, this will be more difficult. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, Amid Confusion About Ban's Panel, UN Has Nothing Further to Say

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- At the UN at the end of 2010 confusion reigned, not only on Cote d'Ivoire but also concerning Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's panel on accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka.

  Rather than answer if the Panel or its staff would travel to the country and under what conditions, Ban's Spokesman on December 31 told Inner City Press “We are aware of your keen interest. If and when there is something to add we will let you know. We have checked again and there is nothing further to say for now... It may be that you do not get answers to every question.”

   Ban on December 17 announced his Panel would go to Sri Lanka, and he praised President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his “flexibility.”

  But later Rajapaksa's Minister of Information Keheliya Rambuklwella said the “panel would only be allowed to give evidence at the LLRC sittings and for no other purpose. 'They will not be permitted to carry out investigations, record evidence or visit places of their choice without prior government approval,'” he said.

  What was the flexibility Ban had praised? What of Ban's acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq's statement to BBC's Sinhalese service that the panel might not even go to Sri Lanka, but only speak with the LLRC in some other location?

  Inner City Press, which traveled with and covered Ban's visit to Sri Lanka in May 2009 and has covered the Panel since, all week sought answers from the UN to these questions.

  On December 23 when Inner City Press asked, Haq said there would be no noon briefings for the next 11 days, but that lead spokesman Martin Nesirky would answer questions. Transcript below and here.

   But when Inner City Press submitted Sri Lanka questions to Nesirky and his team from December 26 onward, there was no answer until December 29 -- and then, only a warmed over answer, which Haq reiterated on December 30, ignoring four Inner City Press questions:

From: Farhan Haq [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM
To: Inner City Press, Martin Nesirky [at] un.org, Soung-ah Choi [at] un.org
Subject: Re: Press Qs on deadline re Sri Lanka & OSSG failure to answer, 13 still outstanding

As I made clear to you at the time, the panel has not confirmed travel to Sri Lanka yet. The arrangements would need to be right. It is NOT the case that the panel would only talk to the LLRC. The panel made clear to me that their work is broader than simply dealing with the LLRC. That's all we have to say on it for now.

Comparing this to Cabinet Spokesperson Minister Keheliya Rambukwella's reported statement about the visas and limits on the Panel, it seemed that either the UN is belatedly standing up to the Rajapaksa government or that the UN doesn't read cited news reports, or both.

And so later on December 30, Inner City Press went to the UN Office of the Spokesman. There, no answers were given to many questions, including these six Sri Lanka questions previously submitted to Haq:

1) did or will the staff of the Panel go to Sri Lanka?

2) what agreements or understanding have been reached about with whom the Panel will speak in Sri Lanka?

3) with whom in the Sri Lanka government did Ban or the UN speak before his Dec 17 announcement, talking into account that the External Affairs Minister Peiris later said he learn of it in the media?

4) why have you refused to answer these questions?

5) did you speak to all three members of the Panel? When?

6) has the UN sought to clarify with the Sri Lanka government that, contrary to what its Cabinet Minister has said, the Panel would speak to people in Sri Lanka beyond the LLRC?

Inner City Press was told that the Office of the Spokesman would be open on December 31. But a visit at 3:25 pm found no one there. Instead, this was sent to Inner City Press:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply at un.org
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Subject: Answers
To: Inner City Press

On Sri Lanka: We are aware of your keen interest. If and when there is something to add we will let you know. We have checked again and there is nothing further to say for now... It may be that you do not get answers to every question.

The results of this stonewalling include articles in Sri Lanka like “Further Confusion Over Experts Panel.” WHY Ban's UN remains silent will be a topic for 2011.


Susan Rice Denies Being Told Sudan's Bashir Stashed $9B, Despite WikiLeak

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 20 -- Contrary to a cable released by Wikileaks describing Susan Rice the US Permanent Representative to the UN being told by International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo about Sudan's Omar al Bashir “stashing” $9 billion in “illegal accounts,” Ambassador Rice on December 20 told Inner City Pres that “I don't have a recollection of that being told to me directly.” Video here, from Minute 4:18.

  Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice about the cable and what she and the US Mission to the UN had done after Moreno Ocampo told her and her then Deputy Alejandro Wolff being told about Bashir's $9 billion.

  “I'm not going to comment on cables,” she began. After denying any recollection of being told “directly” about Bashir's billions, she said “I don't know if it was said to anyone else.”

   The cable begins that ICC “Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told Ambassadors Rice and Wolff on March 20 [2009] that Sudanese President Bashir needed to be isolated. Ocampo suggested if Bashir's stash of money were disclosed (he put the figure at possibly $9 billion), it would change Sudanese public opinion from him being a 'crusader' to that of a thief. Ocampo reported Lloyd's Bank in London might be holding or knowledgeable of the whereabouts of his money.”

   As Inner City Press reported earlier on December 20, “in January 2009 US authorities fined Lloyds $350 million for concealing the origins of wire transfers from Sudan, Iran and Libya in violation of US sanctions against the countries... Lloyds' so recent fine, for concealing the source of money from Sudan, would have given Rice and the Obama Administration leverage to get Bashir's accounts confirmed or denied by Lloyds at that time. At issue is not only corruption by a leader indicted for war crimes and genocide: under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, oil profits were to be split between North and Southern Sudan. Southerns have alleged that the Bashir government had improperly kept and hid revenue. Could this have been the money? What did the US Mission to the UN, State Department and Obama administration do to find out?”

   Expecting to receive some sort of answer to this question, Inner City Press later on December 20 asked Susan Rice, as transcribed by the US Mission to the UN:

Inner City Press: there's a report that Ocampo of the ICC told the U.S. Mission or yourself that Bashir had $9 billion taken from Sudan and put in London, Lloyd's of London, is what he mentioned. And I just wondered, it's one of these cables, I don't want to talk about the cable aspect of it, but I just wanted to know what do you think of that? Is that something Ocampo met with you and Ambassador Wolff and said, and if case, what did the U.S. do to find out if it's true?

Ambassador Rice: I'm not going to comment on cables. I don't have a recollection of that being told to me directly, and I don't know if it was said to anybody else.

   But see the cable:

Tuesday, 24 March 2009, 22:17

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000306 EO 12958 DECL: 03/23/2019

TAGS PGOV, PREL, UNSC, PHUM, SU, XW">XW

SUBJECT: (C) ICC'S OCAMPO ON SUDAN: GO AFTER BASHIR'S MONEY AND CALL FOR HIS ARREST; REASSURE CHINA

Classified By: Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, for reasons 1.4 b/d

1. (C) International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told Ambassadors Rice and Wolff on March 20 that Sudanese President Bashir needed to be isolated. Ocampo suggested if Bashir's stash of money were disclosed (he put the figure at possibly $9 billion), it would change Sudanese public opinion from him being a "crusader" to that of a thief. Ocampo reported Lloyd's Bank in London might be holding or knowledgeable of the whereabouts of his money. Ocampo suggested simply exposing that Bashir had illegal accounts would be enough to turn the Sudanese against him, "as with Pinochet."

2. (C) Ocampo said Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position, and thought Bashir was using the expulsion of the NGOs to divert attention away from his arrest warrant. Ocampo suggested the U.S. and the international community also needed to push for Bashir's arrest to isolate him. Ocampo likened Bashir's situation to "a bleeding shark being surrounded by other sharks," with no loyalty, only greed, motivating those competing for power. By promoting the possibility of Bashir's arrest, Bashir would be further marginalized within Sudan's ruling elite, Ocampo thought.

3. (C) Ocampo suggested it would be beneficial to reassure China that its access to oil would not be jeopardized. If China believed Bashir was becoming a destabilizing influence, Ocampo said China might be more open to his removal as long as his replacement would guarantee support for China's economic interests.

Wolff

   Lloyds' January 2009 fine of $350 million, for concealing the source of money from Sudan, would have given Susan Rice and the Obama Administration leverage to get Bashir's accounts confirmed or denied by Lloyds at that time.

   From the ICC in the Hague on December 19, Moreno Ocampo issued a statement that he did and does have information about the $9 billion. The unprosecutorial briefing of Rice and Wolff described in the cable may cause Moreno Ocampo some problems at the ICC.

   But in light of his December 18 statement, on top of the cable, Ambassador Rice and those above her may wish to provide some further explanation. Watch this site.

* * *


Darfur Seems An Afterthought In Ban Ki-moon's UN, Defense of Gambari, Withholding of Massacre Reports

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 -- “Mister Gambari has been working very hard with the Sudanese government,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press on Friday of his envoy in Darfur.

  Inner City Press had asked why the UN peacekeepers under Ibrahim Gambari's UNAMID command did not leave their base when dozens of civilians were murdered in Tabarat in September, and whether Ban would at least make UNAMID's report on the killings public.

  “We will have to see,” Ban answered. But UNAMID has answered requests for copies of the report by saying it is up to the Secretary General.

Until the very end of Ban's end of year press conference, run by acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq, there had been no questions or answers about Sudan, where the UN has two $1 billion peacekeeping operations. After a protest, Haq allowed the Sudan question from Inner City Press:

On Darfur, you said it was one of your priorities. As the year ends, the government of Omar al Bashir is attacking the one rebel group it supposed made peace with, the Minni Minawi group, UNAMID has no access to Jebel Marra and ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo says that UNAMID doesn't report attacks on civilians because it is threatened by the government. You summoned Ibrahim Gambari to meet you... about the massacres in Tabarat, after the UN peackeeepers didn't even leave their base in Tawila to do to the site. Even the report on these Tabarat killings is being withheld. What will you do differently in 2011?

  To this Darfur question, Ban responded largely about the Southern Sudan referendum. He said, “The situation in Sudan will be one of the top concerns of international community starting January 9... There are sticking issues, to establish a commission in Abyei.” Video here, from Minute 51:31.

  After that Ban turned briefing to Darfur, saying that “the security situation in Darfur a serious concern. The recent bombing by the Sudanese government of the north and south boundary of southern sudan... [We are] making demarches that the Sudanese government should be cooperative. This afternooon I meet the Minister for Peace and the CPA for Southern Sudan to discuss this matter.”

Of the so-called Doha process, Ban answered that the “peace negotiation has not been progressing well. Except that government of Sudan and the Liberation and Justice Movement LJM have agreed to a negotiation text. That can be done, but without participation of all other rebel movements -- JEM, SLA and Abdel Wahid -- without their participation this negotiation will not be sustainable. Joint mediator Bassole is asserting his best efforts.”

Then Ban defended Ibrahim Gambari, saying that “Mister Gambari has been working very hard with the Sudanese government... to have freedom of movement of UN peacekeepers.”

  This implies that the peacekeepers in Tawila for example tried to go to the Tabarat or Tabra site but were stopped by the government. But internal UN communications obtained by Inner City Press show that the UN Peacekeepers told relatives of those being killed and injured that they had come to late, to come back in the morning.

Now the report on the incident is being withheld, with UNAMID saying it is up to the Secretary General, who when asked would not released, instead speaking of “consultations.”

Inner City Press also asked if the report on Sri Lanka war crimes inquiries by Ban's three person Panel of Experts will be made public. Ban did not answer this either. Watch this site.

Footnote: There was widespread dissatisfaction in the UN press corp about how acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq ran the press conference, and about lack of question and answer opportunities with Ban Ki-moon throughout 2010. Ban said he will make an announcement in early 2011 about seeking a second term as S-G. We'll see.

Chez Susan Rice, Cote d'Ivoire Plots, Sudan Greets and Meats, UN Holidays

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 9 -- The Ambassadors of Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire were among the guests at US Ambassador Susan Rice's diplomatic holiday party Thursday night in the Waldorff Towers. The former, Dafallah Osman, had two hours earlier delivered a speech saying that humanitarian groups in Darfur were engaged in “espionage.”

  The Ivorian charge d'affaires asked Inner City Press what now should happen to Laurent Gbagbo, who had appointed him. His interlocutor, another African Permanent Representative, predicted that Gbagbo will try to stay in power a la Robert Mugabe.

  The Ivorian invitation, it was argued, was sent before Gbagbo ignored the election results, and the remnant Deputy Ambassador wasn't part of the “dark side.” But he was plotting how Gbagbo could stay in power, in Susan Rice's living room. This is diplomacy at the UN.

  The crowd was laudably eclectic, including the Special Adviser for the Responsibility to Protect rushing to catch a train for Westchester, the Special Representative on Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict and a slew of Ambassadors, many of whom had stopped first at a Kazakhstan event. There was some talk of upcoming UN budget fights, and more of WikiLeaks.

  The Ambassador of Serbia, a long time UN employee from Georgia and India, bragged about his country's Davis Cup tennis win over France. The Ambassador of Palau, from the Upper West Side, talked up his wife's country's move to create a sanctuary for sharks.

  Tajikistan is taking the chair, at least in New York, of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which sides with Sudan's Omar al Bashir over the International Criminal Court. “I am only the chair,” the Tajik Ambassador told Inner City Press. Israel's Ambassador also spoke at length, which may be a separate story.

  In the US Mission residence's dining room there was turkey, ham and cheese and slew of ASGs, from Human Resources to ACABQ. Interesting art on the walls was said to be on loan for a program for US Embassies. The full USUN team was in the house, from the spokespeople to  Rosemary DiCarlo through Brooke Anderson to Rick Barton and Ambassador Melrose, who covers the Budget Committee.

The US' big event this month will be Youth in the Security Council. Austria will have three youths there, but only if they can pay their own airfare. While they will fetchingly stay overnight with the Austrian Perm Rep, could this be just an event for rich kids?

Even in the US, schools are on hiatus when the event is being held. We'll see who shows up, and what scholarships are provided. It was a friendly event full of holiday spirit. And in Sudan, the UN Mission in Darfur covers up killings. UN Peacekeeping chief Alain Le Roy told Inner City Press he will look into it. What will the US do? Watch this site.

* * *

On Darfur, As UNAMID Covers Up Killings by Sudan, ICC Reports Them

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 9 -- After the UN refused to release what it knows about the killing of civilians at Tabarat and the destruction of Soro and other villages in Darfur in September, the International Criminal Court's report unveiled in the Security Council on December 9 names 13 other destroyed villages (with Soro transliterated as “Souroo”), and has witness quotes what it calls the government sponsored killing in Tabarat (which it calls Tabra).

After ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's presentation to the Security Council on Thursday, Inner City Press on camera asked both him and Sudan's Permanent Representative to the UN Dafallah Osman about the Tabra killings and the destruction of villages.

Sudan's Ambassador said that the killings were “tribal,” involving kidnapping and promises to pay blood money. He praised UNAMID and its leader Ibrahim Gambari (calling him a “seasoned diplomat”).

Inner City Press asked if he thought UNAMID should release what it knows about the Tabra killings. This, he did not answer, instead ranging from saying that Ocampo's report shows NGOs were engaged in “espionage” to claiming that Radio Dabanga was disseminating destabilizing and even “genocidal” information.

Ocampo had stood several yards away, unlike with the previous Sudanese Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed, whom Ocampo stood right next to during their final stare down. When Ocampo came to the microphone, Inner City Press asked him if he thought UNAMID was in essence covering up Sudan's and Bashir's acts by not reporting on them.

Ocampo said that UNAMID is under threat, that's why it doesn't report. This means that UNAMID is not reporting, which is its job. What will Ban Ki-moon, the Security Council and Obama administration do?

Earlier on Thursday, Mark Hanis of the Genocide Intervention Network / Save Darfur Coalition on a press conference call said Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden campaigned on (among other things) protecting civilians in Darfur, and named Samantha Power and Susan Rice as officials. Hanis called them “disappointing” so far. Inner City Press asked what UNAMID should do. Report, Hanis said. But UNAMID does not.

On both December 8 and 9, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky about fighting and death in Darfur, including in Tabarat / Tabra:

Inner City Press: a request made to UNAMID [African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur] for the report that they were supposed to do on the Tabarat killings of 2 September, near Tawilla, the one that the Secretary-General summoned Mr. [Ibrahim] Gambari to speak about. Anyway, somebody that asked him was told that there is no report for external dissemination available on it, and I just wonder, what is the UN’s final finding? Did it do the right thing, in apparently not getting out to the site despite the warning by relatives of those killed? Are all such reports confidential, and in which case, how is the Security Council or the international community to assess the level of violence and killing in Darfur if these new reports never come out?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, that’s a very long question.

Question: This is the only time I’ll ask it, but if there is anything the UN can say about those killings, I’d like to know.

Spokesperson: Well, I hear your question, I think, and let’s look into what the Mission tells us.

More than a full day later, UNAMID has said nothing. When Inner City Press asked again about UNAMID on December 9, Nesirky claimed he had already answered questions, including about attacks the Sudanese government had just bragged about.

In assuming Presidency of the Security Council for December, Susan Rice told Inner City Press that UNAMID (and UNMIS) are required to investigate and report on attacks on civilians. Does that mean report to the public, as the ICC does? What will Susan Rice and the US Mission do?

The press had been told that Susan Rice would speak at the stakeout, where Ocampo and Sudan's Ambassador did. But she did not. A reporter given advance notice that she would not come was told that “one country” had blocked the elements to the press that she would have read. But she could have spoken, especially after what Sudan's Ambassador said, including denying things that the US Mission has previously said, about the Council's interlocutors being harassed and Radio Dabanga's Khartoum office being shut down.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked Ocampo about Guinea -- he said he is watching “national proceedings” -- and Kenya, where witnesses are under threat. Ocampo answered by bragging that none of his witnesses have been injured. But how about retaliated against, given what Sudan's Ambassador said about the NGOs. Watch this site.


At UN, US Susan Rice Confirms Stealth Myanmar Briefing, Speaks on Sudan Sit-Reps, Darfur Mission "Impediments"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- While military ruled Myanmar was on the November agenda of the UN Security Council, albeit in a footnote, it was removed from the agenda for December, during which the United States has the Council Presidency.

  Early on December 2, Inner City Press was told that China had opposed the inclusion of Myanmar in the Program of Work, even as a footnote. It was agreed that, without giving the session a name, UN envoy Vijay Nambiar will brief the Council on his Thanksgiving weekend visit to the country on the afternoon of December 6, under “Any Other Business,” the Council's catch-all phrase.

  When US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice came to brief the press on the month's agenda at 1 pm, the Program of Work distributed to journalist had in the footnotes between “Non-proliferation” and Somalia a blank spot, the length of the word “Myanmar.”

  But on December 6, the Program listed only the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice along with questions on Sudan to confirm that there would in fact be a briefing on December 6, and whether the obviously deleted footnote had been Myanmar.

  Ambassador Rice said that yes, Mister Nambiar will brief on December 6, and said that her copy of the Program of Work reflected that. She did not explain the missing footnote. Q&A here, from Minute 16:04.

  Still she was more responsive than many in the press corps had expected. When her briefing was scheduled for 11:30, some UN correspondents speculated that it was so that no or few questions could be taken before the UN noon briefing.

As it turned out, Rice and the rest of the Council remained in session until 12:30, meeting “in real time” as one of them put it to Inner City Press on the crisis in Ivory Coast.

  (On that, Inner City Press is told that the chairman of the elections commission contacted the US and France to ask for protection to get to the airport. When Inner City Press asked UN acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq about this, and why there seemed to be doubts not only about the chairman's safety but also about UNOCI, Haq said he would not answer.)

  In Rice's briefing, Inner City Press asked about recent incidents in Sudan: the killing of students by the Sudanese authorities in South Darfur in connection with a meeting with joint UN mediator Bassole, and Khartoum's bombing of Northern Bahr al Ghazal state in South Sudan, which even UNMIS confirmed.

  Rice said that all Council members get “sit-reps” from the UN, and can ask for more information. Inner City Press followed up, does UNAMID in Darfur under Ibrahim Gambari do enough to verify reports of attacks?

  Rice answered diplomatically that since UNAMID is one of the largest UN missions and has protection of civilians in its mandate, she has to assume that when UNAMID doesn't go and check, there is some other impediment.

   But would such impediments be Sudanese government prohibitions, or Gambari's proclivities?

Footnote: The Wikileaks scandals had to be asked about, and were. But they were initially asked about in a way that certainly pleased, if not was negotiated by, some surmised, the US Mission: did the leak hurt Ambassador Rice's work? To the same questioner, she said that she will go to the correspondents' association's dinner and fundraiser, but there better be good music. We'll see.


On S. Sudan Vote & Ban's Panel, UN Dodges Questions of Payment, Diaspora Visits

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- With questions mounting about the registration process for the Southern Sudan secession referendum scheduled for January 9, the UN is withholding basic information about the Panel to which Secretary General Ban Ki-moon “outsourced” key parts of the UN's role.

  At media briefings by Ban's spokesperson, Inner City Press has asked about how the Panel is funded, which registration sites they have visited in the United States, Canada, Ethiopia and Kenya, and whether they are implicitly trying to blame the SPML for under-registration of Southern Sudanese in the Northern part of the country and/or in the eight “diapora” countries in which polling would be held.

  UN acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq has declined to answer many of these questions, referring instead to a separate spokesperson's office set up for the panel. While Inner City Press has sent this “outsourced” office two recent rounds of questions, only one has been answered, and then only partially.

  This seems to be a pattern at the UN -- to name a Panel and then refuse to answer questions about the subject matter outsourced to the Panel.

  Left unanswered for example is when the registration site in four of the diaspora countries -- Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom -- will be visited and by whom, how much Panel chair Benjamin Mkapa has been paid and by whom, and what he meant when he blamed “some Southerners” for blocking registration in the North of Southern Sudanese.

  Herebelow in order are Inner City Press' two rounds of question, both of which were copied to Ban Ki-moon's two top spokespeople without response, the UN Panel spokesman's partial response to the first round, and the second round un-responded to for more than 24 hours:

Hi. I would like responses on deadline to the following questions, as well as those I asked at the OSSG's noon briefings on November 22 and November 19:

How many people work for the Panel?

How much has thus far been paid to these people and to each of the three Panelists?

How much of this has come from the Basket Fund, and how much through UNMIS?

What is the status for each donor or pledger to the Basket Fund?

As asked November 19, has a vote by the Basket Fund group been taken regarding funding the Panel? If not, why not?

How much has been paid from the Basket Fund (or UNMIS) to IOM?

In which of the eight diaspora states have registration sites actually been visited?

Please provide updated registration figures or estimates for each diaspora country, as well as the number and location of registration (and polling) sites in each.

As asked November 22, on the statement “made from the Secretary-General’s Panel on the referendum. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the low numbers of Southern registrants in the North. Some people are putting the number as low as 9,000. So it seemed like, in your statement, you are saying some Southerners are encouraging other Southerners — I just want to understand, because the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] blames it all on Khartoum.”

When the Panel chair referred to “a campaign by some Southern leaders to encourage people not to register and vote outside Southern Sudan” was he referring to any SPLM role or not?

Separately, why is there no Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General briefing on November 26?

These were partially responded to by the Panel's spokesman:

Matthew, The Panel will have 38 staff when it reaches full deployment, which is expected by the end of this month. They are paid regular salaries just like any other UN staff members.

Any questions about the basket fund should be directed to UNDP.

Registration sites have been visited in Canada, Ethiopia, Kenya and the United States. Staff are about to visit sites in Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom as well.

IOM is conducting registration in the diaspora countries, so it will have the figures on the number of people registering and the number of sites. The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission will have the equivalent information for within Sudan.

The Panel chair was referring to Southern leaders and not to any specific SPLM role.

This response openly evaded the question for example of how much Benjamin Mkapa has been paid, as well as declining to answer questions about the Basket Fund to which the spokesman, and the Office of the Spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, has repeatedly made reference. And so these follow ups were submitted more than 24 hours ago to both UN offices:

Thanks but I again ask, with emphasis: How much has thus far been paid to each of the three Panelists? What you sent implies that they are “like any other UN staff members.” Are the three Panelists paid “When Actually Employed”? When have they so far been actually employed? How much have they been paid and by / through which mechanism: UNMIS or Basket Fund?

Please specify (with address) the registration sites the Panel has already visited in Canada, Ethiopia, Kenya and the United States, and will visit in Australia, Egypt, Uganda and the United Kingdom including date and who visit(ed).

And I am still asking for your (and OSSG/UNMIS) response or update on para 14 ofUnited Nations A/65/571 of 12 November 2010, Financing arrangements for the United Nations Mission in the Sudan for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions

14. Concerning the requirements for the Secretary-General’s Panel, the Committee noted that, in paragraph 78 of his report to the Security Council on the Sudan (S/2010/528), the Secretary-General had indicated that it was expected that UNDP would contribute an amount of $0.9 million. Upon enquiry, the Committee was informed that the provision of those funds was uncertain, as the UNDP project documents for the referenda in the Sudan did not include the activities of the Panel and it would, therefore, require a decision by the basket fund steering committee. As such, no immediate disbursements could be made to facilitate the deployment of Panel support staff. The Committee was informed that should UNDP succeed in mobilizing resources for supporting the Panel, reimbursement to UNMIS would be made. The Advisory Committee is of the view that the Mission should continue to pursue this issue with UNDP and requests that further information on the status of the contribution be included in the context of the performance report.”

What is the status? What has UNMIS / DPKO / the Secretariat done? On deadline, thanks.

And after 24 hours and counting, no answer at all. Watch this site.

From the UN's November 22 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask about Sudan on the statement that you made from the Secretary-General’s Panel on the referendum. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the low numbers of Southern registrants in the North. Some people are putting the number as low as 9,000. So it seemed like, in your statement, you are saying some Southerners are encouraging other Southerners — I just want to understand, because the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] blames it all on Khartoum.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, that was just a summary of a press conference that President Mkapa held in Khartoum, and I’d just refer you to the transcript of that. We have that available in our office.

Inner City Press: And does the Secretary-General’s Panel have any role in overseeing these sites, these eight Diaspora voting sites in Africa, the United States, Australia? Are they going to visit any of those sites? And there is some controversy now about the IOM [International Organization for Migration] role in it. It’s not exactly clear to me who is funding the IOM for that work, but what is the Panel’s role on these other sites?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: No, you can check with the Panel itself about the sites. It’s looking at the whole referenda process, which includes sites for Southerners to vote in the North.

Inner City Press: But isn’t his Panel — I have had some problem in the past getting responses from the Panel, so I just wanted to know, it’s the Secretary-General, he set up the terms of reference, it’s his delegated Panel, right?

At UN, Turkish Cypriot Leader Denounces EU, Calls Downer and His Team Fatigued, Looks to January

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 - video here -- Two months after denying that UN mediator Alexander Downer was “exhausted” by the negotiations between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, TRNC President Dervis Eroglu told Inner City Press on November 19 that “not only Downer but everyone involved are showing signs of fatigue, they are tired of continuing negotiating so long.”

  Eroglu was in New York for meetings with Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias, Downer and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He told the Press he wouldn't go into details of what had been said, but he denounced the European Union which, he said, had taken all pressure off the Greek Cypriots by according EU membership.

  The EU “cannot be an honest broker,” he said, adding that the EU has “not keep its promise of 2004 of lifting the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots,” who now have little confidence in the EU.

  Inner City Press asked if the TRNC, if there's no progress by the next meeting with Ban in January 2011, might declare independence as Kosovo did. Eroglu said this would be considered in January, not before while there are talks. Things should be decided one way or the other, both he and his spokesman Osman Ertug said.

The November 19 interview took place in the Office of the TRNC on the 9th floor of the Turkish Mission to the UN's building. A florescent light bulb flickered; there were maps of Northern Cyprus and New York City's five boroughs on the walls.

  Other questions came to mind, everything between bank regulation in the TRNC and what passports Eroglu and Ertug were traveling on. (Turkish, appears to be the answer, despite the response in the interview that “the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an independent country.”)

As previously reported by Inner City Press, the TRNC is given its own entry passes to the UN, under the name “Turkish Cypriot Community.” This is based on being part of a UN mediated negotiation process. But how much longer will that last? Watch this site.


On Sudan, Susan Rice Defends Decoupling Darfur from Terror Sanctions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 10 -- With killing in Darfur escalating and internally displaced people arrested and harassed for providing testimony, United States Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice was asked Wednesday by the Press why the US has told Sudan that if it allows the referendum in South Sudan and “addresses” Abyei, the Obama administration will move to take Sudan off the state sponsors of terrorism list.

This was called “decoupling from Darfur” by an Obama administration official who asked to not be named; human rights advocates have called it “de-emphasizing” or even selling out Darfur.

  When Ambassador Rice came to speak about blocking Iran from the board of UN Women at the stakeout in front of the UN Security Council, which will host a November 16 ministerial level meeting on Sudan, mostly on the South Sudan referendum, Inner City Press twice asked that she take a Sudan question. To her credit she did, offering an explanation -- unconvincing to some -- of the administration's thinking. Videohere.

  In essence Ambassador Rice argued that since there are other US sanctions regimes on Sudan, taking the country off the state sponsor of terrorism list in exchange for allowing the South Sudan referendum should not be read as de-emphasizing Darfur. Said otherwise, the US is offering a “carrot” for something other than Darfur.

Inevitably, Sudanese diplomats see in this a de-emphasize of scrutiny on Darfur. Something that they went -- off of the terrorism sanctions list -- could be obtained regardless of escalation of killing and harassment in Darfur. Some might even call this, intentionally or not, a green light.

At the November 10 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to confirm a report by Radio Dabanga, the closure of whose Khartoum office has been denounced, that UN Humanitarian Coordinator Valerie Amos “apologized” to IDPs in Darfur for the UN's failure to protect them, including after some spoke to the Council and Ms. Rice on October 8.

  Haq pointed to canned (and confusing) statements issued by Amos' office, while indicating she may speak to the press upon her return to New York. Video here.

Here is the US Mission to the UN's transcript of Inner City Press' question and Susan Rice's answer:

Inner City Press: I wanted to know about the decoupling Darfur from the state sponsorship of terrorism, with a State department official quoted, unnamed saying that the Obama administration would move to take Sudan off the state sponsored terrorism list if the referenda go forward, but that Darfur is being decoupled... I just wanted to understand, how is one to read that in terms of the importance of humanitarian and the escalating violence in Darfur?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Well first of all the United States, as you've heard me express on many occasions, and so have my colleagues and counterparts in Washington, is very much focused on the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in Darfur. We're very concerned about it. We're focused on it. There are a number, frankly a large number, of sanctions in U.S. law that relate not only to the situation between the north and the south, but also to Darfur, and they will not be alleviated [unless and] until the situation in Darfur is adequately addressed consistent with U.S. law. What we have also said to the Government of Sudan is that were it to take the steps that it's committed to and allow the peaceful and on-time conduct of the referendum in the South, and resolve all of the outstanding issues that remain between the two sides, including Abyei and borders and security and citizenship, to name just a few, as well as respect the outcome of the referendum, then that could initiate a process of improved relations with the United States. We've communicated to them what that process might look like, and we think it's in the interest of the Government of Sudan and the people, all of the people of Sudan, to fulfill their commitment to implement the CPA and choose a peaceful resolution to this longstanding conflict. Thank you very much.

  On this last, another Permanent Five member of the Council's Permanent Representative has said, on condition of anonymity, that it is increasingly unlikely that even the South Sudan referendum will be held on January 9, and that focus has turned to convincing the leaders in South Sudan not to hold their own referendum. Watch this site.


Amid Darfur Force Build Up by Sudan, UK is Cautious, UN Cuts Off Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 2 -- The UK leads on Darfur for the UN Security Council, over which it presides this month. Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant what the UK is doing about the arrests which have followed the Council's visit to Darfur last month, and about reports of the Government of Sudan amassing forces for an assault on Darfur before the North - South referendum is scheduled on January 9.

  Lyall Grant said that it is “unclear who was arrested” and whether they met in preparation “for the Security Council meeting or actually met” with the Council members. He said it will be pursued, before the at the Council's November 16 session about Sudan. He did not address reports of a build up.

  Sources tell Inner City Press that tanks and troops have been seen in the North Darfur areas of Kutum, Kernoi, and Altina, while janjaweed gatherings have been seen in the West Darfur in areas of Geneina and Kulbus.

  When pro Government of Sudan volunteers reportedly landed in Kutum airport, one was asked by a Darfuri policeman, who are you and where are you going? The person reportedly answered, we are mujahideen and the government told us we have to fight the infidels and their supporters in Darfur. We came to clean Darfur.

   Some Arab tribes revolted and refused to participate in the operation. Sources say most of those revolted were in the army and belong to Bani Halba Arab tribe. The operation would start with aerial bombings with planes taking off from Dongola in the North Sudan (neighboring state to Darfur in th nile north) rather than from Darfur airports (due to the last noise regarding U.N.S.C. visit and arms embargo reports). The operation is timed to finish before referendum of Jan 2011. That's what sources say.

  Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky if the UN could confirm that its humanitarian coordinator in Sudan Georg Charpentier has ordered the cessation of all “non essential” monitoring missions and thus reporting, and if it could confirm the build up. Nesirky said that he will check and get back. He curtailed the Q&A session for Lyall Grant's briefing, and declined to continue it afterward.

   During Lyall Grant's program of work briefing, Inner City Press also asked about the November 4 “horizon scanning” briefing by the UN's Department of Political Affairs, whether it was meant to be called “preventive diplomacy” but some countries opposed that. Lyall Grant did not directly answer, but said it should be free wheeling, as he said that evening's dinner and UK ship ride with Ban Ki-moon will be. We'll see.

Footnote: in setting the program of work, the UK service muffins and coffee, and gave each Council member a copy of a caricature of all 15 Ambassadors by artist Steve Nyman. Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Permanent Representative Philip Parham, said to have originated the idea of giving a caricature instead of, say, a clock, about the artist. It's said he has a web site. For the UK's knowledge, the names of two people arrested after the Darfur visit are Abdullah Ishaq Abdel Razek, the supervisor of the nutrition program of the camp’s schools, and Mohammed Abdullah Mohammed Al-Haj. Their connections to the Security Council visit are also on the web. Watch this site.

UN Panel on South Sudan Vote Said “Independent from UNMIS,” Which Pays It $4.3 Million

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 29 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named a three person panel on the South Sudan referendum, it was said that the panel would be independent from the UN Mission in Sudan, UNMIS.

  When Inner City Press asked panel members Benjamin Mkapa, Antonio Monteiro, Bhojraj Pokharel and their staff “are being compensated or having their expenses paid,” UNMIS spokesman Ashraf Eissa replied that “the SG's Panel is a totally independent panel from UNMIS. It reports directly to the SG in NY. The Panel Spokesperson can be contacted for such information.”

  After some delay, the Panel Spokesperson told Inner City Press that “the Panel, including the salaries of its staff, is being funded from the budget of UNMIS.”

What then about the panel being independent from UNMIS, if its members and their staff are being paid by UNMIS? How can the UN and UNMIS be credible, including in reporting on troops build ups on the border, if they call something independent from UNMIS when it is getting paid by UNMIS?

In fact, in the Secretariat's current budget submission A/65/509 it is said in Paragraphs 9-10 that

the Secretary-General’s Panel on the Referenda in the Sudan has been established. This monitoring body will be an instrument for building trust in the process and acceptance of the outcomes of the referenda.... The Panel is independent from the rest of UNMIS, to distinguish it from the Mission and its role in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and other mandated activities, including support for the referenda and planning for the following period.

The Panel, which has been established for a period of six months, effective September 2010, involves 41 temporary positions, including one Under-Secretary-General and two Assistant Secretary-General positions comprising the Panel itself, supported by 38 international staff (1 D-1, 6 P-5, 21 P-4 and 10 P-3). Given the urgent need for these additional staff, 41 temporary positions have been approved for a period of six months, on an exceptional basis, to enable the Panel to commence its operations. The cost is estimated at $4.3 million, including $4.1 million in staff related costs and $0.2 million in travel costs.”

  How can one square this statement that “the Panel is independent from the rest of UNMIS” with the later admission that the Panel members and their staff are paid by UNMIS?

Inner City Press, in writing on October 28, asked both the Panel Spokesman and Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky. By noon on October 29, neither had responded, or even confirmed receipt.

  At the October 29 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky how the Panel could be described -- as in the Secretariat's budget submission, above -- as independent from UNMIS, if its members and staff are being piad by UNMIS. Video here from Minute 12:26.

  Nesirky replied that “it's a question of financing and funding... at the end of the day its by [the UN Department of Political Affairs] that this is being handled.”

Inner City Press asked why then isn't DPA paying the Panel members and staff, and how can the UN say the Panel is “independent” from UNMIS if its members and staff are being paid by UNMIS?

Nesirky cut Inner City Press off, saying “Next question.” But the questions will continue. Watch this site.


Sudan Blocking Malnutrition Data, Allowed by UN, Raised to Right to Food Rapporteur

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 21 -- On Darfur, first the UN stopped producing its Humanitarian Report, then it stopped producing any Global Malnutrition Data. In August 2010, Inner City Press asked why and was told the data would be available “in one or two days.” It wasn't.

In mid September, new Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos told Inner City Press that the delay was due to attempts to do “joint assessments” with the Sudanese government, whose President Omar al Bashir has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

  On October 21, with data still not released and the UN - African Union Mission in Darfur now refusing to answer questions from Inner City Press about the data and other collaboration with the al Bashir government, Inner City Press asked the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter about both the blocking of release of malnutrition data, and Sudan's blockade of food from internally displaced persons camps like that in Kalma. Video here, from Minute 32:02.

  Olivier de Schutter told Inner City Press that he will investigate the complaints if provided with sufficient prima facie evidence. Video here, from Minute 37.  This has now been done.

  Beyond Ms. Amos' September 15 statement that the cessation of reporting malnutrition data is attributable to the Sudanese government, now at last a UNICEF official has spoken out more clearly, expressing

“concern that the Sudanese government 'very often' bars the release of data on child malnutrition in Darfur. Nils Kastberg, UNICEF Representative in Sudan, said that the Sudanese security services have also hindered or delayed UNICEF’s access to camps in Darfur.

“Kastberg told Radio Dabanga: 'Part of the problem has been when we conduct surveys to help us address issues, in collaboration with the ministry of health, very often other parts of the government such as the humanitarians affairs commission interferes and delays in the release of reports, making it difficult for us to respond timely.'

“UN cooperation with the Khartoum ministries like the Ministry of Health has failed to secure publication of the reports. The UNICEF country chief said 'we are raising these issues with the government at the moment that the humanitarian affairs commission should not interfere with the release of these reports.'

“Kastberg also pointed out that certain government agencies hinder the entry of UNICEF staff into the camps. 'Sometimes it is security services that hinder access or delay access, sometimes it is the humanitarian affairs office that delays the release of nutritional surveys. Sometimes it is delays in granting permissions and visas. It is different sections of different institutions which interfere in our work.'”

This has now been submitted to Special Rapporteur de Schutter by Inner City Press. Watch this site.

* * *

As UN Gambari Plans Hand Over to Bashir in Sudan, Torture Complaint Mulled at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 19 -- Could the UN, or the chief of its peacekeeping mission in Darfur Ibrahim Gambari, be on the verge of violating the UN Convention Against Torture?

  Inner City Press asked the chairman of the UN Committee Against Torture Claudio Grossman this question on October 19, referring to the leaked documents showing Gambari's plan to turn over five supporters of Fur rebel Abdel Wahid Nur to the government of Omar al Bashir, accused of genocide, war crimes and, yes, torture. Video here, from Minute 23:25.

  Grossman answered that “as to the UN system... no one should be sent to places where he or she will be tortured.” Video here from Minute 30. He cited this prohibition to Article 3 of the Convention.
Gambari, hiding in plain sighting, CAT violation not shown

Inner City Press asked, but if a complaint is filed about Gambari's and the UN's pending turn over of five people to Bashir, how would Grossman's Committee Against Torture process it? Video here, from Minute 30:20.

Grossman said that while in one sense the Committee's work is limited to member states, there is creative lawyering. Not only other venues such as Working Groups and the Special Rapporteur on Torture, but also “journalism can play a role,” he said.

So one wonders why the SLA, or someone on behalf of the Kalma Five, doesn't start raising the question as an anti-torture issue, using Gambari's draft -- which contains no assurances on this -- as the basis for the complaints? Watch this site.


As UN Admits Burning of Darfur Village, It Had a Health Center But Now “No Access”

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON DC, October 17 -- A recently destroyed Darfur village, mentioned in a document of UN humanitarian coordinator Georg Charpentier but not to the Security Council during their visit last week, has been belatedly been acknowledged by the UN, in a prepared statement issued October 14.

  After Inner City Press asked about the village, and the UN's silence, on October 11 and 12, on October 14 spokesman Martin Nesirky said “I have been asked a couple times about reports of attacks on a village in Jebel Marra. We have actually had reports of attacks on as many as six villages, including the one already named, Soro, as well as other villages in eastern Jebel Marra. These villages have not all been identified, as the information about the reported attacks is very sketchy. Confirmation is difficult, and there is no access in these areas.”

  First, Inner City Press which traveled to Darfur last week can name other attacked villages: Dera and Jawa, whose residents fled to Sebi village, and Suni whose residents fled to Logi village.

Second, it is worth comparing the UN's October 14, 2010 statement “there is no access to these areas” to a job advertisement of the village of Soro in 2008, recruiting a coordinator to work in a health clinic there. (See below.)

That this now destroyed village was a health clinic is significant, as is the fact that the access that existed is now gone. Under the tenure of Georg Charpentier and UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari, so close to the regime of Omar al Bashir that he is about to turn over supporters of Fur rebel Abdel Wahid Nur to Bashir, there has been less and less protection of civilians in Darfur.

Rather, from Charpentier we have propaganda like press releases such as the one Nesirky read out on October 14:

“Georg Charpentier, is concerned by limitations on humanitarian access in view of intensified fighting in parts of Eastern Jebel Marra in Darfur. The Humanitarian Coordinator welcomed the recent access by the World Health Organization and UNICEF to some parts of Eastern Jebel Marra, and he calls upon parties to the conflict to facilitate humanitarian access on a regular basis. In this regard, he notes recent assurances from the Government of Sudan that access will be enlarged and sustained to allow for coverage of the national immunization campaign that started today.”

  As the local press Radio Dabanga has noted, “Past press releases from Georg Charpentier have been screened by the Sudanese ministry of humanitarian affairs, a UN official who is senior to Charpentier has told the New York-based Inner City Press. Charpentier has denied this.”

   Ambassadors including US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice have had this issue and now Soro raised to them, but so far at least publicly have done nothing.

  The only reason Inner City Press learned of Charpentier's awareness of the destruction of villages in Jebel Marra was that he left a single copy a binder marked “Internal Use Only” on the Press bus in El Fasher on October 8.

  The internal document was from “September 27 - October 4 2010” and referred to “Sora” with an A, and spoke of “intense ground fighting and aerial attacks in Eastern Jebel Marra over the past week, with several villages heavily affected, including Sora, which was completely burned down.”

  But in the Dubai airport on the way back to New York, Inner City Press managed to ask two Permanent Five members of the Security Council if Charpentier had mentiones this village destruction to them. One said plainly, “no;” the other jumped ahead to use of the above quoted, whether the destruction was aerial (direct government) or ground (government supported janjawiid).

Once back in New York, Inner City Press asked on October 11

Inner City Press: as we left there, some, Mr. [Georg] Charpentier had provided a document that seems to indicate that, in the week before the Council’s visit, a village called Sora in eastern Jebel Marra was “entirely, completely burned down”. I know that Mr. Charpentier briefed the Council” members, but none of them on the way back seemed to… this wasn’t mentioned to them. I heard the very positive upbeat report you gave, what does UNAMID and Mr. Charpentier do when a village is entirely destroyed? Is it an important thing? Is it the kind of thing that they should brief the Council about?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: Can you roll back and tell me again, because it is sort of confusing.

Inner City Press: Okay. Among documents that Mr. Charpentier provided at the end of the trip…

Spokesperson: To whom?

Inner City Press: He gave it into the Press bus, saying that this would just verify things that he’d said about things not being a problem in Jebel Marra. But deep in the document, it says that a village named Sora was completely burned down. It doesn’t say whether it was by ground fighting or an aerial attack. But if it’s aerial, it seems it would be the Government. None of the Security Council ambassadors on the way back had been aware of this or had been briefed on this. So, I guess my question, it’s a twofold one, factually it would be is it possible to discover from Mr. Charpentier, whose document this is, whether the village of Sora was destroyed from the air or by ground? And maybe some statement on why, in the briefing that he gave to the Council, this destruction was not raised?

Spokesperson: I am assuming you didn’t raise it with him yourself, because it was passed into the bus, and then you read it after the bus pulled away?

Inner City Press: I read it actually on the way back, yes, yes.

Spokesperson: Right. Okay, well let’s relay that back whence you just came.

At the next day's noon briefing, Nesirky provided update. So Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: Did you get anything back on this issue of this village of Sora that was listed as being…?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I can assure you that something is in the works. I don’t have anything for you right now. Something is in the works.

It was two days later on October 14 with the above-quoted “thing in the works” was unveiled.

  It was a prepared statement from Charpentier, read out by Nesirky, that did not disclose whether the villages were destroyed by aerial attack or ground fighting, but rather welcome access granted by the government of Omar al Bashir and, like Gambari, Bashir's assurances.

Here's from the Medecins du Monde job notice about Soro

General Coordinator

Médecins du Monde

Médecins du Monde is an international humanitarian organisation whose mission is : to provide medical care for the most vulnerable populations when they are faced with crisis or exclusion from society, the world over, including France

The rationale of the project is to participate to the improvement of the health care status and capacity of the population to maintain its own health status, in Deribat region. It will seek to:

- Reinforce primary health care services for the population, covered by six health care centres (Deribat, Jawa, Suni, Dera, Kebra, Soro) with the focus:

- of improving maternal and children health

- of improving the nutritional state of children under 5

- of preventing and treating common pathologies and those that could lead to epidemics

- Implement a global and integrated evaluation of population needs and a protection chapter on the question of human rights.

So there was a health care center in Soro. And now it's gone. Watch this site.

In Darfur, Sora Destroyed and Kalma Dismantled Before Blind UN Council Visit

By Matthew Russell Lee

KHARTOUM, October 9 -- In the week before the UN Security Council arrived in Darfur, the village of Sora “was completely burned down” as part of “intense ground fighting and aerial attacks in Eastern Jebel Marra.”

These quotes come from a UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report which was left on the bus of the Press covering the Council's visit.

  But the destruction of Sora, and the systematic dismantling of the Kalma Internally Displace Persons camp, were not highlighted to the Council ambassadors by the UN's Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Georg Charpentier.

Inner City Press asked two Permanent Five members' ambassadors, after the Council's final press conference, about the destruction of Sora and dismantling of the Kalma Camp. One had never heard of Sora's destruction, despite briefings ostensibly on humanitarian issues in Darfur.

The other, who said that the dismantling of Kalma Camp had not been discussed, took interest in the wording of the OCHA document Inner City Press quoted from, that the destruction was either from ground fighting or aerial attacks. Which one? Not that the UN Security Council would imposes a no fly zone at this point over Darfur or South Sudan.

The document was brought to and left on the press bus after Inner City Press asked Charpentier why he had not been more vocal about the government's blockage of the Kalma Camp during the summer, and the lack of humanitarian access to Jebal Marra from February to September of this year, and now again, after a single assessmentmission to parts of Jebal Marra.

Charpentier replied that the blockade of Kalma Camp has been “exaggerated” by the media. Of Jebel Marra, he said that food was not a problem but rather blankets, since “it gets cold up there.” He did not mention the destruction of whole villages like Sora, either to the Press or it seems to the Council.

Many in the humanitarian and journalistic communities have doubts about Charpentier's even handedness -- the former saying he tries to assuage Khartoum by saying little, the latter that he has checked his press releases with Omar al Bashir's Minister for Humanitarian Affairs Joseph Lual Achuil. (Charpentier has denied this, but a higher UN official tells Inner City Press it is true, during “this sensitive period.”)

But that the Security Council Ambassadors did not themselves zero in on conditions in Kalma Camp, which has suffered violence then the blockage and now a stand off in which the UN's Ibrahim Gambari is negotiating with the Al Bashir regime to turn over five supporters of Fur rebel Abdel Wahid Nur for show trial and punishment, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, is troubling.

  Regarding this impending and unprecedented turn over, a Western diplomat speaking to Inner City Press on Saturday on condition of being identified this way -- that is, on background -- said that “Professor Gambari conveyed to me and others this is an issue the UN continues to work on, in discussions with the government and the UN is committed to dealing with this in a fashion consistent with its principles and international humanitarian law and that's the basis on which they continue to negotiation and discuss.”

This is discussing turning over government opponents to a strongman indicted by the ICC for war crimes and genocide, with the fig leaf that said president's promise not to execute those turned over make it comply with international humanitarian law and the UN's principles.

Is the failure to follow through the the dismantling of the Kalma IDP camp, and the failure to do anything about the destruction of the entire village of Sora in the week before the Security Council came to Darfur, consistent with the UN's, OCHA's and the Security Council's principles? Watch this site.


Sudan Trip by UN Security Council and Press Set for Oct 4, Last Minute NCP Questions, Did Bashir Say Yes?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1, 2010, updated -- The trip next week to Sudan by the UN Security Council and media including Inner City Press has been confirmed, with the belated granting of visas by the Sudanese consulate in New York on Friday afternoon.

  To some, the trip is still in limbo. A senior official of Sudan's ruling National Congress Party Rabie Abdelati Obeid was quoted Friday afternoon that

We got to know of this information from the media that the United Nations Security Council will come to Sudan. But, up to now, I don’t think our government has received any information to coordinate, or to do the arrangement required for the U.N Security Council... I doubt that this U.N. Security Council (team) will be coming without informing our government. According to protocol, the president should be aware and should know because he is responsible for each and everything in the country. That is why I think such (a) visit will not happen unless this is (first coordinated with the president’s office) or through the proper channels.”

   As presented in New York, the Security Council will travel from Uganda to Juba in South Sudan, west to Darfur, then for meetings in Khartoum. Apparently not part of the meetings is President Omar al Bashir, who has been indicted for war crimes and genocide by the International Criminal Court.

   The US and UK said they could or would not meet with Bashir, and they said they were negotiating a mutually acceptable arrangement.

Don't ask, don't tell” is the compromise that has been worked out: the Council will not ask to meet with Bashir, and he won't ask to meet with them. But, Inner City Press points out, he could just show up. He is after all the president of the country.

   France had also expressed opposition to meeting with Bashir, but French Permanent Representative Araud will not be making the trip. Nor will Russia's Vitaly Churkin, nor Nigeria's Joy Ogwu.

  Churkin nevertheless used a Council meeting on September 30 to ask which journalists had asked to go, and why the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General needed to send anyone at all. Spokesperson Martin Nesirky has been seen rather desperately speaking Russian with Churkin. It does not appear that this has solved Nesirky's and his office's expulsion from Council consultations.

  Leaving New York on the evening of Monday, October 4, the Council will first travel via a UN plane from Nairobi to Uganda and meet with President Yoweri Museveni. The troops he has dispatched to the African Union mission in Somalia will be discussed, their compensation and whether in light of the UN's Mapping Report alleging war crimes by the UPDF in the Democratic Republic of Congo they will be withdrawn.

   Then on to Sudan, apparently. Outside the Security Council chamber on Friday afternoon, the Permanent Representative of a Permanent Five member of the Council said, of course we are going, they have given us the visas and we have the terms of reference. And at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, Inner City Press received its visa.

  So what is the NCP's Rabie Abdelati Obeid talking about? Or does this reflect a split in the NCP, perhaps to reveal itself more while the Council is in Sudan?

As noted above, Inner City Press is going on the trip. The goal is to file five or more pieces a day, wireless permitting. Watch this site.

On Sudan, Border & Abyei Issues Fester, AU Says Accountability Is Not Everything

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- As the UN's Sudan meeting ended Friday night, African Union Commission President Jean Ping and top UN Peacekeeper Alain Le Roy took questions from the Press. The Communique just issued differed slightly from the near final draft Inner City Press exclusively put online earlier on Friday. Among the changes: the phrase “human rights” was cut from the final paragraph.  Inner City Press is putting the final Communique online here.

Inner City Press asked if the border demarcation and Abyei issues including regarding oil would be resolved before the January 9 referendum date. Le Roy said “hopefully” they would be resolved. Jean Ping intervened to, essentially, instruct the Press to not be negative, like predicting an earthquake.

About Darfur, Inner City Press asked what Le Roy was doing to ensure that UN Peacekeepers can and do leave their bases and protect civilians, as did not happen in the Tarabat Market earlier this month. Le Roy said things are getting better, and to the side of the stakeout UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari nodded vigorously.

Inner City Press asked why UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had Gambari and his UNMIS counterpart Haile Menkerios go to the inauguration of Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.


UN's Ban and AU's Ping: accountability is not everything

 Le Roy began the party line -- the Secretary General takes accountability seriously -- when Jean Ping broke in to chide those who are only about accountability. Peace is important, he said.

The AU's position is clearer than the UN's. Watch this site.

Phrase in near final draft of Communique:

The core objective of the international community and all stakeholders in Sudan is the peaceful coexistence of the people of Sudan, enjoyment of human rights, democracy, economic development, accountability

As adopted (without human rights-- Inner City Press is putting the final Communique online here)

The core objective of the international community and all stakeholders in Sudan is the peaceful coexistence of the people of Sudan, democratic governance, accountability” etc

* * *

Obama Does Not Mention Bashir, Whose VP Taha Praises Obama at UN Sudan Meet

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- The open portion of the UN Sudan meeting was as surprising for what was not said as for what was. US President Barack Obama in his ten minute speech did not once mention Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

  Sudan's Vice President Ali Osman Taha on the other hand, or perhaps in reciprocation, praised “the next direction and the emergent spirit of the United States of America of positive and constructive engagement.”

  Inner City Press was allowed in the meeting for the first four speakers, and got the first copy of Taha's prepared speech. That the praise of Obama was in the prepared text may imply that Taha and his government knew that Bashir would not be mentioned.

  Similarly, after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Taha earlier in the week, Inner City Press asked her spokesman PJ Crowley if Bashir, and specifically whether he would require a meeting and photo op if the UN Security Council visits the country as initially planned on October 4 to 11, Crowley said Bashir “did not come up” in the meeting.

  After being asked to leave Friday's Sudan meeting after Ban Ki-moon, Obama, Taha and Salva Kiir spoke, Inner City Press asked a Security Council Ambassador if any progress had been made on scheduling the Council trip to Sudan, which members such as Austria and Mexico want.

  No, the Ambassador said, maybe after the meeting. Asked by Inner City Press about Obama not mentioning Bashir, the Ambassador nodded and added, “it will be interesting to see how many of the African heads of state present mention Bashir and how.” Yes, it will.


On Sudan, UN to Name Panel This Week, Obama's 5 Minutes on Darfur & Bashir Photo Op?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 20 -- Before the Sudan meeting on September 24, which will include US President Barack Obama and Rwandan President Paul Kagame among others, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is trying to name the three members of his Panel to monitor the referendums set for January 9.

The UN says it is trying to name a former African head of state as the panel's chairperson, but has received push-back from the National Congress Party of Omar al Bashir and from the SPLM. The UN privately admits that it will not open the 80 monitoring sites it has announced, but perhaps only as few as fifty five.

  Meanwhile on Darfur, joint UN - African Union mediator Bassole wants to announce a new set of talks in Doha for September 28-29 with “a movement,” believed to be the relatively pro government Liberation and Justice Movement, which is headed by a former UN staff member.

  Another former UN staff member who served with the Mission in Western Sahara which has yet to hold the referendum promised there is now in charge in Sudan of the Referendum Commission, with the UN trying to provide assurances to the SPLM that this does not portend delay.

  Inner City Press on September 20 asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm that previous service with the UN in Western Sahara. Nesirky, who often tried to shirk off such questions from Inner City Press to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations or Department of Political Affairs could not do so in this instance, and promised to revert.

  Nesirky or DPKO should also explain how it is legitimate for the UN to use UN Volunteers for most of the 600 new posts in its UNMIS Mission. Nesirky's office has previously claimed that the UN's humanitarian coordinator Georg Charpentier does not show his press releases to the Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister, something of which a more senior UN official has since said that Nesirky's answer was not true, that the releases ARE being shown during this “tense” period.

  Of the September 24 meeting itself, the UN has already circulated the elements of the statement it hopes will issue, and says that Ban Ki-moon will restrain himself to five minutes, hoping that other participants will. But President Obama's advisor Samantha Power, on a September 20 conference call, said that Obama will be delivering “substantial remarks” in the meeting.

   Inner City Press was not called on to ask Ms. Power or Ambassador Susan Rice to describe the current status of the UN Security Council's trip to Sudan, which has been stalled based on the desire of the US, UK and France to avoid a photo op with Omar al Bashir, indicted for war crimes and genocide. There is a dinner on Monday night hosted by Sudan at which this may be discussed. Or will the trip be among Obama's “substantive remarks” on Friday?

  On the White House conference call, very little was said of Darfur. The UN has accepted restrictions on its freedom of movement so that it does not even leave its bases while civilians are being slaughtered, as happened earlier this month in the Tarabat Market. President Obama, it seems, will not be mentioning this. And the UN, retaliating for coverage of its inaction, speaks only to its friends. Some diplomacy. Watch this site.


On Sudan, UN Ban Admits Limits on Peacekeepers, Gambari Summoned, Change Pledged


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, September 9 -- In Darfur a week ago, UN Peacekeepers refused a request by the relatives of those killed and injured by janjaweed in the Tabarat Market to go to the location and try to protect those injured.

  Inner City Press obtained and published an internal document of the joint UN-African Union Mission in Darfur, UNAMID, which said that approval had to be sought before the peacekeepers could go even to a site where injured people were dying.

  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a brief media availability on September 9, and Inner City Press asked him about the Tarabat Market killings, the restrictions on movement on UNAMID, and the failure of the other UN Mission in Sudan, UNMIS, to view the body of killed Darfuri student Mohamed Musa when they were told of his death on February 12 of this year.

  Mr. Ban acknowledged problems in obtaining the “support” of the Sudanese government, and said that he summoned UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari to his recent retreat in Austria to discuss these and other problems. The Justice and Equality Movement rebels in Darfur have demanded Gambari's resignation for failure to protect civilians.

  While Ban's candor was surprising to some, to characterize the UN's decision to await approvals before endeavoring to protect civilians as a problem of “administrative support” from the Sudanese authorities misses the point.

  A billion dollars are being spent on each mission, UNAMID and UNMIS. They have armed peacekeepers, armored personnel carriers, and helicopters which they have allowed Sudan to block them from using.

Since these restrictions violate the status of forces agreements the UN has with Sudan, it is unclear why the UN -- or mission chiefs Gambari and Haile Menkerios -- accept the restrictions.

   Both went to the inauguration of Omar Al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide. Menkerios, the UN has admitted to Inner City Press, simply wants to return to New York in a year's time. He rarely speaks to the press in Sudan. He doesn't want to rock the boat.

Here is the UN's transcript of Inner City Press' questions and Mr. Ban's responses, video here --

Inner City Press: It turns out that, despite the protection of civilians mandate of UNAMID, that in several recent instances, peacekeepers have been telling relatives of victims that they need to get approval before they can leave their bases to go out. Most recently it was at the Tabarat market in Jebel Marra. They told them that they had to get approval before they could go. By the time they went, some people who had been injured were in fact dead. So what I am wondering is, what is the policy of the UN in terms of seeking approval from the Government? There is also a case in Khartoum in which a dead Darfuri student that was allegedly tortured, UNMIS (UN Mission in Sudan) was unable to get access to his body until it was too late. So, what is the policy of the UN in terms of its freedom of movement to protect civilians in Sudan?

SG Ban Ki-moon: In some cases it is true that there was some difficulty in getting smooth administrative support from the Government of Sudan. That has been the subject of continuous consultation with the Sudanese Government. During my visit to Austria last week I called in Mr. [Ibrahim] Gambari to Vienna, and I got a briefing on the situation and how we can ensure a smoother and more effective coordination and support from the Sudanese Government. We are aware of such problems and we will continue to improve the situation.

Inner City Press: Does it violate the Status of Forces Agreement, that the UN hasn’t been to parts of Jebel Marra since February? That is what John Holmes said before he left, that there are whole regions of Darfur they haven’t been able to reach.

SG Ban Ki-moon: There is a Status of [Forces] Agreement, of course. They should be faithful to provide the necessary support and cooperation. In reality, when we are not able to get such support, it really constrains the movement of our people and peacekeepers. We will do our best to improve this situation.

Watch this site.

As Darfuris Lay Dying, UN Leak Shows Failure to Respond, Stonewalling, UNSC Soon?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 4 -- Proof of UN inaction on slaughter in Darfur, received today by Inner City Press, is matched by silence from the UN, in Sudan and at the level of UN Spokesperson.

Amid reports of dozens killed by janjaweed in the North Darfur village of Tabra, Inner City Press on the morning of September 4 sent questions to the spokesman for the joint UN - African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), Chris Cycmanick, as well as to the spokesman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Martin Nesirky, and the spokeswoman for UNAMID chief Ibrahim Gambari.

Nesirky replied that UN was “aware of the reports [and] checking further.” Eight hours later, however, no further information was provided. Cycmanick never responded, but was quoted by CNN that “men on horses and camels slaughtered 37 and left 30 injured at a market elsewhere in Darfur... it was unclear who was responsible for that attack.”

Well, one reason the UN could claim a lack of knowledge of killing of dozens of people in the Tabarat Market in Tabra was that the UN peacekeepers told family members of those killed and wounded -- some of whom later died -- that they could not go to the site of the attack, until approval from El Fasher and ultimately from the Sudanese authorities.

Inner City Press has now obtained the following account from inside UNAMID:

At about 1800hrs on 02 Sep 2010, UNAMID Police Advisors received unconfirmed information from locals in Tawilla IDP camp that unidentified armed men attacked Tabarat Market near Maral village about 28kms southwest of Tawilla, where about 30 people were killed and more than 70 others were injured.

The information was received by the PF Force Commander Major Aimable Rukondo from relatives of victims in Tawilla IDP camp. At about 2030hrs, people from the Tawilla IDP camp gathered near the gate of Tawilla UNAMID Base requesting for assistance to evacuate their relatives who were in Tabarat market. The PF Commander together with the Acting Team Site Commander advised the relatives that prior approval from El Fasher Headquarters is needed before proceeding to the place and with that they were advised to be back to Tawilla Base tomorrow morning for possible medical evacuation movement to Tabarat market once it has been approved by the higher Headquarters.”

  While the above only refers to need approval from Al Fashir, that could be obtained quickly. But the background here is the UN's accepting of the need to get Sudanese authorities' approval to move, even in cases of medical emergency.

  Not only is this inconsistent with UNAMID's protection of civilians mandate -- it also calls into question the UNAMID spokesman's statements (and refusals to answer media requests), and Ban Ki-moon's spokesman's ostensible inability to provide information about the UN's actions.

  What will Ban Ki-moon, and the UN Security Council, do? Watch this site.

On Congo Rapes, UN Can't Find E-mail, Won't Say Where Expert Wallstrom Was

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 27 -- How seriously is the UN taking the scandal of its peacekeepers' inaction on the mass rapes in Eastern Congo in early August? Well, at the August 27 UN noon briefing, more than 24 hours after Inner City Press asked about a late July UN e-mail telling humanitarian workers to stay away from the area due to the incursion of rebels, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said the UN is “still trying to track down the e-mail.” Video here, from Minute 23:44.

While the UN's excuse for not stopping four days of mass rape 30 kilometers from its peacekeepers' base, and supposedly only learning of the rapes a week after the fact, is that the area is “densely wooded,” presumably this description does not apply to the UN's e-mail system. So why the delay?

Also on delay, Inner City Press on August 27 asked Nesirky why the UN Office on Sexual Violence and Conflict, six months after its ostensible launch, has filled only two of the six allotted staff positions. Video here, from Minute 25:46. The head of the office, Margot Wallstrom, reportedly only learned of the mass rapes on the weekend of August 21-22, when they became public in the media.

Inner City Press asked what procedures are in place for UN peacekeeping missions like MONUSCO to tell Ms. Wallstrom and her office when they learn of rape as a tool of war, as MONUSCO says it learned on August 12? In ten days, they couldn't tell even Ms. Wallstr
om or her office?

It appears that Ms. Wallstrom was in Europe at the time; the statement Nesirky's office put out in her name did not have a dateline, unlike Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's statement of the same day. Nesirky told Inner City Press that Ms. Wallstrom's location was “immaterial.” Was it?

It appears that the UN is trying to make the Congo rape scandal story die down, by delaying admitting finding the late July e-mail, and belatedly dispatching to the Congo Ms. Wallstrom and Peacekeeping Deputy Atul Khare. (Where, correspondents asked again on Friday, is top peacekeeper Alain Le Roy?)

The Security Council's presidency will soon pass from Russia to the next in the alphabet, Turkey, a country with its own concerns in the Council and a Permanent Representative who has to date spoken very little to the UN press corps. So, some correspondents opine, the UN is trying to “run out the clock and play for time.” Watch this site.

* * *

In Darfur as Kalma Camp Faces Closure and IDP Sorting, UN Spokesman & DPKO Silent, OCHA in Sudan Concerned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- In South Darfur the Kalma Camp, which the Sudanese government blockaded and starved for two weeks with surprising little said by the UN, is now slated to be closed, officials said over the weekend.

  The remaining residents, estimated by the UN at 50,000, will be separated into two camps in Bileel. Some wonder from past practices if the governmental sorting will be along political or ethnic lines, presaging further blockages and attacks on internally displaced persons.

On August 20, Inner City Press asked the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations for its update on the Kalma Camp. DPKO said it had provided an update that day, and every recent day, to UN spokesman Martin Nesirky for his noon press briefing.

  But Nesirky has decided to only provide the Darfur information if he allows a question on the topic; later on August 20 he chided Inner City Press to not tell him about rules or asking questions. “It is my briefing,” he said.

  Contacted again on August 22, DPKO still did not provide the update it gave Nesirky on August 20, but said it would do so on August 23.

Thus Inner City Press reached out to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs spokesman in Sudan, Samuel Hendricks, who provided the following update:

Subject: Re: Press request re Kalma Camp
From: Samuel Hendricks at UN.org
To: Inner City Press
Date: Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Mr. Lee,

Thanks for your message. Latest info on Kalma as follows... Estimate of current camp population thus remains around 50,000; location of many Kalma residents remains unconfirmed... Motorized water pumps are functioning; fuel shipment will be needed in coming days, NGO will seek permission to transport.

Food distribution in neighboring Bileil camp for Kalma IDPs still awaiting provision of list from camp leaders (sheikhs); distribution contingent on proof of Kalma residence (ie, ration cards).

Regarding the issue of closure/movement of Kalma camp: Local media has reported Gov't identifying new site for Kalma IDPs. Humanitarian Team (UN and NGOs) in South Darfur will meet to discuss issue of proposed new site, as there are various implications. The UN cannot support any movement of IDPs that is not voluntary or otherwise appropriate.

 Until such a time as a suitable location and facilities are established, and decision reached on movements in full consultation with IDP community of the camp, IDPs in Kalma camp should continue to have access to humanitarian assistance as required.

  But will this statement of UN principle be implemented by DPKO and envoy Ibrahim Gambari? The government is already claiming that the NGOs have approved the new sites, and the sorting process.

  IDPs continue to insist that Gambari threatened to turn six of them over to Sudanese authorities if they did not agree to government patrols of the camps. The UN denies this. We'll see. Watch this site.


Sudan Was Emboldened By UN Silence on Jebel Marra and IOM Expulsions, US Susan Rice Darfur Focus Not Shown

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 13 -- With the UN belatedly speaking out about Sudan's blockade of Kalma Camp for all of this month, and of Jebel Marra since February, some have concluded that silence from the UN and also the US emboldened Sudanese authorities to starve perceived opponent directly under the nose of a $1 billion peacekeeping operation, UNAMID.

Not only did the UN remain silent -- it even reportedly tried to stifle the voices of those being starved. At the August 13 noon briefing at the UN in New York, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: Regarding Sudan, following yesterday’s statement that Ibrahim Gambari [the Joint African Union-United Nations Special Representative for Darfur] did not threaten internally displaced persons (IDPs), another report has surfaced there. The quote had him saying that the IDP spokesman, Yagoub Fouri, says that Mr. Gambari refused a letter the IDPs had written and wanted it delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

It also quotes a Sudanese newspaper, Al-Sahafa, saying that Gambari said it’s really only a matter of time until the six are turned over if conditions are met. Those are two separate issues. I’m pretty sure Mr. Fouri did say this, about the letter, but can you state whether Mr. Gambari was aware of a letter that the IDPs in Kalma camp wanted it delivered to the Secretary-General and whether any such letter was delivered to the Secretary-General?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’m not aware of that particular part of your question...the specific point that you mentioned about the letter, I’d have to find out — I don’t have anything on that.[The Spokesperson later said that no such letter has been yet received by the Secretary-General.]

  Later on August 13, after the media and nearly all others had left the UN in New York, outgoing humanitarian coordinator John Holmes issued a press release belatedly bemoaning the blockade of Kalma, exclusion from Jebel Marra since February and that “two International Organization for Migration (IOM) staff were also expelled on 17 July 2010.”

  Why do we call this belated? Back in July -- on July 16th, in fact -- Inner City Press asked about these IOM expulsions, and the UN had nothing to day. From the July 16 transcript:

Inner City Press: In Sudan, there are these reports that the Government made persona non grata, are throwing out, two representatives of the International Organization for Migration. Does the UN have concerns about the expulsion of these humanitarian workers?

Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq: We don’t have any comment about the treatment of this. We are aware of the reports, and we’ll check up on what was behind this decision and what the facts are on that. But we don’t have anything to say on that just yet.

And nothing was said by the UN until August 13, nearly a month later. What message did that send to Omar al Bashir and other Sudanese authorities?

   Likewise, while the US called for an emergency Security Council meeting on the violence in Kalma Camp in early August, it never followed up with any meeting once Sudan blockaded the camp. Now comes news that the US Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration wants to become Ambassador to Kenya, and thus might lose his Sudan portfolio.

   The same report says that Hillary Clinton agreed to Gration's plan to prioritize the South Sudan referendum over Darfur. While claiming that Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice disagreed, she herself denied any disagreement when asked by Inner City Press, and she has not called, or had her deputy ambassadors call, for any Council meeting since Kalma was blockaded.


UNAMID drives in circles, Susan Rice not shown

   In any event, either the US nor UN is doing much as the prospects for the referendum on independence in South Sudan continue to worsen. On August 12, Inner City Press asked the UN about South Sudan, still without any answers:

Inner City Press: In South Sudan, the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] has said two things. They’ve said that there is a total standoff in choosing the leader of the Referendum Commission, and if this isn’t… they’ve basically said the UN should be involved. They’ve also said that this movement of tribes into the Abyei region is akin to ethnic cleansing. They’ve said, the spokesman for the SPLM has said, “We are asking the UN to get involved”, presumably on both of those issues. So, I’d asked you yesterday about very fact-specific things on South Sudan, but what is UNMIS [United Nations Mission in Sudan], are they aware of this request, that they become involved in the Commission to make sure that there’s not a deadlock, and what about the deaths of 23 people?

Spokesperson Nesirky: On the deaths, I do have some guidance, which I will be able to provide you shortly. I don’t have it right now. I do know that I have some guidance for you. That’s the first thing. [He later added that UNMIS has informed his Office that, according to the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army), on 8 August, a vehicle carrying their soldiers and some civilians was ambushed by armed gunmen in Koch County, Unity State. As a result, 23 of them were reportedly killed and some others wounded. UNMIS has been in touch with the South Sudan authorities and wounded soldiers in order to ascertain the fact and circumstances surrounding the incident. UNMIS is assisting the South Sudanese authorities in further investigating the incident. Overall, it should be stressed that UNMIS has been engaging the Government of Southern Sudan in order to address disputes by peaceful means.]

On the broader question that you’ve raised, I will find out. On the question of the deaths that you mentioned yesterday and the helicopter, I do have something. I don’t have it here. [He added later, regarding the helicopter incident, that, as this is a complaint regarding a violation of the ceasefire agreement, UNMIS has initiated an investigation by the Ceasefire Joint Military Committee.]

While these answers were added after the August 12 briefing, on August 13 even when asked against about South Sudan and the referendum, Nesirky had nothing to say. Watch this site.

Sudan Was Emboldened By UN Silence on Jebel Marra and IOM Expulsions, US Susan Rice Darfur Focus Not Shown

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 13 -- With the UN belatedly speaking out about Sudan's blockade of Kalma Camp for all of this month, and of Jebel Marra since February, some have concluded that silence from the UN and also the US emboldened Sudanese authorities to starve perceived opponent directly under the nose of a $1 billion peacekeeping operation, UNAMID.

Not only did the UN remain silent -- it even reportedly tried to stifle the voices of those being starved. At the August 13 noon briefing at the UN in New York, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: Regarding Sudan, following yesterday’s statement that Ibrahim Gambari [the Joint African Union-United Nations Special Representative for Darfur] did not threaten internally displaced persons (IDPs), another report has surfaced there. The quote had him saying that the IDP spokesman, Yagoub Fouri, says that Mr. Gambari refused a letter the IDPs had written and wanted it delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

It also quotes a Sudanese newspaper, Al-Sahafa, saying that Gambari said it’s really only a matter of time until the six are turned over if conditions are met. Those are two separate issues. I’m pretty sure Mr. Fouri did say this, about the letter, but can you state whether Mr. Gambari was aware of a letter that the IDPs in Kalma camp wanted it delivered to the Secretary-General and whether any such letter was delivered to the Secretary-General?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: I’m not aware of that particular part of your question...the specific point that you mentioned about the letter, I’d have to find out — I don’t have anything on that.[The Spokesperson later said that no such letter has been yet received by the Secretary-General.]

  Later on August 13, after the media and nearly all others had left the UN in New York, outgoing humanitarian coordinator John Holmes issued a press release belatedly bemoaning the blockade of Kalma, exclusion from Jebel Marra since February and that “two International Organization for Migration (IOM) staff were also expelled on 17 July 2010.”

  Why do we call this belated? Back in July -- on July 16th, in fact -- Inner City Press asked about these IOM expulsions, and the UN had nothing to day. From the July 16 transcript:

Inner City Press: In Sudan, there are these reports that the Government made persona non grata, are throwing out, two representatives of the International Organization for Migration. Does the UN have concerns about the expulsion of these humanitarian workers?

Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq: We don’t have any comment about the treatment of this. We are aware of the reports, and we’ll check up on what was behind this decision and what the facts are on that. But we don’t have anything to say on that just yet.

And nothing was said by the UN until August 13, nearly a month later. What message did that send to Omar al Bashir and other Sudanese authorities?

   Likewise, while the US called for an emergency Security Council meeting on the violence in Kalma Camp in early August, it never followed up with any meeting once Sudan blockaded the camp. Now comes news that the US Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration wants to become Ambassador to Kenya, and thus might lose his Sudan portfolio.

   The same report says that Hillary Clinton agreed to Gration's plan to prioritize the South Sudan referendum over Darfur. While claiming that Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice disagreed, she herself denied any disagreement when asked by Inner City Press, and she has not called, or had her deputy ambassadors call, for any Council meeting since Kalma was blockaded.

   In any event, either the US nor UN is doing much as the prospects for the referendum on independence in South Sudan continue to worsen. On August 12, Inner City Press asked the UN about South Sudan, still without any answers:

Inner City Press: In South Sudan, the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] has said two things. They’ve said that there is a total standoff in choosing the leader of the Referendum Commission, and if this isn’t… they’ve basically said the UN should be involved. They’ve also said that this movement of tribes into the Abyei region is akin to ethnic cleansing. They’ve said, the spokesman for the SPLM has said, “We are asking the UN to get involved”, presumably on both of those issues. So, I’d asked you yesterday about very fact-specific things on South Sudan, but what is UNMIS [United Nations Mission in Sudan], are they aware of this request, that they become involved in the Commission to make sure that there’s not a deadlock, and what about the deaths of 23 people?

Spokesperson Nesirky: On the deaths, I do have some guidance, which I will be able to provide you shortly. I don’t have it right now. I do know that I have some guidance for you. That’s the first thing. [He later added that UNMIS has informed his Office that, according to the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army), on 8 August, a vehicle carrying their soldiers and some civilians was ambushed by armed gunmen in Koch County, Unity State. As a result, 23 of them were reportedly killed and some others wounded. UNMIS has been in touch with the South Sudan authorities and wounded soldiers in order to ascertain the fact and circumstances surrounding the incident. UNMIS is assisting the South Sudanese authorities in further investigating the incident. Overall, it should be stressed that UNMIS has been engaging the Government of Southern Sudan in order to address disputes by peaceful means.]

On the broader question that you’ve raised, I will find out. On the question of the deaths that you mentioned yesterday and the helicopter, I do have something. I don’t have it here. [He added later, regarding the helicopter incident, that, as this is a complaint regarding a violation of the ceasefire agreement, UNMIS has initiated an investigation by the Ceasefire Joint Military Committee.]

While these answers were added after the August 12 briefing, on August 13 even when asked against about South Sudan and the referendum, Nesirky had nothing to say. Watch this site.

Amid Sudan Blockade & Shelling of Kalma Camp, UN Vacation from Advocacy Recalls Bloodbath on the Beach in Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 8 -- In Darfur, how seriously is the UN taking the government's blockade of humanitarian aid to, and now reported shelling of tens of thousands of internally displaced people in the Kalma Camp?

  The blockade began, at latest, on August 2. But the UN only disclosed it, as an afterthought, when head Peacekeeper Alain Le Roy on August 4 answered Inner City Press' questions about violence in the camp by mentioning no access by humanitarian groups “for four days.”

  The next day, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Martin Nesirky, told Inner City Press he didn't know about the blockade, that the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs would know.

  So Inner City Press asked OCHA. That day, the only response was “checking with people.” And nothing the next day, except to refer a question about malnutrition in Darfur to UNICEF, which has yet to answer it, two days later.

  Amid reports on August 7 of militia members in Sudanese government vehicles firing shells at those in the Kalma Camp, Inner City Press sent questions to the spokespeople for the UNAMID mission and for Joint Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari.

This spokesperson accompanied Gambari at his last press stakeout in New York, when Gambari walked away from the microphone after Inner City Press asked about the indictment of Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir for genocide.

  But while there was no answer about genocide, business cards were exchanged, with a promise of prompt answers and even an invite to Al Fasher by Gambari.

But more than 12 hours after simple questions were sent -- confirm the shelling, does the blockade extend to Zalingei camp -- none of these UN spokespeople have made any response at all.

Rather, the UN's Radio Miraya has broadcast Sudanese authorities' denials of any restrictions on humanitarian groups, and claims that the groups haven't even asked to enter the camp(s).

This UN system response to the blockade and shelling of tens of thousands of already internally displaced people is beginning to be reminiscent of the UN's silence about and thus, some say, complicity in the “bloodbath on the beach” in Sri Lanka in May 2009. Watch this site.


On Darfur Camp Violence, Nur's Role as Unclear as US Stance on Doha, Sudan Says Camp Is Under UN Control, Lobbies

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30, updated -- Darfur camp violence was taken up by the UN Security Council on Friday afternoon. According to UN sources, members of the Liberation and Justice Movement group which is negotiating with Khartoum were targeted by members of the Abdel Wahid Nur faction, which is not.

While the United States called for the consultations, it is not clear if the US stands with the UN and its Darfur envoy Ibrahim Gambari in saying that the solution to Darfur is to be found in Doha across the table from Omar al Bashir's negotiators.

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner loudly announced that Paris based Abdel Wahid Nur would be joining the Doha process. Nearly immediately, Abdel Wahid Nur qualified this with the conditions previously listed, including safety in Darfur.

Inner City Press asked Ibrahim Gambari on July 27 about Abdel Wahid Nur's participation. Gambari said no, and characterized the conditions, including safety, as something you get at the END of negotiations, not as a precondition. One can see this as either realism or a too cavalier attitude to the protection of civilians, especially for one in charge of a peacekeeping mission with such a mandate.

Sudan's acting Ambassador, on his way at 4 pm into the Council's suite where he would not be allowed into consultations, said that Gambari had told him at 2:30 that he would be placing some calls to get information, and would himself be giving the briefing at 4. But at that time, he was spotted by an Inner City Press source strolling the streets outside the UN, dress in white national dress.

Gambari also said on June 27 that he has gone to Paris twice to meet Abdel Wahid Nur. Three days later, he is still in New York, but not in the consultations room. Briefing was Alain Le Roy of Peacekeeping, joined at 4:40 by Lynn Pascoe of Political Affairs.

The South Sudan referendum Eminent persons monitoring group the UN is moving to set up, which Inner City Press exclusively reported earlier today, would be staffed by Pascoe's Department of Political Affairs and not the UN peacekeeping mission run by Haile Menkerios. Whether Pascoe's arrival at the Council was about this, or the Doha process implications of the attacks in the Darfur IDP camps is not yet known. Watch this site.

Update of 5:09 -- Sudan's charge d'affaires was lobbying in the hall outside the Council. “We cannot live with a paragraph about inspecting the Kalma camp... the camp is under the control of UNAMID...” Then, after fumbling with their passes, they went into the Council's suite. Coming out were the outgoing Nigerian presidency's plants and bean bag chairs with Islamic script. Coming in -- Russia's set up, for August..

Update of 5:29 p.m. -- there will be a press statement. Unclear if it will include the paragraph about inspecting or investigating in Kalma camp, which Sudan is opposing.

Update of 5:55 p.m. -- while UN TV had been told the press statement would be ready and read by now, the Council has gone into recess. Inner City Press is told by Council source that France has proposed the UN send an investigation team to Kalma camp. China and Russia have opposed it, as does Sudan. Developing.

Update of 6:13 p.m. -- Here's what happened: France “aggressively” asked for an investigation, setting of “red lights” among some other delegations. But wait - the US asked the meeting, but France made the proposal. Why? Le Roy pointed the finger at the Abdel Wahid Nur group, but France says they've spoken to him and he denies it. THAT's why France wants the investigation. You heard it here first....



At UN, As Ban Ki-moon Switches from S. African to Canadian As New OIOS Chief, Post-Ahlenius Rebellion Spreads, Sources Say

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, reeling from the damning exit memo of the outgoing head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, may now get himself in more troubling in naming a replacement.

Earlier this year, Inner City Press reported that the new head of OIOS was slated to be an auditor from South Africa. This would conform to many member states' understanding that developed and developing countries would alternate atop the OIOS: Karl Paschke of Germany, then Dileep Nair of Singapore, then Inga Britt Ahlenius of Sweden. The next was slated to be from South Africa.

But diplomatic sources tell Inner City Press that on July 23, after facing questions for a week about his interactions with OIOS, Ban told regional groupings that instead of the South Africa, he would be appointing a Canadian.

This has triggered outrage among developing countries. It comes against the backdrop of ad hoc meetings to “revitalize the General Assembly” which are discussing requiring Ban Ki-moon to come before the GA to seek his second term, and not only the Security Council.

  Specifically, under the heading “Selection of the Secretary General,” the draft “takes note of the views expressed at the Ad Hoc Working Group at the 64th session and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 97 of the Charter, emphasizes the need for the process of selection of the Secretary General to be inclusive of all Member States and to be made more transparent.. including through presentation of candidates for the position of the Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly.”

   Interestingly, the marked up draft of this pending paragraph reads as follows:

10. Affirms its commitment to continuing its consideration of the revitalization of the General Assembly's role in the selection and appointment of the Secretary General, including through (encouraging (Algeria / NAM: delete and add 'the') Russian Federation: retain) presentation of candidates for the position of Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly before the Security Council considers the matter (Russian Federation); Russian Federation: bracket entire para.”

10 Alt. Also encourages formal presentation of candidatures for the position of the Secretary General in a manner than allows sufficient time for interaction with member states, and requests candidates to present their views to all Member States of the General Assembly (Belgium / EU, US & Russia) (Algeria / NAM supports Islamic Republic of Iran proposal of retaining as OP 10 bis).”

In the Security Council, placating or giving patronage to the five Permanent Members would be enough to gain the second term. But if the GA and regional grouping get involved, Ban's snubs like that of Africa for the deputy post in the UN Development Program, and the devaluation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, could come back to haunt Ban. Watch this site.


On Sri Lanka, UN Panel's Problems, of Blackmail as Guatemala Cites R2P, NAM Games of Iran, Venezuela to Head G-77?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 17 -- Sri Lanka and the Non Aligned Movement letter it requested to oppose UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's advisory panel on accountability were inquired into at the UN throughout the day on July 16, at the UN noon briefing, in front of the Security Council and later upstairs at a celebration of Nelson Mandela's 92nd birthday.

The draftNAM letter, which Inner City Press first obtained and exclusively published, has now been stalled by a protest or demarche from Guatemala, which does not agree NAM should block inquiries into human rights violations.

  The word “Responsibility to Protect” was repeatedly heard. Most but not all NAM members opposed R2P. But NAM decisions require consensus.

 To try to sweep the invocation of R2P under the rug, Sri Lanka and many NAM nations are ascribing the delay to contradictions with the Organization of the Islamic Conference about the inquiries into the attack on the flotilla to Gaza. But R2P is in NAM's mix.

As an aside on NAM: that Iran will follow Egypt as the head of the group, reported yesterday by Inner City Press, may not be an entirely sure thing. A coalition of monarchies, ironically, from the Gulf States and a certain Maghreb non African Union member, are raising some objections.

At the time when Iran wants to lead NAM, Venezuela wants to lead the Group of 77. That would certainly lead to journalist fireworks, and there are those small countries which like to hide behind the bombast of the Venezuelas and Irans of the world. But others think it would ill serve their issues.

Inner City Press' exclusive July 15 report on the staffing of Ban's advisory panel - fully eight staff, led by Jessica Neuwirth, an official whose most recent now ended job as NY representative of Navi Pillay was at the D-2 level - gave rise to concerns not only about those focused on anti-corruption and anti-nepotism at the UN (count Inner City Press among them) but, perhaps cynically but predictably, among the Rajapaksas' supporters.

These supporters go beyond the Inner City Press reporting and allege a very close relationship between Navi Pillay and Ms. Neuwirth, beyond the links at Equality Now. One expects these arguments to be advanced, though perhaps only privately to Ban Ki-moon. This is how the Rajapaksas play politics, for example now whispering about Children and Armed Conflict envoy Patrick Cammaert's supposed use of "massage services" during his prenuptial visit to Sri Lanka.

Another argument they advance: that panel chairman Marzuki Darusman, at the end of his previous service on the Sri Lankan government's own “international” panel, bickered with Sri Lanka in order to collect his fees.

  Whatever the merits, expect this too to be raised to Ban. In fact, Inner City Press is told that this WAS raised to Ban, but that “he didn't care.”

  This is reminiscent of Ban not paying attention that the pairing of Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain as co-chairs of an MDG group would blow up and undermine the work.

Here, we expect Sri Lanka to try to blackmail Ban Ki-moon, saying they are willing to accept nepotism, corruption, conflict of interest “and worse” in the Panel, as long as it leads nowhere in terms of accountability.

  That would be pure UN: what seemed a belated attempt to do the right thing, becoming a venue for corruption, blackmail and stasis. We may hope not, but this is the UN. Watch this site.

From Friday's UN noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: Mr. Buhne, I just wanted to understand, it seemed that earlier in the week it was said that he was at the end of his tenure. Did he say something while here to change it, and return or…?

Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq: No, no. If you remember what we said in the statement issued last week — in the context of the disturbances and the inability of UN staff to go about their work, we put out a statement saying that he had been recalled. Since then, he has been here over the past week and since then, as you know, we have received a number of assurances from the Sri Lankan side that would allow us to continue to go about our work without any further hindrance. At the same time, you just heard what I read about the message that Mr. Buhne will convey back to the Government of Sri Lanka.

Inner City Press: Sure, but I guess, what I don’t understand is what was the thinking earlier in the week — if it was so dangerous, then why would you only recall one individual? That would seem to be about a threat to the staff as a whole. I just wondered if something changed. Was his tenure coming to the end, as was said, and now has been revived or extended in some way?

Associate Spokesperson: I think what I just read right now speaks for itself. I can read it again for you, but the basic point I just said was…

Inner City Press: How does that compare to what was said earlier in the week? That was what I was asking.

Associate Spokesperson: Yeah, I understand. But if you notice what we said is — when I said that he will return to Colombo, the next thing is: “It is important to continue UN efforts to assist the people of Sri Lanka, particularly with regard to reconstruction and rehabilitation in the North.” So that task will continue, but at the same time, as I pointed out, Mr. Buhne will convey the Secretary-General’s strong expectations for better treatment of the UN family in Sri Lanka.

Inner City Press: And on the panel, there is an article out on Sri Lanka, saying that one of the outcomes of Mr. Buhne’s consultations with the Secretary-General was to further restrict the scope of the work of the group of Panel of Experts that they will now explicitly not consider information that comes in from either witnesses or anything like that. And I just also wanted to ask about the staffing. Can you confirm, as two Member States have now told me, that the head of the staffing will be Jessica Neuwirth, a D-2, and there will be seven other staff?

Associate Spokesperson: I don’t have any details to provide for you right now on the staffing. Yes, they will have a small secretariat here that will assist them in their tasks, but I don’t have any confirmation of any names to give to you right now. But certainly, no, there was no limitation of the scope of [the Panel’s] work as a result of this.

Inner City Press: One of the Member States say, they said even Goldstone, maybe you can, I don’t know what the level of staffing was, but they said it was extraordinary that a D-2 level staff member would be assigned to run this panel, particularly given its relatively limited scope.

Associate Spokesperson: Like I said, I am not commenting on the level of staffing of the panel.

Watch this site.

Sri Lanka's Blocking of UN War Crimes Panel Visas Unremarked on by Ban

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 9 -- Following the Sri Lankan government's announcement it will deny visas to the members of the UN Panel of Experts on war crimes, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday afternoon issued a 250 word statement.

  He did not call for visas to be granted. Rather, he emphasized that the panel is “not tasked to investigate individual allegations of misconduct.” So much for accountability.

Contrary to Ban's non-mention of the visas, the chairman of the panel, Marsuki Darusman, has said that to deny visas is “unfortunate” and will make truth finding more difficult. Ban's Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq on July 8 told Inner City Press that the decision to seek visas will be entirely up to the panel:

Associate Spokesperson Haq: the Secretary-General has made it absolutely clear that the Panel of Experts he has appointed on accountability in Sri Lanka is advisory and not adversarial in nature. So that’s it on that. Yes.

Inner City Press: Actually, just on that statement, does the non-hindrance of the work of the UN include granting? Is he calling for the granting of visas to these advisers, the advisory Panel, the three members? Is that included in the definition of the work of the UN?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: What I have is what I have just said. That’s the sum total.

Inner City Press: What does “work of the UN” mean?

Associate Spokesperson: The work of the UN means the work that we need to do, however it is defined. In the case of visas, it’s up to the Panel members themselves to determine whether they need those visas to go about their work. As my colleague made clear a few weeks ago, that’s not a requirement for their work, but it’s up to them to determine whether they need it.

Inner City Press: But the Chairman, [Marzuki] Darusman, has already said it’s unfortunate that they’ve said that they won’t get a visa. It seems pretty clear that they want one. I’m just trying to just, since you’ve just read the statement, understand what it means. Does he want the visas to be granted?

Associate Spokesperson: No, no. What he is asking for is for us to go about our work. At this stage it’s up to the Panel to determine what they need to do, and we’ll see, we’ll judge cooperation with the Panel as that proceeds. Obviously what we want is for the Sri Lankan Government to cooperate with all the work of the UN, including the work of the advisory Panel, as needed. But it’s up to the Panel to determine what their needs are.

  But why, then, did the UN the next day emphasize the weak mandate, and therefore needs, of the Panel?

Footnote: Sources in Colombo inform Inner City Press that the UN has told its staff in Sri Lanka not to fly the blue UN flag on their vehicles, not to wear UN t-shirts and the like.


As Sri Lanka Party in Power Threatens UN Staff, Ban Stays Silent, DPR To Go

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 4 -- The UN said it was an “individual opinion,” when Sri Lanka's Minister for Housing and Construction Wimal Weerawansa last week called for UN staff in Colombo to be taken hostage to forestall any consideration of war crimes.

  Inner City Press inquired a second time, and the same UN spokesperson, Farhan Haq, said “we have received some indications that an apology might be in order... I’ll let you know if something like that comes through.”

   Now, Weerawansa has said he was and is speaking for a political party that is part of the Rajapaksa coalition, the “National Freedom Front.”

  The UN hasn't clarified or amended its obfuscation of the threat against its staff. In fact, a senior UN official tried to call the threat “Gandhian,” a sort of non-violent hostage taking. Talk about the Stockholm syndrome, one wag mused.

  In fact, the UN's hopeful or intentionally misleading statement of receiving indications - from whom? - that “an apology might... come through” was shot down the next day, with the UN on vacation:

When asked by Daily Mirror online if he was under any pressure regarding his comment after it had created a lot of controversy, Weerawansa said there was no such pressure as the position was that of his party. 'We should surround the UN office in Colombo and put pressure on UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon to reverse his decision to appoint a panel on Sri Lanka. I am saying this as the leader of the NFF.'”

  Mr. Ban, who was spending a full eight hours in a pro-Kabila parade in Kinshasa when the first threat came in from Colombo, is now headed to Jamaica. Will he address the clarified and sharpened threat to UN staff?

  Ban travels, but so do Sri Lankan diplomats. It was only in April that Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN Palitha Kohona invited Inner City Press to a reception to greet his incoming Deputy Bandula Jayasekara. In the Sri Lankan residence high over Second Avenue and the UN, Jayasekara told Inner City Press he was a “new school” diplomat. Indeed.

Less than a month later, Jayasekara began hand delivering threatening and repetitive letters to Inner City Press. The first -- non threatening, tied to a quote and therefore the only one we published - read as follows:

From: PA2DPR
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Date: Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Mr. Mathew [sic] Russell Lee, Report, Inner City Press

Dear Sir, Pl. find attached, a letter addressed to you by Mr. Bandula Jayasekara, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka.

Hemantha Perera, PA to DPR

10th May, 2010

Ref. Media/2010

Mr. Mathew [sic] Russell Lee, Reporter
Inner City Press, Room: S-453A [sic]
UN Headquarters, New York N.Y. 10017

Dear Sir,

This refers to the question posed by you to Mr. Martin Nesirky, Spokesperson for UNSG at the UN daily noon briefing held on 7.5.2010 “In the last 24 hours the Defence Minister, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has said that anyone that would seek to testify about war crimes by the Sri Lankan Government should be put to death. It’s a capital offence and it’s treason”.

We have inquired into this matter and Mr. Rajapaksa has not, I repeat not, made such a statement. Your question is not based on fact, and is patently mischievous, misleading and incorrect.

We kindly request you to reproduce this letter for the sake of fair play. As a man of integrity, in the media, you should not mislead the people who read your blog. You should not abuse the position of blogging privilege. I sincerely hope you would uphold the ethics of blogging.

Thank you,

Bandula Jayasekara
Deputy Permanent Representative

  There was no problem with publishing the letter -- the goal of the letter and its cc to a journalists' group were not clear -- but there was and is equally no problem with providing the basis of the question: it was on the Sri Lanka Ministry of Defence's own web site.

Now comes word that Jayasekara is being recalled to Colombo. We hardly knew ye... Kohona, a fixture on the UN social scene, has not been seen for weeks, ever since his ironic service on a three person panel investigating possible war crimes in what the UN calls Western Asia. At a recent reception for Colombia, Sri Lanka's number three wandered around. Inner City Press greeted him, but he did not respond. So much for diplomacy. Watch this site.

From the UN's June 30 transcript:

Inner City Press: in Sri Lanka the Minister for Housing and Construction, Wimal Weerawansa, has been quoted as saying, urging the, under the headline “Take UN Lanka staff hostage”, he said, urging the public to surround the UN office in Sri Lanka and trap the staff inside with regard to the panel and any consideration of war crimes in the country. First of all, what’s the UN’s response to a Government minister saying to keep UN staff hostage, what preparations are being made and what’s your response to it?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: Well, in terms of that, on the various levels. First of all, on the security level, our security officials are aware of these remarks. They would certainly try to check whether this official was quoted correctly and what he meant by that. The Government has assured us this is an individual opinion

Though false, this is not been corrected. Watch this site.


Sri Lanka Block of Visas Unfortunate, Darusman Says, UN Says Visit Not Needed, How Panel Staffed Is Unclear

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 25 -- The UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka does not need to go to that country, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman has said. But the chairman of the panel, Marsuki Darusman, has now called Sri Lanka's decision to deny him and his two panel-mates visas “highly unfortunate” and a barrier to finding out the truth.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky if Ban agrees that the denial of visas to the UN panel is unfortunate. Nesirky would not answer, but rather emphasized again that going is “not necessary... not required.” Video here, from Minute 22:24.

To some it seems that Mr. Ban is back to accommodating Sri Lanka. If a country like Sudan were to deny visas, the UN would condemn it. But because Sri Lanka has blustered every move, Ban is undercutting the panel and its chairman.

Inner City Press asked when the three panel members will meet, which will start ticking the four months until their report is due. In the coming month, Nesirky said, in July.

How will the panel be staffed? Nesirky said that these “finer points” have yet to be worked out. This is hard to understand, given that it was back on March 5 that Ban said he would appoint the panel “without delay.” What has the UN been doing? Watch this site.

From the UN's June 25 transcript:

Inner City Press: Did Mr. Darusman, who is the Chair of the Sri Lanka Panel, has been quoted that, of Sri Lanka’s decision to deny him and the other two visas, that the decision is unfortunate, which seems to imply that he wanted to go there, there would be some benefit to going there in terms of carrying out the work of the Panel. So when he said that is he, I guess… what does the UN say that the Chairman of the Panel sees a need to go? You know, yesterday you said, well, they don’t need to go there. Well, the head of the… You didn’t say it that way… I don’t mean to [inaudible]

Spokesperson: No, I didn’t, Matthew, so it’s good if you’re going to paraphrase me to do it accurately. Basically what I said was that it is not necessary for them, it is not a requirement that they go to Sri Lanka. It is not a requirement, and we did talk about how, if they need to be in touch with concerned officials, that they can do, short of actually going to Sri Lanka. I also said, if I remember correctly, that once those three Panel members get together — which they have yet to do — once they do, they will be able to decide for themselves to what extent to be able to do the job the Secretary-General has asked them to do to advise him; they will be able to decide whether they do need to go to Sri Lanka or not. And if they do, then they will ask. But it’s not a requirement for them to be able to do that or to do it.

Inner City Press: Sure, and I’m sorry, and I didn’t mean to — maybe the tone of the voice was wrong. But my question was just, does the Secretary-General agree that it’s unfortunate?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think what’s important here is simply to be very clear, that this is an Advisory Panel to advise the Secretary-General. It’s not an inquiry, an investigation that’s directed against Sri Lanka. It is not. What it is, is to advise the Secretary-General. And as such, visits are not required. Okay.

Inner City Press: you said they haven’t gotten together yet. Is there any idea of… Just two things; when they actually will get together to start this four-month timeframe running, and also how their work will be staffed. How many staff members will there be? Will there be a recruitment process that will slow down the beginning, or is there already provisions for who, how the group will be staffed?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, my understanding is that the three of them will be getting together relatively soon, within the coming month. In other words, in July — I’m not exactly sure at what point. As to the support that they receive, that will come through the Secretariat, and that’s something that still needs to be worked out, the finer points of that.


To Uzbek Karimov, UN's Ban Does Not Raise Border Closure or Maxim Popov, Omitted from Transcript

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 18 -- With tens of thousands of people seeking to flee attacks in Kyrgyzstan blocked at the Uzbek border, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke on June 16 with Uzbekistan's strongman Islam Karimov. Ban did not, however, ask Karimov to open the border. This was confirmed on June 18, when Inner City Press asked Ban himself if any request had been made to open the border. Ban's two minute answer included no such request. Video here, from Minute 10:14.

  Nor did Ban raise to Karimov, when he visited Tashkent in April, the plight of UN-funded AIDS educator Maxim Popov, who was sentenced to seven years in prison for blasphemy. Inner City Press has twice asked Michel Sidibe, Executive Director of UNAIDS, about Popov.

  On June 9, Sibide told Inner City Press that "I personally tried to be sure the Secretary General during his trip to Uzbekistan was able to raise this issue" of Popov. Video here, from Minute 10:02. Inner City Press then asked Ban's Spokesperson's Office if Ban had raised it, without answer.

  Inner City Press asked Ban directly on June 18, saying "the head of UNAIDS said you were prepared to raise this issue of Maxim Popov, in jail for seven year." Ban did not answer this part of the question, so Inner City Press repeated it. Video here, at 13:06.

  Ban replied, "United Nations relevant agencies will continue to work to address that issue." Not only is the logic circular -- UNAIDS says they prepared Ban to raise the issue, then Ban says "agencies" will be the ones to raise it -- when at 6 p.m. the UN put out their transcript of the press encounter, they omitted Inner City Press' Maxim Popov question, and called the follow up "inaudible." Compare video to UN transcript, below.

Compare video to UN transcript--

Inner City Press: You mentioned the people that are waiting to cross the border out of Kyrgyzstan. When you spoke with President [Islam] Karimov of Uzbekistan, did you ask him to open the border? Also, when you were in Uzbekistan, were human rights a part of your conversation with President Karimov of Uzbekistan?

SG: When I had a telephone call with President Karimov just two days ago, I appreciated his willingness to accommodate 80,000 refugees who have crossed the border. I know that there is a serious difficulty in accommodating these 80,000 people and also in feeding them, providing necessary assistance. He told me that their capacity would run out in three to four days. That is why I have immediately spoken with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other United Nations agencies in mobilizing all humanitarian assistance. UNHCR has delivered more than 200 tons of immediate, urgent food assistance. Now it is important that borders are open, but at the same time, I know I know that there is concerns on countries in the region of how to manage this border security when addressing all these tens of thousands of people at one time. I will continue to discuss this matter. [Special Representative] Mr. Miroslav Jenca is on the ground in Bishkek talking to all the neighboring countries and he is closely coordinating with the Special Representatives of the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and Shanghai corporation organizations and other individual countries. I understand that you have been briefed by Mr. Jenca, by the way, at this afternoon's noon press briefing. So we will closely monitor what will be the best way to address this humanitarian issue including this border management.

Inner City Press: [inaudible, not into microphone]

SG: Again, United Nations relevant agencies will continue to work to address that issue.


Somali Diaspora Questions UN's Moves, from Twin Cities to West Bank

By Matthew Russell Lee

WEST BANK, June 10 -- People with no assurance of ever returning home follow politics more closely than those who've never left. Hassan, a Somali living in the Minneapolis neighborhood called the West Bank -- of the Mississippi River -- asked bitterly why the United Nations sent Ahmedou Ould Abdallah and now "the Tanzanian" Augustine Mahiga, as envoy to his homeland. "Who not a Somali?" Hassan asked Inner City Press on June 10. "Are we not good enough?"

Hassan works at Safari Express, an East African take out restaurant, in the Midtown Global Market in south Minneapolis. Over a plate of chicken suqqar, he recounted to Inner City Press how the civil war in his country makes it impossible to return. Some, he said, return only to fight, usually for Al Shaabab, "The Youth."

Outside in the Chicago and Lake neighborhood, women in veils walk in front of liquor stores and half abandoned buildings. The Ugbaad Cafe is closed and boarded up, across the street from one of Minneapolis' Peavy Parks. Two blocks further south, traversed on one of Minneapolis' bikes to rent and share, nurses are picketing Children's Hospital.

"Is that a rental bike?" a Somali calls out to Inner City Press. Yes it is. From 11th and Marquette out to 30th and Lake is less than 20 minutes. The same to the West Bank and Riverside.

  It is June in Minneapolis and aging rock bands play for free. There is a statue for Mary Tyler Moore. Make it, Mary Tyler Moore in Mogadishu. "Don't go there," Hassan advises Inner City Press. "They kidnap you for money."

In fact, Inner City Press traveled with the UN Security Council and Ould Abdallah to Djibouti in 2008. Ministers of the Transitional Federal Government, some from Minnesota, stayed in the expensive Kempinsky Hotel and assigned themselves positions.

  Now they control four square blocks in Mogadishu. The view of them from Riverside, from Minneapolis Somalis, is less than positive. "We need our country back," Hassan said over chicken. Then he smiled and went back behind the counter.


While on Gaza UN's Ban Speaks of Terms of Reference, 3 Month Delay on Sri Lanka Panel, Kohona in Israel Probe

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 6 -- Six days after Israel killed nine people on a ship headed to Gaza, the UN put out a note to the Press that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was conferring with the prime ministers of Israel and Turkey "to ensure that any investigation has the full cooperation of the countries most closely concerned. He is also developing possible terms of reference and logistical arrangements for such an effort."

What is Ban Ki-moon's recent track record on developing such terms of reference? It has now been over three months since Ban announced he would name a panel of experts about possible war crimes during the final phase of the conflict in Sri Lanka last year, in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed.

And yet,on Sri Lanka Ban Ki-moon has yet to name a single member of the promised group of experts, nor to announce the terms of reference.

  When asked by Inner City Press how the allegations of the International Crisis Group about the UN's own role in pulling out of civilians areas, ineffectually seeking a ceasefire and funding internment camps would be investigated, as well as issued concerning his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar's role in convincing to surrender rebel leaders who were then killed, Ban said he rejects all such allegations.

Nambiar has said the assurances of safety were provided to him by Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa and current Ambassador to the UN Palitha Kohona. (Kohona has denied the timing to Inner City Press.)

Meanwhile, the UN has named Kohona to lead a separate investigation of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Only at the UN.

  Kohona will be out of New York on that ironic work from June 8 through 19. Given that Ban and Nambiar have given Kohona full access to the delayed process at every stage, does this mean that even after three months, Ban will wait at least another 12 days?

Footnote: Inner City Press on June 4 asked the UN's top humanitarian about ICG's charges, the pull out from Kilinochchi, the funding of internment camps, as well as OCHA's having stopped reporting the numbers of civilians killed following government complaints about the leaking of these figures to Inner City Press.

  Holmes issued a rote defense -- video here -- and said an international inquiry is not required. There is a history here. Off camera, Holmes told Inner City Press he is leaving at the end of August, and that the UK's new government is not reducing aid, only wanting to measure its efficacy. But will the new government be satisfied with the OCHA post? Watch this site.


Sri Lanka's Kohona Denies Assuring UN's Nambiar Rebels Would Not Be Executed, Qorvis told Peiris to Leave NPC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 28 -- Before surrendering Tamil Tiger leaders were shot to death last year, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar says he was assured they would be treated like normal prisoners of war by Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Palitha Kohona, currently Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN.

  On May 28, Mr. Kohona told Inner City Press that he never provided such assurance. Since this differs from what Vijay Nambiar told Al Jazeera -- see Al Jazeera transcript below -- Inner City Press inquired further.

   Kohona said that he spoke to Nambiar "the day after" -- presumably, the day after Nambiar conveyed the two Rajapaksas' assurances to the LTTE leaders, leading to their surrender and death.

  "I ask you to report my denial," Kohona told Inner City Press. "And say that the other two, you did not have the opportunity to ask."

 As Inner City Press pointed out to him, the questions might well have been put to the Rajapaksas' Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris, but Kohona denied or ignored Inner City Press' request to interview Peiris.

   While down in Washington DC, Peiris had been scheduled to take questions at the National Press Club but walked out before answering a single question. A witness says that just prior to the event, Peiris was audibly told by his and the Rajapaksas' public relations advisors at Qorvis that Peiris might face some "unfair" questions." So Peiris immediately left.

 But Peiris should answer detailed questions, if he is the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is why Inner City Press, hearing of the Sri Lankan Mission's invitation to journalists who have never written about the conflict to wine and dine with Peiris, asked instead to interview him.

  "Maybe if you changed your attitude," Kohona said. "Now that you want me out... maybe I'm going to have to change my approach.

  Already, Kohona's deputy is repetitively sending to Inner City Press letters meant to discourage questioning, right before the UN noon briefings. On May 28, Inner City Press asked a number of Ban Ki-moon / Sri Lanka / panel and Nambiar related questions, and received at least some answers on the former, but no answers to the Nambiar questions. Watch this site.

Al Jazeera transcript:

Q: ...role you played in negotiations for the surrender of many of the Tamil leaders at the time. What was agreed?

Mr. Nambiar: As you know both in April and May of last year the UN had made strenuous efforts in order to try and see that the civilian population would be safeguarded from some of the difficulties, the tragedies of the conflict that was taking place. Now, when I went in May during my second visit, the extent to which I was involved in this was a telephone conversation, a telephone message I got from a Sunday Times correspondent through the UK Foreign Office and through the UN headquarters where I was asked to check with the Sri Lankan authorities regarding the possible protection could be given to two of the Tamil leaders... When I received this call, I said that I will make an effort and contact the government authorities, which I did, the same day that is I think it's the 17 and 18 of May. I went and I spoke to the foreign secretary at that time, Mr. Palitha Kohona, the defense secretary, and subsequently I spoke to the president also. So, I raise this question …the Sunday Times correspondent talked about their wanting to surrender…they may want to do it to a third party…afraid for their lives…so I raised this with them and suggested …the response from them was that they would be treated likes normal prisoners of war, if they raised the white flag they would be allowed to surrender. Now that is the extent to which I was involved.

Q: This is what President of Sri Lanka told you..

Nambiar: Yes…the president also in response to my statement, he said the same thing, as did the foreign secretary and the Defense Secretary.

Q: They specifically said they would treat them…

Nambiar They just made…they just responded in the manner, they would be treated like ordinary prisoners of war.

To be continued - watch this site.

As Sri Lanka Names Its Own Palihakkara as Investigator, UN Panel Would Not Look at UN's Role in War Crimes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- As witnesses testify that orders to execute prisoners came from the top of Sri Lanka's government, the UN on Wednesday couldn't confirm it is even following the issue. Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky about the much publicized report on UK Channel 4. "I would have to check with colleagues if they are aware" of the report, Nesirky said.

Inner City Press asked if the panel that Ban said ten and a half weeks ago would be named without delay would have jurisdiction to look into the UN's own role, described by the International Crisis Group, in war crimes in Sri Lanka. Video here, from Minute 11:12.

  No, Nesirky in essence replied. He said the panel would only "advise the Secretary General on the extent to which a domestic inquiry in Sri Lanka would meet normal standards." Thus, the delayed Ban panel would not, even if named, be responsive to the calls for investigation made by ICG, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others.

  On BBC, Louise Arbour of ICG said the government violated the laws of war by blurring the line between combatants and civilians, and that its killings of civilians were not accidents. Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka's Number One Ambassador to the UN who is apparently letting his Number Two run wild or play bad cop, said he had read the ICG report -- the UN has apparently not finished it -- but that any outside, independent investigation would be "colonial and paternalistic."

  But how could a panel now named by Mahinda Rajapaksa investigate war crimes claims made against his own brother? On the panel is Kohona's predecessor as Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN, H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, who defended the blood bath on the beach as it took loomed and took place. See video here (March 26), here (April 22, and Inner City Press' Q&A report), and here (June 5).

   Would the UN accept, for example, Sudan's UN Ambassador investigating claims against Omar al-Bashir?


  Against this backdrop, Nesirky has in two days not provided any of the answers he promised on Monday, including how much the UN spent on Sri Lanka's internment camps, and with what safeguards if any. There has still been no response from the IRIN or Ban's office to what's described as censorship of the ICG report by the UN's IRIN news service.

From the UN's May 19 transcript:

Inner City Press: on Sri Lanka, I wanted to ask, there is a report since our last interchange on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, citing senior military commanders, that there were orders from the top to kill surrendering soldiers or hardline elements of the Tamil Tigers, saying these orders came from the top, that “we were to leave no one alive”. What I am wondering is, in light of this still either delayed for 10 and a half weeks — however you characterize it — appointing of a panel to advise Ban Ki-moon on accountability in Sri Lanka, are they aware of this report? Does it make it go faster, and would that panel have jurisdiction to advise the Secretary-General on the UN’s own role in, as we discussed, leaving Kilinochi, an ineffective call for a ceasefire, and funding internment camps as ICG [International Crisis Group] has alleged?

Spokesperson: On the specific news report that you are referring to on Channel 4, I would have to check with colleagues whether they are aware of it. I do not know the answer to that right now. On the broader question, the Panel of Experts will have the role to advise the Secretary-General on what the standards are for a credible domestic investigation or inquiry. In other words, to address the question of accountability that has been discussed very often. So it is a very specific aim, to advise the Secretary-General on the extent to which a domestic inquiry — meaning in Sri Lanka — would meet normal standards, widely-held standards, for that kind of investigation. So it is fairly specific.

Inner City Press: And if you don’t mind, since on Monday, I think, you had said that the Secretariat was going study this International Crisis Group report, which actually made some allegations or called for an international inquiry into the UN’s own conduct. What is the UN’s response to that? Do they think that is appropriate? Given that this Panel would not even do that if named, what is the UN’s response to Louise Arbour and the ICG’s call for an inquiry into the UN’s own actions in this matter?

Spokesperson Nesirky: As I mentioned, and as you have pointed out, we said that it is being studied in some detail and that remains the case.

Watch this site.

In Waldorf, Peiris and Kohona of Sri Lanka Spin Selectively, War Crimes Defense Tour Begins Behind Closed Doors

By Matthew Russell Lee

WALDORF ASTORIA, May 23 -- Sri Lanka's war crimes defense tour has begun. Sunday evening in Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria hotel, new Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris held interviews with selected reporters in the presence of the country's Permanent Representative to the UN, Palitha Kohona.

  One reporter upon leaving his interview with Peiris told Inner City Press, "Well, he made his defense."

  Often when foreign ministers or even heads of state come to the UN in New York, they hold press conferences open to all media. At such recent events, Inner City Press has put questions as simply two examples to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Georgia's foreign minister. Perhaps, some wondered, G.L. Peiris is not ready for prime time?

  Despite having covered Sri Lanka more closely than any other correspondent at the UN for the last two years, when Inner City made a formal request to the Sri Lankan Mission, then directly to Palitha Kohona, to pose questions to Minister Peiris, the requests were neither granted nor even responded to.

  Rather, several journalists who have never written about Sri Lanka much less seen the internment camps at Vavuniya were invited, some to be wined and dined and told that all is well in Sri Lanka. There is more to be said on this.

  Peiris is slated to meet with UN Secretary General on May 24, then fly to Washington. He will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He will also meet, in New York or Washington, with US Permanent Representative to the UN Susan Rice.

When Inner City Press sought clarification from the US Mission of Ambassador Rice's praise of Mahinda Rajapaksa's "Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission" which includes his Kohona's predecessor Ambassador Palihakkara, who defended the "bloodbath on the beach" in real time, none was received for two days, until Inner City Press managed to ask the question at a stake out.

In the interim, Inner City Press had sought clarification from Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake. We can now report that his office called back and said he declined to speak on the matter, to continue to seek answers either from "US UN" -- the Mission -- or the State Department's war crimes office. Watch this space.


On Sri Lanka War Crimes, US' Rice Supports UN's Ban, So Panel Without Delay?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 13 -- U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice told the Press on Thursday, "the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside Sri Lanka and we support his leadership in that regard." Video here, from Minute 8:46.

  For two months the Sri Lankan government has lobbied against UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's March 5 announcement he would "without delay" name a panel of experts to advise him about war crimes in the country.

  Last week, President Mahinda Rajapaksa announced the country's own "mechanism" to look at "lessons learned." When US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice on May 10 issued a statement welcoming and setting benchmarks for the Rajapaksas' mechanism, without mentioning Mr. Ban's proposal, it brought into question whether the U.S. supported Ban's move toward outside review.

  Inner City Press on May 11 sought comments from Ambassador Rice and the State Department, and from Human Rights Watch. The latter responded first, by way of Tom Malinowski, HRW's Washington Advocacy Director:

Sri Lanka has a long history of failed commissions of inquiry and there is no indication that this one will be any different. Everyone should be asking what happened to the committee Sri Lanka established in response to the October US State department report. The members of that inquiry were initially supposed to report in December 2009 and then in April, but nobody has heard from them since. The Sri Lankan government launches these efforts from time to time not because it wants to bring out the truth, but because it wants to delay calls for an international investigation. There is no reason to let this process play itself out again to its inevitable, inconclusive end before calling for an independent, international inquiry, which is realistically the only way forward.”

  On May 13, after Ambassador Rice spoke of positive developments in the UN Human Rights Council since the U.S. joined -- she did not mention the flip of the EU proposed resolution about the killing of civilians by Sri Lanka's government into one praising and demanding resources for the government -- she took four questions, about Libya, Iran and at the end, Sri Lanka.

  Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice to clarify her May 10 statement -- does the U.S. support Ban Ki-moon's stated intention to without delay name a panel to advice him on war crime in Sri Lanka, or does the Sri Lankan mechanism replace that?

  "As I think you know, Matt, my statement didn't address that one way or another," Ambassador Rice began. Yours "is a different question. Why don't you ask that question, instead of asking me to reinterpret my statement?"

  The question re-asked, Ambassador Rice said that "the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside Sri Lanka and we support his leadership in that regard." Video here, from Minute 8:46.

  From the US Mission's transcript:

Inner City Press: can you clarify your statement Monday on Sri Lanka. I just wanted to know, were you saying in that, does the U.S. support the Secretary General’s call to, without delay, appoint a panel to advise him on war crimes in Sri Lanka or was this saying that the Sri Lankan somehow replaces that?

Ambassador Rice: As I think you know, Matt, my statement didn’t address that one way or the other. It was a statement about the Commission that had been established within Sri Lanka, and I didn’t comment on the Secretary General.

Reporter: Do you support the Secretary General’s position?

Ambassador Rice: I think the Secretary General has a very constructive and worthy interest in accountability inside of Sri Lanka, and we support his leadership in that regard.


Ironically, a senior Ban administration official on May 11 told Inner City Press, in light of Ambassador Rice's statement, that Ban would now wait to see how the Sri Lankan mechanism developed before acting on his stated intention to name his own panel "without delay." Now what? What this site.

On Sri Lanka, UN Soft Peddles Humanitarian Law, Still No War Crimes Panel for Ban Ki-moon after Gota Rajapaksa Threats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 9, updated -- On Sri Lanka, more than two months after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he would name a group of expert to advise him on possible war crimes, still no panel has been named. Now, the Rajapaksa government of Sri Lanka has announced its own "mechanism."

  The country's Ambassador to the UN Palitha Kohona told Inner City Press he advised Colombo to better publicize the "mechanism." He predicted that Ban will never actually name a panel. He asked, smiling, "For what? For money?"

  Inner City Press on May 7 asked Ban's spokesman about the panel, and his top humanitarian official John Holmes about restrictions placed by the government, including its rejection of the UN Common Humanitarian Action Plan, which has blocked non governmental organizations from providing assistant in Vavuniya, about the lack of access to those in "rehabilitation" camps, even by the Red Cross, and other restrictions on NGOs. Video here, from Minute 39:09.

  Holmes in his careful answer several times called relations with the Rajapaksa government "difficult" but still tried to make it seem fine, that for example over 10,000 people have been incarcerated without trial or visit for more than a year. He noted that the government threw the Red Cross out of parts of the country, and said he "hoped" they could return, including so that donor money could flow for "decent rehabilitation."

  Holmes estimated the number in the "rehabilitation" camps at 11,000 to 12,000. He said there are still 80,000 in IDP camps, and some 220,000 "returnees." He did not note how few of them could vote, although he seemed to use the elections as the excuse for the lack of humanitarian access. Video here, from Minute 42:24.

Inner City Press asked UN Spokesperson Martin Nesirky about the

Inner City Press: number of days since the Secretary-General said he was forming this panel to advise him on war crimes in Sri Lanka. In the last 24 hours the Defense Minister, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has said that anyone that would seek to testify about war crimes by the Sri Lankan Government should be put to death. It’s a capital offense and it’s treason. So I am wondering: this seems like a pretty extreme position in the light of international justice trying to collect evidence of war crimes anywhere. What’s the response to that and what does this “no delay” thing mean now that the panel formation was announced?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well the “no delay” thing means what it says. There is no delay. The Secretary-General is pushing ahead with putting together the panel of experts that we’ve talked about a number of times, here and elsewhere. Not only the panel, but the terms of reference; that is being actively worked on. There is no delay. Okay.

Inner City Press: And then there is no comment on Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s comment that anyone that [interrupted]

Spokesperson: Not at the moment, no.

Update: as quoted by AFP, "Any Sri Lankan promoting an agenda which is detrimental to the country is nothing but a traitor...," said Gotabhaya [Rajapaksa to Sri Lank's The Island newspaper, published May 6]."Traitors deserve capital punishment."

 Inner City Press has conveyed, to the most senior UN officials, how conclusively lame it would appear if Ban never even named this long promised panel to advise himself on possible war crimes in Sri Lanka. It is understand that Ban himself heard this on May 7. Some say the announcement is near. It has already been far too long.


In Anti-Nuclear March, "Free Palestine" Chants Trigger Questions of Iran, Ahmadinejad in Wings

By Matthew Russell Lee

TIMES SQUARE TO UN, May 2 -- In the anti-nuclear march to the United Nations from Times Square, scene last night of a bomb scare, there were chants incluing "Free, Free Palestine!" A teenage girl held a sign saying "Israel," cut out in the shape of a skull.

  To a UN correspondent covering the NPT, one wondered of the place of Iran and its nuclear program to these protesters. Among the Western powers in the Security Council, Iran's nuclear ambitions have become the focus, to the exclusion of death in Sudan and the Congo.

  Many of those so eager to target Iran are not against nukes at all. They are against Iran, and to a lesser extent North Korea, getting nuclear weapons. These marchers, on the other hand, see defending the rights of Palestinians against Israel as part of their movement. And of defending, as some would have it, Iran against Israel?

  There were marchers from upstate New York, and a slew of Japanese handing out origami birds. There was a contingent from France, with their own "ca pu" chant. There were few to no Latinos. A lone woman lobbied to amend New York's wrongful death statute. But there were few to no signs about Iran. This will not be true for the rest of the week, or NPT. Inner City Press has been invited to cover Ahmadinejad's press conference. Watch this site.

Update of 5:26 p.m. -- UN correspondents for Iranian media tell Inner City Press that Ahmadinejad is slated to land in New York in half an hour. They think, but even they are not sure, that he will stay in the Millennium Plaza hotel across from the UN. Might he intersect with the anti-nuke marchers, still on 47th Street?


As Sri Lanka AG Met With UN's Ban, War Crimes Panel Unnamed for Six Weeks

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 22 -- The UN's Ban Ki-moon has yet to name the panel of experts to advise him on accountability and war crimes in Sri Lanka which he announced six weeks ago as coming "without delay."

  To determine what happened, Inner City Press on April 22 asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to confirm Ban met with Sri Lanka's attorney general Mohan Peiris -- which Inner City Press exclusively reported three days ago -- and to explain the delay. Video here, at end.

Nesirky, who earlier in the briefing tried to ensure that Inner City Press could not ask more questions, said he would look into it. Later on April 22 his Office confirmed that meeting with Sri Lanka's attorney general. He did not, however, explain the delay.

At a UN reception thrown by Israel on April 20, Ban told Sri Lanka's Ambassador Palitha Kohona "I am not against your government," according to sources standing next to the two. Kohona has predicted that no panel will ever be named, quipping that the UN should instead investigate the Vatican for pedophilia.

  Kohona to his credit is one of the more candid UN ambassador. Inner City Press has committed to try to write a non-conflict story, perhaps about the government's Memoranda of Understanding with non-governmental organizations.

Among Ambassador Kohona's honesties, reflecting the combativenature of his government, was his statement this week that Sri Lanka advocated against Ban Ki-moon's $3 million grant through the UN Peacebuilding Fund, which Kohona said went to UNDP. But UNDP still took it -- typical UN system arrogance, going for the money (but weak on human rights).

A senior UN official indicated to Inner City Press on April 22 not to expect any movement on Ban's six week old commitment to name a panel on war crimes on Sri Lanka, even just to advice him (Ban). But how can he back out of this? Watch this site.


UN Admits Afghan 'Friendly Fire' May Have Killed US Staffer, US Mission Dodges

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, April 15 -- The UN covered up information that Afghan national forces killed its staff member Louis Maxwell, and then when asked by Inner City Press, belatedly disclosed an FBI investigation and said that "the preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to “friendly fire”, caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel" -- to another media, not the one which asked.

Management of information is one thing, but cover up and lies are another.

On April 14, based on a tip from a UN source in Afghanistan, Inner City Press asked about the death of UN staff member Louis Maxwell, a U.S. citizen, outside the UN's Kabul guesthouse on October 28, 2009. Given time to response, the UN send Inner City Press an email that the case was subject to a Board of Inquiry and FBI investigation, and that therefore there would be no more comment.

On April 15, Inner City Press asked again, including when the Board of Inquiry began, and why the UN had not retracted Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 2009 statements that the Taliban were responsible for Louis Maxwell's murder. UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press to "be careful" what words it used, and later said only that the Board of Inquiry began in January.

Nesirky's Associate Farhan Haq, however, issued a quote to another media -- which had not asked any questions at the UN's noon briefing -- that

"The preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to 'friendly fire,' caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel. Once the BOI is finalized, we will share our findings with the Government of Afghanistan and if warranted we will ask for a thorough investigation surrounding the death of this UN employee and the circumstances of the deaths of the other UN employees."

  One questions why the UN didn't disclose this "disturbing possibility" when it became aware of it, and then refused to disclosed it to accredited media which asked about it in open UN noon briefing sessions. This UN goes lower and lower every day.

  Meanwhile, Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN

This is a request for comment on newly emerged information about the death in Afghanistan on October 28, 2009 of U.S. citizen Louis Maxwell.

At the time, Ambassador Rice said

I condemn in the strongest terms the brutal and cowardly attack in Kabul today on United Nations workers and members of the Afghan National Security Forces. An American citizen was among those who lost their lives. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies go out to the families and friends of all of the victims.

The United Nations has been doing vital work for the Afghan people for more than fifty years. The United States strongly supports the leadership and staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as they work bravely each day under incredibly difficult circumstances, and we are grateful to the Afghan National Security Forces for their commitment and sacrifice.

The international community stands together in its commitment to defeat those extremists seeking to halt democratic progress in Afghanistan. The United States stands firmly with the people of Afghanistan as they prepare for the November 7 presidential runoff elections.

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/131010.htm

Yesterday, after I asked a question at the noon briefing, the UN Spokesperson's office sent me this

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Your questions on Louis Maxwell
To: Inner City Press

(further response on Louis Maxwell)

The United Nations has followed due process in investigating the death of staff in Afghanistan last October by instituting a Board of Inquiry after an initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Further actions by the United Nations will depend on its findings. The specific circumstances in which Louis Maxwell died are currently being investigated and it would be premature to comment further at this stage.

The United Nations is also cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. The United Nations has briefed the Maxwell family on the progress of its initial inquiries and is determined to support the family.

Questions: when did the US State Dept and, separately, Amb. Rice become aware of a credible alternative factual explanation of the attack and death, and of the US FBI's involvement in investigating this alternative explanation?

Why was Amb Rice's statement not amended at that time?

Is the statement going to be amended or supplemented now?

  While the US Mission to the UN declined to respond in writing, as part of a telephone conversation the Spokesman of the US Mission, Mark Kornblau, provide this on the record response:

"As the UN Spokesman noted yesterday, there are ongoing investigations by the UN and FBI. It would be premature for us to comment at this time."

  Some note that given the political situation between the Obama Administration and Hamid Karzai, the disclosure of a the murder of a U.S. citizen by Afghan national forces under Karzai's command would be inconvenient, to say the least. Asked about this concern, the US Mission to the UN had no on the record comment. Watch this site.

Footnote: the UN and US State Department might want to start changing their close to the chest communications strategy on this -- Inner City Press' Kabul sources say that ABC News has a crew on the ground now investigating Louis Maxwell's murder.

From the April 15 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: After yesterday’s noon briefing, your office issued a statement about the situation in Afghanistan -- the deaths of the UN staff, including Louis Maxwell -- saying, among other things, that “the United Nations is cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in its inquiries into this incident”. Because at times there have been some issues around UN cooperation with United States law enforcement, including in this building -- whether they have jurisdiction to come into the building, whether evidence is shared -- can you say when this cooperation began, of what it consisted, and ultimately isn’t it the UN’s responsibility? Who is leading the charge to find out who, in fact, killed these four UN staff members?

Spokesperson Nesirky: There is a Board of Inquiry, as I think you know. The United Nations instituted this Board of Inquiry after initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Any further actions by the United Nations will depend on the findings, and it would be premature at this point to comment further.

Inner City Press: Like you had said, “as you were aware”, but I was not aware until yesterday afternoon that there was a Board of Inquiry.

Spokesperson: That is why you were aware, because you were told yesterday afternoon.


Inner City Press: Sure. Mr. Ban said clearly at the stakeout that this was an attack by the Taliban that had done it. Once the UN became enough aware that they created this Board of Inquiry, was there any thought given to saying “things are not as we first presented them”? And secondarily, on these boards of inquiry, how many of them are there? Are there just UN staff on it? Is it an outside Board of Inquiry? How many, I mean…

Spokesperson: There is a standard way to institute a board of inquiry, and I am sure that you are familiar with that. You have been here far longer than I have. The UN takes extremely seriously any incident which results in the loss of life in whatever circumstances of a UN staff member, and will investigate it thoroughly. And clearly the UN, as I mentioned, has been cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. As we have also mentioned -- and I think you need to take that into account, too -- the United Nations has been briefing the family of Mr. Maxwell on its initial inquiries and will continue to support the family.

Inner City Press: Thanks for saying that, but this Board of Inquiry, you are saying, whenever staff are killed, the UN moves to this. Was this Board of Inquiry set up at the time that these five staff members were murdered? Or was it created at some later date, and what triggered its creation?

Spokesperson: Matthew, I should be very careful in the words that you are using. There is a Board of Inquiry and there is an investigation going on that involves the FBI. And the Afghan authorities are also investigating this, and it is part of -- as I mentioned earlier in a different context -- due process when you are investigating. Be very careful what words you are using.

Inner City Press: Is there any question… it is a question of who did the murder?

Spokesperson: There is an investigation going on.

Inner City Press: Right. Is it a new investigation? This took place in October and we are now in April. Has it been going on since October? I will just leave it at that. When was the date that this Board of Inquiry was instituted, since it is such a well known procedure how these things are done? When was it done? When was this created?

Spokesperson: I will let you know.

[The Spokesperson later added that, in January, the United Nations established a high-level Board of Inquiry to establish the facts and look for lessons learned.]

  "Lessons learned," indeed. Watch this site.


As UN Paid Darfur Rebel Leader Ateem, UN Claims It Didn't Know What Bassole Did: Scandal Grows

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- In September 2009, a conference about Darfur was convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia by the joint United Nations - African Union mediator, Djibrill Bassole.

  The goals included uniting various Darfur rebel groups under one umbrella to negotiate with Omar al-Bashir's National Congress Party, and replacing the leader of the Fur ethnic group and Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, Abdul Wahid Mohamed al Nur who refused to negotiate until his Fur people were not threatened with violence.

Conveniently, an alternative Fur leader emerged, offering to stand in for Wahid al Nur and to lead the umbrella group and make peace with al-Bashir: El-Tigani El-Sissi Ateem (sometimes written "Al-Tijani Al-Sissi").

  The UN-AU's Bassole embraced Al-Tijani Al-Sissi Ateem. But Al-Tijani Al-Sissi Ateem was at that time, and had been since 2005, a paid UN staff member, of the UN Economic Commission for Africa also based in Addis Ababa.

  In the run up to Sudan elections, sources told Inner City Press that compliant Darfur rebel leader Eltijani Elsissi Ateem was paid by the UN from 2005 through March 8, 2010. Inner City Press asked and wrote an exclusive story on March 28; UN staff say that Bassole was asked.

  On April 8, Sudan's Ambassador to the UN told Inner City Press that Eltijani is a "long time Darfur leader" who, as a convenient replacement for Fur leader Abdul Wahid Nur signed a deal with Omar al-Bashir's National Congress Party. Video here.

  Eltijani did this work while being paid by the UN, in violation of UN staff rules. Some now question the UN's role in replacing one Fur leader with another, paid by the UN.


Al-Sissi (at right) and Bashir's representative Ghazi, UN funding of Al-Sissi not shown

   The UN in New York has so far sought to dodge all of these questions. Twice Inner City Press has asked in UN noon briefings in New York, then in writing, but was referred to the UN Economic Council for Africa in Addis Ababa, the UN unit which employed Eltijani.

Tb both the UNECA and the UN in New York, Inner City Press posed these questions:

What were El-Sissi’s official job responsibilities for the UN system?

Was the UN aware that El-Sissi was a member of the Umma Party?

Was his travel to Doha, Qatar in February funded by the UN? Was he on official business, or annual leave at this time?

Were the activities of the “Addis Ababa Roadmap group” supported, facilitated, or participated in by the UN?

Did any meetings of the “Addis Ababa Roadmap group” take place on UN premises?

ECA questions: To what extent did or does UNECA have responsibilities relating to the unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team or the contribution in the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict?

Was the Head of UNECA aware of Mr. El-Sissi’s activities in the Darfur process while he was employed by the UN? How long was El-Tijani El-Sissi employed by the UN?

   After first proferring only a single sentence, that ""ECA is not aware of its staff members activities outside of work, including Mr. Ateem's," this was received

Subject: Re: Questions on deadline
From: Mdessables [at] uneca.org
Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:44 AM
To: Inner City Press, Matthew Russell Lee
Cc: S-G's Spokesperson, Deputy and Associate Spokespeople

Dear Matthew,

Mr. Eltigani Ateem started working for ECA on 10 February 2005 as Regional Advisor. Regional Advisory Services are made available upon request to Members states, sub-regional and continental organizations on socio-economic and political challenges.

In his capacity as Regional Advisor, Mr. Ateem, upon request of the Head of State of Libya, then Chair of the African Union (AU), to ECA's Executive Secretary, was asked to serve as resource person and help support the joint AU-UN efforts in addressing the Darfur conflict. As part of this process, Mr. Ateem traveled to Doha, Qatar in February 2010. This travel was not funded by ECA.

This initiative followed earlier involvement of Mr. Ateem who, at the request of the World Bank, served as a member of the Advisory Panel on Darfur Joint Assessment Mission in 2006.

ECA did not support, facilitate or participate in the activities of the “Addis Roadmap Group” and no meeting of the “Addis Roadmap Group” took place on ECA premises.

ECA is not aware of Mr. Ateem’s political affiliations.

ECA has no responsibility related to the Darfur Negotiations.

Myriam Dessables
Chief Information and Communication Service
UN Economic Commission for Africa

  A UN source, when told of the response that Mr. Al-Sissi's political affiliations were unknown, burst out laughing. At the April 9 UN noon briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq which UN units were involved in work to unify the Darfur rebels: the Department of Peackeeping Operations under Alain Leroy, the Department of Political Affairs under Lynn Pascoe, or other UN units, like Bassole's?

   Haq acknowledged that to do political work while paid by the UN violates staff rules. But he said he would have to check which UN units were involved. There is no question that Bassole's UN-funded unit was involved. That Bassole was asked about Al-Sissi's status only confirms it.


UN's Ban and Bassole, funding of pro-government rebel not shown

   That Bassole's office is funded by the UN is demonstrated in para 6 of A/63/717 (dated 17 Feb 2009; "Budget for the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur for the period from 1 July 2009to 30 June 2010").

6. The Joint Mediation Support Team is supported by UNAMID. The Joint Chief Mediator, who is the head of the Team, reports to the Secretary-General through the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations and to the Chairperson of the African Union Commission through the Commissioner for Peace and Security. The Joint Chief Mediator liaises closely with the Joint Special Representative for UNAMID, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Sudan and Head of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) and other relevant stakeholders. The Joint Chief Mediator is entrusted with leading the mediation efforts between the parties to the Darfur conflict with a view to bringing them to peace negotiations.


The Chart on page 82 of this document (A/63/717) shows that under Bassole, he has 39 positions located in Addis, including 1 D-2, and 1 D-1.  One wonders how Mr Ateem fits into this.

Also, S/2010/151 (Letter dated 23 March 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Sudan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council), dated 24 March 2010.  It includes a photocopy of the signed Doha agreement, which includes Eltigrani Ateem's signature.  Interestingly, he uses yet a different version and spelling of his name: "Dr. Tejani Sisei Mohammed Ateem"

Para 30 of the SG's Report on the United Nations Mission in Sudan (S/2009/357; 14 July 2009) said

The African Union-United Nations Joint Chief Mediator, Djibrill Bassolé, met with the Tripoli Group (comprised of five rebel movements) in Sirte, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from 28 to 30 June to discuss the possible participation of the Group in the Doha negotiations. The mediation also held broad consultations in Darfur, Khartoum and Tripoli with representatives from Sudanese civil society, non-governmental organizations and tribal leadership to underline the intention to broaden participation in the Darfur peace process.


Paras 69, 71 of the SG's Report on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (S/2010/50; 29 January 2010) stated

69. As the political process gains momentum, and in order to build on the significant work of the Joint Chief Mediator, Djibrill Bassolé, to increase engagement among the parties to the conflict, I urge all parties to cease armed confrontation and engage in a meaningful way in substantive, inclusive discussions.

71. In the context of the political process, it is critical that the national elections scheduled for April 2010 provide an opportunity for all Darfurians, particularly internally displaced persons, to participate fully and completely unhindered.

Bassole has already said he wants to leave his UN post. But that will not resolve the matter. Who knew what, when? Beyond the questions pending with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson's Office, Inner City Press has asked UNECA:

1. You say that Mr Ateem's travel to Doha in February 2010 was not funded by the UN. Who funded it? Were Mr Ateem's salary and benefits during his tenure as a UN employee from February 2005 to March 2010 funded by the UN, and if not, by whom?

2. Who was Mr. Ateem's reporting officer, viz to whom within ECA was he responsible?

3. Is ECA responsible for or does it take any credit for unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team, or contributing to the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict, or are these tasks which UNECA has nothing to do with?

While awaiting answers, and accountability, note that the UN is now doing all it can to dodge from the fact that for five years its Addis office employed as a staff member a former governor of Darfur who is also a significant figure in Sudan's Umma party.  This individual, Mr. Eltigani Ateem, who while serving as a UN staff member in the "NEPAD and Regional Integration Division" of the Addis-based UN Economic Commission of Africa, was assigned official responsibility for promoting the unification of Darfur armed groups and for developing a Darfur Road Map.

This raises significant questions about the staff selection and assignment practices of the UN, which we've seen before.  Is it appropriate for a former [and current] national political figure to be assigned work directly related to his own country?  Ibrahim Gambari, the UN's new envoy to Darfur who confirmed to Inner City Press that Al-Sissi worked for ECA, fell under fire for taking a leave to attempt to mediate disputes in the Niger Delta of his native Nigeria. But Al-Sissi was getting paid by the UN while moonlighting as a rebel leader in his native Sudan.

For their part, the UN is employing normal avoidance tactics in response to Inner City Press' questions.  First, the SG's assistant spokespersons refused to even accept numerous questions, deferring to UNECA's media shop.  After a time, UNECA finally responded, denying not only knowledge of Mr Ateem's political baggage, but also that UNECA had any role in supporting the "unification of armed groups" or the "road map."

Unfortunately for the UN, this evasion does not square with the facts.  "Subprogram 4" of UNECA's own "results" framework reflects the following claims:

http://www.uneca.org/rtpc/results/Subprogramme4ECRI.html

Result 2: Development of a set of policy recommendations for post conflict reconstruction and development in areas and countries emerging from conflict, with particular emphasis on Darfur; Unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team; Contribution in the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict.

Interestingly, in 2007 Mr. Ateem, in his UNECA capacity, presented a paper at a conference in the UK titled "The Root Causes of Conflicts in Sudan and the Making of the Darfur Tragedy."  This paper clearly identifies Ateem as working for the NEPAD & Regional Integration Division.  One telling excerpt from the paper states that

After the DPA was partially signed by one faction of the SLM in May 2005, some neighbouring countries introduced further polarisation within the rebel movements, something that has seriously jeopardized the AU/UN-led efforts to resuscitate the peace talks with the non-signatories.


 However, just two years later, at in late 2009 talks in Doha, Mr. Ateem expressed his qualified interest in becoming the leader of a unified Darfur rebel organization, reportedly stating "I'm ready to lead the new movement if all of you commit yourself to a real and strong unity."  The UN's Mr. Ateem finally got his wish in February 2010, UN/AU Mediator Djibril Bassole proudly (and rather strangely) announced Mr. Ateem's leadership of a unified Darfur rebel structure, and that this should "pave the way for holding constructive dialogue and setting frameworks for detailed negotiations that would lead to reaching a peace accord."

  Bassole has already said he wants to leave his UN post. But that will not resolve the matter. Who knew what, when? Watch this site.


In Central Asia, UN Ban Blind to Corruption, Skips Prisoners Rights and Water Wars

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, April 3 -- As the UN's Ban Ki-moon traipses Central Asia, what of political prisoners, UN hiring scandals and simmering cross border conflicts? Apparently for the UN Secretary General, these don't exist. Before Ban started his trip, Inner City Press asked why the UN was not even to solve the dam-based conflict between Tajkistan and Uzbekisan. Don't call it a conflict, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said. What what should it be called? 
 
     As Inner City Press has reported, Uzbekistan opposes the Tajik dam so much it shut the country's border. Why isn't the vaunted Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia involved?

  A UN source alleging corruption in the UNRCCA notes

On the website of the Center, there is not a single word about the Dam. but there is a tender announcement for the fitness equipment for the gymnasium at the UNRCCA building - the former elite Demiryolchy Hotel. The question is whether the procurement of the fitness equipment is reconciled with the UN budget rules and regulations, or whether it is a good UN background for the unsolved Dam conflict.

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/ the left click Tenders http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4319

At Tnders page you could see translation: The Regional UN Center (UNRCCA) announces the tender: Fitness equipment for the gymnesium)

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4319&ctl=Details&mid=4408&ItemID=8098

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/portals/unrcca/gym.pdf is set of pictures.

Meanwhile

Miloslav Jenca (Slovakia), SRSG and head of UNRCCA, has published an article “Developments in Central Asia and the role of the UNRCCA” in International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy AffairsIssue no.02 /2009, Publisher: Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association (RC SFPA)

The curiosity is that it can be read only if the reader would pay 25 Euro (€) in advance (from each the price of Jenca’s article would be taken). Clickhere. the UN staff in general and of Jenca’s status in particular are not supposed to publish the UN related staff for money (not saying about other connotations).

Turkmenistan would be the first country in the SG tour – 2 April (would SRSG Jenca inform the SG of the fitness equipment tendered – especially of the ball to play at the beach?

  In the Fall of 2009, Inner City Press asked and was given the run-around about a hiring scandal in this Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia. Inner City Press posed this question in writing:

In a message dated 8/27/2009 3:50:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, montas [at] un.org writes:
Please refer your DPA questions to Jared Kotler
 
  I've been referred to you for a response to the allegations below concerning hiring in the Regional Center in Turkmenistan (the United Nations Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia).Also, please tell me when Jan Egeland's job with DPA ended, what he did during his tenure and how much he was paid.
 
on the RCPDCA, while here is more to this story, but let's start on deadline with confirmation or denial of the below:
 
During 2005-2007 Mr. Miloslav Jenca, Slovakia , worked in Tashkent as the OSCE Head of Office/OSCE Project Co-coordinator in Uzbekistan together with Ms. Polina Pomogalova , Uzbekistan , as his local general support staff:

http://www.osce.org/uzbekistan/photos.html?lsi=true&src=22&limit=6&pos=36

Mr.Jenca at OSCE, Uzbekistan

http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2007/10/27048_en.pdf
 

Ms. Polina Pomogalova at OSCE, Uzbekisan, page 3
 

 In December 2007 the UNRCCA ( United Nations Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia) was inaugurated by Lynn Pascoe, DPA in Ashgabat.
  

In April 2008 Mr. Miloslav Jenca was appointed UNRCCA Head and SRSG, (“…Mr.. Jenca, currently the Director of the Office of Slovakia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, recently served as head of mission for the OSCE centre in Tashkent , Uzbekistan …”) 

Soon after this Ms. Polina Pomogalova was appointed the Personal Assistant to the SRSG Jenca at UNRCCA: see the UNRCCA web site:
 
http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1995 

 
“…Ms. Polina Pomogalova, Personal Assistant to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Ambassador Jenca…”

Question: How could it be that Polina Pomogalova without a single day of the UN experience was shortlisted for an interview by PMSS while other candidates with the extensive UN experience in Central Asia and technically cleared to the positions of this category were not included? How could it be that the UNRCCA interview board recommended exactly Polina Pomogalova? The answer seems clear: she was the protégé of SRSG Jenca and it was he who had arranged everything.

  Again, there is more to this story, but let's start on deadline with what is the UN's / DPA's . the Center's response?

  The majority of the above was simply never responded to, just as the UN's Department of Political Affairs refused to respond to or address nepotism and hiring scandals in its Africa II unit and the Central African Republic. This lack of accountability extends to the UN's approach to human rights.

   As Ban left on April 1, Inner City Press asked his Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if Ban would visit political prisoners:

Inner City Press: In terms of the Secretary-General’s trip through Central Asia, I’m wondering, various groups, including Human Rights Watch, have said this is an opportunity for him to address issues such as, in Uzbekistan, the failure to prosecute anyone for the Andijon massacre, as well as the abuse of political prisoners, religious minorities and others. What is the place of the issue of human rights in the Secretary-General’s trip, and specifically, is he going to raise Andijon while he is in Uzbekistan?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: I’m not going to get ahead of the Uzbekistan portion of the trip before it happens. What I will say is: it’s always clear whenever the Secretary-General visits countries that human rights, international humanitarian law and other norms are always part of what he discusses with his interlocutors. He certainly plans to do that over the course of his trip to Central Asia. And one of the things that he is going to do in the various countries that he visits is to reach out to civil society. As you know, civil society organizations have been developing in many of these countries. We will provide you with the details of those visits as they transpire. There is nothing really to say about them just yet.

Inner City Press: There are fairly high-profile, what are called political prisoners, although the Governments disagree in both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and I am wondering, does he have, when he says he’s going to reach out to civil society, can you say whether he’s actually asked to meet any imprisoned political figure?

Associate Spokesperson: I wouldn’t give the itinerary, the precise itinerary, of his meetings just yet, but we’ll provide those details as they arise. But certainly, he will be meeting with civil society, and the sort of concerns he brings on all of his trips he will also bring on this one.

  But what, for example, of the HIV activist imprisoned by Uzbekistan which called his UNICEF-funded pamphlet blasphemous? Watch this site.

For UN's Sri Lanka Panel, Nambiar Meets with Kohona, "Two Foxes," Sources Say

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 24 -- The UN's panel on accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka is being put together by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, with his already controversial role in the final stage of the "bloodbath on the beach" and the Rajapaksa government's UN representative Palitha Kohona, Mr. Ban told the Press on Wednesday.

  A full week after Mr. Ban said there would be "no delay" in putting together the panel, Inner City Press asked him what had in fact been done. Video here, from Minute 7:54. Mr. Ban replied that he is "in the process of identifying persons" for the panel of experts.

  "My chef de cabinet has been meeting with Sri Lanka's Ambassador here," Mr. Ban said. Video here, from Minute 8:29, UN transcript below.

  Chef de cabinet Vijay Nambiar's role in Sri Lanka became more and more controversial as 2009 progressed, including him telling surrendering LTTE leaders that if they came out with a white flag they would be fine. They were, in fact, shot and killed -- at the order of the Rajapaksas, according to now imprisoned general Sarath Fonseka.

  While UN Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution Philip Alston has submitted questions to the Sri Lankan government, Nambiar himself is at least a witness. Why is he putting together the panel on accountability?

  Ambassador Kohona, most recently, is reported to have given food baskets and $100 dollars to pro-Rajapaksa protesters who denounced Ban Ki-moon in front of the UN twelve days ago.

  Kohona was also instrumental in the Non Aligned Movement's letter to Ban contesting his jurisdiction to appoint the panel. India's representative at the NAM meeting at issue has told Inner City Press that at the end of the meeting, essentially as people were leaving, Kohona asked for a NAM letter to Ban. In the moment, no one objected, and the letter was sent.

There are the two people putting together the panel to advise Ban Ki-moon on accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka. It is, one close observer told Inner City Press, like "two foxes studying the hen house." Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked China's new UN Ambassador Li Baodong for his views on Ban's panel and the NAM letter. Video here, from Minute 3:00.

  While Li Baodong answered Inner City Press' question on Myanmar, saying that its elections are a "matter of sovereign states that should be respected," he pointedly declined to answer Inner City Press' question on Sri Lanka, and walked away from the microphone. Video here, from Minute 4:34.

From the March 24 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: a week ago you'd said on the Sri Lanka panel or board on accountability that there'd be no delay. So a week's gone by, I want to know if anything's been done in that regard in that week?

SG Ban: I'm in the process of identifying persons who can work in the panel of experts. My chef de cabinet has been meeting with the Sri Lankan ambassador here and they are now in the process of making a move on this, and I expect that Mr. Lynn Pascoe will be able to visit Sri Lanka in the near future to discuss all the matters.


On Sri Lanka, As UK Disagrees With NAM Letter, IMF, Pascoe and Panel After Election?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Ten days after Sri Lanka got a Non Aligned Movement letter submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon telling him he has no jurisdiction to seek advise on accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN Mark Lyall Grant told the Press his country disagrees with NAM's argument.

  Outside the Security Council chamber, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Lyall Grant about NAM's letter, and war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Secretary General, Ambassador Lyall Grant said, "does have a mandate through the UN charter to uphold human rights and humanitarian international law, and therefore he is entirely within his rights to set up a group of experts who will advise him on taking forward his concerns about some of the allegations that have been made in the recent months in Sri Lanka."

 As such, he said, the UK "would disagree with the Non-Aligned Movement, who are arguing that he is acting beyond his mandate."  Video here, from Minute 2:49.

  Since the UK at the UN has had little at least publicly to say about Sri Lanka of late, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Lyall Grant what the UK thinks should happen. He replied that the UK "want[s] to see an end to impunity, that we want to see allegations of war crimes, human rights violations, human rights abuses, thoroughly investigated."
 
   Also on the NAM letter, Inner City Press on March 19 asked the spokesman for this year's President of the UN General Assembly, Libya's Ali Treki, if he supports or opposes NAM's arguments. You have to ask the Secretary General, was the reply, or NAM or Sri Lanka. But the Sri Lankan mission declined to even give a copy of the NAM letter to the press.

   Separately, Inner City Press asked a senior UN official about his involvement in the UN's decision not to send any personnel to Sri Lanka before the Presidential election, to try to safeguard minimal fairness.

While publicly UN spokespeople said the UN could not act without a General Assembly vote or mandate, this official confided that the UN had offered the Sri Lankan electoral official to send a team of five to ten experts. But this offer was turned down.

  On the financial front, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund on March 18 about the status of the third tranche of the IMF's credit facility to Sri Lanka. IMF spokesperson Yoshiko Kamata told Inner City Press in reply that IMF "staff will visit Colombo after the parliamentary elections and the formation of the new cabinet, to discuss with the government its plan for a 2010 budget."

  The long-promised visit of the UN's political envoy Lynn Pascoe appears to have been pushed back to after the election. Some now say that, following the NAM letter to which Ban has yet to formally response, he is spending more time on "terms of reference" and membership of the announced Sri Lanka panel than he did on his panel on the killing of 150 civilians in Guinea -- specifically so the timing extends until after the elections. What was that again, about "no delay"? Watch this site.

March 19, '10 stakeout, transcribed by Group of Friends on ICP

Inner City Press: The SG said he would name a panel  to advise him on Sri Lanka human rights and the NAM complained and said he doesn't have the right to intervene on human rights issues not on the Council's agenda. What does the UK think? Is he within his rights?

Ambassador Lyall Grant: Well, we believe that the Secretary-General does have a mandate through the UN charter to uphold human rights and humanitarian international law, and therefore he is entirely within his rights to set up a group of experts who will advise him on taking forward his concerns about some of the allegations that have been made in the recent months in Sri Lanka. So we would disagree with the Non-Aligned Movement, who are arguing that he is acting beyond his mandate.

Inner City Press: Does the UK have concerns about conduct on both sides?

Ambassador Lyall Grant: Well, we have made it very clear that we always want to see an end to impunity, that we want to see allegations of war crimes, human rights violations, human rights abuses, thoroughly investigated.

March 15, 2010 -- Staged Leak of UN Somali Sanctions Report Echoes Bogus  Shabab in Lebanon Claim of 2006

By Matthew Russell Lee

WASHINGTON, March 11, updated -- A Somali firm fired back Thursday night at the staged leak of a UN sanctions report to the New York Times and then other media. Deeqa Construction and its principal Abdulkadir Nur issued a two page denial, via a public relations firm after first having hired a Washington law firm. Click here to view.

  Noteworthy in the coverage in the New York Times and then wire services of the report by the UN Somalia Sanctions Committee was the failure to mention that this same committee (and newspaper) reported in 2006 that many Somalis had been trained in South Lebanon alongside Hezbollah. This report gave rise to denials and derision and has never been substantiated. But this week's leak was taken at face value.

  The report was shown in a coordinated, almost choreographed process of leaking, although in more than one city, in which reporters were shown but not given a copy of the report, allowed to record themselves reading the document but not taking notes on it. This is not investigative journalism, it is being a ventriloquist. Although some at least held out to see the whole report, and not only the portions, doled out in Naibori, which support the US' cut of aid to WFP.

  Inner City Press is rarely an apologist or defender for UN agencies like the World Food Program. In fact, Inner City Press is inclined to believe that WFP and UNICEF would allow diversion of aid, just as up to 25% of aid after Cyclone Nargis was allowed to be stolen by the Than Shwe military regime in Myanmar, with the UN covering it up.

  But these reports of diversion in Somalia, with the aura of the Al Shabab Islamist insurgency, have resulted in the cutting of aid by the U.S. and reportedly the UK, and increased starvation of Somali civilians. At a UN stakeout on camera, Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for specifics, but none were provided. Click here for that story.

  Earlier this week, Inner City Press timely submitted this question to the UK's David Miliband, again without promised response. Click here that (non) story. Not all leaks are created equal. Scooter Libby feeding the New York Times' Judith Miller lies about Iraq was not investigative journalism, but the manipulation of elite media by those in power. And this? Watch this site.

March 8, 2010

On Sri Lanka War Crimes, UN's Ban to Name Panel to Advise Only Him, No Pascoe, Nambiar Nepotism Follow Up

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has informed Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa that he will "name a panel of experts to advise him, the Secretary General, on the way forward on accountability issues related to Sri Lanka."

  Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky included this information in a March 5 response to questions from Inner City Press, about war crimes, attempted nepotism and the UN's seeming failure to follow through on the statement that Lynn Pascoe, top UN political advisor, would visit Sri Lanka in February. Video here, from Minute 7:49.

  Pascoe is traveling next week to India and Nepal, but not nearby Sri Lanka. On the night of March 4, when Inner City Press asked French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud why Ban has been so slow to act on Sri Lanka, Araud said this was due to pressure from member states.

  Araud named India first, then China. He also said that France viewed the Rajapaksa administration's military offensive in Northern Sri Lanka as a "welcome" crushing of terrorism. Click here for that Inner City Press report.

Following what even the UN called the "bloodbath on the beach," Ban visited Sri Lanka in May 2009 and issued a statement about reconciliation with the Tamils and accountability for war crimes. But in the months that followed he took no action.

  UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston publicly urged Ban to appoint an international panel to investigate presumptive war crimes in Sri Lanka. These include the urging of LTTE leaders to emerge with white flags, after which they were executed. Ban's chief of staff, the Indian diplomat Vijay Nambiar, was a go between conveying the Rajapaksas' message that emerging with a white flag held high would ensure safety.

  On March 5, Inner City Press also asked Nesirky about reports in the Colombo press that Sri Lanka's foreign minister wrote to a senior UN official, identified as Nambiar, seeking a job for his own son with the UN Secretariat. Nesirky said "I'll find out." We'll see.

  Just as Nesirky emphasized to Inner City Press that the panel will only advise Ban, and not Sri Lanka, it is important to note that what Ban is belatedly doing about 30,000 deaths in the first half of 2009 is less and later than what he did for 160 deaths in Guinea in September.

  Friday at the UN many people asked Inner City Press why Ban was doing so little, so late, why he is "running scared," as one put it. On Thursday night, France's Gerard Araud attributed Ban's reticence to pressure from India and China. Did Ban check with these and other states before belated announcing a self-referential panel of experts? Watch this site.

Update: the Sri Lankan government has, despite dominating Ban, still fired back - more on this coming.

March 1, 2010

UN Official, "Elated" by Rapes, Says Corruption Watching is Up to Haiti's Preval

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 24, updated -- "Three rapes? That almost elates me," the UN's second in command in Haiti Tony Banbury told the Press on Wednesday. "There are rapes in New York, in any refugee camp in the world." Video here, from Minute 34:17.

Some were surprised at this UN official's statement. While he may say that the quote -- caught on film -- is out of context, Inner City Press would counter that the quote was created by, and reflects, the context.

  Banbury's presentation, billed as a description of the situation in Haiti, was in fact a defense of the UN's performance. Banbury said the earthquake in Haiti was harder to deal with than the tsunami or Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, in which he was involved.

  Inner City Press asked Banbury how the UN, which has made appeals for over $1 billion, will ensure that rubble removal contractors are transparently selected based on merit, and that the landowning elite in Haiti doesn't gain super-profits from the move to acquire land for new housing.

  Banbury said that both of these are up to the sovereign Haitian government. He derided procurement rules as causing delay. But US-based companies like Ashbritt, under fire for post-Hurricane Katrina profiteering, have already held private meetings with President Rene Preval.

  To be fair, Inner City Press reiterated the question: was Banbury saying the UN would do nothing to try to ensure that money donated to help poor Haitians wasn't grabbed by profiteers? Yes, Banbury said, we have an interest in that, and the UN will pursue it "on a political level... with the World Bank." But by leading with the UN's deference to sovereign Haitian decisions, a message is sent.

  In fact, Banbury's involvement in the UN's and World Food Program's response to Cyclone Nargis involved knowing, but keeping quiet, about currency exchange losses of up to 25% to the Than Shwe military government of Myanmar.

  What correspondents were and are looking for is facts, not UN spin. And if one is the UN's spinmeister, it might be better not to say, "Three rapes? That almost elates me." What happens next? Watch this site.

Update: two days after Banbury's comments and the article above, and one day after the UN was asked about the comments, and promised an update, the following came in:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM, UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply <unspokesperson-donotreply@un.org> wrote:

At the noon press briefing on February 24, Assistant Secretary-General Banbury was asked about a report by Human Rights Watch on security and protection conditions in IDP camps in Haiti, including a report that there had been three cases of women being raped.

ASG Banbury adds the following comment: “My remarks make clear my strong commitment to human rights protection issues, and my conviction that three rapes is "far too many". I said that reports of only three rapes "almost elates me" because of deep concern--by myself and human rights protection experts--that the large numbers of people who are living in cramped and onerous conditions in displaced persons camps could lead to serious protection issues, especially with regard to sexual violence against women and children. If the total number of rape cases is indeed three, while "far too many", it would show that efforts by the UN and our partners to enhance protection measures for women and children in the camps were working to a large extent, and our worst fears were not materializing. This would be a source of encouragement. I have dedicated many years to protecting the human rights of vulnerable populations, and my career to public service. Far from belittling the crime of rape, my clear intention was to convey a sense of UN commitment and concern about human rights protection.”

  Media outlets which heard but never wrote about Banbury's comment about being "almost elated" at three rapes were quickly to publish his subsequent statement.

February 22, 2010

At UN, CPJ on Pariah States N. Korea and on Sri Lanka, Buying Tickets, Iran's Eye

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 16 -- The Committee to Protect Journalists on February 16 called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to be more forceful about the importance of press freedom. Inner City Press asked CPJ's Asia expert Bob Dietz about what Mr. Ban and CPJ have done as the Sri Lankan government of Mahinda Rajapaksa has closed down opposition newspapers, reporters have been killed and websites blocked. Video here, from Minute 40:08.

  Dietz said that "no one knows how to handle the direction in which the [Sri Lankan] government is going, which is not friendly to the media." He said it might join the "pariah states" of Myanmar, "Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe," but for feisty journalists who put themselves at risk.

  But as to what CPJ does, Dietz said "right now we are hanging back with a lot of people," trying to figure out whether to "come down hard or engage in quiet advocacy."

  Afterwards, Inner City Press asked Dietz for more specifics about this "quiet" approach, which the UN seems to share, in the most benign interpretation of Ban's visit in May 2009 after what even the UN called the "bloodbath on the beach" and since.

  Even the UN's Children and Armed Conflict mandate, which belatedly sent Patrick Cammaert to Sri Lanka in December, never had him brief the Press afterwards. Radhika Coomaraswamy, when Inner City Press asked her about this silence last week, said that Cammaert went to Europe to get married after his trip, then it was "too late" to brief the press about his visit.

  Dietz said that the opposition press in Sri Lanka asks that particular journalists' cases "not be publicized," as it would only make things worse. "Just get us out of here," Dietz said such journalists ask, adding the CPJ helps with plane tickets.

Another correspondent remarked afterwards is that "quiet advocacy is what diplomats do, not journalists or their organizations."

  Inner City Press asked CPJ's deputy director Robert Mahoney about the UN's own envoy to Somalia Ahmedou Ould Abdallah having called on a "moratorium" on Somali journalists reporting on the killing of civilians by the African Union peacekeepers of AMISOM.

  Mahoney said it is up to journalists to make their own editorial decisions. Ironically, Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky has, at least in his first month on the job, said such things as "that's not a story."

   Also on the podium was Newsweek journalist and filmmaker Maziar Bahari, about whom CNN's Fareed Zakaria devoted the foreword to CPJ's study. As Bahari spoke, a representative from Iran's Mission to the UN sat in the UN press hall's front row, taking notes.

  The Iranian mission has invited UN correspondents -- including this one -- to a celebration of Iran's national day on February 18. Inner City Press told Bahari about the event, encouraging him to come and cover it. Watch this space.

Footnote: three hours after the CPJ press conference on its report, "Attacks on the Press in 2009," which names North Korea as the world's most censored country, Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban's senior advisor Kim Won-soo and political advisor Lynn Pascoe if they had even raised press freedom during their recent trip to Pyongyang. Video here.

  No, Mr. Pascoe said. Inner City Press asked Mr. Kim to respond for Mr. Ban on CPJ's wider call to be more forceful on press freedom. While he answered about UNDP in North Korea, he did not answer on press freedom. Inner City Press has at UN noon briefings asked for Mr. Kim to come and answer questions more often. We'll see.
February 15, 2010

Amid Tear Gas, UN Lets Stand Sri Lanka Claim of Its Congratulations, UN's "Good Journalism" Guide

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 11 -- As in Sri Lanka the Rajapaksa administration deploys tear gas against those protesting its arrest of Sarath Fonseka, in New York Inner City Press asked if the UN had any comment. Video here, from Minute 8:46.

UN spokesman Martin Nesirky reiterated his version of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's telephone call to Mahinda Rajapaksa. But then did the UN or Mr. Ban, Inner City Press asked, take issue with the Sri Lankan government's press release about the call, that it involved Ban congratulating Mahinda Rajapaka, without any mention of the arrest of Fonseka or the tear gassing of his supporters? Video here, from Minute 8:46.

  "Governments will characterize... as they see fit," Nesirky said.

  But what if the press coverage adopts the government's version of the call, and the UN is portrayed as totally (and not just partially) in bed with human rights abuses?

  Inner City Press mentioned instances where the UN, even under Ban, has taken issue with statements by governments, of Sudan and Zimbabwe for example. So does the silence now mean the UN and Ban are satisfied with the Rajapaksas' summary?

"That's not what I said, don't put words in my mouth," Nesirky protested. Video here, from Minute 10:44.

Another journalist asked Nesirky for a more "philosophical" response about when governments mis-use their communications or even photo ops with the UN.

  "I am not a philosopher," Nesirky. He then returned to the Sri Lanka issue, saying that "the coverage was rather balanced," including both the read out of the Secretary General and the government. Mr. Nesirky said pointedly, "That's what good journalists do." Video here, from Minute 12:40.

  Leaving aside the question of whether the UN and its spokesman should be opining on what and how journalists should report, it seems strange for anyone to equate "good journalism" with merely presenting side by side the UN's version and the government's version, that Ban congratulated Rajapaksa while he cracked down on his opponents and the independent press. Does that mean both versions are equally true?

  It is a win - win situation then. Ban can say he spoke about due process, and Mahinda Rajapaksa can say he was congratulated by the UN while cracking down on his opponents. Each side gets what it wants. Could this be Ban's UN kabuki theater?

Footnotes: Ban's versions is that he called for due process. But after the call, presidential brother and Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa said that Fonseka "is guilty" of treason, predicting a five year sentence. When the president's brother declares a person guilty before any trial or even showing of evidence, it doesn't sound like "good" due process. Will the UN have anything to say?

  Again, on both February 8 and 9, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky if Vijay Nambiar is, officially or de facto, now in charge of the UN's Sri Lanka policy, given reports that calls from the Rajapaksa administration to Mr. Ban were referred to Mr. Nambiar. (It concerned trying to cancel a UN press conference by Philip Alston, about summary executions by the Sri Lankan army.)

Numerous observers, most recently a forthcoming TV documentary, have opined that Nambiar's involvement in Sri Lanka in 2009 was inappropriately pro-Rajapaksa, and worse.  Nesirky at the Monday and Tuesday noon briefings this week has said he would get to the bottom of the question of the call and roles, but has not. On Wednesday there was no noon briefing due to snow. On Thursday, still no answer was given. And the Rajapaksa administration's trumpeting of Ban's congratulations circulated worldwide, with no protest or correction by Ban's UN. Watch this site.


February 8, 2010

As Kofi Annan Wins a Double UN Pension, a Roberta Annan at UNDP

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Former Secretary General Kofi Annan's fight to receive two pension from the UN has been decided in his favor, in a so far unreported ruling that reversed the embattled chief of the UN Pension Fund, Bernard Cocheme.

The UN Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Number 1495, which Inner City Press has obtained and is putting online here, deals with the narrow question of whether the Pension Fund correctly determined that former S-G Annan should not receive the full pension benefits he believes should be afforded to him.

In his filings before the Tribunal, Annan argued that his understanding of the word "suspended" to mean deferred until a later time. But the Pension Fund argued that the word "suspended" meant that Annan "agreed to forfeit his pension benefits during the period he served as Secretary-General."

The judgment explains that Mr. Annan's case represented an "unprecedented situation for the UNJSPF" in that Annan "was the first UN staff member in the history of the Organization to be elected to this high office."

Despite the seeming double-dipping, Annan is found be eligible to receive both his full pension benefits as a result of his career as a UN staffer, in addition to those benefits provided to a former Secretary-General.  (And see Footnote Analysis, below).

The judgment raises a question, in the wake of the UN Justice System's other recent judgment, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, which strongly criticized the current DGACM boss Shaaban M. Shaaban. That decision portends a future decision on whether Shaaban should be held personally accountable for the payment of $20,000 in "compensatory damages" to a DGACM jobseeker. On February 3, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky quietly announced that Ban would appeal the Tribunal's decision, but failed to explain on what basis Judge Adams had erred in his decision.

Nesirky answered Inner City Press' February 3 question by inserting into the "Briefing Highlights" that the UN would appeal. This was not put in the transcript, nor apparently was it conveyed to Inner City Press.

Nevertheless, when Inner City Press on February 4 asked Nesirky about it, he said, you have your answer. But on what basis is Ban appealing? You have your answer, Nesirky said.

Article 12 of the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal allows either party to submit a request for revision or correction of judgment. A question is: Will Ban try to request a "revision" or "correction of judgment" in this case?

Speaking of Annan(s), Inner City Press was told by a whistleblower that a relative, Roberta Annan, was given a consultant's contract by UNDP / the Global Environment Fund. Inner City Press asked, and received multiple denials. For example, wehlers [at] thegef.org replied, "we have no employee by the name of Annan."

Inner City Press returned to its sources, and told UNDP the name of the person under whom Roberta Annan was working: Julia Wolf. Then this admission / denial:

Subject: answers
From: Stephane Dujarric at undp.org
To: Inner City Press

Matthew, On Roberta Annan:

There is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF. She was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very much value her work. As for her supposed relationship with Kofi Annan, she has no direct relations with the former Secretary-General and does not know him personally.

Stephane Dujarric
Director of Communications
UN Development Programme

Inner City Press asked , "I want to understand your Roberta Annan answer:

"As for her supposed relationship with Kofi Annan, she has no direct relations with the former Secretary-General and does not know him personally."

As I asked, what IS the family relationship?

"There is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF. "

What does the project consist of? Is she based in New York? Why is there a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project funded by GEF? -- why didn't UNDP hire its own consultant? Please explain.

"She was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very much value her work."

Please describe the competitive process (by UNOPS?) to hire this consultant: how many applied, how advertised, how many interviewed, etc. Thanks

To which the only reply was

The project in question is www.adaptationlearning.net . You can all the information you need there. As the project is a multi-agency project, there is nothing surprising to find a UNOPS person working there. As I said previously, she was recruited through the usual competitive process.

Regarding Roberta, I really have nothing else to add except to say that she does not know Mr. Annan personally and has no direct family link with Mr. Annan. I am not in the habit and will not start to ask staff about their family genealogy going back several generations.

Again, feel free to publish my response in full.

Watch this site.

Ban Ki-moon's Nesirky Claims UN Pension Fund Not Part of UN, No Answers on Africa as Even Questions Are Restricted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- "I don't think that's question that I need to answer," UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told the Press on February 5. Inner City Press had asked about a UN Administrative Tribunal decision in favor of former Secretary General Kofi Annan, reversing the UN Pension Fund and awarded Annan two pensions, as a staff member and as Secretary General. (Click here for Inner City Press' February 4 exclusive report and link.)

  "That sounds like something for the Pension Fund to answer, not me," Nesirky said, in what is becoming a trend two months into Nesirky's tenure. Inner City Press explained that the Pension Fund claims its building on Second Avenue is not open to the UN press corps.

  "You've just answered your own question," Nesirky said. "It's not part of the UN system." Video here, from Minute 14:42.

  Since it decidedly is -- it has the UN's immunity and Nesirky's boss Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for example names a representative, currently Warren Sach -- Inner City Press asked Nesirky to repeat and explain, "the UN Pension Fund is not a part of the UN system?"

  Then Nesirky claimed that is not "a question I need to answer."

  So what or whose questions does UN spokesman Nesirky acknowledge that he "needs to answer"? Also on February 5, Inner City Press asked straight forward questions about Darfur, for the UN's response to widely reported fighting between rebel groups displacing 10,000 people in an area in which the UN is charged with protecting civilians. Nesirky said only, "Let me find out." Video here, from Minute 14:17.

  When Inner City Press asked about UN training of ex-rebels in Nigeria's restive Niger Delta, Nesirky demanded to know how the article in the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria was sourced, what UN official was named. Video here, from Minute 27:23. Inner City Press provided the information, in response to which Nesirky again said, let's find out.  Yeah, let's.

  This was the approach of Nesirky's predecessor Michele Montas, to answer less than half of the questions posed. But even she rarely said, only one more question, or, no more questions for you, as Nesirky increasingly does. At first, Nesirky said he would answer all questions, putting them on a list until they were answered. (Click here for Inner City Press' first month review of "NeSmirky"). But repeated questions at the noon briefing about Somalia have yet to be answered.

  Questions put to him in writing about nepotism reaching to the highest levels of the UN have been entirely ignored. In response to a nepotism question about Ivory Coast, he outsourced answering to the UN Mission there, which provided an intentionally misleading answer. Nesirky, even when shown the answer and then a contradicting acknowledgement, had nothing to say.

  Apparently that too is "not a question I need to answer," according to Mr. Nesirky. Watch this site.

* * *

February 1, 2010

As Sri Lanka Expels Journalists and Raids Opposition, UN's Ban Relieved Still

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 29 -- As Sri Lankan soldiers surrounded opposition candidate Sarath Fonseca on January 27, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press he was "relieved" by results in Sri Lanka. Inner City Press had asked about irregularities in the voting results asserted from many quarters. Mr. Ban did not comment on these.

  In the two days since, the incumbent Rajapaksa administration has moved forward to expel and deny visas to journalists asking about election irregularities, and has raised Fonseca's office while making threats of arrest.

  On January 29, Inner City Press asked the UN's Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if Ban is still relieved, in the face of the expulsion of journalists and raiding of political opponents. Video here, from Minute 12:03.

  "He still is relieved," Haq said, that election day went relatively peacefully. Haq then read out the same canned "appeal to abide by rules" which Ban delivered in person in response to Inner City Press' question on January 27.

  Obviously, that "appeal" had no effect, as the administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa, whom Ban calls a friend, has since then further cracked down on opponents and independent media.

  To the contrary, it would appear that Ban's January 27 statement that he was "relieved," the same word used by Rajapaksa, served as a green light to move from relief to further repression.

  Ban has set sail to London, Cyprus and Ethiopia. It is unclear if he will take questions on, or unprompted speak about, Rajapaksa's crackdown in Sri Lanka. Watch this site.

While the UN's Ban Ki-moon is "still relieved," according to RSF:

-Police today arrested Chandana Sirimalwatta, the editor of Lanka...The president’s brother, defence minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, threatened to burn the newspaper down a few days ago.

-Soldiers took up position on 26 January around and inside the buildings that house two privately-owned TV stations, Sirasa and Swarnavahini, in Colombo.

-Plain-clothes men using a car with the license plate 32/ 84 32 placed seals yesterday evening over the entrance to the office of the Lankaenews website. Men searched the office earlier in the day. The website itself has been rendered inaccessible for the past few days by the state telecommunications company Sri Lanka Telecom.

-Reporter Karin Wenger of the Swiss public radio station DRS is facing possible deportation on 1 February following the withdrawal of her press accreditation. She said, “I think this decision is linked to the questions I asked an official during a news conference after the results were announced.”

-Soldiers roughed up photographers working for foreign news agencies when they tried to attend a news conference given by Gen. Fonseka yesterday. One was forced to delete the photos on his camera’s memory card. Soldiers also prevented journalists from working freely near a hotel being used by Fonseka the previous day.

We will continue to follow this, watch this site.

* * *

January 25, 2010

On Haiti at UN, Dominican Dodging on Immigration, UNICEF on Staffing, IFAD to Forgive?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- The UN in New York was full of Haiti news on Friday, some of it misleading, other "off the record." At the day's noon briefing, by video hook up from Haiti Carlos Morales Troncoso, Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic, bragged to the Press about his government's help to Haiti.

   Inner City Press asked about the blocking of sick Haitians, including infants, at the Dominican border. I haven't seen that report, Morales Troncoso replied. Video here, from Minute 25:57.

   Later on Friday there was a briefing by UNICEF about Haiti, but it remained unclear what information could be used by the press. UNICEF spokesman Chris De Bono introduced an official who could not, it seemed, be named.

   Inner City Press asked de Bono on the record why UNICEF had not been able to lead the water and sanitation cluster after the earthquake.

  De Bono replied that UNICEF had only ten international staff in country on the day of the earthquake, but was able to take over the WASH cluster by "day two."

  Inner City Press asked how many staff UNICEF has there now. De Bono said he didn't know, to email him for the answer. Inner City Press did, but as of 10 p.m., with a fundraiser on network television benefiting UNICEF among others, no response had been provided on how many staff UNICEF has in Haiti.

   Appearing with Ban Ki-moon on January 21, Bill Clinton was asked to which charities people should give. Only those with big presences in Haiti, Bill Clinton replied. So it would seem UNICEF should be able to say how many staff it had and has in Haiti. Inner City Press has also asked UNICEF about its operations in Sri Lanka and Somalia.

   Finally, a day after Inner City Press asked a question about the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development and its outstanding loans to Haiti, would the loans be forgiven? On January 22, spokesman Martin Nesirky said

"you asked a question, Matthew, yesterday, about the debt repayments by Haiti. The Secretary-General, of course, welcomes any efforts to ease financial burdens placed on Haitians. As for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, it says it has supported, and is supporting, rural and agricultural development in Haiti through seven loans, for a total amount of $90 million on highly concessional terms. Six of these loans are now completed and closed. And they’re covered by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries relief initiative, and consequently, the debt repayments are covered by debt relief. There is one loan not covered by that initiative, and repayments for this loan will not start before 2018. The Fund is now reviewing its approach towards these repayments with a view to call on its Member States to assist in directly supporting Haiti with further relief."

We'll see.  Inner City Press also asked, but Mr. Nesirky did not answer, about the material assistance the UN provides to bereaved families of international and national staff members:

Inner City Press: Can you either state now, or at the next briefing or in between, what material assistance is being provided to the families of those UN staff, both international and national, who perished in Haiti? And whether the benefits are the same, the material assistance? How, you know, between these two groups. And just what the number…? I’ve heard that [it’s] Schedule D of the benefits package, but I’d like to know what it is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: I’m sure you would. And I’m sure that more than you, the family members would like to know. And that is being worked on very intensively, and it’s something that occupies the mind of many people, not least the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press: But isn’t there a standard, I mean, isn’t there a UN policy? What I’m asking for is the policy, not actually what, what… You see what I mean?

Spokesperson: Yes, I do understand. This has to do with insurance and other matters, and that’s being looked into very closely by the right people in Field Support, in the Department of Management, Department of Human Resources Management.

Inner City Press: Sure. When a decision is made, you’ll…?

Spokesperson: The question of payments of whatever kind to family members or those who were injured is really a matter for them, between the United Nations and them. The principle that you refer to, of course, is something that we would want to make public.

Inner City Press: Isn’t it a public…? I mean, it’s a public organization.

Spokesperson: That’s what I’m saying. The principle is very clear. It’s a matter of public interest, you’re absolutely right. And on the principle, we will make it clear what’s going on. But, the details are something for the family members.

Watch this site.



On Haiti, Ban Says All Through UN, Through U.S. Not, Watchdog Possible, National Staff Questions Dodged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 15 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in his third day in a room of addressing the Press about Haiti, declined to Friday to provide casualty figures, leaving that for his spokesman Martin Nesirky. Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban, in light of his call that all aid be "coordinated" through the UN, whether the $100 million announced by U.S. President Barack Obama will be part of the UN's $550 million flash appeal.

Mr. Ban answered that giving money NOT through the UN is a decision that any sovereign government can make. Only yesterday, he said that increased U.S. military presence in Haiti would be coordinated with the UN, or as some reporters heard it, under UN control.

Already, there is a call for an independent aid monitor. Inner City Press asked Ban about the idea. Ban said yes, there is a need for transparency, the idea will be studied. Notably, after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the UN allowed millions of dollars in aid to be taken by the Than Shwe government, as exposed by Inner City Press. The UN at first denied it, then admitted it, then later downplayed it.

Nesirky came back after Ban and took very few questions. The paper of record asked about visits to national staff members homes, which the Deputy SRSG described in response to Inner City Press' question on January 15, but only as to UNDP. Nesirky said the visits are continuing.

But are the peacekeeping mission's national Haitian staff all being visited?

  In terms of now 38 deaths among the "UN presence in Haiti," on January 14 the briefers from Haiti said that deaths are only listed once families are informed, which is coordinated through UN headquarters in New York.

But is that the process for national Haitian staff? Nesirky took no more questions. So here's another: what about contractors who worked for the UN? At UN headquarters in New York, the cooking and cleaning and even UN TV is done by contractors, many of whom have worked in and for the UN for more than a decade. But such contractors would not show up or be counted, as the UN is doing it. Watch this site.


On Sri Lanka, Last Act of UN's Ban Was Three Months Ago, Despite War Crimes, Authentication by Alston

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- The UN on Friday acknowledged that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's most recent call for accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka was more than three months ago. Video here, from Minute 13:19.

  Since then, former general Sarath Fonseka has accused senior minister and Presidential brother Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of ordering the summary execution of surrendering Tamil Tiger officials, and video footage depicting Sri Lankan Army soldiers shooting blindfolded and naked prisoners has been authenticated by UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston -- yet Ban has done nothing more.

On January 7, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Philip Alston... said that the Secretary-General, he believes, has the power and should appoint such a panel as he has done in the case of Guinea, for example. What’s the Secretary-General’s response? ...Will he do what Mr. Alston is suggesting?

  Mr. Nesirky answered that

the Secretary-General has informed the Government of Sri Lanka that he is considering the appointment of a Commission of Experts to advise him further and to assist the Government in taking measures to address possible violations of international human rights and humanitarian law

  Most media took this at face value, and reported that alongside Alston's findings and Fonseka's accusation of war crimes, Ban was somehow raising the pressure or scrutiny on Sri Lanka. This is not true, however.

  Essentially, in response to a UN Special Rapporteur urging that Ban at least appoint a panel of inquiry into war crimes and the death of tens of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, as he unilaterally in response to 157 deaths in Guinea, Ban's spokesman said that Ban has told the government he might do this in Sri Lanka.

  But after Inner City Press asked when, specifically, Ban had communicated this to the Rajapaksa administration, Nesirky had to belatedly acknowledge that it had been in mid-September. Since then, it seems clear, nothing has been done.

  Inner City Press asked, how long can consideration be described as active without it resulting in anything? Video here, from Minute 15:04. Nesirky responded that since September, when they received Ban's letter from his political advisor Lynn Pascoe, the Sri Lankan government "will have been considering it."

  But this has had no, or even negative, results. Following Alston's January 7 authentication of the summary execution footage, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa said conclusorily that his "security personnel haven't been involved in any misconduct," and complained that Alston had "breached UN protocol" by not showing them his report before going public. Since this was described in many news articles as Sri Lanka accusing the UN of violating protocol, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about it in this way. Video here, from Minute 15:41.

  Nesirky pointed out that the Sri Lankans have not complained about Ban Ki-moon at all. And that... says it all. Watch this site.


UN's Afghan Selection Colored by Nepotism and No-Show Jobs, Karzai Veto Threats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- With the short list for the UN's top post in Afghanistan reportedly narrowed down to three, UN sources confirm to Inner City Press that the push is on to get approval for Staffan de Mistura, currently in a virtually no-show job with the World Food Program.

  What many in the UN but few outside it talk about is di Mistura's previous choice of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee as his deputy in Iraq, and the role they think this plays in de Mistura's frontrunner status.

  While Mr. Ban has shown discomfort and anger about any questions concerning the fast promotions his son in law has received since he became Secretary General, few explanations have been given.

  That UN officials like de Mistura and now Jan Mattsson of the UN Office of Project Services, where Chatterjee has been given a D-1 position that is quietly being upgraded to D-2, ingratiate themselves with UN Headquarters by promoting the Secretary General's son has also not been addressed.

  Inner City Press, which covered both of these Chatterjee promotions, the latter exclusively, was chided by Mr. Ban's previous Spokesperson Michele Montas to stop asking about Chatterjee in the UN's noon briefings, but rather to get answers from Ban's senior advisor Kim Won-soo.

   This meeting was quickly changed to be "off the record," and then canceled. South Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative then took Inner City Press to lunch and provided a detailed defense of the promotions and of Mr. Ban. (Later, he claimed the lunch was only about September's UN General Debate.)

   Chatterjee himself took to calling and making legal threats to journalists who had picked up on Inner City Press' reports on his promotions, and getting them removed from the Internet, at least from web sites hosted in his native India.

  It is not clear if Chatterjee made these calls during time he was being paid by UNOPS. It is clear, however, that UNOPS devoted staff time to media strategies to defend Chatterjee's promotions and Chatterjee himself, work it hard to imagine being done if he was not the UN Secretary General's son.

  In the week between Christmas and New Year, Inner City Press submitted to Mr. Ban's new Spokesman Martin Nesirky questions about Siddarth Chatterjee, including about his promotions, qualifications and fitness.

  While on the afternoon of Christmas Eve Mr. Nesirky's office provided at least cursory answers to other questions asked, including referring questions about possible nepotism by a Ban appointee to another spokesperson, the questions about Ban's son in law not only were not answered, they were not mentioned. But they will not go away. The responses are being sought only in fairness, explicitly on deadline. Watch this site.

   The other two named candidates are Jean Marie Guehenno, strangely with the backing of the New York Times, and Ian Martin, currently in an ill-defined role with the UN Department of Political Affairs. What the Times did not mention about Mr. Guehenno, in fairness, is that after he was replaced by fellow Frenchman Alain Le Roy, he was given a no show UN Under Secretary General position for "Regional Cooperation."

  While that post should have involved liaising between the UN and NATO, for example, or ECOWAS or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, months into the job Guehenno candidly admitted to Inner City Press that he had done no work at all. He was shut in writing a book. How its publication, or the timing of its publication, may be related to the current campaigning for the Kabul post is not clear.

  Following his candor, Guehenno clammed up. At a recent forum about illegal mining in the Congo, at which questions about the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Congo's involvement with rogue Army units who mine and massacres, Guehenno explicitly refused to answer any questions from Inner City Press. While in the midst of his campaign for Kabul he perhaps felt he had nothing to gain, ham handed rebuffing of the press would not make Guehenno that different front Kai Eide, outgoing in only one of the word's two senses.

  Ironically, Guehenno is also mentioned by human rights groups as a candidate to take over from Alan Doss at the UN Mission in the Congo. Doss is himself embroiled in a nepotism scandal since Inner City Press received and published his e-mail telling the UN Development Program to bend and break UN rules and give a job to his daugther.

  Mr. Ban five months ago promised an investigation, but some attribute the delay to Ban's own resistance to nepotism questions. Doss may be allowed to serve out his contract then Guehenno, if still available, be given the Congo job.

  Ian Martin appeared to go a good job in Nepal, although it appears now to be unraveling. When Inner City Press asked him in a UN hallway about Kabul, Martin laughed. Later he clarified he was not laughing with Inner City Press, only laughing. And laughter may be one of the many things there is not enough of in Kabul.

Footnote: Inner City Press is also told that the U.S., not wanting to be upstaged in Afghanistan, has joined Ban in pushing President Hamid Karzai to accept de Mistura. But Karzai, who previously vetoed the proposal to make Paddy Ashdown a "Super Envoy" to Afghanistan, is near to issuing a similar veto of di Mistura. Watch this site.


Unauthorized Entry into Ban's Home and Party Dodged by UN, Disputing Obama Analogy

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 24 -- At UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's official residence on December 22, an individual with no invitation and no UN pass crashed Mr. Ban's holiday party, multiple sources tell Inner City Press.

  They describe Mr. Ban's personal secretary Ms. Kim stopping the individual and being told -- falsely as it turns out -- that the individual works for the UN Department of Political Affairs but for some reason had no pass or identification, and being let in.

  Ms. Kim asked, "What section?" and was told, "Elections" -- the unit embroiled in controversy following its role in the flawed Afghan election. 

  But despite reason to believe the person was not even from the UN, he passed security into Mr. Ban's residence. The individual even received a gift from Mr. Ban, before proceeding to enter without authorization other UN premises.

  On December 23, Inner City Press approached Mr. Ban's new spokesman Martin Nesirky on his way to the day's noon briefing, and asked about the incident, even suggesting he ask Ban's secretary Ms. Kim. Nesirky returned to his office and put in an inquiry. Inner City Press put the question on the record during the noon briefing and was promised an answer.

  Later on December 23, Nesirky tersely e-mailed Inner City Press that "there was no security breach."

  On December 24, Inner City Press sought and receive additional information, including the identity of the person -- also not invited, but having a UN pass -- who brought the party crasher, and other identifying details.

  After that day's noon briefing, Inner City Press went to Nesirky's river view office and asked what he had meant, that there had been no security breach. Nesirky said that the UN doesn't discuss security arrangements.

  When Inner City Press noted that in Washington in the wake of gate crashing at President Obama's state dinner with India a whole Congressional hearing on the topic of security was held, Nesirky said the situations were not at all analogous.

  Why, Inner City Press asked, because Obama is so much higher profile than Ban? Nesirky said that wasn't it -- without specifying what he meant -- and insisted "there is no story."

  Nesirky chided Inner City Press for pursuing the issue, and even said he would only ask Ban's office a second time if Inner City Press returned with not only the first but also the last name of the gate crasher. This is pointless, since by two witnesses' account, Ban's secretary did not even write down the person's name.

  While Mr. Nesirky's deputy reportedly made belated telephone calls Thursday afternoon, seemingly to quiet possible witnesses, Inner City Press called Mr. Ban's office and asked to speak with Ms. Kim, on deadline.

  After the first transfer, a female voice began and then hung up. When Inner City Press called back, the response was that Ms. Kim was no longer available. Inner City Press left a cell phone number stating it was for a story being written that day, on deadline. The deadline has passed.

  What Inner City Press finds troubling is that the UN would reflexively claim that "there was no security breach," then would refuse to confirm or deny specific facts about unauthorized entry into the Secretary General's official residence.

  Relatedly, if these are the UN's answers on an incident at the Secretary General's residence, how are the answers on human rights, peace and security and even environmental issues more credible?

  Whereas governments and legislatures make for at least some accountability, often in the UN there is no accountability, and it starts at the top. Watch this site.

From the December 23, 2009 transcript

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think you have another question, I’m pretty sure you do.

Inner City Press: Okay, I do. No, actually, then I will if I get your drift. It’s… I wanted to… I guess, and it’s something that maybe you’ll have an answer on later today, but some are saying that in yesterday’s reception at the Secretary-General’s residence that there was an unauthorized attendee, and that the personal secretary to the Secretary-General, you know, was aware of this and for some reason it was waived. I wanted to know both what the procedures are, given, in light of the event at the White House at the State dinner for India, what are the relevant procedures at the UN for such things, and is it in fact the case that an unauthorized attendee attended, and what will be done about it?

Spokesperson: Yes, you mentioned this as we were passing in the corridor just now. I don’t have an immediate answer for you on this specific incident. And also, in more general terms, I would not wish to go into details about security arrangements. That’s clearly not appropriate, but I can just assure you that the security detail for the Secretary-General is extremely rigorous and they work extremely hard for the Secretary-General’s safety. That’s put in a general context, and the more specific question you’ve raised, I’ll see what I can find out. It’s not something that I was aware of.

[The Spokesperson later confirmed that there was no security breach at the Secretary-General’s residence.]

Subsequent e-mail:

Subj: your question about SG residence last night
From: unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com
Sent: 12/23/2009 12:33:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Further to the Spokesman's response at the briefing to the above, there was no security breach at the SG residence last night.

   A question is, what does the UN mean by "security breach"? Watch this site.


As UN Cameras' Footage Can Be Used to Identify Whistleblowers, They Remain in Place

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16 -- A day after the UN promised to move the surveillance cameras it installed over the area to which it has moved journalists during its Capital Master Plan renovation, the UN specified that the footage could be used by its Office of Internal Oversight Services. Since OIOS investigates, among other things, leaks by UN staff including to the press, concerns about the cameras placement over the desks of investigative reporters only grew.

  Inner City Press first exposed the cameras on December 13-14. On December 15, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky how the cameras' footage was used, and who could see it. At the December 16 UN noon briefing, Mr. Nesirky read a statement that

"I was asked yesterday about the cameras being relocated... how recorded data is used. In accordance with General Assembly rulings, there are very strict guidelines regarding the use of data taken from cameras... only used for legitimate security reasons, on rare occasions the Office of Internal Oversight Services may request some data for its work."

  OIOS investigates, among other things, leaks by UN staff.

  So according to Mr. Nesirky's statement, OIOS could request and review at least a month's footage and see who met with or gave documents to reporters covering the UN.

  Twenty four hours after Mr. Nesirky said the cameras would be moved, they were still in place. Watch this site.


Sri Lanka Falls Off Radar of UN and US, Despite Rapp Report and Disappearances

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 -- How far the plight of the Tamils and other minorities in Sri Lanka has fallen off the radar of the United States and United Nations was made clear on Thursday. After US Ambassador Susan Rice made remarks to the press about human rights day and accountability, Inner City Press asked her about "the State Department report on Sri Lanka that seemed to allege war crimes, what [are] the next steps for the State Department on Mr. Rapp’s report?"

  Ambassador Rice answered, "with respect to Sri Lanka, and frankly other instances of alleged and definite human rights abuses, we will examine these with seriousness internally, and look at what steps we might take bilaterally to reflect those concerns, with respect to any nation. And the President in his remarks in Oslo mentioned today Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma specifically." Video here, from Minute 6:15.

  Last week, as Stephen Rapp walked into the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about the Sri Lanka report he had signed. "We are pushing hard on that," Rapp said. But what exactly is being done? Another report authored by Senator John Kerry urges rapprochement with Sri Lanka. So what was that about accountability?

  The UN, too, spoke of accountability of one of three things necessary in Sri Lanka. On December 10, Inner City Press asked the UN official who has most visited Sri Lanka, John Holmes, about reports of people released from the Manik Farm camp only to be put in other closed camps, and about additional disappearances. Video here, from Minute 20:15.

  Holmes said he wouldn't call those disappearance, rather that people who previously worked with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were "still being identified" and put into "rehabilitation camps." Video here, from Minute 21:31. Holmes put the number at "ten to eleven thousand," fewer that those the Red Cross has been allowed to visit. Again, what about accountability? Watch this site.

From the US Mission's transcript:

Inner City Press: Parliamentarians from 29 countries have written to the Council asking for them to setup a commission of inquiry on what the call crimes against humanity committed by the military government of Myanmar/Burma. I’m wondering if you received that and what you think of it. And the State Department report on Sri Lanka that seemed to allege war crimes. What’s the next steps for the State Department on Mr. Rapp’s report? What steps are going to be taken?

Ambassador Rice: I have not seen the letter you reference on Burma so I won’t comment. With respect to Sri Lanka, and frankly other instances of alleged and definite human rights abuses, we will examine these with seriousness internally, and look at what steps we might take bilaterally to reflect those concerns, with respect to any nation. And the President in his remarks in Oslo mentioned today Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma specifically. And obviously we will continue our discussions here in the United Nations and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council on what action might be desirable and feasible multilaterally. Thank you.

  For more, see this same authors piece on Sri Lanka in John Hopkins University's "SAIS Review," Summer-Fall 2009...

On Darfur, Gambari To Be "Vigilant," U.S. Belatedly Says, No Comment on Blackmail or Myanmar

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- Two days after Inner City Press exclusively reported it, on Wednesday morning a Security Council member confirmed that a letter nominating Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria as the UN's and African Union's Special Representative to Darfur has gone to Council members.

  Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, for the second time, about Mr. Garbari for Darfur, given that the U.S. criticized his predecessor Rodolphe Adada for being too soft on Khartoum. Ambassador Rice said Gambari should play an "active and vigilant role... to halt attacks on civilians." Video here, from Minute 11:41.

  During his time as UN envoy on Myanmar, Gambari was criticized by human rights groups for being too close to the military government of Than Shwe. Gambari's response, privately and then publicly, was that if the "Western powers" didn't give him benefits to offer to Myanmar, he could accomplish little because the country has natural gas and oil which China and India want.

  Darfur, of course, also has oil which China wants and is obtaining. So what benefits, what "carrots instead of sticks," will the U.S. through Ambassador Rice allow Gambari to offer?

  At the UN's noon briefing, the day after Inner City Press had asked acting Spokesperson Marie Okabe about Gambari, she read a statement about his nomination.

  Inner City Press asked her to respond to the statements, including by an African Ambassador who withheld his name from consideration for the post, that Nigeria "blackmailed" Ban Ki-moon by threatening to pull its troops from Darfur if a Nigerian didn't get the post.

  Ms. Okabe declined to respond, saying it is now with the Security Council. Inner City Press asked U.S. Ambassador Rice about the Nigerians threat to pull out of Darfur. Video here, from Minute 13:23.

  "I can't comment on that," Ambassador Rice said as she walked away from the stakeout microphone. Why not? Some say Nigeria was miffed at the Obama administration for visiting Ghana rather than Lagos. We'll see.

Footnote: Ambassador Rice also declined to provide the U.S. position on what should be done with with the UN good office post on Myanmar that Gambari has been filling.

  "I'll let the UN address that question as to what his relationship with MYanmar will continue to be, if any," she said. Inner City Press was told by an involved Ambassador that the UK -- and the U.S.? -- wanted Gambari out of that post for being too soft on Than Shwe. Is Darfur less important? Has it become just a footnote?

As Africans Threaten Ban on UNDP Post, Panel Unnamed Beyond Diarra, Downgraded Conference

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 24 -- The controversy over the number two position in the UN Development Program, which the African Group says was committed to it but which was slated to be given to a Costa Rican candidate, "has the potential to cost Ban Ki-moon a second term," an African official told Inner City Press on Tuesday.

  "The African Group will blame Ban," he said, adding that Mr. Ban is being "misled by his senior advisor. The Africans won't accept the Egyptian either," he said, referring to reports that rather than the recommended Cameroonian candidate or "another African woman," the Ban administration is now considering handing the post to Egypt's Permanent Representative.

  Inner City Press, which has exclusively covered the story for a week, has been told that UN official Cheick Sidi Diarra, who attempts to cover both small island developing states while purporting to fill the merged Office of the Special Advisor on Africa, was on the panel interview candidates for the UNDP post.

  Sources on the panel say that they recommended two candidates, the Cameroon "doctor economique" Inner City Press has previously reported on, and an African woman. At the November 24 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's outgoing Spokesperson Michele Montas if Diarra was on the panel, and to confirm who the other member were.

  "We don't comment on members of the panel," Ms. Montas replied. Video here, from Minute 22:40.

  Inner City Press then asked simply for confirmation of who named the panel. Even this, Ms. Montas declined to answer, saying it's "different groups for different departments."

  Finally, Inner City Press asked who makes the decision on the Associate Administrator post at UNDP: Ban Ki-moon or Helen Clark? Ms Montas said the position is "approved by both."

  On November 23, Inner City Press asked a UNDP spokesman and Assistant Secretary General -- and Assistant Administrator -- Olav Krjoven about the number two post. The UNDP spokesman said "we can take that up immediately afterwards." Video here, from Minute 22:40.

  But after the press conference, about energy poverty, the UNDP spokesman would not say when Helen Clark will finally be available for questions. We'll have something to say after the nomination is made, he said. But by then it will be too late.

  Also on November 23, Inner City Press asked the previously head of UNDP's executive board, Ambassador Carsten of Denmark, whether the post has been committee to the African Group, and whether given the percentage of UNDP's work that is in Africa, whether having an African in this senior post might be important.

  Ambassador Carsten replied that while he didn't "want to go into the Associate Administrator" issue, he rejects any "sub geographic" claims. He said "we accept a link between Administrator and Associate between donor and development partners" but "we would not like to narrow it down." Video here, from Minute 20:10.

  So despite the African Group's statement that the post was committed to them, now a major European donor denies it, the Secretary General's Spokesperson tries to deflect questions and responsibility for the decision, and the Secretariat prepares, reportedly, either to push ahead with the Costa Rican nomination or the Egyptian "diversion." Watch this space.

Footnote: it's not as if Helen Clark is running UNDP so well, a development expert told Inner City Press, pointing at the "failure" of the upcoming South -South Cooperation meeting in Nairobi, which was downgraded from a summit to a "ministerial" to, now, only involving ambassadors. Helen Clark, who appears to have the travel (and DSA) bug, will go, December 1 to 3. But the promised heads of state and ministers will not be there. Great planning, UNDP...


From Costa Rica to N. Africa, UNDP Deputy Post May Bypass Cameroon

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- The continental dispute about the UN Development Program's number two post, which triggered a letter from the African Group to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to hold off what they say was the impending nomination of Costa Rican Rebecca Grynspan, has taken a new turn.

  After Mr. Ban's spokesperson Michele Montas on November 19 told Inner City Press that the decision has not been made yet, sources now indicate that rather than the candidate from Cameroon promoted by that country's Ambassador, the Secretariat is mulling giving the post to the Permanent Representative of a north African country, who is close with Ban's deputy chief of staff and closest advisor Kim Won-soo.

At the November 19 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: On the Secretary-General’s upcoming naming of an Associate Administrator for UNDP, can you confirm that a letter was received by the Secretariat from the African Group protesting the naming of a non-African, and also what Inner City Press has been told by a number of African ambassadors, that they feel that the post was promised to the African Group when Ms. [Helen] Clark was named and Mr. [Ad] Melkert left?

Spokesperson Michele Montas: I am not aware of this situation, and I am not aware of a letter received. Of course, I will try to get more information on it. And we haven’t had a public announcement of any appointments.

Question: Well, what of this idea that… What a number of them have said is that, given the amount of the UN’s and UNPD’s work that’s in Africa, it makes much sense to have that represented near the top of the… They have said that they think that a sort of a deal was made with them and they feel that it’s now being violated.

Spokesperson: Well, I understand their concerns, but as I said, it’s not violated yet, because we haven’t announced a person at that post yet.

  The Ambassador of Cameroon told Inner City Press, on the record, that the announcement of Rebecca Grynspan to the post had been scheduled for last Friday, November 13. After the African Group's letter, this was called off.

  What some call the Ban administration's "humiliation" of Africa began with the merger of the Office of the Special Advisor on Africa into another office, opposed by the African Group, and extended through the replacement as head of the UN Office in Nairobi of Anna Tibaijuka of Tanzania by Achim Steiner of Germany in an "I am in control" email that still triggers laughter inside the UN.

  On the General Assembly's call that Ban re-fill the OSSA post, Inner City Press is told by source that the deputy chief of staff Kim Won-soo appeared in the budget committee and argued that the resolution was not clear, that the post did not have to be filled.

  At the noon briefing on November 20, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Michele Montas to confirm this. She confirmed that Mr. Kim went to the committee, but not what he said. Video here, from Minute 16:33. It seemed clear she would not confirm or deny that the Secretariat's eye has passed from Costa Rica to north Africa, bypassing Cameroon.

  Meanwhile, the UNDP Associate Administrator post hangs in the balance, raising issues of regions and friendship and promises. Watch this site.

* * *

At UN, As Diplomat from Cameroon Is Rebuffed by UNDP, Ban Ki-moon Faces African Challenge on Agency's Deputy Post

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- The continental battle for the number two post at the UN Development Program, on which Inner City Press reported exclusively yesterday, heated up Wednesday night when the Ambassador of Cameroon approached UNDP Administrator Helen Clark as she left early from a reception about, ironically enough, Africa.

  Ambassador Michel Tommo Monthe, whose country has put forward an economist for the Associate Administrator post, later told Inner City Press that until now it has been impossible for him to meet with Ms. Clark.

  The African Group, he said, last week wrote a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, copied to Ms. Clark, demanding that the impending nomination of Rebecca Grynspan of Costa Rica not be announced.

  "They are invoking gender, " Ambassador Monthe told Inner City Press. "The initial deal, when the former Associate [Ad Melkert of the Netherlands] went... the deal was an African should take the position. Now that there are strong Africans ready, they waver. The main activity of UNDP is on Africa, how do you not having someone at the senior level?"

  Monthe said that Cameroon has a strong candidate, a "doctor economique" formerly the Permanent Observer of the African Union in Geneva, and director of the economics department at the African Union.

  "They wanted to announce this last Friday," Ambassador Monthe recounted Inner City Press. ""We wrote a letter to Ban Ki-moon, with a copy to Helen Clark. We said, we are not going to accept it. The post can't go to the Costa Rican."

  Ambassador Monthe continued, "I have been trying to meet Ms. Clark for the last three months. She didn't receive me. I said, this has to wait. I want to see you to discuss that matter."

  The Ambassador of Zambia, this month's chairman of the African Group, put it this way to Inner City Press: "the duties of this person will have a lot to do with Africa,and therefore it would be advantageous to have someone from that perspective. Helen is around. [This is] absolutely a good question."

  But in her months at UNDP, Helen Clark has yet to hold a press conference in UN headquarters or take questions from the Press.

   Ms. Clark, who had been driven in a limousine that three blocks from UNDP's headquarters to the Olympus-sponsored African environmental photography reception held at the Japan Society, had to pass by Monthe and another sub Saharan African Ambassador on her way out of the event. Now, what will she do?

  What will Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, already questioned by the African Group for merging the UN Office of the Special Adviser on Africa into another office, do? Watch this site.

* * *

In UN, Africa Poised to Be Denied Deputy Post at UNDP, Ambassadors Complain

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 17 -- A continental battle is underway in the UN system, with Africa poised to once again lose out. When New Zealand's Helen Clark was named Administrator of the UN Development Program, several African ambassadors tell Inner City Press, their understanding was that the number two job in UNDP would go to the developing world, specifically to Africa.

Now, Ms. Clark and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are said to be near naming a Costa Rican, Rebecca Grynspan, as the UNDP Associate Administrator. "Africa is being humiliated again," a well placed source told Inner City Press on Tuesday, hearkening back to Mr. Ban's merger of the Office of the Special Advisor on Africa with an unrelated small island and landlocked states position.

Despite repeated protests from the African Group and the General Assembly, Mr. Ban has yet to reinstitute a stand alone Office of the Special Advisor on Africa. Now, in what's seen as a further insult to the continent which makes up over half of the agenda of the Security Council and most UN agencies, word is he is choosing a Latin American over, for example, a candidate from Cameroon.

Several African Ambassador were scornful of Ms. Clark's accomplishments to date at UNDP. "Name one thing that she has changed," a well placed North African source asked, adding "she is seeking advancement, even to be Secretary General if the change presents itself." Ms. Clark appears to use her UNDP post to promote herself in New Zealand. Inner City Press has repeatedly asked that Ms. Clark hold a question and answer session with the Press, but instead Ms. Clark and her long time chief of staff Heather Simpson try to micro manage media relations, even choosing which reporters they want from those wire services granted interview rights.

UNDP has still failed to rule in its investigation of nepotism in the hiring of the daughter of the UN's top Congo envoy, Alan Doss. UNDP has refused to answer questions about irregularities in its China office, and about other hirings that internal UNDP whistleblowers call nepotism.

 UNDP's highest profile whistleblower, who the UN Ethics Office said should be awarded back pay for due process violations, is still in limbo, without compensation and with UNDP -- and the UN Office of Legal Affairs -- arguing that the Ethics Office's recommendation is irrelevant.

UNDP preaches about the rule of law, but several African ambassadors who approached Inner City Press say they are being cheated. Watch this site.


As Blair Lobbies for Wataniya, Do Kuwait and JPM Chase's Arranger Role Spell UN Conflict of Interest?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 13 -- When Tony Blair does business, who does he work for? He represents the Quartet, and thus the UN, on development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has been paid by JPMorgan Chase as a consultant, and presumably works for them. When he acts in the West Bank for the Wataniya cell phone company, who is he working for?

  The UN has repeatedly claimed that there would and could be no conflict of interest between Blair's paid position for JPMorgan Chase and his work in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. When Inner City Press asked Blair, after a meeting of the Quarter in the Conference Room 4 in UN Headquarters, about any safeguards in place for his UN and JPMorgan Chase roles, he scoffed. A Blair staffer confirmed that he continued in JPM Chase's employ.

  This week, Tony Blair attended a press conference announcing the finalization of Wataniya's deal, which Blair "negotiated." At the UN noon briefing on November 11, Inner City Press asked about this last:

Inner City Press: yesterday, Tony Blair was in Ramallah, and he’s described as having negotiated on behalf of a cell phone company with the Israeli Government. There’s a whole press conference also that noted his role for the Quartet and for the UN. So I’m wondering, did he do this on behalf of the Quartet and the UN and what is the UN’s knowledge, do they have any knowledge on this business negotiating activity?

Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe: I have no knowledge of that.

  Even forty six hours later, no answer has been provided. But even cursory research reveals that Blair's employer JPMorgan Chase served as a "mandated lead arranger" for the acquisition of Wataniya. Click here for the document.

  So again, what safeguards are in place? Who is Tony Blair working for?

  Tony Blair Associates has as a client Kuwait, and by implication its royal family, while Blair has met with the finance minister of Kuwait while representing JPMorgan Chase. Wataniya Palestine is substantially (57%) owned by investors from Qatar and... Kuwait. For the former, it's Qatar Telecom. But for the later, it's the Kuwait Investment Authority, which operates on behalf of the State of Kuwait -- Tony Blair Associates' client.  So when Blair lobbies for Wataniya, who is he representing?

  While awaiting the UN's answers, we note that in June 2009, "Wataniya Palestine CEO Alan Richardson recently called on Middle East envoy and former British prime minister Tony Blair to intervene on behalf of Wataniya to get the frequency released. Richardson previously has been involved in controversial cell phone projects in Iraq, with Orascom and Iraqna, contracts which the U.S. Pentagon urged the Coalition Provisional Authority to cancel.

  So to the degree Tony Blair is working for Richardson, this too is problematic. But beyond the UN and Quarter, is Blair working for Kuwait? With JPMorgan Chase's documented mandate lead arranger role for the acquisition of Wataniya, there is a conflict which, it would seem, will require action. Blair is dismissive, and the UN appears cowed. Watch this site.


UN's Security Phase Confusion in Af-Pak Shown at Stakeout, Ban and Nambiar

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 6 -- In a press encounter that ended in disarray, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday called the UN security threat level in Afghanistan confidential, despite it being public in Pakistan, and then described the reclassification, renovation and vacating of various guest houses in Kabul.

  His chief of staff Vijay Nambiar rushed to the stakeout and gestured to spokesperson Michele Montas to end it. Mr. Nambiar then told Inner City Press, we can't tell them how to attack us.

  Mr. Ban had emphasized the UN is not abandoning Afghanistan, that it cannot curtail its development efforts there. Inner City Press asked about northwest Pakistan, where the UN country office issued a press release putting the threat level at Phase IV and suspending UN development activities, and asked what the Phase is in Afghanistan. Video here, from Minute 6:42.

  Mr. Ban said that security phases are "determined by DSS" [the Department of Safety and Security] "after evaluating all situations." He said it "needs not to be known publicly."

  Inner City Press asked if there isn't a conflict of interest, like in Algeria before the UN was bombed there, in which host countries doesn't want the UN Security Phase raised, even if it's needed. Mr. Ban acknowledged that this is "very sensitive," that host countries don't like the level raised because it could effect "national prestige" and "socio economic activities." He said, however, that the UN sets its levels objectively.

  Another reporter asked, in light of the UN's pulling out of Iraq after the bombing of its Canal Hotel headquarters, what are the "red lines" that would trigger a pull out from Afghanistan. Mr. Ban began to answer. Inner City Press remarked to a diplomat at the stakeout, yeah, tell the Taliban what it would take for the UN to leave.

  Then, as Mr. Ban was describing the categorization of the UN's 93 guest houses into those to be closed and those to be brought to "MOSS" standards, Mr. Nambiar rushed back to the stakeout and gestured that this should stop. Some thought this was because of Ban's next appointment, with his advisory group of businesses on the environment. But Mr. Nambiar explained, we cannot tell them how to attack us.

  While this statement was at the stakeout, with no mention of being off the record or on background, some have since tried to say this was implicit. For this reason, Inner City Press is not using the direct quote. But in fact, it is not surprising that even the UN's 38th floor would have divergent views on how much to disclose. Both positions in this case could be defended. And reporting these facts is to show how the UN actually functions.

  Inner City Press asked this month's Security Council president, Austria's Thomas Mayr-Harting, if Mr. Ban had told the Council in its consultations what the UN Security Phase is in Afghanistan. He said he would rather not "get into the details." Video here.

  Another reporter remarked to Inner City Press that "it is easy enough to learn the UN Security Phase." But why then be so secretive? In fact, Inner City Press is informed that the Phase in Afghanistan, even after the killing of five UN staff in a commando style raid by the Taliban, was kept at Phase III, while it was raised to Phase IV in Pakistan. Is this objective? Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, UN's Alston Probes Execution Video, Kaelin Says His Praise Was Misquoted

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 27 -- As Sri Lanka announces another internal investigation of the war crimes charges against it, at the UN on Tuesday the Special Rapporteur on executions Philip Alston told the Press he has "begun to commission some analyses of that video tape" depicting Sri Lankan soldiers shooting bound and naked prisoners. Video here, from Minute 6:56.

  Inner City Press asked Alston about the reports that people seeking to surrender in May, waving white flags after in some cases speaking with UN officials, were shot and killed, reportedly on orders from the highest ranks of the Sri Lanka military. Video here, from Minute 11:13.

   "Let's have an independent inquiry," Alston said, noting that past "investigations" by the government were not independent. He used as his example that two Sri Lankan military figures were charged with investigating the execution video. The government of Sri Lanka cannot be proud of its track record, Alston said.

  Before commissioning his own analysis of the video, Alston said he "would have liked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights" Navi Pillay to have undertaken an investigation, as was done for example by Justice Richard Goldstone of the conflict in Gaza this year.

  Inner City Press asked Alston about the countries on the Human Rights Council which have rebuffed his requests to visit, including both China and Russia, which blocked Security Council consideration of the conflict in Sri Lanka this Spring. Alston said "there has to be a limit," presumably to what members of the Human Rights Council can do. But for now, there are no limits. Alston's mandate expires in August 2010 and will no be renewed.

  Two other Rapporteurs, on Internally Displaced People and freedom of religion, also took questions about Sri Lanka on Tuesday. Inner City Press asked IDP expert Walter Kaelin about a headline in Sri Lanka, "UN envoy pleased with progress," in the Sunday Observer of September 27.

  Kaelin said he'd never spoken with that newspaper, and went on to criticize the conditions in the Manik Farms camps. He said people were being moved out. Inner City Press asked if the so called transit camps also restrict movement. He said that they did, and that this did not comply with international humanitarian law. Video here. But the UN keeps funding it, apparently.

  Inner City Press asked about IDPs' right to return to their homes, and not be displaced, as some say is planned in northern Sri Lanka east of A9, by members of other ethnic grounds. While Kaelin said there is a right to return which the government of Sri Lanka has not disputed, he acknowledged that he is not able to closely monitor what happens on the ground. And therein lies the problem.

  Inner City Press asked the Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief Asma Jahangir about this same issue, Sinhalese versus Tamils, the Buddhist triumphalism some see in Sri Lanka. She acknowledged she'd heard of it, ascribing it to political fights "long ago." Video here. But these fights continue. The UN system, even its special rapporteurs, may appear out of touch. Watch this site.

UN Sings For Its Supper as Sponsors Strut in Green Room, Pay for Play on UN Day

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 24 -- As the UN celebrated itself with a concert in the General Assembly Friday night, the sponsor it took $110,000 from lurked around trying to get pay-back.

  On stage, UN peacekeepers were praised, even for their work in Rwanda. Across First Avenue, after an open photo op with the sponsors by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had become untenable, or at least unsavory, Under Secretary General Ibrahim Gambari arrived in at the UN Millennium Hotel to take photos with the Chinese businessmen who paid money for access to the UN.

  Still, this wasn't enough. Ban's pre-concert photo op, it emerged, had initially had three phases: artists, member states then sponsor. The last was officially cut out. But witnesses at the photo op, with the exception of the UN's organizer, tell Inner City Press that sponsor Frank Liu of the World Harmony Foundation and six of his associates still managed to get access.

  In the green room behind the General Assembly rostrum, Inner City Press spoke with Frank Liu. He complained about being excluded. They come and ask you for money, he said, and then this. Without apparent irony, he said that he perhaps shared Inner City Press' desire to "reform the UN."

  Head UN peacekeeper Alain Le Roy strode into the green room. He spoke with the director of the Culture Project, and with Mr. Frank Liu, to whom he had written in July offering a full tour of DPKO's 24 hour Situation Center, in exchange for sponsorship of the concert.

  The UN, at the pre concert press conference, claimed that despite the wording of Le Roy's letter, there was no quid pro quo. The UN admitted that these same sponsors, the World Harmony Foundation, took photos with Ban Ki-moon after an event they paid for in March, but called the photos "ad hoc." These arguments wouldn't stand up in a New York City vice raid, or subsequent court appearance.

  Rather than reflect on how bad the March pay to play incident in the General Assembly lobby made the UN look, the UN decided to try to take Frank Liu's money without openly being dominated. So, for example, it told Liu he couldn't bring onto the stage or even in the building the harmony bell he stores, during the year, in a garage in Queens.

  Lui, who complained to Inner City Press about this, had the bell brought to the Isaiah Wall across the street, and rang it along with personalities from South Korea. Take that, thirty eighth floor, was the message. Then USG Gambari made his appearance, ostensibly in a personal capacity, on the 29th floor of the UN Millennium Hotel. In the group's program, Gambari was listed as Deputy Secretary General, but Gambari later told Inner City Press this was "their fault," and Liu ascribed it to translation.

  So the UN tried to be able to say they had taken Frank Liu's money without taking anything from him. But he and his associates were given passes into the UN, used the Delegates Dining Room, got access to the Green Room and the top UN officials. The staged denial or withholding of certain accesses and acts took on the flavor of the client or "date" negotiations often broken up on shows such as Police Women of Broward County. But who will go undercover and expose some current UN officials? Watch this site.

UN Assembly President Treki Hires Daughter and Cousin, For Family Values

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 14 -- While the occupant of the Office of the President of the UN General Assembly changes each year, the same cannot be said for practices like nepotism and lack of transparency. Under the previous President, Nicaragua's Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, Inner City Press found and reported the hiring of two of his relatives, nephew Michael Clark and niece Sofia Clark, in the Office.

  Now, new President Ali Treki of Libya lists on the web site of his Cabinet a relative named Ali Mohamed Treki. When Inner City Press asked the Office's spokesman and chief of staff for the precise familial relation, the talk got vague and went off the record.

  Then Inner City Press discovered that Ali Treki's daughter Amal Ali Treki is working in the Office, and got this confirmed by Treki's thus far fair spokesman Jean-Victor Nkolo. Several other questions remain outstanding; the responses will be reported upon receipt.

  The post of President of the General Assembly is the highest, at least technically, in the UN system. But it is run like a family business.

  Inner City Press has also asked by whom and how much President Treki gets paid. This seems like a basic and fair question, but it has yet to be answered. It has been implied that Inner City Press should assume that Treki is paid by his government, Libya, but it has also been argued that he is and will be independent from Libya and its leader, Colonel Gaddafi. Which is it?

  Two presidencies ago, Srgjan Kerim left unanswered who paid him -- a private company called WAZ Media -- and how much (reputed at $400,000). Inner City Press was asked, how many should Treki be paid, without being told by whom.

  Treki has been embroiled in controversies, some by choice and some by happenstance. He did not write Gaddafi's disjointed General Debate speech: perhaps no one did. And continued reporting by Inner City Press about the Assembly's overruling of Treki's decision to give the floor to Madagascar's coup leader find that Treki was misled, to some degree, by those who called the question and the vote.

  But Treki's decision on September 18 to answer a stray question about gay rights by calling homosexuality "not acceptable," not only by him but by "two billion Muslims and... Buddists and Jews," was his own choice. Inner City Press reported the comments, then asked Treki about the resulting condemnation by Congressman Barney Frank and counterparts of his in the UK and Australia. Treki stood by his comments, which Inner City Press understand that many of his own staff counseled him against.

  To his credit, Treki has attracted some savvy UN staffers, using the professional level UN-paid posts available to him. His chief of staff Jamal Benomar, an expert on the rule of law, has his work cut out for him. His economic adviser Yasser Elnaggar has been around the UN block. Some say that Treki's daughter is among his best staff members. That's what every small businessman says...

Footnote: Inner City Press held publication of this article for several days seeking additional answers and comments from PGA Treki's office. If and when these are received, they will be published in future articles on Dr. Treki, his Office and the General Assembly.

At UN, Rebellion and Retaliation in Political Affairs Unit, Pascoe's Transfer Questioned, Faces French - Obama Switch?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 8, updated Oct. 9 -- The UN Department of Political Affairs, charged with working internationally for peace, has devolved into some internal warfare. On October 8, DPA chief B. Lynn Pascoe wrote an angry "note to file" about two of his directors, who rebelled against what many of Inner City Press' sources in DPA call a flawed and even corrupt hiring process. The note to file, after DPA's response, is being published by Inner City Press here.

  As Mr. Pascoe's Note to File about "Unacceptable Conduct by Messrs. Martinovic and Heitmann" has it, "a P5 level staff member in my office volunteered for the internal mobility exercise. I reviewed the Vacancy Announcement that was posted for the P5 in the Subsidiary Organs [of the Security Council] Branch, and I deemed that she was qualified for the post."

  There was only one problem: public notice of this P5 post has already been published, and three candidates from outside the UN had already applied. They were told that a test would be administered to make the process competitive and merit-based. Then they were told that the examination was canceled "for technical reasons."

  One of the suddenly disqualified finalists, from Germany, came to New York and demanded of Mr. Aleksandar Martinovic to know what these "technical reasons" were. Another internal candidate, already expert on sanctions, was also sidelined by Mr. Pascoe's unilateral decision to place his colleague Michele Griffin into the vacant P5 post, effective October 20, 2009.

  Returning to Mr. Pascoe's disciplinary version, after he "issued a note to all DPA staff announcing the move, plus one other transfer, on 2 October, 2009" suddenly Mr. Martinovic and Horst Heitmann, the head of the Security Council Division, informed Mr. Pascoe's Special Assistant Karin Ann Gerlach that "they no longer required the post, did not need the staff member I had laterally re-assigned."

  This was a protest of Mr. Pascoe's circumvention of an already begun recruitment process, sources tell Inner City Press. But rather than reconsider his actions, challenged by two respected directors in DPA, Pascoe fired off a note to their personnel files, calling it a "direct contravention of... the instructions I issued as head of the Department... unacceptable conduct for senior managers."

  For the head of the UN Secretariat's main diplomatic unit to resort to managing his directors by vituperative notes to personnel files strikes some as a bad sign.

  Less documented than the above but not entirely unrelated, well placed sources in the UN say that the United States is mulling taking over the Department of Peacekeeping Affairs, thereby displacing its current chief Alain Le Roy, but in exchange giving DPA to Le Roy's native France. They noted, however, that India too is making a claim to the Peacekeeping post. Watch this site.

  While there is no mechanism, it appears, for a "note to the personnel file" of Mr. Pascoe, his circumvention of an already begun recruitment exercise, disregard for the protests of two long time directors, and notes to their files do not reflect well on him. Pascoe concludes, "I have asked Mr. [Haile] Menkerios to duly note this incident on both e-PAS' for the 2009/10 cycle."

  Mr. Menkerios is known as Pascoe's "go-to" guy for African issues, totally sidelining Pascoe's predecessor as DPA chief Ibrahim Gambari. But with Menkerios reportedly up to replace Rodolphe Adada in Darfur, will he continue as the e-PAS hatchet man against two of his directors?

  A month ago, Inner City Press posed a simple question to DPA and its spokesman, about a hiring process. It took more than three weeks to get it answered, and even then, only partially. While that story is finally in preparation, the report above, supported by two documents with Mr. Pascoe's signature, does not require any three week wait. Pascoe's note to file says "they will have an opportunity to respond in writing should they wish." So, on that or Pascoe's response, we have have more. Watch this site.

Footnote: On October 8, the day Pascoe signed the above quoted note to file, Inner City Press asked him questions on the record about both Somalia and Guinea. On the former, both on and off camera, Pascoe presented himself as unaware of the specifics of the United States' curtailment of aid to the UN World Food Program due to questions about the applicability of anti-terrorism laws to aid in the Al Shabaab controlled portions of Somalia. Video here from Minute 7:47.

   On the latter, Pascoe expressed outrage about the rapes in Guinea, and said he hoped for an election, to which the UN would provide help. Video here, from Minute 11:29.

 Hopefully clearer than in Afghanistan.

Then Inner City Press obtained a copy of Pascoe's note to file, which seems an equally or more accurate reflection of current DPA diplomacy.

Update of October 9, 2009: rather than the more that three weeks it took to answer a simple question about an office overseen by the Department of Political Affairs, this time DPA sent a response the next day:

Subj: in response to your blog posting of today
From: Jared Kotler [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 10/9/2009 12:03:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

Under USG Pascoe’s leadership, DPA is undergoing a process of strengthening and renewal which includes a mobility exercise intended to broaden the experiences of staff members, consistent with broader efforts to create a more mobile and well rounded Secretariat. The staff transfer you refer to on your blog today was taken in that context. Incidentally, you may be unaware that, as established in ST/AI/2006/3, it is entirely within the authority of a Department head to transfer staff laterally within a department. The reasons for the note to the file you refer to on you blog are well summarized therein.

Jared Kotler
Office of the Under-Secretary General
UN Department of Political Affairs

  And so, we publish the note to file, here and above. The protest / refusal to go along of two long standing and respected directors in DPA remains noteworthy. Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson, who Inner City Press asked about this on October 9, said that Ban would have not comments on the specifics. The question was and is, does UN "mobility" allow for a hiring process so irregular that long time and respected directors protest it? And is the answer to fire off vituperative notes to file? Watch this site.

UN Counters Galbraith Fallout with Unnamed Official, Sampler Next for Kabul?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1 -- Charged with covering up electoral fraud to benefit Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, the UN in New York on Thursday, in a background briefing to the Press, argued that it is not the UN's role to uncover or publicize fraud. Rather, the speaker who insisted on being identified only as a senior UN official said, the UN makes recommendation for procedures to be put in place so that fraud can be detected.

  But if the UN's recommendations are dismissed, or if implemented are then revoked, does the UN say anything? No, the senior official said, why should we? The Independent Electoral Commission isn't breaking any laws.

  Inner City Press asked the official if Afghan law provides for any penalty for those found guilty of fraud. I don't know, the UN official said, adding that the Elections Complaints Commission, three of whose five members are appointed by the UN, has no power to impose criminal penalties.

  The official provided by the UN, answered again and again that he was baffled by the critiques made by the UN's just fired deputy envoy to Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith. Inner City Press asked if Galbraith's letter to Ban Ki-moon is true in saying that Eide ordered UN staff not to talk about the election and fraud. I can't imagine Kai doing that, the official said. He allowed that the UN has rules about how staff can talk, and Kai might have reminded UNAMA staff of the rules.

  Critique the UN's management, Galbraith said that only weak organizations punish those who disagreed in internal debates. The official said that went beyond his remit, as did Ban Ki-moon's decision to suspend any UN assistance to the November elections in Honduras. That was Ban's decision, a Ban spokesperson has said. But, as with the firing of Galbraith, who will explain it on the record?

Footnotes: The Times of London has reported that, to replace Galbraith, the U.S. is pushing the UN to try Donald "Larry" Sampler. He worked with a USAID contractor, and is in fact a Facebook friend of Gary K. Helseth, accused of accused of corruption in Afghanistan with the UN Office of Project Services. Some Sample(r).


At UN, Iran Denounces UAE, Serbia Mocks Albania, Congo War Forgotten

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 26 -- In the UN's version of Saturday Night Live, at the end of a day of mostly boring speeches, Iran used its "right of reply" to defend its nuclear programs and treatment of protesters, and to denounce the United Arab Emirates for bringing up the issue of three disputed islands.

  Then Serbia mocked Albania's statements about progress in Kosovo and the return of Serbian families there. To the contrary, the Serbian representative said, the Serbians in the "province of Kosovo" at the most endangered people in Europe, in what has become a crime haven.

  Albania replied that Serbia's rhetoric was "old fashioned," of the type that led to "the worst war since World War Two." One question: ever heard the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

  Among the four countries which voted to allow the coup leader of Madagascar to speak were Ecuador and Denmark. Who knew?

Footnote: Like the Ever-ready bunny, Ban Ki-moon just keeps motoring along. Saturday at six p.m. he and his advisors came out of a meeting with the ASEAN foreign ministers. While there were journalists including Inner City Press huddled against a stakeout barricade, the type of gaggle to which Ban usually at least waves, this time he proceeded without looking over. He will brief the press on Tuesday, then leave on another trip. Monday he's to meet, back to back, withe Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and Myanmar, then Cameroon's Paul Biya. Watch this site.

* * *

At UN Entrance, Chavez on Zelaya, Mugabe, Obama Watch, Turkmen and Entourage

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 23, updated -- At the UN's entrance Wednesday morning, Robert Mugabe and then Hugo Chavez came in. Chavez came over to the crowded stakeout the Press was penned into, and even answered a few questions. Zelaya? He is "un valiente," a valiant. Chavez said he hasn't been to the UN General Assembly for three years, but he is hoping for "good speeches."

  One TV journalist yelled out, "Any books for President Obama?" The reference was to Chavez' gift of Chomsky to Bush. Inner City Press wonders, if not sulfur, what will it smell like?

  The second entering president to speak to the Press was Fernandez of the Dominican Republic, with what one photographer called an "insanely large" entourage. As he spoke about coup d'etat -- presumably, Honduras -- a trio of journalists with "Turkmenistan" emblazoned on their jackets grumbled. Who is this guy?

  The question was, where is Obama? Michele Obama came in...

Update of 9:32 a.m. -- security tells the Press, Obama will arrive in two minutes. The Press is locked in the stakeout. As we wait, Inner City Press is asked, why does Brazil always speak first? A UN staffer answers, the first GA president did it, and they've kept the tradition.

   During the wait, a UN security officer tells TV camera people to stop standing on the chairs. When they ignore him, he starts taking the chairs. The camera people just push closer to the front edge of the stakeout.

  Even diplomats are stopped for a time from entering. A Sri Lankan diplomat flashes her "secondary pass," but the security officer shrugs. You have to wait just like the others. Entourages pour in.

Update of 9:40 p.m. -- the two minutes have turned to eight. Now a security officer says, in Spanish, cinco minutos. Then, diez minutos. There is a strangely near reverential lull and silence.

Update of 9:42 a.m. - Gaddafi comes in. "What is your message to the people of Britain?" one journalist shouts out. Gaddafi is flashing theV peace sign -- for the record, two fingers. He is trailed by women in combat fatigues with long black hair.

Update of 9:53 a.m. -- Rwanda's President Paul Kagame walks in, and no one at the stakeout calls out a question or even notices, so intent on Obama's now delayed entrance.... We can call this, political paparazzi....

Update of 9:59 a.m. -- "this is is," the woman from the UN's Department of Public Information says. And after a slew of security officers, there is Obama, waving to the Press. Reporters shout only his name, no questions. Then in his wake, anther call: "Hilary!" By the time Ambassador Susan Rice walks by, next to a tall red headed woman -- we are assuming Samantha Power -- no reporter shouts anything. Two minutes later, the stakeout has emptied out. It's all about Obama...

Update of 10:26 a.m. -- as Obama, with the green marble backdrop, says the U.S. will work with Russia, the UN TV camera pans to Russia's seat, in which the country's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin sits nonplussed. Coming up from the stakeout, reporters are crowded around TV screens on the third floor -- even without sound! filming each other! It is hard to describe Obama's tone: teacher-ly? He might (want to) appear to be lecturing...

Update of 10:31 a.m. -- a press conference by the spokesman for Japan's new prime minister, which was scheduled to start at 10 a.m., has been delayed. Deferred, one might say, out of deference, not wanting to overlap with Obama. Perhaps its that no repoters would go to the Japanese presser at this time. The next is Spain's Zapatero at noon.

Update of 11:39 a.m. -- Obama went 38 minutes, and Gaddafi for now is at 32 minutes. He has called the Security Council the "Terror Council." This is the PG version of what he may do and say in the Security Council tomorrow...* * *

September 21, 2009 --

With UN's Ban Shielded from Nepotism Questions, Scandals Brew, Defenses Outsourced to Mission

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 17, updated twice -- While questions having swirled all summer around Ban Ki-moon's leadership of the UN, Mr. Ban belated held a pre-General Assembly press conference on September 17. But the management, human rights, nepotism and even corruption short falls in Ban's UN that have been discussed in diplomatic circles and in the media were scarcely mentioned.

  No questions were allowed on two human rights short falls, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, much less on the nepotism scandals festering at the highest levels of the UN. It's as if these issues were censored out, after having been strangely outsourced to South Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, who recently invited Inner City Press to a lunch with only one topic: the integrity of Ban Ki-moon. [See Amb. Kim Bong-hyun's reply, in full below.]

  Thus, it's not that Team Ban is unaware of the questions. After a leaked e-mail by Ban's envoy to the Congo Alan Doss surfaced and was first published by Inner City Press, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe told the Press Ban was very concerned and expected a report on the matter when he returned to New York from his vacation in South Korea.

   That was a month ago but when Inner City Press, denied a chance to question by Ban's Spokesperson Michele Montas, asked Ban on his way out about the case of Alan Doss, Ban muttered "that is still going on," presumably referring to the investigation.

   Ban's spokesperson, who previously referred Inner City Press to Ban's main adviser Kim Won-soo about the issue (Mr. Kim subsequently canceled the meeting), should at least have allowed a question about Ban's actual management of the UN.

  Ban's lack of action is attributed by some, including prospectively a major U.S. newspaper, to questions about two recent hirings of Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee. First he was hired, without any competitive process, by Ban's envoy in Iraq Staffan de Mistura to be his chief of staff, a position for which many said Chatterjee did not have the diplomatic and political background.

   Since de Mistura had previously hired the son of Kofi Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza, many saw a pattern, of the hiring of top UN leaders' children as a way for far-flung officials to be viewed favorable in Headquarters.

   As de Mistura left Iraq, Ban's son in law resurfaced hired by the UN Office of Project Services to head a whole regional bureau. While UNOPS refused to answer the simple question of whether Chatterjee's job is at the D-1 or D-2 level, it has since emerged that the post was upgraded to D-2 in connection with a process in which Ban gave UNOPS more freedom over its human resources practices. While it is said Chatterjee for now is at the lower of the two Director levels, he can be upgraded at any time, without public announcement.

   "Two supposedly lateral moves resulting in reality in a meteoric rise up two levels," as one observer wryly puts it, "only at the UN." Meanwhile Chatterjee has taken to telephoning Indian newspapers which have picked up Inner City Press' coverage of the issue and telling them to remove articles and comments from the Internet, in the face of legal threats.

   After Ban's adviser Kim Won-soo canceled the meeting, which it was emphasized would be off the record or on background, about the still unanswered Chatterjee questions, Inner City Press received a lunch reach-out from the Deputy Permanent Representative of South Korea's mission to the UN, Kim Bong-hyun. Over a sizzling bowl of beef and noodles, the hospitable DPR Kim repeated again and again that Ban is a man of integrity, although from an earlier generation of Korean diplomats.

   DPR Kim made detailed arguments about Ban's son in law's promotions and threats for censorship; that seemed to be the purpose of the lunch. On the Alan Doss matter, he first expressed concern about the "leeway" e-mail, then recovered and argued that Ban's hands are tied by rules making it difficult to fire UN staff. But Doss is Ban's personal envoy to the Congo. There is no way to pass the buck. DPR Kim nodded and said Ban would be sure to know and do something about the Doss issue. But it hasn't happened yet.

   While DPR Kim gave no indication that his outreach was off the record or even on background, normally these indirect defenses of Ban would not have to be used or reported, if Ban himself would address the issues in at least one of the fifteen largely scripted answers he gave on Thursday. A weak communications strategy has helped get Ban into the situation is his, entering this General Assembly. And thing do not appear to be getting better.

Footnotes:  Ban's Spokesperson, as Inner City Press first publicly reported, is set to retire in November. Those who multiple sources say are vying to replace her include Eric Falt of the UN Department of Public Information [but see below], two journalists who have covered the UN, and an official of the UN Foundation...

  Another UN mis-hiring scandal, which Inner City Press asked Ban Spokesperson about in writing on August 27 has still not been answered to or even commented on.
Watch this site.

Update of Sept. 17, 4:45 p.m. -- For the record we have received this denial from Mr. Falt: "I wish to inform you that I am very happy with my job as Director of Outreach in DPI and am not currently applying to any other position."

  Additional communication has been received from the South Korean Mission to the UN, clarification has been sought, but has not yet been received. Watch this site.

Second update -- we have received the following from Ambassador Kim of Korea and publish it in full:

Subj: from Amb.Kim of Korea
From: [ ]
To: Matthew Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Sent: 9/17/2009

Dear Matthew,

I just read your article titled "with UN's Ban Shielded...." of Sept. 17, 2009. I found that facts of the article were distorted and I was misused. My purpose to invite you to the lunch the other day was to exchange views about agenda of the new session of the GA.

My message to you was that the press should listen to both parties concerned, otherwise the press would lose its balance and credibility.

However, on the contray to my intention, you initiated to explain the stroy of Alan Doss to me, including the biting rumor of a staff of UNDP and quoted me as making detailed arguments about SG's son in law.

I did not know the story of Alan Doss at all and I din not know the details on the stroy of the son in law of the SG. I answered to your questions as to the two cases based on my common sense as a career diplomat. I answered that there were rules and regulations for hiring and firing staff in any organization. I added that I knew there was a commission for the appeal of staff in the case of infringement of interest. Also I urged you to look into the rules and regulations about the prodedure of promotion in the UN.

I said that the procedure of promotion regarding to the son in law of the SG was supposed to be transparent and based on merits. I further expressed my view that answers related to those questions should be sought in the framework of the legal institution of the UN and advised you not to try to personalize the issue.I strongly request you to carry the above explanation in your blog as an exercise of right of reply.

Sincerely,

Kim Bong-Hyun, Pd.D.
Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations

   Entirely agreeing with the right to reply, we nonetheless note that very little was said about the upcoming General Assembly session, while much was said about the Mona Juul memo, the possible motives and the "Asian" style of diplomacy. Detailed arguments were made about whether the Secretary General's son in law was initially a P-4 or P-5, and is now a D-1 or D-2 (the post has been upgraded to D-2). If nepotism is a problem in the UN, as many think it is, it is difficult to report on and address the issue without giving specific example: that is, personalizing the issue.

  What seemed and seems significant is that while the Secretary General and his team are reticent to address or even take questions on these nepotism issues, the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Secretary General's native South Korea made the arguments, with detailed information about the Secretary General's son in law.

  While this may be a credit to Ambassador Kim Bong-hyun, these arguments should be coming, on the record, from the Secretariat itself, and they should not be evading or not allowing questions on the issue. Frankly, it is unclear if Ambassador Kim Bong-hyun disagrees with this analysis of the weakness of the Secretary General's current Office of the Spokesperson. But we appreciate his right of reply and so publish the above in full. Watch this site

September 14, 2009 --

Crackdown on Somali Pirates, Based On Letter to UN by Ex-Prez Yussuf, Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 10 -- Somali pirates have been the topic at the UN for the past two days. Thursday outside the Fourth Meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, Japanese diplomat Masafumi Ishii, who chaired the meeting, told the Press that money will be raised to fight the pirates, and to implement a "comprehensive" strategy against them, including on land.

   Inner City Press asked if the underlying issues of toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing had been discussed at all in the meeting. No, Ambassador Ishii said, that did not come up. Inner City Press asked about a recent incident in which Germany shot and killed a pirate, seemingly in violation of rules procedures as in Afghanistan. No, that incident was not discussed, Ishii said.

  The UN Security Council resolution under which pirates are being hunted, Resolution 1851, is based on the purportedly still valid consent of Somalia, on a December 9, 2008 letter to the Council from then-President Abdullahi Yussuf, who was out of power soon after signing the letter. People and even parliamentarians in Somalia have told Inner City Press they have not found it easy to get and see a copy of this letter, which is referred to in Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1851:

"10. Affirms that the authorization provided in this resolution apply only with respect to the situation in Somalia and shall not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under UNCLOS, with respect to any other situation, and underscores in particular that this resolution shall not be considered as establishing customary international law, and affirms further that such authorizations have been provided only following the receipt of the 9 December 2008 letter conveying the consent of the TFG."

  On September 9, Inner City Press asked U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Countryman about the letter. He said he was not aware of it. Also on September 9, Inner City Press asked UN Security Council Affairs staff how to get a copy of the letter. You'd have to ask the Somali mission, was the answer.

  And so on September 10, while Ambassador Ishii spoke, Inner City Press asked an omnipresent Somali deputy ambassador for a copy of the letter. No, he said. You have to ask the Council. This is called the run around.

This has the potential of being similar to the Somali parliament's rejection of the Law of the Sea Continental Shelf filing done in the name of the Somali people by UN envoy Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, using Norwegian money, co-written and filed by Kenya. Watch this site.


September 7, 2009 -

In China, Misuse of UNDP for Chief Khalid Malik's Family Foundation, Local Whistleblowers Complain

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 1 -- In China, the UN Development Program's resident coordinator Khalid Malik's wife Carter runs a non governmental organization which uses the UN connection to raise funds. According to whistleblowing UNDP staff who have contacted Inner City Press, Malik urges donations to his wife's NGO, and some think they are giving to the UN when they give to his wife's NGO. One example of the (intentional) confusion is contained in a Chinese newspaper article, which Inner City Press is putting online here. It is explained below by Inner City Press' sources in UNDP in China.

   The UNDP staff in China have complained in many forums about Malik, without any improvements. Their staff evaluations have gotten worse each year, including alleging increases in sexual harassment. It is understood that complaints have been filed with UNDP against Malik personally. Here is an account from inside the UNDP in China:

Subject: Nepotism in UNDP China…..poor leadership, bad global staff survey results for fours years….poor staff perception, Mr. Khalid Malik regime continues…..China is awaiting for him to leaving including the government partners….

Dear Mr. Lee, As UNDP China staff, we are so impressed with your serious of articles of Nepotism, stonewall….and we are shocked to see what happened with the whistleblower in RBAP [the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific], however we are not surprised either, as this sounds familiar….It came to our attention of your mention about China, a country full of spirit and inspiration, however UNDP China office is not as pleasant as the bigger China. Here are some examples: UNDP china has stayed at the bottom of global 140s countries from the past four years under Khalid Malik regime….without any improvements, but to him, everybody else is the cause of the problem, but himself. Most importantly, more than a dozen staff, professionalism staff simply have to leave because of Malik's unprofessionalism, unfairness, selfishness, and abuse of authority……..same thing happen when Malik was the head of UNDP Evaluation office….all those professionals had chosen to leave….

The UNDP China staff people’s question is 'how many years of bad Global Staff Survey results it takes to take a senior person out of UNDP China.' There is serious problem of abuse of authority, lack of accountability in those high level post’….and they can do anything they like, recruit people they like, promote people they like, and punish those who tried very hard to maintain their integrity….and all those senior people can do is to ‘get rid of those people’ who did not agree with them through ‘reprofiling’, or ‘restructuring’ and never realize “Leadership” is the biggest problem, their own bad, unprofessional behaviors, selfishness, have resulted in ‘bad staff perception’ as well as ‘bad government partners perception’ of UNDP China. Khalid Malik and Subinay Nandy, are the root cause of problems.

We would like to draw you kind attention to one Human Resources related case on the recently recruitment of a P5 post for Bureau of Development Policy . As we hear that Ms. Wang Xiaojun, the current UNDP China staff was selected, based on her background, it is serious against UNDP HR policy. Concerns were expressed to RBAP, to audit office, and it is like you described in your article, it is ‘stonewall’. We want to raise our concerns on this matter as Ms. Wang does not qualify for this P5 post:

1.She has been in the team leader of HIV/AIDS starting from Sep 17, 2007, so not even TWO year yet. In addition, she being the Team Leader of HIV/AID and Governance starting from Feb 13, 2008. Because of her promotion to this post, in China office we called it ‘incapable leading capable’, all professional staff including Edmund Seattle decided to leave, because it was an ‘insult’ to him. Because all the professionals had choose to leave, Grace Wang inherited all other people’s credit on HIV and Governance because it is all other people, Edmund seattle, Diana Gao, Edward Wu, Li Jing, (all left) laid the ground work.

2.Staff perception about the HR issue can be found very clearly in the four years of BAD GSS results on transparency, management integrity, honesty, trustfulness, HR recruitment, selection, and promotion process, of all these indicators are very slow for Four FULL years.

3.It is UNDP HR policy and requirement that ONE has to be in his/her current Post for a minimum of 3 Year to apply for the next…. She has been team leader of governance only ONE YEAR and FOUR Months (starting from Feb 13, 2008). This is AGAINST UNDP policy, there is seriously suspect of abuse of authority in the hiring, selection process….

4.Employing such a person without relevant and solid experiences, knowledge, proven competencies as a practitioner in UNDP HQ of BDP the policy bureau is jeopardizing UNDP’s image and reputation (it has to be the right person and qualified person for the right job).

5.UNDP has the policy of rank in post and even with is and the interview, this should be only part of the consideration as proven performance, knowledge, results and competence to fit in the post should also be considered and are critical. This is the most important thing. She has not demonstrated the necessary and proven results, competencies and knowledge for this high level P5 post which is obvious. Reference check should also be made thoroughly not only with the Resident coordinator Mr. Khalid Malik and Country Director Subinay Nandy, but also with the peers of the UNDP China (all the team leaders and the left ones who used to interact with her), Ms. Wang’s previous supervisees Li Jing left the office because he thinks UNDP does not have ‘governance’ in people selection, only those kisses can get up or get the job, and the selection should be made in a transparent and competitive process.

6.One key factor is that UNDP China Resident coordinator will leave (all government partners are waiting for his departure after Six years in China) and favoritism should be avoided for promotion and international assignment for UNDP HQ and in China Country Office. UNDP China HR function is ONLY an implementer of all those action from Khalid Malik and Subinay Nandy, HR transparency has been of complain of staff for many years. UNDP China has poor GSS results for years and HR related issues has lots of problems and issues on performance assessment, recruitment and promotion in terms of fairness and transparency.

Mr. Khalid Malik, Mr. Subinay Nandy, and Mr. Selim Jaham, all from south Asian countries of Pakistan, the other two all from Bangladesh, want to promote their favorite person Ms. Grace Wang Xiaojun, and export their favorism, nepotism, abuse of authority from Khalid Malik China regime to HQ…

  Inner City Press is attaching to this article documentation of the staff's assessment of Malik from 2005 to 2008.


  Here again is a description from UNDP staff in China of

Conflict of interest between Khalid Malik’s wife private foundation Yunnan Mountain Handicraft Center with Khalid Malik’s using of UN, UNDP, private sector funding and other resources to benefit his wife's foundation.

Khalid Malik has had pretty long interests in Tibet and everybody does. However, his behaviors have made staff suspicious of his real motives whether it is to concentrate on development or using this as an excuse to get benefit for himself or his wife and his family using UN’s name and his position in UN.

1.In 2007 UN Day, using UN resources, most likely private sector resources mobilized (Private sector contribution to RC), an UN Day event was organized by inviting Naxi Guyue (a band from Yunnan Lijiang, headed by Yuan Ke) around 50 people to conduct a performance. This is justified of supporting of culture development in Yuannan.

2.However, Khalid Malik’s wife has a personal foundation in Yunnan called Yunnan Mountain Handicraft Center, www.ymhfshangrila.com

3.This is not the first UN Day in years time….people are discussing whether the choice of each UN day is Mr. Malik’s decision or his wife’s, and what is the real purpose Advocate for UN or using UN or UNDP’s resources to benefit his own personal interests, building connection in both tangible and intangible terms.

4.The news clip proves that right after the Naxi Guyue music performance on Oct 25, 2007 in UN compound, the head of Naxi Guyue Mr. Xuan Ke announced publicly to donate rmb 100,000 ($15,000USD) to his wife’s private foundation. The title of the article in Chinese is ‘Mr. Xuan ke donates rmb 100,000 to UN’, but it actually donated to Carter Malik’s private foundation.

5.There are also two evidences that two workshops had been organized in Ms. Malik’s foundation in Yunnan, with multiple government official been invited….The funding of these workshops are very unclear….based on UNDP rules and procedures….and policies, it is very inappropriate to use any public resources including money or intangible resources such as name, brand for personal purposes. We did heard from some government partners who was invited saying that they believed it was an UNDP meeting, however, it ended up in his wife foundation…..

6.The other clips have shown the activities of UNDP project in partnership with All China Federation of Industry and Commerce….in Yunnan….but as time accumulated, (since we did not know from the beginning why he is so much interested in Yunnan)….now become more clear that anything in Yunnan connected with his wife’s interest in Yunnan….and potential connection with government officials, business, and benefits for his family using agency resources including UN, UNDP, private sector funding…..for his potential network for future.

7.Despite Culture is not an UNDP mandate, Khalid still insisted to formulate a UNDP project on culture….and handcraft making….all related to his wife interests…most important of all, all these was used purposely for his application of job in UNWTO….which are very much focusing on tourism…culture….aspect. However, all these things everybody knows in UNDP, China, HQ….however, it is in such a grey area to be used as evidence against Khalik….but it happens all the time.

8.Ms. Malik foundation is recruiting for interns…and there are five of them all working in Mr. Malik’s private promise in UN compound. However, the network is not fast enough with five people working at him home and she requested IT to upgrade their home network. It was done with UNDP XB resources of RMB 6000 ($900). Everyone staff knows that XB china is almost gone….however, this is not the only time that their personal expenses were changed to UNDP XB account….(finance have all the record). This is an integrity issue….all these expenses adding up together may be or may not be very big, however, this is Fraud and Abuse of authority of inappropriate use of UNDP funds…..

    UNDP's Office of Audit and Investiations is already supposedly investigating the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific's having given a job to the daughter of the UN's envoy to the Congo Alan Doss, who was until July 1 a UNDP staff member and therefore needed and asked for "leeway" for the hiring of his daughter.

    UNDP appears to be stalling the investigation, which involves personnel long acquainted with Doss; UNDP has also declined to provide a press conference by Administrator Helen Clark, and tries to micro-manage who can interview her. At an appearance in UN Headquarters basement by Malik, UNDP rushed him off for other interviews. Other questions to UNDP have remained unanswered since August 13. Watch this site.

* * *
August 31, 2009 -

Executions by Sri Lankan Army To Be Raised to UN's Ban in Norway, a Post Mona Juul Memo "Moral Authority" Test

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 30 -- The video footage depicting the Sri Lankan Army committing summary executions will be raised to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during his impending visit to Oslo, Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim has vowed. On August 26 at a regular press briefing before Ban left New York, Inner City Press asked his Spokesperson Michele Montas if he or she had seen the footage, and for a UN Secretariat comment. There was no response to the video, and so the the link to the video was provided. In the four days since there has been no UN Secretariat* comment.

  Later on August 26 at a hastily convened stakeout in front of the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked August's Council president and UK Ambassador John Sawers about the footage. He said he'd yet to see it but had read about it, and found it disturbing. He said the the UK would expect it to be investigated, by Sri Lanka in the first instance. Video here, from Minute 6:12.

  Sri Lanka has condemned Solheim for calling for a UN investigation. But it has not conducted any investigation of its own: its High Commissioner in London issued a denial as soon as the video came out. Is it Sri Lanka's vituperative reaction or something else, observers wonder, that is holding Ban back from commenting on the widely circulated video?

  This comes in the context not only of The Economist rating Ban three out of ten on speaking truth to power, but the more recent leaked memo by Norway's deputy ambassador to the UN criticizing Ban for, among other things, a lack of moral authority in connection with Sri Lanka and his belated visit there. So what will Ban say and do, when the issue is raised to him in Norway? Watch this site.

Footnotes: Sawers also indicated that no Security Council member had yet requested a meeting about the execution video, just has he'd said no Council member asked for a meeting of any kind about the flooding of the UN-funded internment camps in Northern Sri Lanka. France speaks often about les droits de l'homme; the U.S. has an Office of War Crimes Issues which is preparing a report on Sri Lanka due on September 21. How long will the silence by these UN member states continue?

* - The UN Human Rights Council's rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Philip Alston has called for an investigation. One wonders if this represents what Inner City Press had been told by a staffer was going to be High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay's response.


August 22, 2009 -

Reports of Nepotism for UN's Ban Ki-moon Removed From Internet After Legal Threats by Ban's Son in Law

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 22 -- The son in law of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Siddarth Chatterjee, had used threats of legal action to force the removal from the Internet of comments that he may have gotten his promotion with the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen due to nepotism, Inner City Press has learned.

  In preparing its exclusive August 14 article on nepotism at the UN and Ban's position on and in it, Inner City Press ran across an article in the Indian Star online, which cited Inner City Press' previous piece on Chatterjee's promotion with the UN in Iraq. Recently, that Indian Star article and comments were taken off the Internet -- following a threat from Chatterjee and then by his India-based lawyer. Click here for the now-empty page.

   Free press advocates express concern at the threats, noting that in such matters "the cover-up is always worse that the crime," and demanding that Ban Ki-moon rebuke and renounce them. But will it happen?

   Here for the record, and as requested by free press advocates in several continents, are comments which were on the Indian Star page which Ban's son in law, not stopped and presumably encouraged by Ban, got removed from the Internet by legal intimidation:

(Replied: Saturday, May 02, 2009, 06:05 am EST)

Interesting indeed. Some of us have, until very recently, had the misfortune of being exposed to this man, in a professional sense, in Iraq. Spineless is a very appropriate term to use in describing this individual. There are more, but few are fit for publication. He is, indeed, a discredit to India, the Indian Army, and now the UN (where, incidentally, he has recently moved on significant promotion - despite already being totally over-promoted in the opinion of all that know, and have to work with, him). The recent recruitment of this man to the United Nations Office of Project Services in Copenhagen is yet another example of the ineptitude, nepotism and corruption which is so prevalent within the UN system, even at the highest levels (in this case, within UNOPS). But those in Baghdad are delighted that UNOPS has taken him away from Iraq all the same.

It is a shame. And it would appear people are still being fooled.

 and Posted: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 06:34 am EST

SANDHAYA AGARWAL (India)

Siddharth Chatterjee is a spineless man .He could not even pass the staff exams in Indian Army ... IT IS A SHAME THAT United Nations... GET FOOLED

   After the Indian Star article and its comments went offline, they still remained available in the cache of Google and other search engines.  Ban's son in law's lawyers made more legal threats -- "this is round two of the Bans and Google," said one observer of plans by the UN to get Inner City Press removed from Google News, click here for the most recent -- to get it out of cache.

  Now even that censorship of questions of nepotism within Ban's UN has been accomplished -- click here for the now empty cache page.

   Siddarth Chatterjee a public figure, and thus his legal threats are spurious, even an abuse of process. He is the son in law of the UN Secretary General, he was awarded a job at the UN's D-2 level (see below. Now, after refusing to answer Inner City Press' repeated questions referred by Ban's Spokesperson's Office if Chatterjee is a D-2 or a D-1, UNOPS tells other journalists that he is a D-1, in order to forestall other media coverage. Will it work?

  Most recently, UNOPS in Copenhagen has told a Nordic newspaper what Chatterjee is a D-1, without explaining that the post was described by UNOPS' deputy director, in writing, as a D-2 post:

From: Vitaly VANSHELBOIM
Sent: 03 March 2009 11:09
To: UNOPS - EMO
Subject: Welcome to the new mailgroup

As you know, yesterday EUO and MEO formally merged into a new regional office called EMO (Europe and the Middle East) based in Copenhagen...I will be acting Regional Director of EMO until we have recruited a “permanent” replacement. In response to our advertisement for the D-2 regional director job, we received some 130 applications. Five candidates were short-listed for interviews: four were interviewed last Friday and the last interview is scheduled for Thursday this week. We’d like to make a decision by mid-March.

    So even assuming that, as in Iraq, the UN decided even if only belatedly to keep Mr. Chatterjee a level below the grade of the post they awarded him, that is only being done to discourage press coverage of nepotism.

  Even this raises questions of whether Ban, who came into the UN system promising reform and to run things cleanly, is due to his relatives' promotions so paranoia and angry about questions of nepotism that he has a conflict of interest in dealing with charges of nepotism against others in the UN, for example his own envoy to the Congo Alan Doss -- click here for that.

Inner City Press broke the story about Alan Doss asking the UN Development Program for "leeway," to bend hiring rules and give his daughter Rebecca Doss a job in UNDP's Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific leading to a "man bite man" incident which was the focus of other media's follow up coverage. After Inner City Press' story about Ban and nepotism early on August 14, Ban's Deputy Spokesperson wrote to Inner City Press that:

From: okabe@un.org
To: matthew.lee@innercitypress.com
Sent: 8/14/2009 7:57:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: your latest entry

What I said was that queries on the biting incident should be directed to the NY County DA Office.

On the allegations, we take the matter very seriously.

"The Secretary-General is aware of the situation. He has been assured that a thorough independent investigation is underway, He takes this matter very seriously, and expects to see a report upon his return to NY."

   Ban Ki-Moon returned to New York from his South Korea vacation and delivered prepared remarks at a World Humanitarian Day event in the UN's visitors' lobby on August 19. He took no questions.  On August 21, after waiting two days, Inner City Press asked Ms. Okabe if Ban had as he expected now received the report on nepotism, and what would he do about it?

   Ms. Okabe answered that although Ban had returned to New York, he had gone on leave again. So finally, what will he do?

Footnotes: in the course of legally threatening the Indian newspaper -- but not U.S. based Inner City Press -- it was argued that the Indian Star report which triggered the two comments Chatterjee and Ban did not like was "based only on a blog." The response was that Inner City Press is better read, at least online, than the Indian newspaper they threatened.

  On that, Reuters of August 21 reported that "U.N. officials also complain bitterly about the indefatigable blogger Matthew Lee, whose website Inner City Press regularly accuses Ban and other U.N. officials of hypocrisy and failing to keep their promises to reform the United Nations and root out corruption." Later, a telling second phrase was added: "(Some U.N. officials accuse Lee of not always getting his facts right, but his blog has become unofficial required reading for U.N. staffers around the world.)"

   Ironically, on August 20 a UN under secretary general approached Inner City Press about the anti-Ban memo by Norwegian deputy permanent representative Mona Juul, having "just read it on your blog." For all of Ms. Juul's criticism of Ban, from Myanmar to Sri Lanka to climate change, Juul missed the nepotism and family connection angle. Her husband Terje Roed Larsen works for Ban, as another of his Under Secretaries General who has refused to make any disclosure of his finance or to answer Inner City Press' questions about them.

   This is run for the proposition that as well as being a nepotism cover up scandal, this is a story about new media. Ban and his son in law have lawyers threaten ill-read newspapers for daring to carry a report based on what they call the "blog" Inner City Press and two resulting comments. They urge what they view as "real" or mainstream media not to cover stories which are broken by Inner City Press -- which, for example, had the world exclusive, acknowledged on Associated Press and in Japan media amog others, of the final draft of the Security Council's North Korea sanctions.

   Inner City Press, which writes more about Myanmar than other UN based correspondents, was never even told of the opportunity, given to others, to accompany and report on Ban's ultimately failed trip there. Some say that in all this, Ban is being ill-advised by those around him. The question remains: is this anachronistic media strategy of cover up, deployed by Team Ban, working? Watch this site.

August 17, 2009

UN's Ban Expects Nepotism Report Aug. 18, As His Daughter's and Son in Law's Promotion Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 14 -- Questions about nepotism at the UN have multiplied this summer, now leading directly to the top. The efforts by Alan Doss, the Special Representative to the Democratic Republic of the Congo of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, to procure a job for his daughter Rebecca with the UN Development Program, documented by an e-mail obtained and first published by Inner City Press in which Mr. Doss requested "leeway" from applicable hiring rules, has triggered an investigation on which a report is now expected on August 18.

  On August 14, Mr. Ban's Spokesperson's Office in a message to Inner City Press disputed that they have been dodging questions and said that Ban "takes this matter very seriously, and expects to see a report upon his return to New York" on August 18. This was reiterated on camera in response to follow-up questions from Inner City Press, here.

   But Mr. Ban himself has been subject to nepotism related questions. His son in law Siddath Chatterjee, already given a promotion by another SRSG Staffan de Mistura, in May obtained an even higher job with the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen. Inner City Press, which happened on the story while in Copenhagen covering Mr. Ban's trip to Sri Lanka, asked Ban's Spokesperson's Office to confirm the rank and hiring. The Office refused until, four days later, Inner City Press published the story.

   Even then, UNOPS refused to state how high a promotion Ban's son in law was given. Internal UNOPS e-mails subsequently obtained by Inner City Press and published below show that it is at the D-2 level, the rank immediately below Assistant Secretary General. Also below is a detailed message concerning Ban's son in law's work in Iraq which calls the promotion into question.

   Now despite Ban's Spokesperson's Office referring the question to yet another UN agency, UNICEF, Inner City Press has obtained confirmation that Ban's daughter in late June was given a Temporary Fixed Term contract by UNICEF, in Copenhagen where her husband in May got the promotion. Throughout the UN system, Inner City Press has met spouses who are unable to obtain jobs in the same city, country or even continent.

   So, some ask, how seriously can or will Ban take the Doss affair?


UN's Ban and and his DRC envoy Alan Doss shaking hands: sharing a POV?
 
   When last month Inner City Press asked a senior Ban advisor to confirm UNOPS' hiring and promotion of Ban's son in law, the response was that it is a "sensitive" matter but that Ban's Spokesperson should answer. After posing the question, no response was given for four days.
 
  Similarly, when Inner City Press from July 31 on asked about Ban's envoy Alan Doss' e-mail asking for leeway in the hiring of his daughter, Mr. Ban's Spokesperson's Office repeatedly referred all questions to UNDP, even though Doss works for Mr. Ban and the Secretariat.

   At the UN's noon briefing on August 14, before publishing this story, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe to respond to those who question if how Ban views and deals with the Doss matter may be impacted by Ban's own "sensitivity," as the Ban advisor put it, to questions about the UN system hirings of his daughter and son in law. "Absolutely no connection between the two," Ms. Okabe said. Video here, from Minute 10:48. Watch this site.

   Regarding Mr. Ban's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee, first from a whistleblowing source anonymous due to fear of retaliation, and then official but internal UNOPS e-mails:

To Inner City Press

I hope you succeed in drawing this level of nepotism to the attention of all, both within and without the UN system. The Iraqis deserved better. UNOPS, for all its faults, deserves better.

Overview of Sid Chatterjee:

Sid was a junior MOVCON officer in northern Iraq during the 986 (Oil for Food) program. Staffan de Mistura was with WFP in northern Iraq, and this is where they met. Sid went on to become a security officer for UNICEF (Somalia), ending up as P4. When de Mistura was appointed SRSG Iraq, apparently Sid called, asked if he could work for him as Chief of Staff, and was immediately given the job. The COS post is a D2 appointment, but Sid was brought in, and ‘performed’ the role, as a D1. He has moved to Regional Director with UNOPS as D2 (see below):

...Never made a decision as COS in Baghdad – never did anything which might be used against him in some way in the future. Kept a clean slate throughout – the problem being, of course, that the mission virtually ground to a halt, as no decisions were made, and no direction given.... In essence, an over-promoted, under qualified, totally ineffective individual, concerned only with getting as high as possible within the system, while conditions are in his favor. (That may seem very subjective, but I can assure you it is the opinion of the vast majority of people in Iraq, especially those working in UNAMI itself. When one international member of UNAMI staff heard Sid had been recruited as Regional Director for UNOPS, he shouted: “D2? D2? He’s not even a f***ing P2!)

Overview of Jan Mattsson:

Came to UNOPS, from UNDP, in 2006... Not field orientated, which is a shame for a UN entity which is predominantly field based. Built a huge empire in Copenhagen, with ludicrous senior staff levels (at P5 and above level). UNOPS, of course, is unique in the UN system, as it is the only entity which is entirely project funded (no core funds whatsoever). Those in the field now have to work harder to fund the bureaucracy which has been established in Copenhagen. Has very weak interpersonal skills, and is utterly hopeless (embarrassingly so) when engaging in conversation with others (including donors, national government representatives etc). His only concern, it is felt by many, is to achieve USG rank before he retires. Of course, only the Secretary General can appoint USGs. Hence Sid to Copenhagen, on promotion.

From: Jan MATTSSON
Sent: 01 May 2009 06:49
To: UNOPS - ALL STAFF
Subject: Appointment of Siddharth Chatterjee as Regional Director for Europe and the Middle East (EMO)

Dear Colleagues,

UNOPS is pleased to announce the appointment of Siddharth Chatterjee as Regional Director for Europe and the Middle East (EMO), stationed in Copenhagen. Starting today Sid will be responsible for UNOPS operations in this new regional office set-up, developing business and delivering a full range of quality services to clients. He will explore partnerships within and outside the UN, including the private sector. And as part of UNOPS senior management team Sid will, like the other Regional Directors, help shape the future direction of the organization. Sid will report directly to Vitaly and myself.

A national of India, Sid is a graduate of the National Defence Academy of India and obtained a certificate in Social Policy from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. For more than 12 years he has held positions of increasing responsibility in UN peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Iraq, and with UNICEF in Sudan, Indonesia and Somalia. Previously he served 12 years with distinction in the Indian Army Special Forces, rising to the rank of senior Major.

Sid’s familiarity with multi-sector programmes in emergency, transition and development environments, combined with leadership experience in the military and the UN will be a real asset to UNOPS.

Sid is a poet, a keen golfer, enjoys long distance running and scuba diving, and when time allows he willingly jumps out of perfectly good airplanes.

Please give Sid your strong support in our shared efforts to strengthen UNOPS for the benefit of our partners and the people we ultimately serve.

Warm regards,

Jan

Jan Mattsson | Executive Director | Copenhagen, Denmark |

[From Inner City Press' well placed source] Several things are of note about the recruitment. Was it transparent? Nobody thinks so. Is he qualified for a D2 post? Certainly not. His previous experience within the UN was mostly as a junior international staff. The e-mail refers to him having gained a ‘certificate’ in Social Policy from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands – which is a weak attempt to cover up the fact that he does not have a degree (I don’t think he has a first degree, and certainly hasn’t got a Masters degree – a usual requirement for any Professional (P) post, whether junior or senior (and certainly Masters required for D level posts).

...In essence, he is officially totally under-qualified for a D2 post. Not only under-qualified, but his qualifications would, in normal circumstances, actually preclude him from even being short-listed.

  For the record, here is what UNOPS, to which Ban's Office of the Spokesperson referred Inner City Press when weeks ago Inner City Press first raised the issue, said in response to a request to know whether the S-G's son in law's post was at the D-1 or D-2 level:

Subj: response from UNOPS to your question
From: [Deputy Spokespeson at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 7/24/2009 11:48:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Response from UNOPS on the selection of Siddharth Chatterjee as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and Middle East

Siddharth Chatterjee, was appointed in May 2009 as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and the Middle East (EMO). He was awarded the position after competing successfully in a routine and transparent recruitment process independently managed by UNOPS.

Mr. Chatterjee met or exceeded all the criteria for the post. UNOPS totally rejects any suggestion that he gained the position due to family connections.

For 12 years Mr. Chatterjee held positions of increasing responsibility in UN peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Iraq, and working for UNICEF in Sudan, Indonesia and Somalia. Earlier he served 12 years with distinction in the Indian Army Special Forces, including duty as a military observer for the UN, rising to the rank of senior Major. During the recruitment process he impressed the selection panel with his 24 years of leadership and experience handling UN tasks in conflict and post-conflict settings.

The post of regional director was advertised on UNOPS website and in prominent international media. UNOPS received 121 applications, and short listed five candidates based on their specific experience and their match to the competencies sought for the position. UNOPS conducted a formal panel interview with these five, asking identical questions of each. The candidates were ranked based on their interview scores. References were checked and the successful candidate offered the position.

  This response does not state Mr. Ban's son in law's new rank nor compensation, nor describe "any safeguards in place" nor "confirm that the spouses of the Secretary General and Mr. Mattssson met in late May, describe all use of UN system personnel in this regard and the cost. Please describe and disclose all communications between the Bans and the Mattssons, in connection with the hiring, with S-G's decision to increase UNOPS' autonomy in hiring and the increase in D-1 and D-2 positions and otherwise."

  These questions were reiterated to UNOPS and the UN Spokesperson's Office on July 24, but were never answered. In the interim, Inner City Press has obtained an internal UNOPS email documenting that Mr. Ban's son in law's post is at the higher, D-2 level:

From: Vitaly VANSHELBOIM

Sent: 03 March 2009 11:09

To: UNOPS - EMO

Subject: Welcome to the new mailgroup

As you know, yesterday EUO and MEO formally merged into a new regional office called EMO (Europe and the Middle East) based in Copenhagen...I will be acting Regional Director of EMO until we have recruited a “permanent” replacement. In response to our advertisement for the D-2 regional director job, we received some 130 applications. Five candidates were short-listed for interviews: four were interviewed last Friday and the last interview is scheduled for Thursday this week. We’d like to make a decision by mid-March.

   From Ms. Okabe Friday morning:

From: Deputy Spokesperson at un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 8/14/2009 7:57:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: your latest entry

What I said was that queries on the biting incident should be directed to the NY County DA Office.

On the allegations, we take the matter very seriously.

"The Secretary-General is aware of the situation. He has been assured that a thorough independent investigation is underway, He takes this matter very seriously, and expects to see a report upon his return to NY."

   Before the August 14 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked, among other things, "please confirm that the report you refer to will be the one by UNDP's Office of Audit and Investigation. As the article you're responding to reports, sources in UNDP say the investigation is being compromised by its leadership's long time friendship with Alan Doss. (1) Any response? More important and on deadline: following up on my questions about the hiring of the S-G's son in law by UNOPS, which your Office after not providing any answers about for four days ended up referring to UNOPS only after publication and public raising, (2) please confirm this morning that the S-G's daughter has also obtained a UN system job on a Fixed Term Contract in Copenhagen, and how it should be viewed as above board given the son in law's getting a UNOPS there."

   Ms. Okabe did not comment on the credibility of UNDP's investigation, nor the other matter. Rather, she referred Inner City Press to UNICEF, from which

Subj: Answers your queries re: employment status Ms. Ban
From: Spokesman at unicef.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 8/14/2009 10:25:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time


Hi Matthew,

Answers on Ms. Ban.

  Ms. Ban commenced work with UNICEF in January 2003 as a JPO.  After completing her term as a JPO and serving the obligatory period away from service, she competed for and won a P2 position in our Sudan office in January 2005.

  Currently, she is employed on a 12-month temporary contract (TFT) with UNICEF (at the P3 level) based in Copenhagen which started on 29 June 2009. Her title is "Project Manager: Supply Web Catalogue" in our Supply Division's Knowledge Management section.

  From Feb 2006 to 2008, she held a post as a UNICEF staff member based in Nairobi. In 2008, she requested (and was granted) special leave from her staff position in Nairobi. After a period on special leave without pay, she resigned from that post.

  Earlier this year she applied for the temporary position mentioned above in Copenhagen. Candidates were reviewed according to our normal procedures, she was gauged the best candidate and she was offered the job.

  The work she is undertaking for UNICEF has no relationship whatsoever with the position her husband occupies in UNOPS.  It is not uncommon for married couples to apply for positions that allow them to live in the same city/country.

   A Ban adviser after Friday's noon briefing argued that married couples should be allowed to be posted together. Inner City Press does not disagree, but has met many couples in the UN system forced to be apart. Shouldn't all UN staff be treated equally? As one source asked, isn't preferential treatment for relatives of high officials the definition of nepotism? Watch this site.

At UN, Biting Incident Reveals Nepotism of UNDP and Congo Envoy, Whistleblower Maced

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 30 -- The biting incident at the UN, on which Inner City Press exclusively reported one week ago, has its roots in a glaring case of nepotism in which the UN's top envoy to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Alan Doss, lobbied to get his daughter the UN Development Program job effectively held and applied for by alleged biter, Mr. Nicola Baroncini.

   When Mr. Baroncini was suspected of knowing of the nepotism, documented by an e-mail to UNDP from Mr. Doss, he was fired, forcibly removed, with pepper spray, from the UN compound and arrested by NYPD on the basis of false accusations. Doss' daughter Rebecca is now ensconced in the disputed UNDP job, while Mr. Baroncini is due in Criminal Court on August 10 on charges of third degree assault.

   The case is an early test of UNDP Administrator Helen Clark, in the job for 100 days now, and new UN Security chief Gregory Starr, with whom Mr. Baroncini is asking to meet in order to withdraw the criminal charges against him. Also in question is how Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will react to documented allegations of improper requests and nepotism by his personal envoy to one of the UN's largest and most controversial peacekeeping missions.

   Documents filed with the US Department of State, obtained by Inner City Press, show the lead-up to the June 22 pepper spray. On March 16, 2009, after several other UNDP posts ranging from Cambodia to New York, Mr. Baroncini began functioning as assistant to Ms. Ligia Elizondo, Deputy Director of UNDP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific (RBAP).

  According to the complaint Mr. Baroncini was "managing her personal agenda; screening inbound and outbound communications; organizing meetings; reviewing documents and other material; distributing tasks within the bureau. I had unlimited access to her UNDP email account. My tasks also included email filing (in my hard drive)."

  A month later in April according to the complaint, Mr. Baroncini "witnessed that Ms. Elizondo received several phone calls from Rebecca Doss. Her CV was permanently in Ms. Elizondo’s in-tray. Also while filing Ms. Elizondo’s UNDP email inbox I came across several emails from Rebecca Doss to Ms. Elizondo. In one, Rebecca made reference to the position of 'Special Assistant to RBAP Deputy Director' and said that she would contact Ms. Elizondo at home."

  Subsequently, Mr. Baroncini applied for and was one of four short-listed candidates for this post, whose functions he was already performing. Other candidates included Violeta Maximova and Rebecca Doss, whose father Alan Doss, in charge of the UN's billion dollar peacekeeping mission in the Congo, wrote on April 20 to Ms. Elizondo

"Dear Ligia,

This is just to inform that I have advised UNDP in writing that I will transfer to DPKO effective 1 July 2009. I have also spoken to Martin and advised him that I cannot transfer before that date because the new DPKO contractual arrangements only come into effect on the 1 July. He informed me that the ‘deadline’ for the ALD contracts is 15 May so the period of overlap would only be 6 weeks (assuming Rebecca’s ALD would come into force on the 14th May at the latest). I have asked for some flexibility, which would allow a very long serving and faithful UNDP staff member a little lee-way before he rides off into the sunset.

Becky is very excited about the prospect of going to work for you so I hope that it will work out. With my warm regards and thanks,

Alan.

Alan Doss
Special Representative of the Secretary-General United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo"

E-mail in docx text format - download

  When Inner City Press asked the UN spokesperson's office on July 27 about the and biting incident and the underlying recruitment, Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq said "it had to do with a frustrated jobseeker. The only thing I can say is the information I got from UNDP on this is that the hiring process regarding that particular vacancy at UNDP was filled in accordance with their rules." Transcript here, video here.

  But as Doss' email in the complaint shows, since it is illegal for the child of a UNDP staff member, as Doss then was, to be hired by UNDP, Doss asked for "a little lee-way" -- to ignore what he called a six week overlap. The propriety of a UN Under Secretary General making personal contact and applying pressure to waive rules and award a job to his daughter has not yet been addressed.

  Next, Ms. Maximova and Ms. Doss were declared the top two candidates. Ms. Maximova suddenly was offered and accepted a job at the Clinton Foundation / Initiative, and Ms. Doss was given the job.

  Mr. Baroncini spoke with the Director of RBAP, Mr. Ajay Chhibber, on July 19. Initially, Mr. Chhibber took an interest in hearing out Mr. Baroncini, offering him advice. But once Ms. Elizondo realized that Mr. Baroncini might, in the course of his duties, have become aware of the improper influence in the hiring decision, Mr. Baroncini had his email access terminated and was told to no longer come in to UNDP.

  Subsequently, according to the complaint filed by Mr. Baroncini:

I voiced my complete disapproval and said that I will challenge this decision with the appropriate personnel.

I handed to Mr. Chhibber a print-out of Alan Doss’ email to Ms. Elizondo of April 20, 2009 and told him, “In case you do not know, this is the way human resources selection works in UNDP.” I repeated that I will challenge this course of events.

Within a couple of minutes a man arrived. He asked for my UN badge and requested that I leave the building. I began collecting my personal belonging. The whole process took several minutes.

Three UN Department of Safety and Security Guards approached me. Immediately, Peter Kolonias, one of the guards, ordered me to enter office 2312 of DC-1. I complied immediately.

I entered the office and sat down escorted by two UN DSS Security Guards. The door was shut. Shortly, my wife joined me (she works elsewhere in UNDP).

After waiting for some time, I asked the guards about the procedures in place and why we had been waiting for so long. In several instances I was told that Ms. Elizondo was giving a written statement and that once she had completed it would be my turn.

I began asking for access to a lawyer and my consulate. I repeated this request frequently (I would say every 15 minutes) both to the guard inside office 2312 and to other officials that entered the office.

I asked my wife to leave office 2312 and look for Mr. Chhibber and ask him to speak with me. I wanted to understand if he had any control concerning what was happening, and I wanted to share my concerns about this absurd escalation of events.

My wife left the office, but the guards outside invited her to join Ms. Elizondo and Ms. Jovita Domingo, a UNDP human resources advisor, inside Ms. Elizondo’s office. There, they questioned my wife about our private life until a UN official wearing a white uniform came in and my wife was invited to leave by Ms. Elizondo.

Once my wife left Ms. Elizondo’s office, they shut the door and had a meeting. My wife returned to office 2312.

The UN official wearing a white uniform along with the third UN DSS guard, Peter Kolonias, joined the two other UN DSS guards inside office 2312. They asked my wife to leave and shut the door.

The UN official wearing a white uniform swiftly informed me that I had two options: leave the building with them or be handcuffed.

I felt that something very wrong was happening and again I requested access to a lawyer, the Italian consulate and to give a statement.

The second or third time I repeated my requested I was assaulted.

First, Peter Kolonias put me to the floor. The two other guards followed immediately. They tried to immobilize me using every sort of technique. I was kicked repeatedly on the leg, stomach and neck. I was punched repeatedly on the neck, head and face. Twice, at close range, I was sprayed a pepper spray on the face. Immediately, and for about two hours thereafter, I was blinded and suffered tremendous pain on the face and eyes. Other than limited access to water, I was denied proper medical treatment despite my repeated requests.

Eventually I was handcuffed. UN DSS guards brought me outside office 2312 and I waited there for about 1˝ hours, handcuffed, sitting in a chair in RBAP Directorate area.

At 2:35 pm, NYPD officers arrived and I was officially arrested

Eventually I was escorted outside DC1 building where an ambulance was waiting

I waited handcuffed until approximately 7:40 pm in a waiting room of Bellevue Hospital. After meeting with a Dr. Falck, I was immediately discharged.

I was brought to a police facility where NYPD took my fingerprints, and I awaited transportation to 100 Centre Street.

After routine procedures, I was jailed until 9:30 am of the following day. The jail was no more than 17-18 square meters. The number of detainees kept changing between 18 and 20 men. No restroom. Primitive sanitation. No hygiene facilities.

My case was reviewed, and I was immediately released without any bail payment. I am set to appear in Court on August 10, 2009."

   These techniques -- the pepper spraying of those who ask questions, pressing of criminal charges as retaliation -- are the type of tactics that the UN and officials like Alan Doss criticize in places like the Congo. But the UN engages in them right on First Avenue in New York. What will Ban Ki-moon, Gregory Starr and Helen Clark each do? In the case Ms. Clark, she was officially informed of all of the above on July 27, and her closest advisor Heather Simpson a full week before that. Now what? Watch this site.

  UNDP has told Inner City Press first that

"There was an unfortunate and isolated incident involving an employee of UNDP on 23rd June 2009. UN Security and the New York Police Department responded, and it is now being handled by the authorities of the host government."

  Then after a follow up request by Inner City Press to UNDP spokesperson Stephane Dujarric that UNDP "provide the requested description of the recruitment process, the name of the post and the person awarded, and whether they have any family or personal relationship with the supervisor or selector," UNDP Administrator Helen Clark's spokesperson Christina LoNigro responded that "we cannot comment further on this case at this time as the legal process is ongoing."


At UN, Questions of Ban's Son in Law's Hirings and Promotion Unanswered, In Denmark

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 23, updated -- In today's United Nations, questions of possible nepotism and family connections have become taboo. Few pose or pursue them and if asked, they are not answered. The lack of transparency starts at the very top. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's son in law Siddharth Chatterjee, well placed sources tell Inner City Press, has recently transferred with a promotion from the UN Mission in Iraq, from which patron Staffan de Mistura has left, to the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen, Denmark, under a new patron, Jan Mattsson.

   In late May, Inner City Press traveled with Ban Ki-moon and senior advisors including his speech writer to Sri Lanka and back. On the return leg, after photo opportunities including a scene in the government run internment camp in Vavuniya in which detained children sung the name of Mr. Ban, the UN plane stopped in Copenhagen. An environmental conference for business executives was taking place in the Bella Center, which will host December's climate talks.

  Outside the Center, Inner City Press met and interviewed an official from the UN Development Program. He said his job that Sunday was to drive Mr. Ban's wife to meet with the wife of UNOPS chief Jan Mattsson. He added incongruously that he'd been told to wait off to the side of these meeting of spouses. Inner City Press alluded to this in its dispatch from Copenhagen, wondering but not directly asking if this was an appropriate use of UN money and staff time.

   In New York this month, well placed UN sources told Inner City Press that Siddharth Chatterjee had quietly shifted from the UN in Baghdad to UNOPS in Copenhagen back in early May, once it was clear Staffan de Mistura was leaving his post of Ban's envoy in Iraq to take the number two post in the World Food Program. (Inner City Press was the first to report de Mistura's departure and replacement by UNDP's Ad Melkert, here and here.) The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to express fear of retaliation, said that Ban's son in law was getting a promotion.

  When Chatterjee took the Baghdad job as de Mistura's chief of staff, he was slated for a promotion. After Inner City Press and then the Washington Post wrote about it, the UN quickly and some felt defensively announced that Chatterjee would not be moving up a grade in UN pay scale. The Post reported that "This has greatly upset the U.N. rank and file, who are fretting that maybe Chatterjee is trying to leapfrog other qualified staff to get the assignment "

 When Inner City Press asked about it, spokesperson Michele Montas replied on video that "we feel the publication of any information that increases the risk to any staff member and to the mission as a whole is not very helpful." (Apparently this argument is now being extended from Baghdad to Copenhagen). Team Ban hastened to argue that since Chatterjee had known de Mistura before, no nepotism was involved and again that the hire should not have been reported at all.

  But de Mistura, as a savvy UN player, has a history of hiring the relatives of powerful Headquarters officials. He hired the son of Kofi Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza, even creating a middleman for payment to skirt rules or scrutiny. The source opine to Inner City Press that Mattsson, until recently criticized in the UN system for UNOPS' lack of audit and then identified system flaws, is emulating de Mistura. It is a fact that during the recent New York meeting of the executive board of UNOPS and UNDP, Ban issued a ruling that gave Mattsson greater freedom in staffing decisions, used to increase the number of higher level D-1 and D-2 positions at UNOPS in Copenhagen.

  Against this backdrop, Inner City Press on July 20 asked Ban's speech writer, who is also the Director of Communications, about what whistleblowing staff had said of Chatterjee. Under Kofi Annan, Inner City Press would simply have gone to then UN spokespeople and asked a factual question, as it once did about a trust fund controlled by the family of Annan's wife. Such factual questions deserve factual answers; counter interpretations of the facts can be offered too, and included as quotes in stories. On this story, all that Team Ban has said is that Ban is concerned about safety, and sensitive to family.

  Also on June 20, Inner City Press put factual question about Chatterjee to Ban's chief Spokesperson Michele Montas. She said she would get the answers. Inner City Press said, in light of Team Ban's argument that Ban is sensitive to family matters, that it would choose to question and await answers outside of the UN's formal noon briefing. At the June 21 noon briefing Inner City Press asked about Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Afghanistan but not the Chatterjee questions, choosing instead to approach Ms. Montas afterwards expecting response to the simple factual questions. But none were given.

  Nor the next day, June 22, on the eve of Ban's and his Spokesperson's trip to China and Mongolia. On July 23 a 10 a.m. debate on the "Responsibility to Protect" hosted by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann will not include Ban due it's said to his trip. A source on Ban's 38th floor, long after working hours, nodded despairing, "why don't they just answer the questions? To refuse to just makes Ban look worse," adding hopefully that management, media relations and communications changes may be made "for the good of the UN" during Ban's time in his native country in August.

  The UN's own Office of Internal Oversight Services appears to do nothing in this regard. Even in the face of the President of the General Assembly's unexplained hiring with UN money of two relatives, reported first by Inner City Press and then the Times of London, OIOS has not acted. Inner City Press asked and was told that jurisdiction is being "looked into," but that complaints by anonymous sources, even those fear retaliations, should not be given weight.

  The issue arose at a recent UN noon briefing, where Inner City Press was told that no more questions about the hirings would be accepted. At much lower levels of governance, questions about boss' son in law being hired and promoted within the Organization would be asked and answers given. Why is it different within this UN? Watch this site.


Update: Four days after Inner City Press off-camera asked the UN Office of the Spokesperson to confirm that Mr. Ban's son in law got a promotion at UNOPS, still with no answered the question was asked at the July 23 noon briefing. The question was dodged, but after the briefing Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe quietly confirmed that yes, Ban's son in law now works at UNOPS. She would not state how many ranks he'd been promoted, saying despite its relevance to the Secretariat that all questions should be directed to UNOPS's spokesperson. He is out of the office into August, but half-responded below the following questions:

Hello. I have been directed by the UN Spokesperson's Office, Marie Okabe, to direct questions to you about UNOPS' hiring of Siddarth Chatterjee, the Secretary General's son in law:

what is his current position: D-1 or D-2? What was his position before: P-5? Please state and confirm or deny. Please state what will be Mr. Chatterjee's compensation. was the vacancy announced? what was the vacancy number? many applicants for the vacancy were there? beyond specific responses to the questions above, please describe the UNOPS recruitment and hiring process, and any safeguards in place.

Please confirm that the spouses of the Secretary General and Mr. Mattssson met in late May, describe all use of UN system personnel in this regard and the cost. Please describe and disclose all communications between the Bans and the Mattssons, in connection with the hiring, with S-G's decision to increase UNOPS' autonomy in hiring and the increase in D-1 and D-2 positions and otherwise.

  The next day, just before the noon briefing, the following arrived, responding to some but not all of the above questions:

Subj: response from UNOPS to your question
From: [Deputy Spokespeson at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 7/24/2009 11:48:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

Response from UNOPS on the selection of Siddharth Chatterjee as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and Middle East

Siddharth Chatterjee, was appointed in May 2009 as UNOPS Regional Director for Europe and the Middle East (EMO). He was awarded the position after competing successfully in a routine and transparent recruitment process independently managed by UNOPS.

Mr. Chatterjee met or exceeded all the criteria for the post. UNOPS totally rejects any suggestion that he gained the position due to family connections.

For 12 years Mr. Chatterjee held positions of increasing responsibility in UN peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Iraq, and working for UNICEF in Sudan, Indonesia and Somalia. Earlier he served 12 years with distinction in the Indian Army Special Forces, including duty as a military observer for the UN, rising to the rank of senior Major. During the recruitment process he impressed the selection panel with his 24 years of leadership and experience handling UN tasks in conflict and post-conflict settings.

The post of regional director was advertised on UNOPS website and in prominent international media. UNOPS received 121 applications, and short listed five candidates based on their specific experience and their match to the competencies sought for the position. UNOPS conducted a formal panel interview with these five, asking identical questions of each. The candidates were ranked based on their interview scores. References were checked and the successful candidate offered the position.

  This response does not state Mr. Ban's son in law's new rank nor compensation, nor describe "any safeguards in place" nor "confirm that the spouses of the Secretary General and Mr. Mattssson met in late May, describe all use of UN system personnel in this regard and the cost. Please describe and disclose all communications between the Bans and the Mattssons, in connection with the hiring, with S-G's decision to increase UNOPS' autonomy in hiring and the increase in D-1 and D-2 positions and otherwise."

  These questions were reiterated to UNOPS and the UN Spokesperson's Office on July 24. Watch this site.

Proponents of R2P Say That UN's D'Escoto and Sen Are Opposed - But Honduras Is An Exception

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 16 -- The Responsibility to Protect, a concept seemingly endorsed by the UN in 2005 but since largely ignored, for example during the slaughter of civilians in Sri Lanka earlier this year, is the subject of a showdown in the UN General Assembly starting July 23. Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, the President of the General Assembly who told Inner City Press that R2P reminds him of U.S. interventions in Latin America, has scheduled a debate about the concept.

  The Global Center for R to P briefed the Press on July 16 and critiqued in advance what d'Escoto and his advisor on R2P, former Indian Ambassador to the UN Nirupam Sen, are predicted to say next week.

  Inner City Press asked James Traub, journalist and Global Center advisor, what he makes of d'Escoto Brockmann's appointment of Sen on R2P, and of the "murky" position of Ed Luck, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's advisor on the topic although the General Assembly does not allow use of that title or even a UN phone line by Mr. Luck.

  "I'll leave aside the Ed question," Traub began, saying that former Ambassador Sen "like Father Miguel is on record opposing" R2P. Traub noted that this "historical fact" is in his "book about the UN," that Sen's opposition to R2P was "resolved only when the Foreign Minister of Canada called the Foreign Minister of India" and said, you can't let your emissary block the passage of Responsibility to Protect.

  Traub's co-panelist William Pace of the World Federalist Movement added wryly, "That may be why it's a former Ambassador."

Sen has previously shot back at Ed Luck's characterization of his position on R2P, arguing to the Press that India was the first to invoke the responsibility to protect, on Bangladesh in the 1970s, and calling for a revamp of the UN Security Council, for example to prohibit a Permanent Five member of the Council from using its veto to block R2P action on itself or an ally.

   Lost in Thursday's discussion of the President of the General Assembly's position on the responsibility to protect, which he has equated with a "responsibility to intervene," is d'Escoto Brockmann's position that Manuel Zelaya, ousted from Honduras, should be restored to power in essence by any means necessary.

  D'Escoto flew on a jet owned by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez on a flight toward Tegucigalpa which was not approved by the on the ground Honduran authorities. Hugo Chavez, alongside threatening his own military action, has said that perhaps UN peacekeepers should be involved in getting Zelaya back into the country.

   This is a "right to intervene" invoked for political not humanitarian reasons. What is the difference? Watch this site.

At UN, Turkey Admits No Move to Put Xinjiang on Agenda, Ergodan Quote "Not Based on Realities"

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 9 -- The day after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted by that "We will put the events happening in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region onto the agenda of the United Nations' Security Council," Inner City Press asked the charge d'affaires of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations Fazli Corman about the quote and if Turkey had in fact made any moves to that effect. "We didn't make any moves on that," Ambassador Corman said. "That reports were not actually based on the realities."

    Inner City Press asked if Prime Minister Erdogan had been misquoted. Yes, Ambassador Corman indicated.

   This would not be the first time that a member of the UN Security Council said one thing in its country for popular consummation, but never acted on its within the UN in New York. But the Uighurs are a high profile political issue in Turkey, because they are not only Muslims but Turkic.

   On July 8, Inner City Press asked two senior diplomats with China's mission to the UN about Prime Minister Erdogan's quote, and wrote about it. The first expressed surprise. It was noted that only on June 25 Turkish President Abdullah Gul met with Hu Jintao in Beijing.  The second, higher placed, came to tell Inner City Press that his mission had "demarched" the Turkish Mission to the UN and that nothing would be raised. Other Security Council members, polled by Inner City Press on July 9 on the margins of a Council meeting about Somalia, expressed doubts that Turkey would even raise the issue. 

    In the hallway after the Council's Somalia meeting was over, Inner City Press approached Ambassador Corman as he finished speaking with U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative Alejandro Wolff and, after some questions about the North Korea sanctions committee that Turkey chairs, asked about Prime Minister Erdogan's quote.


  As noted, Ambassador Corman replied that the "reports were not actually based on the realities." One might interpret this to mean, not based on the political and economic realities.

   While China has a veto on any substantive decisions by the Council, as to the U.S., France, UK and Russia, there are no veto rights on procedural votes, such as whether to put a situation or conflict onto the Council's agenda. This is why, for example, Myanmar is on the agenda, despite opposition from China and Russia among others. Outgoing UK Permanent Representative John Sawers told the Press that Sri Lanka could have been put on the agenda of the Council earlier this year, the votes were there, but that the unity of the Council was deemed more important.

 In this case, some doubt if it is a desire for Council unity that explains the silence in the Council, even of Turkey despite its Prime Minister's quoted comments. China's economic importance, these critics say, give it in effect a double veto, or two forms of veto. While the immediately conflict in Xinjiang may be calming down, the underlying issues remain. But despite what Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan was quoted as saying -- that Turkey would put the issue on the Security Council's agenda -- is remains doubtful this will happen.

Burmese Days of UN's Ban Are a Failure, By Ban's Own Measure, N. Korea Fires

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 4 -- As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon leaves Myanmar, not only is Aung San Suu Kyi still on trial, Mr. Ban was not allowed to visit her. On the other hand, Ban offered ham handed praise of Than Shwe's moving his country forward. Ban claimed that perhaps other political prisoners would be released, if not now then before the election.

  Why did Ban Ki-moon go to Myanmar? In the run-up to the trip, before it was announced that he would go, Ban sent his envoy Ibrahim Gambari to test the waters. Whatever test was applied, upon Gambari's return to New York, Ban's office confirmed to the eight journalists hand picked to be allowed to cover Ban's trip that it would in fact occur. Several had been told in advance and had booked tickets, canceled them then re booked at additional cost.

   With Ban already in Japan with an entourage of 22 UN personnel -- but few of the selected UN correspondents cover this first leg of the trip -- Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson Michele Montas what would be in the indicia of if Ban's Myanmar venture was a success or a failure.

  The question was asked against the background of negative reviews of Ban's performance and predictions that Myanmar's Than Shwe regime would use Ban's trip to legitimize their trial of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and their highly controlled, pro-military mock election planned for 2010.

  Ms. Montas reacted with exasperation, saying that Ban had clearly enunciated his goals for the trip. But that was not the question: how would the public know if it was a success or failure? Montas appeared to acknowledge that if the goals Team Ban had set out were not moved forward during the trip, it would be a failure.

  Now, not only is Aung San Suu Kyi still on trial, Ban was not allowed to visit her.

  On the other hand, Ban offered ham handed praise of Than Shwe's moving his country forward. Ban claimed to his hand-picked scribes that perhaps other political prisoners would be released, if not now then before the election.

  Meanwhile North Korea, fresh from throwing Korean-speaking international UN staff out of the country, fired seven missiles in contempt for the US, the UN and, some said, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. The UN Spokesperson never provided basic information that had been promised in the pre-holiday press briefings. None of the promised pool reports were ever provided. And the circus like trip continued. Watch this site.

Footnote: as Inner City Press reported June 28 and was confirmed by Ban's Spokesperson Michele Montas on June 29, Ban's office hand-picked which journalists would be told of the opportunity to cover his trip to Burma. Ms. Montas first said that the UN "picked people who were willing to pool for others." On July 2, when Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas when these pool reports would begin, she reversed course and argued that "I said some of them were willing to pool, some of them... There is no print pooling, no."

  Inner City Press asked Ms. Montas to confirm the information in a list it has seen, that there are at least 22 UN personnel in Ban's traveling party, ranging from political chief Lynn Pascoe and deputy chief of staff Kim Won-soo to Hak-Fan Lau, to whom reporters on Ban's previous UN mission to Burma gave at least some pooled material. "I can check for you," Ms. Montas answered. By noon on July 4 in New York, no information was provided. Watch this site.

UN's Ban Tips Hat to Protesters from High Above NY, Claims He Met With Tamils

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 17, updated -- It was projected as a light evening of honor for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, to receive from the Foreign Policy Association a Global Humanitarian Award, along with former US president Bill Clinton.

   Clinton, however, canceled his appearance due to "family health issues" -- word on the street, literally 55th Street in front of the St. Regis Hotel, was that Hilary was in a car crash. [Update: the man in the street, as is so often the case, was half-right: Hilary broken her elbow on the way to the White House, but there was no vehicle involved.] And Ban himself was protested, for hours, with chants urging him to resign, or to "go home," or at least to feel shame.

   The protesters, it must be said, were nearly entirely ethnic Tamils. Despite the tens of thousands of people killed in the war in Sri Lanka, unlike Darfur, Myanmar or the Middle East, the victims have yet to gain noticeable solidarity from non-Tamils. This feels of abandonment was palpable Wednesday night in front of the St. Regis Hotel.

   Inner City Press, which has asked questions at the UN which have cut both ways but focused on civilians, was filming the photographing the protest. Several of the participants asked, where is the rest of the media? A television producer known to Inner City Press stopped by, gave congratulations for having found the news, but emerged from a cell phone calls saying that "there is no crew."

    One of the protesters asked, "No clue?" The producer continued along. Later two Turkish journalists stopped by, on their way to covering Ban Ki-moon's speech. They urged Inner City Press to come upstairs and hear it. Since Ban had slipped by the protesters -- click here for the blow by blow report filed in real time with wireless Internet from the street -- there was little left to do but to go up and hear him.

   A half-dozen seats had been set in the back of the ballroom for the press. There had been a reception; dinner had been served. Now Ban Ki-moon arose, and to his credit made a joke. "I was impressed and encouraged," he began, "I know there were hundreds of people who were welcoming me or some other person in front of the hotel."

   The audience, a mix of Ambassadors and business people, laughed. Several had been shouted at as they entered. Claude Heller, the Ambassador of Mexico who had at least tried to get the Security Council to consider the plight of civilians in Sri Lanka, had stopped and told Inner City Press, "this is good." But others hurried back the protest, as in finding the mention much less chanting of the word genocide in Midtown Manhattan distasteful.

   Ban said of the protesters, "I am aware of their concerns, their pride, their challenges... that is exactly why I went to Sri Lanka four weeks ago." It was May 23, and Inner City Press was with him. Ban said he had visited the IDP camps, "met with government leaders, with representatives of the opposition, representatives of the Tamil minority."

   About this last, doubts exist. As the press corps sat waiting on the UN plane at Colombo's airport, Inner City Press was told that Tamil MPs who had been promised a meeting with Ban were barred from the airport.

   Inner City Press asked UN officials Lynn Pascoe and John Holmes about this, and was told an answer was been forthcoming. None has been provided. Neither was visibly in attendance on Wednesday night, but seated with Ban was his chief of staff Vijay Nambiar.

   Down on 55th Street, a protesters displayed a sign, "$ for the Nambiyar brothers," meaning Vijay and Satish, a former Indian general part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force which occupied northern Sri Lanka in the late 1980s, strafing the population and losing 1500 troops before decamping.

    Many, including some of Ban's own senior advisors, say that sending Nambiar at the UN's envoy was unwise. Nambiar has been quoted that the doubts are beneath contempt. If so he better look around himself, as the doubts extend to the UN's 38th floor around him. Ban moved from Sri Lanka to the climate change issue, urging the Foreign Policy Association to help him "seal the deal in Copenhagen."

   The FPA, whose board members include former AIG big wig Maurice Greenberg and the CEO of Santander, a bank which allegedly laundered money for Augusto Pinochet, on Wednesday also gave an award to the CEO of an Italian oil company. These hypocrisies are beyond the scope of this article.

    Inner City Press had waited outside the St. Regis from six to 8:30 p.m., seeking to get from Ban himself a reaction to the protest. After the speeches and the dinner, Ban was spirited out by a side door, and faced neither the protesters nor the Press. A swag bag was passed out, with publications about oil.

   Down on 55th Street, the protesters had been told to leave at 8:30 by the police, who said that hotel had cooperated at much as it would. Ban said he heard the protesters, but he never faced them. His spokespeople have told Inner City Press that they will not comment on "what you read in the news about Sri Lanka." How about mass internment? Watch this site.


UN's Ban Questioned on Record, on Sri Lanka, Half Time Pep Talk

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 11 -- Half way into the five year term as UN Secretary General he was awarded in 2006, Ban Ki-moon on June11 tried to defend low grades he has received for his management of the UN and not "speaking truth to power."

  At Mr. Ban's press conference for June, his spokesperson Michele Montas pointedly did not call on Inner City Press. Only a week before she had said the UN should be able to regulate the Press, after a memo revealed her attendance at a May 8 meeting at which legal threats and "complaining to Google News" about Inner City Press was discussed. On June 11, she looked elsewhere to award the right to question.

   But CNN's longtime correspondent, characteristically classy, yielded his question to Inner City Press. Video here, from Minute 42:41. To inquire into Ban's views on his Spokesperson's and top officials' seeming underlying of freedom of the press, while necessary and to later be asked, had to take a back seat to a bigger picture question. From the UN's transcript, the question and then Ban's annotated answer:

Inner City Press: There is an article in today's Economist, called “Ban Ki-moon - the score at half time”. It reviews half of your first term. I want to ask you to respond to it. Under the rubric “truth to power” they give you a three out of ten, and they use the example of Sri Lanka - they say that Mr. Ban denied that the UN had leaked grim civilian casualty figures. On management they give two out of ten. There are some better grades, I acknowledge. On management, they say there is a problem with communicating with senior staff, that you have to show more leadership in drumming up peacekeepers.

I might add to that, protection of whistle-blowers and free press. I just wanted to know, do you agree with any of this critique, are there things you intend to do better in a second term? What do you make of this piece in the Economist assigning those two grades?

SG: I would regard it as the judgment of the Economist. There may be a different judgment on my performance. First of all, during the last two and a half years, I had three priorities. First of all, to catalyze a global response to critical global issues – like climate change, managing the consequences of the international economic crisis, global health and global terrorism. On climate change, you may agree with me that from almost dead - if not dead, a dormant status - this issue has risen to the level of leaders of the world. It has become a top priority issue of this world. I am going to really work hard to seal the deal in Copenhagen in December. I am working for all humanity, for the future of Planet Earth.

Note: Ban is clearly passionate about climate change, but some might also mention Al Gore in this role. Ban appointed a mentor and former boss in South Korea as a UN climate change envoy, then added the past General Assembly president Srgjan Kerim to his climate roster. These are patronage appointments, many feel, that do no credit to the environment and provide support for the grades the Economist gave.

SG: To deliver results to those most in need, you should know that I have been working very hard to represent the well-being of the most vulnerable people. I have been working as the voice of the voiceless people, and defend those people who are defenseless. You see my performance on the record.

Note: Most recently Ban went to Sri Lanka, and saw Tamils locked up in internment camps. Since returning to New York, Ban's Spokespeople have resisted commenting on the plight of these defenseless people, who are being locked up with UN funds.

  Inner City Press asked, what about the outgoing Sri Lankan chief justice's comment that the people in the camps have no legal protection, cannot get the jurisdiction of Sri Lankan court? Ban's Associate Spokesperson dryly called this a "national issue." So much for voice for the voiceless. Some say, apologist for governments.

SG: On reform, you should understand that this has been accumulating over the last sixty years. During the last two and a half years, I can proudly say that I have made significant changes in the working culture of the United Nations, to make this most transparent, accountable, efficient and mobile and effective. I don't claim that I have finished the job. There are much more things to be done in the reform process of the United Nations. Look at these accumulated, very cumbersome, bureaucratic systems of the United Nations. I am also in a very difficult position to move these reform processes ahead. Have you ever seen somebody who has been, as passionately as I have been doing, to change this working culture of the United Nations? There will be some complaints. People just love business as usual. They simply don't want to change. This is what I really wanted to change.

Note: Ban could have made his top officials file public financial disclosure, or face non reappointment. He didn't. He is viewed, perhaps because of those around him, as unapproachable by many. His top management official, Angela Kane, barely speaks with the Staff Union. Therefore few things have been reformed.

SG: You should look very closely and follow me, what I have been doing, what I have in my mind. I have never left climate change [or] reform of the United Nations. I will continue to do that, whatever somebody may say. But be sympathetic, and just try to closely follow what I have been doing, not just based on conventional wisdom. Fix your eyesight and vision on the 21st [century]. Don't look at the 1950s, 1960s., where the United Nations was the only universal body. Now you have so many international actors – the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, ASEAN – the United Nations must work together in close coordination with all these organizations. And we need the full support of the Member States.

Note: Ban appointed former peacekeeping chief Jean Marie Guehenno as his Under Secretary General for Regional Cooperation, that is on all these grounps. Then, Ban did not assign Guehenno a single piece of work. It was a patronage appointment, apparently designed to keep Guehenno's visa status. This is not a new way of doing busines.

SG: Without the political support, without resources provided by the Member States, it is difficult, however capable a person may be the Secretary-General. It is just impossible. I need more political support. I need more resources by the Member States. Then judge my support on the basis of that. The mandate should be supported and accompanied by the resources and political support. Don't just look at my performance on the basis of just vague or conventional perceptions of the United Nations.

  Note: Is it too conventional to think that the UN Secretary General should speak up for members of a minority group interned by a majoritarian government using UN money? Is it vague to think that a CEO who has he wants those whom he appointed to make public financial disclosure could easily bring it about, by conditioning appointment or re-appointment on disclosure? We could go on and on. The point is, what improvements will there be? Watch this site.

In UN (Non) Walls Would Have Ears, Under Kane Whistleblowers Beware

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 13 -- As the UN gears up to empty its Headquarters and knock down all the walls, a rift with the press corps has come into public view. It has to do with walls, and impacts the ability to report on and expose corruption and dysfunctions brought to light by whistleblowers.

  At Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's June 11 press conference, Mr. Ban was asked if he favors "current plans by UN management" to "start charging journalists for working space" or "to not provide proper office enclosure and security"?

   The issue first came to light last July when a memo was leaked to Inner City Press from within the Office of the Under Secretary General for Management, Angela Kane, stating that Ms. Kane wanted a list of other international or governmental organizations which, unlike UN Headquarters for sixty years, charge the press for space.

   After Inner City Press published this memo, which a whistleblower had slipped under the door of Inner City Press' office on the fourth floor of the UN, the correspondents' association was given assurances by the Department of Public Information that Ms. Kane's idea would not be implemented, that it was in essence merely an intellectual exercise.

   But months later, following more leaks from within Ms. Kane's office including about lack of U.S. doctors' licenses by those prescribing narcotics in the UN and most recently her memo to Ban Ki-moon proposing, among other things, to complain to Google News about Inner City Press, and to hire outside counsel to send "cease and desist... letters before action" to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and Inner City Press, the correspondents were told to either pay $23,000 for offices with walls and doors, or to be moved into open air offices without doors or walls.

   After reporting that this would drive media out of the UN, the proposal was modified to de-emphasize the demand for money, but to make mandatory the loss of confidentiality. On the eve of Ban's press conference, Ban's senior advisor Kim Won-soo and his spokesperson Michele Montas, along with the head of the Capital Master Plan Michael Adlerstein -- whose boss Angela Kane was and is in Nairobi at a meeting between Management and labor that does not include the UN's New York Staff Union -- presented a detailed proposal with less then floor to ceiling walls.

    A counter proposal described to Inner City Press late on June 12 -- again in its fourth floor office with its closing door -- would give doors and walls to wire services but not "print" journalists, defined to include a range from Inner City Press to the Washington Post. (The Washington Post, as Inner City Press exclusively reported, already plans to close its UN bureau before the end of the year.)