Global Inner Cities Global Inner Cities  In Other Media e.g. Somalia, Ghana, Azerbaijan, The Gambia   Click here for Global Inner City Archives 2006

  Click HERE for Daily UN Reporting on InnerCityPress.com                                    We welcome readers' comments or critiques.  Contact us.



Access to Information Discussed But Not Practiced at UN, Which Journalists Are Protected?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: Media Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, May 1 -- In the run-up to World Press Freedom Day, the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists released at the UN a report ranking "countries where killers of journalists go free." The methodology, as explained by CPJ's executive director Joel Simon, excludes so-called crossfire events, such as the U.S. bombing of Al-Jazeera's office in Iraq. Nor does the ranking reflect countries with the least press freedom. North Korea, for example, does not appear on the list. Rather, the list focuses on countries in which there is an expectation of press freedom, which is then betrayed.

            Inner City Press asked for CPJ's view on the UN's own promotion of press freedom, using the example of UN personnel in Nepal stopping local journalists from filming the site of a UN helicopter crash and seizing their film. The UN could do more, Simon said."We would like to see more engagement throughout the UN bureacracy." Video here, from Minute 22:04.

            While killings were counted in the study also came up. Inner City Press asked about so-called targeted crossfire; Joel Simon said that is not included, but that CPJ still asks for accountability, for example in Iraq. Video here, from Minute 20:43.

            After the press conference, Inner City Press asked Joel Simon how CPJ defines who is a journalist. There is no hard and fast rule, he said. But he said CPJ does not want to include "advocates and their screeds." He said he would e-mail Inner City Press DPJ's definition of who is a journalist.

            The following day, at a UNESCO luncheon graced by a speech by South African Justice Albie Sachs, Joel Simon was again present. "Oh right," he said. "The definition of journalist." Yes, that. One would think CPJ would have such a definition, to know who to protect. But eight hours after the luncheon, we're still waiting.  There will be a debate on just this topic on May 14 at Columbia's School of Journalism - but how is that defined? Click here for a video on the topic. We'll have more on this.

Footnote: Albie Sachs spoke of the importance of access to information, using examples from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the country's Promotion of Information Act, under which he sought and obtained records about his own torture. He took three questions then ran to catch a plane. Inner City Press asked him in the hall, Should the UN have a Freedom of Information law? He answered - and then said, "Don't quote me." So his answer is not here. But one wonders: what is it about the UN that its supporters, even those of the stature, moral and otherwise, of Albie Sachs, are no reticent to say, "Yes, this could be improved"?

WFP's Sheeran Says Speculators Are a Cause of Food Price Crisis, But Has No Suggestions

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 -- As it raises money to respond to the food price crisis, the UN's World Food Program faces at least two issues, one of them head-on, the other less directly. Asked Thursday about the role of speculators in driving up food prices -- and, by implication, how to ensure that additional emergency funding doesn't just further benefit the speculators -- WFP director Josette Sheeran said she is not an expert in this, that WFP's focus is on feeding people. If not WFP, who in the UN system would know and be able to address the financial underpinning of today's global food markets?  Video here, from Minute 41:19.

  Ms. Sheeran spoke at greater length about shifts in WFP's procurement toward, she said, the developing world. But she also said that WFP does not want to compete with local markets where there is a shortage, and therefore looks to surplus markets in order to make purchases. WFP has two goals at cross-purposes: buy in poorer, more food-starved countries in order to build capacity, but don't buy in food-starved countries so as not complete with local markets.

            Ms. Sheeran mentioned WFP purchases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of salt in Senegal. She said that Mozambique after its floods faced logistical challenges "like after [Hurricane] Katrina, and that WFP had bought 70% of its food to response from inside Mozambique itself. She did not address WFP's sometimes-controversial work-for-food programs. She demonstrated a solid, almost troubling knowledge of intra-UN politics, going out of her way to praise not only FAO's Jacques Diouff, with whom she obviously must work closely, but also Kemal Dervis who she identified with the UN Development Group, and President Wade of Senegal. She said she was aware of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission meeting that Inner City Press asked about, but then declined to make any recommendation about limiting or regulating speculation.

            Case in point is Dwight Anderson's Ospraie Capital, which Inner City Press explicitly asked Ms. Sheeran about. Video here, from Minute 41:19. Anderson has profited handily from the crisis, but now seeks to fly under the radar, buying up the rights to all photographs of himself. How to ensure that WFP's intervention into markets doesn't just benefit speculators like Anderson? One would like to think that WFP and Ms. Sheeran are making sure this doesn't happen. But nothing was said in this regard on Thursday. We will continue to follow this issue.

Gordon Brown in Sea of Snubs, In Private Press Conference, Zim Election Observers Called For

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, April 16, updated April 17 -- For Gordon Brown at the UN on Wednesday, it was a morning of snubs. His meeting with South Africa's Thabo Mbeki was cancelled. He in turn cancelled his previously-announced press conference for all UN correspondents. Rather, he blew by the stakeout with an entourage of two dozen, on his way to a room in the basement to speak only with the British traveling press.

            "How can they do this?" Inner City Press asked the UN staffer controlling access to Brown's briefing.

            They booked the room, was the subsequent answer.

            When?

            Initially it was just to leave their bags in. Then, an hour and a half ago, they said they wanted to use it for this.

            "Booking rooms by the hour, like a hot sheet motel," another correspondent grumbled afterwards.

            When Gordon Brown came out, Inner City Press asked him if he had met with Mbeki. He nodded and smiled. Inner City Press asked, "No snub?"

            "No snub," one in his entourage replied. And then they were gone, down to lunch with Michael Bloomberg and to meet with Wall Street bankers.

            A source who was in the Brown presser reports the emphasis inside was on a two hour meeting earlier in the week, as the rebuttal of the snub. Outside, a five minute "brush-by" was described.  Ah, diplomacy....

The substance kept secret, it's said, was a call for international observers of any second round of voting in Zimbabwe. We'll have more on this -- when we can.

Update of 1:55 p.m. -- The UK's Lord Malloch Brown, stopping in the hallway to speak with reporters, phrased it this way, "Don't build cheat on cheat." If the first round was irregular, a second round is not the solution. He said that sending UN elections observers would not require a Security Council vote, but would require the invitation or consent of Zimbabwe's government.

 He declined to comment on allegations in the British legislature that one or more of the Zimbabwe resident representatives of the UN Development Program, which he used to head, have accepted favors and even land from Robert Mugabe. One doesn't comment on the personnel practices of an agency one no longer works for, he said. He referred to a denial on UNDP's web site -- so, he remains at minimum an observer. So how about the exponential growth of "cost sharing," which he promoted, leading now to a situation where UNDP expends more in Latin America than in African, with over 90% of UNDP's expenditures in Latin America consisting of little more than doing the bookkeeping (and rule evasion) for a government's programs in its own country? More on this to follow.

Update of April 17, 2:20 p.m. -- while Inner City Press at the April 16 UN noon briefing asked

There was a press briefing by Gordon Brown downstairs, only for the British press, or maybe only for the traveling press, because they paid for the room.  I want to know, how does that work? How much did they pay and how does that work?

Spokesperson:  This house belongs to the Member States.  I don't know what the exact fee is to rent a room.

Inner City Press: It seems like a technical thing, but since other journalists here were barred from that press conference, I decided that I want to know how much they paid for that room.

Spokesperson:  Okay, we can try to find the answer.

   While the Spokesperson's Office did not provide an answer in the 24 hours that folllowed, the UK Mission to the UN contested, not to Inner City Press but to the well-meanin UN staffer put in the position of keeping the press out, that as a member state the UK could use the room for free, without paying. The article above has been modified, as marked in italics, to characterize it as a "booking" and not a "renting" of the room.

  The issue of the exclusion of the press by the UK private press conference, however, remains. The distinction was not "UN correspondents out, travelling press in," as select UN correspondent were, in fact, allowed in, uncontested by the UK mission. It is another selection process, for which the UK Mission has become known. We'll have more on this. For now, the rest of the April 16 Q&A on the issue:

Question:  Does the UN at least nominally have a policy that all press conferences should be open to all accredited journalists, and does it at least frown upon, or disdain the idea of having press conferences limited to journalists of only one nationality?  If so, can that policy be, at least, asserted in this case?

Spokesperson:  In this specific case, it was not in this room.  This room, 226, is reserved for press conferences. So...

Question:  Do countries have the right to book rooms by themselves and give press conferences which are totally private, in manners of their own choosing?

Spokesperson:  Yes, they do.  Unfortunately, the only thing we can really control is Room 226.  This was already a question that was raised before, because one press conference has been held here before, where the issue was raised because some correspondents could not get in.  We raised that issue then, and this will no longer happen. Not here, in 226.

One final footnote: from within the UK Foreign Office, and not its Mission to the UN, comes a different theory of snubs, under which the George Bush administration had Gordon Brown come at the same time as the Pope, in order to make the U.S. press less interested in Brown. (As noted, only a single photographer waited for Brown outside the Waldorf Towers on Wednesday.) This purportedly goes back to Brown characterizing his first meeting with Bush as "frank," diplo-speak for angry, creating the impression that unlike Tony Blair, Gordo stood up to W. W's revenge? Gordo's eclipse by the Pope. A sea of snubs, indeed....

UN Censors Internet In Its NY Headquarters, Blocking Media Critique and Non-Google Video Sites

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, April 10 -- The UN's computer system censors a number of websites, among them the Chinese anti-cnn.com site devoted to searching for what it calls media bias. Also censored is the site dailymotion.com, which after LiveLeaks.com took it down was a remaining site hosting the controversial film "Fitna," which the UN's Ban Ki-moon denounced. In each case, attempts from inside the UN, by staff or in the library, to read either site results in a message from the "ICT Security Unit" that "you have been redirected to this page because the site you are attempting to access is blocked according to the policy as detailed in ST/SGB/2004/15."

            This Secretary-General's Bulletin allows staff "limited personal use of ICT resources" unless these involve "pornography or engaging in gambling" or would "compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization."

            But whether or not the UN Organization agrees with the media critique offered, for example, by anti-cnn.com, it is neither pornography or gambling, and keeping up with critiques of mainstream media could hardly "compromise the interests or the reputation of the Organization."

            The same is true of the video site DailyMotion.com, and it is worth noting that the UN does not block or censor another video site, YouTube.com.  The latter, of course, is owned by the UN's partner Google, which itself assists with Internet censorship in China.

[Full disclosure: Inner City Press was temporarily excluded by Google News earlier this year, which was linked to UN system and affiliates' complaint(s). At the time, the UN sputtered that it does not engage in censorship. But why then are non-pornographic political analysis web sites blocked inside the UN's own headquarters?]

            With the UN censoring the Internet inside its own headquarters in New York, its commitment to freedom of the press, particularly of online media, remains suspect. Watch this space.

UN Development Program "Launders Money" in Latin America, Chart and Sources Say

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- The UN Development Program expends significantly more in relatively affluent Latin America than in Africa, a continent-wide analysis obtained by Inner City Press reveals. In 2006, over 90% of UNDP's $1.3 billion in expenditures in Latin America were so-called "cost sharing," in which governments give UNDP money in order to do procurement or pay salaries to people already in the government's employ.

   While being little more than a bookkeeper -- or money launderer, as several inside UNDP sources put it -- UNDP collects a fee for all funds it processes, and books it as income. The model has become attractive to UNDP's offices throughout Latin America, leading to UNDP tarnishing the UN's name by becoming involved in procurement scandals such as a current one in Venezuela. A week ago, Inner City Press asked UNDP a series of question which have still not been answered. On Wednesday, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General's comment on how UNDP under Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert is making the UN appear. 

   Just last month, the head of the UN-affiliated World Bank, when asked about UNDP's attempt to attribute its greater expenditure in Latin America than in Africa to its supposed "processing" of World Bank loans, expressed skepticism. The answer for UNDP's disparity, the attached chart now shows, is UNDP's "cost sharing" programs.

            UNDP's questionable work in Latin America is not limited to countries like Venezuela, where in 2006 UNDP reported $34 million in "cost sharing." In Argentina in 2006, while spending less than $1 million in "regular resources" to promote development, UNDP processed over $268 million for the government. UNDP's Argentina web site, under the heading Acquisitions, vaguely lists much of its work as "NEX" -- the so-called national execution modality that got the agency into trouble in North Korea. There are also acquisitions of servers from CISCO, a supplier that UNDP sources say is not chosen competitively, but rather is actively promoted and favored by UNDP's country offices on instructions from UNDP Headquarters.

            In Brazil in 2006, while again spending less than $1 million in "regular resources" to promote development, UNDP processed over $227 million for the government. UNDP's Brazil web site was soliciting bids, for example, up to March 28 for 100 hotel rooms for a conference to take place April 7-8, 2008 (#758).

            Inner City Press is informed by Brazilian sources that the size of UNDP's cost-sharing was revealed in that country when people UNDP paid, with government pass-through money, to work for the government argued that they should not have to pay taxes, claiming they were international civil servants. A dispute ensued, and the full size of UNDP's Brazilian program, which dwarfs African programs, became known. "UNDP is renting out the UN's powers for a fee, it is engaged in essence in money laundering," a UNDP source told Inner City Press on condition of anonymity, given UNDP's known penchant for retaliation, noted not only by the Washington-based Government Accountability Project but also, at least on a prima facie basis, by the UN Ethics Office. The analogy is that governments pay the fee to UNDP in order to work around procurement and other rules -- UNDP does not have to be transparent, and does not have to follow local rules.

            While UNDP in Cuba in 2006 reported $7 million in cost-sharing, the UNDP figure in Guatemala was $92 million. In Bolivia it was $31 million, in Chile $23 million, Colombia $82 million, Dominican Republic $5 million, Ecuador $30 million, El Salvador $13 million, Paraguay $32 million, Uruguay $10 million.

            From poor Haiti, UNDP took in $16 million in cost-sharing, versus only $14 million in Mexico.

    UNDP's response to the controversy around a contract of less than $3 million in Venezuela with Setronix has been to direct Inner City Press to UNDP's online rebuttal. But while UNDP claims that the documents it links to show competitive bidding, the documents in fact refer to " excepcion a un proceso competitivo" - exception to a competitive process. In any case, this is just the tip of the iceberg of UNDP's $1.1 billion of "cost-sharing" in Latin America (compared to UNDP's less than $600 million in annual spending in Africa.)

            In Honduras, UNDP's cost-sharing in 2006 was a whopping $103 million. The web site refers, in Spanish, to the modalidad de Ejecucion Nacional (NEX -- national execution "modality," saying that it guarantees that national authorities keep control of the program and of the final responsibility for how the funds are used.  UNDP, it seems, just takes a fee, and repeatedly further tarnishes the UN's name in the process.

Footnote: Inner City Press is informed that while the Secretariat publicly claims to have little power over UNDP, allowing Kemal Dervis for example to set up his own Ethics Office and self-investigation panel, now several candidates as UNDP Resident Representatives in countries are being reviewed on the 38th floor. This would give the Secretariat some leverage to clean UNDP up. Will this happen? We'll see.
UN's Top Lawyer Calls for Pension Reform, Says Ethics Office Decided Not to Mention His $10,000 Monthly Swiss Subsidy

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, March 24 -- The UN's chief legal officer Nicolas Michel on Monday cited a conflict of interest as grounds to neither criticize or support the UN Ethics Office's decision not to include the Swiss government's housing subsidy in Michel's public financial disclosure form. Inner City Press had asked the UN Spokesperson about the omission but had not received an answer. In a phone conversation late Monday, Michel emphasized that he had asked Ethics Office chief Robert Benson, who said that "the policy of publication did not cover contributions of that sort."

    It is not clear who is making up this policy, and on what basis. The Secretary-General's web site states that the UN's public financial disclosure is important because it "demonstrates that UN staff members understand the importance of the general public and UN Member States being assured that, in the discharge of their official duties and responsibilities, staff members will not be influenced by any consideration associated with his/her private interests."

   Inner City Press e-mailed and read this statement to Nicolas Michel, emphasizing the word "any" and in that light if the fact that a senior UN official was receiving a housing subsidy of $10,000 or more every month should have been disclosed. "I cannot answer that," Michel said. "It would be a conflict of interest."

    The $10,000 a month figure is derived from Michel's account of the origins of the subsidy. He took the UN post in May 2004, and had a mere two and a half days to find a place to live. A colleague told him that it would be important to live in Manhattan, to be available for unscheduled emergencies. But of the apartments he looked at, the rents were "from twenty to twenty-six thousand dollars a month." Given the size of his family, Michel was looking for four or five bedrooms.

    Ultimately, Michel found accommodations for "about half that amount" in suburban Westchester County, from which he commutes, which he calls less than ideal. While this has saved the Swiss government money, it is not clear if the Swiss government put any cap on what it would pay.  Michel emphasized that the Swiss government agreed in writing to respect the tenets of Article 100 of the UN Charter, that Michel would be an international civil servant not subject to influence by his country. 

    Still, this arrangement was not made public at the time, nor earlier this year when the public disclosure forms went online. Michel's form, under the heading "Income," lists the renting-out of his house in Switzerland. On Monday Michel unprompted told Inner City Press that he inherited the house, and rents out two of the three floors.  These rent payments from two people who presumably have nothing to do with the UN is publicly disclosed as income, but $10,000 a month from a member state with interests at the UN and its legal department is not in the public disclosure form. Something is wrong with such a public disclosure regime, it seems clear. Michel said twice he would not comment on this, because "it would be a conflict of interest."

    Michel went on to criticize the UN's pension system, saying that if he leaves as he now will with less than five years' service, he gets back only what he put in with below market rate interest, and none of the UN's contribution. Inner City Press has most often heard this complaint regarding those serving in UN peacekeeping missions, who generally stay for less than five years and feel that they are subsidizing other UN pensioners. Michel is losing, he told Inner City Press on Monday, some $20,000 a year.

    Back on September 12, 2006, Inner City Press asked Kofi Annan's spokesman for the identity of the one official whom the spokesman said was receiving housing subsidy. The spokesman in a public briefing declined to give the name. Michel was, in fact, the guest at that day's briefing. Afterwards, the spokesman said that the individual wanted to come forward, would soon be coming forward. That never happened.
 
    On Monday Inner City Press asked Nicolas Michel, "Was that you?" Michel did not say yes, but rather stated that he wished the spokesman had brought it to his attention at the time, that he was always ready and willing to go public. He said he obtained authorization for the subsidy before agreeing to accept the Office of Legal Affairs post. He said that he had put in a call mid-Monday afternoon to Ethics Office chief Robert Benson, to make sure they had similar recollections, but that Benson was and is away from the office. We will have more on this story of public financial disclosure.

    Why the UN Spokesperson's Office did not provide an answer about the omission of the housing subsidy from Michel's public financial disclosure on Ban Ki-moon's web site is not known.

From the UN briefing transcript of March 18, 2008:

Inner City Press: Mr. Michel was receiving housing subsidy from the Swiss Government.  It turns out that the Public Financial Disclosure of Nicolas Michel on the Secretary-General’s website for 2006 doesn't make any mention of this housing subsidy.  So I guess I want to know, first of all, is receipt of a benefit like housing that comes from the Government, the kind of thing that the Secretariat thinks should be in a financial disclosure? 

Spokesperson:  It was fully disclosed by Mr. Michel.

Inner City Press: But it's not in the Public Financial Disclosure.
Spokesperson:  Maybe it's not in the public disclosure, but it was fully, fully disclosed in 2006 by Mr. Michel.

Inner City Press: I'm sorry, I don't mean to, but, so, in the internal one, filed with PricewaterhouseCoopers, it was disclosed.  But who is vetting the public financial disclosures?  Because it says that the purpose of those is to show the public what conflicts of interest the officials may have and if these kinds of things are not being disclosed, then what’s it showing?

Spokesperson:  In the case of the Ethics Office and the Financial Disclosure Form, that we have been filing since Mr. Ban came to the Secretary-General’s post, publishing them is something that the new Ethics Office started.  So it is the responsibility of the Ethics Office now to put the financial disclosures out.  Before, in 2006, the Ethics Office was not doing it.  What I can tell you is that, in the case of Mr. Michel, everything received in terms of contributions was filed.  And it has been fully disclosed and the disclosure statements were cleared by the competent organs.  So he is not receiving any contribution in any form under his current contract that started as you know on 1 March 2007. 

Inner City Press: Okay, I'm sorry, just to clarify, although it was called 2006, recently when you read out the statement that now there is a website with the Public Financial Disclosures, the forms that went up were for the year 2006.  So it seems to me he was receiving a housing subsidy during that year.  This form was put up only recently, in 2008.  The Secretary-General created a website to put up Public Financial Disclosures.

Spokesperson:  That was for 2007.

Question:  It actually says right on the form it's for 2006.  It was the 2006 year.

Spokesperson:  I can check for you what's on the website, but I can tell you categorically that the contributions Mr. Michel received were explicitly authorized by the Organization before he accepted the position as Legal Counsel.  This was an arrangement, as you know, between the Swiss authorities and the Organization on the ground of exceptional family circumstances.  The practice of exceptional authorizations was well established then and supported by relevant administrative issuances.  And this was the case over a long period of time.  As I said, now Mr. Michel is not receiving any such contributions.  

For now Nicolas Michel is thanked for his time, particularly in the run-up to meetings this Thursday about the UN-affiliated tribunals in Lebanon and Cambodia.  And, at deadline, it emerged that the incoming prime minister of Pakistan says he will request a UN inquiry into the murder of Benazir Bhutto. Watch this site.

How GA President Kerim Spends Money Questioned as Part of Reform by France and Indonesia

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: 2nd in a series - 1st

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- The day after the President of the General Assembly Srgjan Kerim acknowledged to Inner City Press that his rent and salary is paid by the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and called for a reform in which this would be prohibited and funds provided by the UN itself, two Ambassadors on the Security Council raised questions about Kerim's proposal. France's Deputy Permanent Representative Jean-Pierre Lacroix said "there is already an envelope" of funds given to Kerim's office, "it's more a question of how is it used, frankly." The General Assembly has voted $280,000 a year for the Office of the President of the General Assembly, which Kerim's spokesman has told Inner City Press is devoted only to "travel and representation as well as transportation, communication and security related costs."

            "I didn't know that was the arrangement," Indonesia's Permanent Representative Marty Natalegawa told Inner City Press. He said that before any hasty decision is reached to give the President of the General Assembly more money, a broader context must be considered, the possible precedent it would set for such posts as the "chairs of various committees, forums and processes."

  While Ban Ki-moon has spoken of the need for transparency and reform to try to bring about greater public confidence in the UN system, when Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesperson Michele Montas if he believes the President of the General Assembly should be funded by the UN, or by outside parties, she replied that "we don't have to comment on this... this does not have anything to do with the reform program."

 Told of Kerim's position that currently no rules apply to whom he takes money from, Amb. Natalegawa asked rhetorically, "So all options are open, then."

            Sources told Inner City Press that its story about Kerim's acceptance of rent in Essex House and a salary have summoned an inevitable comparison to what is paid to legislators and the president in FYROM, and its UN Ambassador in New York. Talk has begun that FYROM sought recoupment from Kerim's employer, the WAZ media group -- if so, Amb. Natalegawa would be right, all options have been open.     Questions have arisen regarding whether the proper authorizations were obtained before these payments to Mr. Kerim began.

  From the Balkans, it can be viewed that Kerim masterfully deflected an inquiry into what funding he has been and is taking into a broader called for reform, delivered to Inner City Press by Kerim's spokesman:

   "President Kerim has always maintained that all costs related to the post and functioning of the General Assembly President should be covered through the regular UN budget... rather than the makeshift arrangements that currently exist.

   "This would ensure each elected President has an equal opportunity to deliver results -- whether from a developed or developing country, no matter how large or small. An entirely UN funded budget would enhance the independence of the President, and increase transparency and accountability to Member States."

            Lost in this proposal, seen from the Balkans, are the specifics of what has been received. Developing.

Footnote: from the transcript of Wednesday's UN noon briefing:

Inner City Press: yesterday, the President of the General Assembly, Srgjan Kerim, acknowledged that, while serving as President of the General Assembly, he has been receiving both rent and salaries from the Government of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  He said that he believes that this either presents a conflict, or unbearable pressure to do favors for those who provide the funding, and called for the position to be funded by the UN itself, given that he is the UN's top elected official.  The UK said that they support that.  Does Ban Ki-moon believe that the President of the General Assembly should be funded by the UN, or by outside parties?

Spokesperson:  We don't have to comment on this.  This is a matter for the General Assembly.  Whatever is budgeted for the President of the General Assembly is done by the General Assembly.  So I don't think the Secretary-General has anything to say about this.

Inner City Press: You don't see it as a UN reform issue, the top elected official being funded by an outside party?

Spokesperson: No, this does not have anything to do with the reform program.  Of course, you know, I am sure there are reform issues that are being introduced by the General Assembly, and Member States can introduce such reforms, particularly in General Assembly affairs.  But, this is not a matter for the Secretary-General himself.

  We'll see. Watch this site.

UN's Censorship and Press Punishment Slammed by Staff Union, From Google to Photos of the Dead

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, March 13 -- As UN attacks on freedom of the press have spread this year from UN Headquarters to the highlands of Nepal, the UN Staff Council on Thursday called on officials of the UN system including funds and programs like the UN Population Fund and the UN Development Program to cease from "censorship, harassment, intimidation or punishment, or the threat or implication thereof."

  The injunction on threats of punishment is a direct reference to statements last month to Inner City Press by Assistant Secretary-General Michael Adlerstein about coverage with which he disagreed, "How should you be punished?" Click here for transcript. The reference to censorship echoes the critique of the UN Development Program or its U.S. Committee for UNDP levied by the Washington-based Government Accountability Project.

 The resolution, pending for three weeks, also refers to the incident in Nepal ten days ago in which UN personnel seized the video footage shot of the remains of the downed UN helicopter contracted from Russia-based Vertical T. While the UN has belatedly apologized for the last of these limitations of journalistic freedom, claiming it was only to prevent the filming of dead bodies, it is not clear what safeguards have been instituted to prevent future attempts at censorship, exclusion or punishment. An event is upcoming in Washington DC on the UN and free press. Interest is growing on Capitol Hill, as these acts contrary to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are carried out with U.S. taxpayers' funds. Inner City Press weeks ago asked UNDP to disclose payments it has made to influence coverage of UNDP's performance; UNDP has yet to respond. Watch this site.

In Darfur, UN Gave Lockheed $12 Million No-Bid Food Contract, Leaked Minutes Show, Breakfast in Nyala

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, March 6 -- Already under fire have having granted Lockheed Martin a no-bid $250 million contract to build peacekeeping camps in Sudan, the UN on New Year's Eve convened an emergency meeting to give Lockheed subsidiary Pacific Architects & Engineers another $12 million on an emergency basis, records show. This no-bid contract was to feed the peacekeepers, and to strong-arm the UN Headquarters Committee on Contracts to sign off, they were told that the peacekeepers had "to be fed breakfast in the next few hours." See HCC Minutes, leaked to Inner City Press and placed online here, at Paragraph 1.03.

   While the UN's Department of Field Support sought approval of the lack of competitive bidding on the grounds of emergency or "exigency," UN Controller Warren Sach wrote that "the urgency of the matter stems from poor planning." See attached as last page, Sach's January 2, 2008 note, copied to the UN Department of Management's Alicia Barcena and DFS acting chief Jane Holl Lute.

            The last minute contract to Lockheed Martin is particularly noteworthy for its context, in which DFS' award of a $250 million no-bid contract for peacekeeping camps in Darfur Lockheed had already been criticized by the UN General Assembly, which has called for an investigation of the waiver of competition. In the General Assembly, a number of countries' representatives drew a link between the contract  and Jane Holl Lute, an American, married to Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's war czar for Iraq and Afghanistan. When Inner City Press asked Ms. Lute if this is not a conflict of interest, she said no, her work at the UN and her husband's work for the U.S. on Iraq and Afghanistan don't overlap. Since the UN has missions in both countries, this seemed a strange statement. Since then, Ms. Lute has told reporters that she will not be quoted on the records about either Afghanistan or Iraq, since it would be "a conflict of interest."

            During the General Assembly's questioning of the $250 million Darfur contract, Inner City Press is told by sources that Procurement official Dmitry Dovgopoly had Ukraine's ambassador reach out to other countries' Permanent Representatives, urging them to cool off on inquiries into the Lockheed deal, given Dovgolopy's involvement. Earlier this week, Inner City Press asked Dovgopoly to comment on another procurement irregularity in which he is involved, the changing of the final Request for Proposals for the follow-on Darfur infrastructure contract after a request from the French mission to the UN. Dovgopoly did not respond.

            Inner City Press first asked DFS about this no-bid contract, without providing a copy, some weeks ago. On March  4, the question was reiterated along with the HCC minutes themselves. To its credit, DFS then responded in 24 hours, providing an alternate explanation. According to DFS, it because aware on November 1 that the UN would become responsible for feeding peacekeepers in Darfur on January 1. Since that date as the beginning of the UN's responsibilities in Darfur was known since July 31, the three month lag as regards food still required explanation. But even accepting November 1 at the starting point, why did DFS wait until New Year's Eve itself, without presenting any other contractor, only the same Lockheed Martin subsidiary?

            DFS' response is that "there was insufficient time to run a competitive exercise to re-bid the requirement which was for a relatively short period (three months). So we agreed to this as a temporary measure prior to being able to move the ex-AMIS troops over to a standard UN support regime." In this standard regime, while the troop contributing countries will supply their own chefs "so that they can prepare food to meet tastes of their soldiers," the UN will still contract out the kitchens, apparently to Lockheed Martin.

            While Controller Sach in the attached expresses concern about "the delay in contacting the HCC," the response from DFS states that Sach was told on November 13. Given 24 hours to reply, nothing has been heard from Mr. Sach, perhaps due to work triggered by growing skepticism in the General Assembly toward the Secretariat's budget add-ons.

            In the attached HCC minutes, the Committee in executive session indicated that the UN "had no way to determine if the prices were competitive" and "had no certain confirmation if a competitive solicitation with respect to the contract with PAE had been undertaken, and if so, if it was done in 2004." As with the UN's $250 million infrastructure contract with Lockheed's PAE, the deal began on a no-bid basis by the U.S. government then resulted in the UN becoming the payer, with no interruption for competitive bidding, to the U.S.-based contractor.

News analysis:  It is true that Darfur is not as easy environment in which to contract. But the UN knew well before October 15 that  it should seek competitors for the camps contract; it knew well before New Year's Eve that breakfast would be needed on January 1. To the degree the infrastructure contract, after extensive criticism, is being opened up, it has been shown to involve inordinate access by the UN Mission of France, another of the Permanent Five (P-5) members of the UN Security Council. Thursday after Frenchman Jean-Marie Guehenno told his staff he will leave his post in June, the UN was full of speculation of who from France will take over this post.  Even if such P-5 politics is the norm in the doling out of top jobs at the UN, procurement is supposedly less subject to power politics. We say "supposedly" because the attached minutes show different. As the Committee states in the minutes, "appropriate measures should be taken by DFS to avoid these situations from occurring in the future." But we've heard that before. When will there be some accountability?

In UN's Corporate Frenzy, Western Union Dismisses Boycott, Coke Exonerates Itself, UNICEF Plays Footsie

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, February 25 -- The UN system's partnering with the corporate world has reached a fever pitch, with safeguards still in evolution, virtually non-existent in such entities as the US Fund for UNICEF and the U.S. Committee for the UN Development Program. At a panel discussion on Monday, Inner City Press asked the CEO of Western Union about a boycott by a coalition of immigrant groups based on over-priced wire services. "There will always be issues that occur," was the pat response, followed by a reference to Western Union's "advocacy" to keep immigrants in the U.S. --hardly surprising, given its business model -- and its philanthropy.  Video here, from Minute 2:36:39.

   As was demonstrated on February 21 at the UN, at a briefing by Leena Srivastava of the New Delhi-based group The Energy and Resources Institute, TERI, corporate funding of non-profits has many motives. Coca-Cola funded TERI to review it use of water in India, and the resulting study was reported as exonerating Coke and militating for its continued sales on college campuses. Inner City Press asked Ms. Srivastava if it wasn't a conflict of interest, to study Coke with Coke's money. "Who else would pay for it?" she asked.  Video here. But Pepsi is also a TERI funder. Or, more productively, perhaps the student boycotters should have been approached for funding.

            While UNICEF has strenuously avoided in-person responses about its role in giving the UN's North Lawn to Gucci earlier this month, for a fundraising event that Gucci claimed was to celebrate its opening of a store on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, UNICEF's Hilde Johnson was on Monday's panel. Inner City Press asked about the Gucci event, and Ms. Johnson replied that while UNICEF used the so-called "FTSE-4-Good" principles, it has no control over US Fund for UNICEF, which fronted the Gucci event. But then stop the Fund, like the national committee in Germany, from using the logo to bring it into disrepute. 

     Since the Gucci event, a number of ambassadors for major UNICEF-funding countries have approached Inner City Press with their concerns about the event, that UNICEF would feel it needed money so much as to make the UN look bad. Maybe UNICEF and the wider UN will learn from this. It appears clear that the US Fund for UNICEF, which never answered follow-up questions about the event, feels it has nothing to learn, just more lawns and logos left to trample.  Likewise, the U.S. Committee for UNDP has on its board of directors a representative from UN (and military) contractor Lockheed Martin, the safeguards regarding which Inner City Press has asked UNDP, without answer.

            After Inner City Press asked Ms. Johnson of UNICEF for a response, it was quickly told that it shouldn't have been allowed to ask a question, despite a previous moderator inviting questions from throughout the ECOSOC Chamber.  Ms. Johnson's answer could barely be heard over the threat, "Should I call security?" This is the free press at the UN these days.

UN Official Michael Adlerstein Speaks of Punishing the Press, Alleges Cowardice, Threatens Ouster from UN for 1 or 2 Articles: Capital Master Plan?

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN
 www.innercitypress.com/un1freepress022108.html

UNITED NATIONS, February 21 -- Senior UN officials are trying to formulate responses to investigative documentary journalism about recent events at UN Headquarters. These include a February 17 death on the South Lawn, allegations of UN involvement in censorship and questions of ambulance access to an apparent heart attack victim. On February 21 the chief of the UN's rehabilitation effort Michael Adlerstein spoke heatedly to Inner City Press for ten minutes. The official immediately above him, Under Secretary General for Management Alicia Barcena, also sent a four-paragraph missive in the form of a letter to the editor, which is published in full at www.innercitypress.com/un1freepress022108.html.

We begin with Mr. Adlerstein's comments because they were less scripted, including accusations of cowardice and references to punishment for the material Inner City Press has published. Another journalist was accompanying Inner City Press and tape recording an impromptu interview with the director of a non-governmental organization in India when Mr. Adlerstein, the Assistant Secretary General for the UN's Capital Master Plan, doubled back and began by asking "about this photograph that you published." Inner City Press replied that while it had already taken down the photograph, and had informed Ms. Barcena and others of this fact, any and all questions would be answered, there in the lobby where Mr. Adlerstein chose to dialogue, or in a subsequent column, including the interchange.

On Sunday, February 17 there was an emergency meeting of the Security Council at 1 p.m. about Kosovo. In preparing to cover it, the death, and the placing of bags over the decedent's hands, were inescapable. Mr. Adlerstein asked, "What does that have to do with the photograph?"

Inner City Press replied, and replies, Because that's what the photograph is of, that the bagging of the hands to preserve evidence.

"I've heard people say, maybe you should just have written. And I understand that position; I don't think that's an unreasonable position. I don't know where it is written that a body under a blanket, which AP ran, and it went all over the world, and nobody has said anything to them from the UN. The UN has said to me that if AP did it, it's okay. But if you did something different than AP, we're going to come down on you like a bag of bricks... Now I've received a letter from Ms. Barcena saying 'we're outraged,' cc-ing Vijay Nambiar, Mr. Akasaka, and I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. I'm going to run the letter, and that's fine, that's her position. I don't want to treat it in any disrespectful way, but I'm not, from what I heard yesterday, she seized on it as an opportunity to attempt to throw me out of the UN."

Whereupon ASG Adlerstein said, "What should be your punishment?"

But where in the mandate of the Capital Master Plan does punishing journalists figure?

Adlerstein asked, "Can you say yes or no, did you make a mistake?"

"I don't like the line of reasoning. If I say I made a mistake--"

Adlerstein then cited questions that have been asked of him, about ongoing litigation about an alleged conflict of interest involving a former position in New Jersey, "It's the same line of reasoning that you use on everybody else. You always say, you know, did you screw up here? Your job as a reporter is to hold us accountable. And to hold yourself accountable. Did you make a mistake?"

"I took the photograph down. If that's how you want to interpret it."

Adlerstein said, "I'm not interpreting anything. I'm asking you, did you make a mistake?"

"At the time I ran it, I thought it made sense. Now, I don't think it makes sense to keep it up anymore, that's why I took it down. If anyone is offended, I apologize for it. I know why it was run at the time though."

ASG Michael Adlerstein: You said you apologized to the people who personally know her. It's offensive to mankind to run pictures of victims of suicide, murder victims.

ICP: Watch Al Jazeera, it's on all the time. Al Jazeera is showing footage from Somalia where people killed and dead on the ground.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: Oh, great. Great example. There's a moral--

ICP: Are they being thrown out of the building? They're not. There's not one standard here. If you don't like Al Jazeera, you don't watch it. And if you don't like Inner City Press, you don't have to read it. I want to deal with this correctly.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: So you didn't make a mistake.

ICP: What is the ramification if I say that I do?

ASG Michael Adlerstein: You'll let me know whether you think you made a mistake. I'm not a reporter, I don't give a damn.

Other journalist: It seems to me, if I may interject--

ASG Michael Adlerstein: I find it very cowardly that you won't take a position. Did you make a mistake or not?

ICP: I took the photograph down. You tell me what the ramification for answering is, and I'll answer it. You seem to believe it is legitimate to try to throw a journalist out for one story, and I think that is totally improper. I don't think the UN gets to choose, based on content, who covers it and how they cover it. I do not. And I find it outrageous

ASG Michael Adlerstein: Is it two stories that you need? Two stories are needed?

ICP: I don't know, you tell me.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: You're saying one story is outrageous. Are two stories okay?

ICP: They tried to get the Staff Union to support them. I'm not looking for support. It's just that this is a free country. The White House doesn't throw out a reporter on one story. The Federal Reserve doesn't do it. This place, maybe it thinks it's exempt from those laws.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: Is that what you're saying, two stories is okay?

ICP: Write a rule, and I'll comply with it. They've been trying to set up a process on how to throw people out. And whatever the rule is, that will be fine. But they don't have a rule. And you cannot just zero in on one story. You really can't. You can try.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: That's what I'm asking.

ICP: I don't know, I don't know what the rules are going to be. They're being negotiating between UNCA and DPI. We had a meeting about it two weeks ago.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: Very cowardly. You won't account for yourself.

ICP: I'll write a whole story about it tonight, and I'll say something about it. But I'm going to write about this as well. And that's fine.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: About what?

ICP: This, this conversation. Why not? You tell me. And I will answer your questions, in writing. And you can say whether it's cowardly or not... When somebody kills themselves at the UN, the regular press corps can't get in here. This is one of the reasons I covered it. I guarantee you -- for whatever you believe -- I didn't come that day to cover it. I didn't want to cover it. I came to cover the Kosovo meeting. But as a journalist, if I come in and there's a medical examiner and people's hands are being bagged, I'm going to cover it. And many people in this building have said to me 'please keep looking into that.' I actually would rather not to.

Other journalist: What he did, in terms of reporting the story, I think is in the best traditions of -- inadvertently, because it's outside his expertise -- crime reporting.

ICP: I'm amazed. I had no idea that this was your view of the press. I had zero idea...

ASG Michael Adlerstein: I haven't expressed any view of free press. I asked you whether you made a mistake.

ICP: And you said "would it take two stories to throw you out" and you said "you asked us a lot of questions, what about you". This is a retaliatory thing. You are an official here.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: I'm not saying anyone should be thrown out of here.

ICP: You said two stories, throw you out.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: You said one story is not justified.

ICP: You said how about two.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: How about two. What's the number?

ICP: You said "what should be your punishment?" Most times, if an institution and an official doesn't like coverage, like McCain in the New York Times, you write a letter. That's what you do. You don't imply that you can throw somebody out because you don't like the article.

Other journalist: You have to establish objective rules.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: I walked over here to find out what's going on, what's your position.

ICP: Have you read Ms. Barcena's letter?

ASG Michael Adlerstein: No.

ICP: And she has a conflict. She shouldn't be the one pushing this. She expressed deep anger for me when I wrote about her getting a job for a friend of Ahlenius. And so I don't think she should be the one making the UN's decisions on what to do about this incident. Beyond taking down the photograph and running an apology, I don't know what more they want. She should not be the one running it. She has a personal motive.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: You're asking me right, I don't know.

ICP: I know you're a high official.

ASG Michael Adlerstein: I have no idea whether she's written you a letter or not; I've never seen a letter. I have no idea what you're talking about.

ICP: How did you learn of this? Did you stumble across it?

ASG Michael Adlerstein: People are talking about it.

ICP: Many people talked to me who never even saw it. They heard from Barcena that it showed the woman's face, and that's false. That's one of the reasons I didn't want to take it down, because now they are trying to say that something was what it wasn't. If the problem's the photo, it's down. She said to the Staff Union that it showed the face. Now what am I supposed to do, show the photo again? To show it doesn't? She knows it doesn't. She tried to stoke them up.

Ms. Barcena's letter is online at www.innercitypress.com/un1freepress022108.html. Beyond having incorrectly alleged that the photo showed the decedent's face, she tried to inflame even OHRM staff on the fifth floor to denounce Inner City Press based on articles not read, photos not seen, because removed from the Internet to placate her. Inner City Press was told by the spokesperson's office that not only had USG Barcena written a letter, that the Department of Public Information (apparently, the head of its Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit) would also be writing a letter.

One wonders if MALU wrote a letter to, for example, Al-Jazeera, when in the wake of the deadly bombing of the United Nations in Algiers in December, it placed online an interactive poll which asked if people supported or opposed the bombing of the UN. In that case, not only was no public or even to-file letter written by MALU -- the media outlet was quickly awarded an exclusive interview with Ban Ki-moon, and has been placed on the UN's in-house TV network. For the record, Inner City Press supports Al Jazeera's right to freedom of the press. These freedoms must be consistently and expansively applied.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1freepress022108.html

Google, Asked About Censorship at the UN, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UNDP

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, February 14 -- Google, after being publicly questioned at the UN about not signing on to the human rights and anti-censorship principles of the Global Compact, responded not by joining the Compact and foreswearing from censorship but by moving to de-list from its Google News service the media organization which raised the question. More than two years after Inner City Press was included into Google News, in a February 8 message referring to the receipt of a complaint, Google said it would be removing Inner City Press from the news database.

            In late 2007, Google's chief technologist Michael T. Jones took questions at a UN press conference with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and UN Development Program chief Kemal Dervis promoting Google's involvement in mapping the UN's anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals. Inner City Press, accredited media at the UN, asked Mr. Jones if Google was a member of the UN Global Compact, through which corporations sign up to principles of human rights including non-censorship. Video here, from Minute 30:21.

            Google's Jones at first delayed answering the questions, noting that Google was the third of Inner City Press' three questions -- the first two were to the UN Development Program's Kemal Dervis about the absence of North Korea from the data base, the second to Cisco about censorship. Then, on camera, Jones said he did not know of Google was a member of the UN Global Compact, that he would reply later. Video here, from Minute 32:37.

            While Google is said to have a contract with UNDP, Google was not a member of the Global Compact then, and is not one as of this writing. Rather, Inner City Press was notified by "Google Team," with no further attribution, that it would be de-listed from the Google News service, in which it had been included since 2005. Google's notification referred to "user complaints." Inner City Press immediately asked to be informed of the identity of any institutional complainant, including Google itself. Beyond that, certainly, there are others with complaints about Inner City Press' investigative coverage, at the UN, in Myanmar, UNDP and elsewhere.

            In fact, UNDP sources describe communications from the UN system to Google executives, asking that Inner City Press be de-listed from Google News, and that a well-read blog, UNDP-Watch, be striken from that data base. Recently a whistleblower in UNDP's legal department had his office computer impounded and was told, you have visited InnerCityPress.com multiple times. While the interrogation reflected contempt for the freedom to read and freedom of the press, the issue goes far beyond the corporate culture at UNDP, to that of Google.

            Google's Sergey Brin and Larry Page have each been quoted dodging the question of Google's participation in the Chinese government's censorship of the Internet, saying only that Google contacted Beijing and came to an understanding. It now appears that after getting a taste of censorship in China -- and in Egypt, by some accounts -- Google has in this case brought the practice home to the United States.

            Inner City Press, alongside requesting the name of institutional complainants and to be maintained in Google News, sought comment by e-mail from press@google.com and from Google's Michael T. Jones, whom it questioned at the UN. The latter has not responded. From press@google.com came a series of questions, which once answered, resulted in a vague assurance that indexing would continue.

   But Inner City Press' two stories datelined Wednesday night, about a lack of transparency at the UN and its soft approach to Myanmar's military regime, were not included in Google News. Thursday afternoon, Nancy Ngo of Google's office of Global Communications stated that Inner City Press would be included "in a few weeks."  But why was it removed?  Developing -- Inner City Press remains included in Lexis-Nexis, ProQuest and other non-conflicted news data bases.

E-mail begins:

Subj: Google News
Date: 2/8/2008 8:32:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: The Google Team
To: Inner City Press

We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users. When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News.

Full disclosure: should be clear from the above.

 GAP statement

UN's Lute Admits No-Bid Lockheed Deal Caused "Confusion," No Conflict of Interest in Iraqi Overlap

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- One hundred days after Lockheed Martin was granted a $250 million no-bid contract by the UN, the main proponent of the contract, the American officer-in-charge of the Department of Field Support, Jane Holl Lute, acknowledged that the lack of competition had caused confusion. While the UN General Assembly by a vote of 142 to 1, with only the United States dissenting, voted to express concern about the no-bid contract, Ms. Lute on Thursday claimed that the process had been transparent. Inner City Press asked, How so? "You have it in your hand," Ms. Lute replied, referring to documents that became public only after being leaked to Inner City Press by whistleblowers.

      Following the UN's claim that the sole source process began only after the Security Council's July 31 resolution authorizing the hybrid UN-African Union Darfur force, UNAMID, Inner City Press obtained an April 2007 memo from Ms. Lute pushing Lockheed's Pacific Architects & Engineers subsidiary for a sole source contract. Is that confusion or contradiction? Ms. Lute replied at some length, to her credit, that the April no-bid contract was for the so-called Heavy Support Package, but has ended up being regularized by a Ban Ki-moon edict waving all procurement rules for the UNAMID mission.  The General Assembly heard this story, behind closed doors, in December and still voted to express concern and call for an investigation into the waiving of procurement and hiring rules. "If the member states have questions in this regard," Ms. Lute said, she'll be happy to answer them. But where?

            In fact, the push to give Lockheed the sole-source Darfur contract stretches even further back, to late 2006. Inner City Press has obtained copies of letters to this effect from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and from DPKO's Jean-Marie Guehenno. Ms. Lute's February 7 story does not appear to account for these documents, nor for what Inner City Press is hearing about a "bridge" $10 million payment to Lockheed, ostensibly from the African Union but actually paid out by the United Nations. We'll have more on this.

            Ms. Lute was asked if she wants to remain as Under Secretary General of DFS, a post that the UN's budget says should go to a developing country. Lute said she would like the job, but it is not up to her. Asked to state her understanding of the budget provision, she said "I have no understanding other than what the reality is." Video here, from Minute 40:34. But reality is apparently whatever you say it is. Inner City Press asked if it wasn't a conflict of interest that her husband serves of President Bush's war czar for  Afghanistan and Iraq. "I absolutely deny that there is any conflict... There is absolutely no overlap," she said.

  (The UN's write-up's pat summary is that Ms. Lute "dismissed a reporter's concern that she had a possible conflict of interest in her United Nations role because her husband, Lt. General Douglas Lute, was the United States' Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan." But the concern is not only this reporter's -- it is frequently expressed by diplomats, though Lute has apparently never before been asked about it.)

   Inner City Press asked about her recent trip to Afghanistan, a country for which her husband is the U.S. war czar. Are the UN's and U.S.'s position so in sync that there is not even the appearance of a conflict of interest? Ms. Lute acknowledged the trip, which was little publicized other than by a U.S. military photographer. She went on to say that, in one of the few differences with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations from which DFS was with so much fanfare split off, DFS is responsible for the the logistics for all 23 of the UN's "Special Political Missions." But one of the largest SPM's is that in Iraq, including the proposal, slated to be considered this Spring, that the UN spend $180 million to construct a UN "bunker" in the Green Zone in Baghdad. No appearance of conflict?

            On DFS, Ms. Lute predicted that the decision on who will be Under Secretary General will be made neither in hours nor in months. UN sources, including military advisers at Permanent Five members of the Security Council, cast their bets on the Argentine head of logistics for the World Food Program. "There is a Pakistani," one military adviser told Inner City Press, "but it is not their UN Ambassador Munir Akram." Would another head of DFS not push so hard for sole-source Lockheed contracts?  "I have no understanding, only what the reality is." We will continue to follow this.

At UN, Clooney Says that in Lockheed's Sole Source Darfur Deal, Mistakes Were Made, "Not a Fan of No-Bid Contracts"

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis, click here for video debate.

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- "I'm not a fan of no-bid contracts, myself," actor and UN Messenger of Peace George Clooney said Thursday, when asked about the UN's $250 million sole source deal with Lockheed Martin for its Darfur peacekeeping mission. Next to Clooney sat UN official Jane Holl Lute, who as early of April 2007 advocated for steering the business to Lockheed, three months before the Security Council authorized the "UNAMID" peacekeeping mission, and five months before Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon unilaterally waived all contracting rules for UNAMID. "There've been some mistakes made in that period of time," Clooney said, adding that "the UN has learned lessons." Video here, from Minute 18:54.

            But what lessons? Clooney turned to Jane Holl Lute to answer the question, and she argued that the lack of competition was authorized, if only after-the-fact, by the Secretary-General's October 2007 ruling, and she disputed that the General Assembly has called for an investigation of the Lockheed contract. Unclear what lessons except denial had taken hold, Inner City Press asked a follow-up question about the timeline of the decision to give the deal to Lockheed, and the after-arising Security Council vote and Ban Ki-moon ruling. "I'm willing to sit down and go over the timeline," Ms. Lute said, after having refused or ignored request since October to answer questions about her role in the deal, including any safeguards concerning the possible conflicts of interest raised by her husband's service as U.S. President Bush's war czar for Iraq and Afghanistan. "We learned a lot, as George mentioned," she said.

            It is striking that while the UN Secretariat has been dismissive of the concerns raised about the contract by the member states in the General Assembly, it takes the gentle chiding of an actor and new Messenger of Peace to eke out at least an admission that lessons have been learned. Such is the power of celebrity, or the lack of democracy within the UN system. The Secretariat in theory works for all of the members states in the General Assembly. But several Ambassadors complained that Ms. Lute's peacekeeping support office did not answer all their questions about the contract, but that they had no choice but to approve UNAMID's budget as submitted in December, lest they be accused of abetting genocide in Darfur.

            To his credit, while Clooney could have responded either that he did not know about the contract, or have reflexively defended all UN decisions, he instead nodded with recognition when Inner City Press asked the question, and then acknowledged that mistakes had been made. Video here, from Minute 18:54. We will report on this topic again once Ms. Lute, as promised, makes herself available to answer questions about the timeline of her advocating for Lockheed Martin to get the no-bid contract and related matters. Watch this site. click here for video debate.

Senate Report Confirms North Korea Violations of UNDP While Letting Wider UN, Kemal Dervis and U.S. Allies Off the Hook

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, January 23 -- While the UN Development Program operated in North Korea, government officials monitored UNDP's communications and searched its employees' houses, according to a Senate report released Wednesday night on the eve of testimony by UNDP and other United Nations officials.

    By focusing solely on North Korea, and criticizing UNDP but not the breakdown in oversight by the wider UN system, the Report and hearing are seen as representing a missed opportunity to bring about meaningful reform. For example, while the report focuses on a past UNDP payment to a vendor asserted by the U.S. State Department to be involved in Kim Jong-Il's weapons programs, Zang Lok Trading Company, it fails to mention that more recently, UNDP consciously decided to contract with a company banned from business with the UN Secretariat due to bribery, Corimec, a decision that UNDP's Administrator Kemal Dervis called a "judgment call" and essentially defended.

    Dervis is not scheduled to testify at the Senate hearing, only his spokesman and head of Asia programs. Indicating that this report and hearing may be too little, too late, Dervis in an one-hour speech at UNDP's Executive Board meeting this week did not feel it necessary to mention any of these issues. Click here for that story.

            Likewise, even in revealing how compromised UNDP's communications out of North Korea were -- whistleblower Artjon Tony Shkurtaj had to travel to China in order to email his superiors about them --  the Report and apparently the Senate have not considered that the same monitoring by national staff occurs in, among other places reported on by Inner City Press, Sudan through the UN's mission there.

    The report states that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has tried to strengthen whistleblower protections through a plan that, the report says without providing the basis, has been subject to criticism. But Ban allowed Dervis to block the UN Ethics Office's inquiry into Shkurtaj's case (after the first stage found prima facie retaliation), and Ban issued a new system in which each UN Fund and Program can make up its own Ethics Office. Since then, the UN Ethics Office's Robert Benson, who will be subject to questions, has rebuffed yet another UNDP whistleblower, Mattieu Koumoin, click here for that story.

  The report says that a forensic audit is taking place, but the UN's Board of Auditors has been blocked from going to North Korea, and UNDP itself controls what documents it has brought out of the country. UNDP brags that the report credits "a proposal that would grant routine access to UNDP Executive Board members to UNDP audit reports is currently before the UNDP Executive Board," without explaining this policy's limitations. The Senate's report should become available for download through its website. [If not, Inner City Press can be contacted for a copy, obtained from Senate sources.] UNDP has put it online, along with its response which tellingly "welcomes" the report and its limited scope.

            The report, co-issued by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, largely confirms the charges leveled over the past year at UNDP for its North Korea programs: that UNDP paid workers' salaries directly to the government in hard currency, had only limited access to sites of projects it funded and no access to its own bank accounts, and paid a vendor asserted by the U.S. State Department to be involved in Kim Jong-Il's weapons programs. The specifics about wiretapping and unannounced searches are new, as are some of the details about the flow of UNDP's funds through Banco Delta Asia, a Macao institution later frozen as a money laundering concern.

            In places, the Senate report quietly lets UNDP off the hook, for example saying that North Korea used accounts affiliated with UNDP to transfer its own money to its diplomatic missions overseas. Earlier charges were that UNDP's funds were being diverted to North Korea's embassies, to buy real estate. While the report says that UNDP's "hybrid" delivery system in North Korea, in which it pretended that the government was implementing project over which UNDP claims to have retailed control, caused "confusion" about the volume of direct payments, the report does not directly confirm or deny previous estimates of the volume of payments, or even mention the issue, raised by whistleblowers, of larger South Korean funds having passed to the North through UNDP.

            The report goes noticeably light on the rest of the UN, and on Ban Ki-moon. If Kofi Annan were still Secretary General, one feels sure he would be held responsible for such pervasive problems in a UN program. But in this Report, the asserted independence of UNDP is emphasized, while the specifics of UNDP's non-accountability even to its own Executive Board is not adequately analyzed. Recent it was exposed that UNDP refused to show financial documents to the UK and Belgium about a procurement snafu in a Burundi program the countries funded, then hired the Belgian official who sought to pursue the matter. Likewise UNDP relocated jobs to the previous chair of its Executive Board, Denmark. Click here for that story.

    The limitation of the U.S. Senate's review to the UNDP program in North Korea, which at the time the inquiry launched was still viewed as a part of Bush's "Axis of Evil," leaves unexplored UNDP's transgressions in places like Uganda, where UNDP was involved in disarmament program that culminated in the burning of villages, and Somalia, where UNDP trained security forces which targeted civilians. That both Uganda's Museveni government and Somalia's Transitional Federal Institutions, installed by Ethiopia, are allies of the U.S. makes the need for further inquiry all the more clear. The report is, however, a start. Watch this site.

After Botched Procurement in Burundi, UNDP Denied Documents to UK & Belgian Board Member, Who Was Then Hired

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, January 17 -- Using Belgian and British aid funds, the UN Development Program in mid-2007 undertook to purchase medical equipment in the Central African nation of Burundi. During the procurement process, one bidder's information was improperly given to a competitor and UNDP quietly tried to cancel the project, documents obtained by Inner City Press reveal. The Belgian Mission to the UN, and Sue Hogwood of the UK Department of International and Foreign Development both demanded explanations and evaluation reports. UNDP refused to provide these funders with the underlying documents. See UNDP letter, here.

    Geert Vansintjan, then the Belgian Mission's Development Counselor, wrote to UNDP Controller Darshak Shah, conveying his government's analysis that "you can give money to UNDP, you will not get access to what they call internal documents... UNDP procedures not at all transparent... We can improve on the UNDP without falling into the U.S.-trap." In response, rather than provide the documents or clean up the procedures, it was arranged for Mr. Vansingtan to get a job with the UN, with UNDP's sister agency the UN Office of Project Services. And in late December, in preparation for a UNDP Executive Board meeting starting next week, UNDP released a draft "Accountability Framework" in which it could still withhold even from funders any documents affecting "staff, third parties or a country government" -- that is, precisely the type of documents of financial impropriety withheld from Belgium and the UK in this case.

            UNDP's letter, from Country Director Antonius Broek, was also sent to Norway, apparently because the botched procurement also involved the UN's Peacebuilding Fund, PBF. Broek refers to an "anticipated increase in procurement volume from the PBF funded projects." Broek, along with the UK's Ms. Hogwood and the Special Representative of the Secretary General in Burundi, had received the complaint of the vendor, Hospital Medical Services Bujumbura, which protested that UNDP had divulged to an eliminated bidder the details of HMS' financial offer. UNDP's Richard Barathe, "Senior Advisor for Strategic Partnerships," had received a summary:

"Three million Euros was received from Belgium for the '2006 Burundi Emergency Program Open Trust Fund... The Contribution Agreement, which itself is not dated... there is another request from the Belgians for clarification focusing on the procurement irregularities."

            On August 9, 2007, the Belgian Mission's Geert Vansintjan wrote to Darshak Shah regarding "Burundi UNDP Trust Fund," stating

"I did not yet get any feedback from your own office on the case mentioned above... Lessons learned: you can give money to UNDP, you will not get access to what they call internal documents... UNDP procedures not at all transparent... local ownership is gone... damage control is paramount. The most important asset of UNDP is its reputation. You should be able to project an image of taking procurement seriously. I want this reaction because I want to show my field office that they are not alone and that we can improve on the UNDP. without falling into the US-trap."

            Upon receipt of this message, viewed as a threat, UNDP's Darshak Shah wrote to Krishan Batra, "please ensure that the response is sent asap. I suggest we also meet with Geert. Belgian Mission is an important supporter of UNDP."

            Less than two months later, UNDP's sister agency UNOPS hired Geert Vansintjan, on a "special" and thus non-competitive basis, as "Senior Partnership Manager for the North American Office. UNOPS' executive director Jan Mattson, previously at UNDP, wrote to staff that "since mid-2003 he has represented Belgium on UNDP / UNFPA and UNICEF boards as a delegate, actively participating in the change management process, working on accountability frameworks, results-based management, strategic plans, and UN reform." The "UNDP / UNFPA board also oversees UNOPS. And that he turned around are took a job at the agency he was supposed to oversee.

News analysis: when embroiled in scandal, UNDP often emphasizes that while it may not be giving information to the press, it is accountable and transparent to the member states which give it money and sit on its Executive Board. But in this case, two countries which funded UNDP were denied access to basic records of an admittedly irregular procurement exercise. Belgium, it should be noted, is becoming the vice-chair of UNDP's Executive Board. To give a job to the Belgian mission's development counselor, who was pushing to get information that UNDP did not want to provide, is an example of how UNDP's top management manages to escape, rather than embrace, accountability.

  Looking forward, there is a growing sense that just as the Secretariat promulgated a set of Post-Employment Restrictions, albeit weak, rules are needed to prohibit those who oversee or audit agencies from going to work for them for a set period time after leaving their oversight role.

   Shorter term, these specific conflicts of interest, the availability of audits, the lack of oversight that led to contracting with Corimec and the $280,000 housing subsidy windfall of UNDP's head of Millennium Campaign, are all topics for the upcoming Executive Board meeting.

Tony Blair's UN Role May Conflict with New Job with JP Morgan Chase, Subprime View of UN

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- J.P. Morgan Chase has hired former UK prime minister Tony Blair, it was reported Thursday. The AP repeated Blair's claim that "the appointment won't infringe on his duties with the so-called Quartet - the U.S., European Union, U.N. and Russia... helping the Palestinians build up their economy and governing bodies in preparation for the establishment of a Palestinian state." But might it create at least the perception of a conflict of interest? 

    Is it impossible that J.P. Morgan Chase may have economic interests in the area, in which case Tony Blair would be attempting to serve at least two masters? On Thursday morning Inner City Press asked the UN spokesperson's office for their response, including that if no prohibition is said to apply, what safeguards will be put in place. Having received no answer, the question was asked at Friday's UN noon briefing. Spokesperson Michele Montas replied that "I have absolutely no comment on that," adding "as you know, Mr. Blair is an envoy of the Quartet, not of the UN." But not only is the UN one of the four Quartet members -- as stated by the UN's Michael Williams in the Security Council on August 29, 2007, "several United Nations offices and departments are collaborating to finalize arrangements for the provision of financial management and security support for Mr. Blair's mission." In practice this has meant that the UN Development Program rented ten room for Tony in Jerusalem, click here for that story.

  When Inner City Press asked if Blair had asked the UN about any possible conflict of interest or safeguards, Ms. Montas said, "He doesn't have to." When asked if Blair had asked the Quartet -- on which the UN sits -- Ms. Montas said, "You should ask Mr. Blair." Video here, from Minute 15:20.

            For now, using J.P. Morgan Chase's involvement in and exposure to the subprime and predatory lending crisis as the bridge, consider the UN's just-released World Economic Situation and Prospects 2008, which in reference to "rising defaults in the U.S. subprime mortgage market" recommends that "regulatory standards have to be introduced for investor protection." But what about consumer protection? On January 9, Inner City Press asked Rob Vos, Director of UN DESA's Development Policy and Analysis Division, about this seeming lack of focus on consumers. Video here, from Mi