By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 26 -- When the UN got sued on charges of bringing cholera to Haiti which has killed over 8000 people, a major reason was the UN's failure to set up the Standing Claims Commission provided for under its Status of Forces Agreement (or Status of Mission Agreement).

   And so starting nine days ago, Inner City Press has been asking UN spokespeople whether any UN Peacekeeping mission has a standing claims commission.

   UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told Inner City Press it is "not a yes or no question," then that counting days without an answer wasn't helpful.

   Inner City Press waited more days, then on November 26 -- nine days after asking the question -- asked it again at the day's noon briefing. Minutes later, this admission:

  Clearly something is broken; people in countries ostensibly helped by the UN have no recourse when things go wrong, even deadly wrong.  So what will be done by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Herve Ladsous, the UN head of peacekeeping selected like his three predecessors by France?

    The impunity is flagrant. With the UN now akin to a scofflaw, its acting deputy spokesperson Haq last Thursday refused to confirm or explain refusing even service of the court papers.

   When the lawyers in the class action suit for victims of the UN bringing cholera to Haiti tried to serve the complaint, they told Inner City Press last Wednesday, the UN "refused to physically receive process."

  Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq the next day to confirm and explain -- but he said there was nothing more to say, that previous statements explain it. Video here and embedded below.

  So did then UN lawyer Patricia O'Brien ruling the adminstrative claims were "not receivable" mean her successor Miguel de Serpa Soares wouldn't even "receive" the court case papers?

  The victims' lawyers anticipate the UN, once it is served if only by newspaper publication, making a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it is immune. But, they say, no remedy has been provided, nor any alternative mechanism.

  Just as Sri Lanka military figure, now Deputy Permanent Representative Shavendra Silva successfully did, the US State Department will be asked to make a court filing supporting immunity.

  This time, the lawyers say, there will be a campaign to ask the State Department not to support impunity, with letters to Secretary of State John Kerry including from members of Congress.  Would newly appointed US Mission reform ambassador Leslie Berger Kiernan play a role in this?

  On last Tuesday evening, Inner City Press filmed as State Department official Victoria Holt heard the UN's Edmond Mulet essentially blame the cholera deaths on Haitian under-development; when given the floor, Holt said nothing about this. Video here; longer form analysis by this author here, on Beacon Reader.

  In the UN Press Briefing Room, for seven days now Inner City Press has waited for a UN answer to a yes or no question: has UN Peacekeeping established any of the Standing Claims Commissions provided for its its Status of Forces Agreements.

  On November 14, UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said that actually setting up a standing claims commission depends on the request of the mission's host government. But that not only ignores the power relations, it did not answer the yes or no question.

  Haq referred to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. But its chief Herve Ladsous has refused to answer basic questions, such as about the 135 rapes at Minova by UN Peacekeeping's partners in the Congolese Army. Video here, UK coverage here. So would will this simple question be answered?

  Not on November 18. Asked again, Haq said the question had been put to UN Peacekeeping, but it's "not a yes or no question." Video here. If the answer's yes, can't it be said in four days? And if no - what's the explanation? Or does the UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous think they can just not answer?

  Waiting two days, and after filming UN Peacekeeping deputy Edmond Mulet Tuesday night, here, Inner City Press, on November 20 asked Haq again, saying it had been six days. Haq replied that counting days is not helpful. But why did UN Peacekeeping not answer a basic question for eight days? Would it have ever answered, if not asked again and again? Watch this site.

Footnote: also last Thursday, Inner City Press asked the UN's Haq for an update on previous answers that the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO was "verifying" reprisal attacks in Bunagana and Kiwanja. These was no update. So is the UN checking or not?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 21 -- With the UN now akin to a scofflaw, its spokesperson on Thursday refused to confirm or explain refusing even service of the court papers.

   When the lawyers in the class action suit for victims of the UN bringing cholera to Haiti tried to serve the complaint, they told Inner City Press on Wednesday, the UN "refused to physically receive process."

  Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq on Thursday to confirm and explain -- but he said there was nothing more to say, that previous statements explain it. Video here and embedded below.

  So did then UN lawyer Patricia O'Brien ruling the adminstrative claims were "not receivable" mean her successor Miguel de Serpa Soares wouldn't even "receive" the court case papers?

  The lawyers tell Inner City Press they aim to ask for permission for an alternate mode: service by publication. Those are the legal notices published in newspapers, often putting deadbeat parents on notice their wages will be garnished. How has the UN fallen this low?

  The victims' lawyers anticipate the UN, once it is served if only by newspaper publication, making a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it is immune. But, they say, no remedy has been provided, nor any alternative mechanism.

  Just as Sri Lanka military figure, now Deputy Permanent Representative Shavendra Silva successfully did, the US State Department will be asked to make a court filing supporting immunity.

  This time, the lawyers say, there will be a campaign to ask the State Department not to support impunity, with letters to Secretary of State John Kerry including from members of Congress.  Would newly appointed US Mission reform ambassador Leslie Berger Kiernan play a role in this?

  On Tuesday evening, Inner City Press filmed as State Department official Victoria Holt heard the UN's Edmond Mulet essentially blame the cholera deaths on Haitian under-development; when given the floor, Holt said nothing about this. Video here; longer form analysis by this author here, on Beacon Reader.

  In the UN Press Briefing Room, for seven days now Inner City Press has waited for a UN answer to a yes or no question: has UN Peacekeeping established any of the Standing Claims Commissions provided for its its Status of Forces Agreements.

  On November 14, UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said that actually setting these up depends on the request of the mission's host government. But that not only ignores the power relations, it does not answer the yes or no question: has any Standing Claims Commissions been set up?

  Haq referred to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. But its chief Herve Ladsous has refused to answer basic questions, such as about the 135 rapes at Minova by UN Peacekeeping's partners in the Congolese Army. Video here, UK coverage here. So would will this simple question be answered?

  Not on November 18. Asked again, Haq said the question had been put to UN Peacekeeping, but it's "not a yes or no question." Video here. If the answer's yes, can't it be said in four days? And if no - what's the explanation? Or does the UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous think they can just not answer?

  Waiting two days, and after filming UN Peacekeeping deputy Edmond Mulet Tuesday night, here, Inner City Press, on November 20 asked Haq again, saying it had been six days. Haq replied that counting days is not helpful. But how can UN Peacekeeping not answer a basic question in seven days? We will keep asking. Watch this site.

Footnote: also on Thursday, Inner City Press asked the UN's Haq for an update on previous answers that the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO was "verifying" reprisal attacks in Bunagana and Kiwanja. These was no update. So is the UN checking or not?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 14 -- The murky capture of UN Peacekeeping by France through Herve Ladsous is on display this week, from Mali through Eastern Congo and now even to Russia, on Syria.

  While refusing to answer Press questions at the UN in New York, including about alleged gang rape by his peacekeepers in Mali and partners in the Congolese Army, UK coverage here, Ladsous today in Moscow let drop that the UN might send peacekeepers to Syria. Click here, and here.

  But how? Under what mandate? Back in mid-2012 it was Ladsous who pulled the plug on the UN mission led by Robert Mood. Now he'd go back in for what?

  Speaking to Radio France International, where else, on November 4 Ladsous bragged that he was moving attack helicopters from former French colony Cote d'Ivoire over to another former French colony, Mali, while waiting to bring in troops from, where else, Burkina Faso. Ladsous alluded to new copters coming from... Central America.

  But he has refused to answer whether Mauritania's demand to only serve in the MISUSMA mission along its own border complies with UN rules. Ladsous has ignored or even destroyed the UN's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy, by continuing to support the 41 and 391 Battalions of the Congolese Army implicated in 135 rapes in Minova.

  These rapes will belatedly be mentioned in today's Security Council Presidential Statement, as Inner City Press reported yesterday. But the policy has already been defanged by Ladsous.

  As noted, while leaving all this murky, Ladsous is slated for a "panel discussion" near but outside of the UN next week, for dues-payers. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1 -- The UN's envoy on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi was asked, "after Saudi Arabia refused to receive you;" he called it a speech, not a question," but did not confirm or deny that the Saudis declined to receive him.

So Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky on November 1 to confirm or deny (video here and embedded below)

Inner City Press: one of the questions that Mr. Brahimi was asked in his press conference in Damascus was about Saudi Arabia refusing his request to visit. And he said it was a speech and not a question, but as I read it, I didn’t see him say yes or no. Can you say whether he asked to visit Saudi Arabia and whether this request was denied, as the question has it?

Spokesperson: Well, with the greatest respect, Matthew, if Mr. Brahimi didn’t answer the question, I don’t think you’d expect that I would.

Inner City Press: It seems important…

  Particularly since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Saudi Arabia so effusively after they said they wouldn't be taking the Security Council seat they without competition won.

  In other transcript games, when Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki spoke to the media with US President Obama, the White House's foreign pool report by Nadia Bilbassy-charters of Al-Arabiya said that Maliki "denounced the use of chemical weapons that were used both in Iraq under Saddam Hussain and in Syria by President Assad."

  The last part of this seemed dubious. And lo and behold, when the transcript came out, Maliki actually said we "want to avoid the use of chemical weapons, because we and the Syrians suffered a lot from these weapons." That is, not that Assad had used them.

  On the allegation that it was the opposition that used chemical weapons, for example in Khan al Asal, the UN as Inner City Press gleaned and screened yesterday the UN has pushed back its report from late October a full month to early December. The UN still hasn't explained why. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 1, updated -- With World Bank president Jim Kim appearing by video from Washington, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday morning announced his and Kim's upcoming trip to the Sahel: Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Chad.

  Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky then chose four questions. The first, in a politicized process that has become more indefensible by the day, went to the UN Correspondents Association.

 This is a group which, beyond trying to get investigative media thrown out of the UN, in July held a faux "UN briefing" for Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba.

  Two of the three other questions were also given to UNCA Executive Committee members: a softball and one not even about the Sahel. The only non-UNCA question turned out to be about money laundering and corruption.

  Directly on Mali and the UN Peacekeeping mission MINUSMA which Ban bragged about, he should have been asked about the allegations of gang rape against MINUSMA, and its troops leaving their posts in Northern Mali after not being paid.

No one asked if Ban will travel to Gao or Northern Mali, or if the World Bank's money will benefit the Tuaregs.

  Even on the Great Lakes trip both Ban and Kim bragged of, no one asked about opposition to dam projects, or about why the International Monetary Fund still has not revived the program it suspended with the DRC due to murky mining contracts. This is how this UN is working - or not. Watch this site.

Update: only after Ban left did Nesirky take questions on the trip from members of the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info. To Inner City Press on the rape charges, Nesirky said it is mostly up to the Troop Contributing Country: Chad, which Kim and Ban will also visit. No answer on if they'll go to Gao, or how ensure World Bank funds reach Northern Mali. We'll have more on the trip.

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 18 -- After Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari gave a speech Friday in the UN Security Council saying "the French regime" should give up its permanent seat on the Council, and slamming Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Inner City Press asked him what he thought the reason was for Saudi Arabia renouncing the Security Council seat it won Thursday without competition.

  Ja'afari made some expected points -- that Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive and so is not qualified for the Council, for example, and that its mission does not have the capacity to serve on the Council. But this is true of others too, Inner City Press noted. What changed?

  Then Ja'afari offered this explanation, as an exclusive to Inner City Press: now that the Security Council has passed a resolution, and the push is on for the so-called Geneva Two talks, Saudi Arabia "cannot" (or does not want to be) part of that consensus. Even France cannot vote against Geneva Two. But could Saudi Arabia stand to be seen voting against it, isolated 14 to 1?

  This is something that changed, and recently - the coming together of the Council to vote for the chemical weapons mission, and singing from the same choir book about Geneva Two.

  It is not implausible, that as the date of starting on the Council grew closer, and the sides on the Security Council grew closer together and not farther apart, Saudi Arabia or someone in its royal family saw serving on the Council in a different light.

Kuwait, Ja'afari told Inner City Press, is no different.

  But Kuwait is not as aligned publicly - voting for a Geneva Two would not be seen as contradicting its positions or, as for Saudi Arabia, those it funds. We'll see. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 17 -- Ever since the UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon did nothing, and worse, as 40,000 civilians were killed in Sri Lanka in 2009, its officials and spokespeople have claimed they want to learn from what happened.

  But now, not only did the UN withhold its internal report on the lesson learned. After Inner City Press obtained and exclusively published the report on October 11 and Ban's associate spokesperson Farhan Haq answered Press questions about it, today lead spokesperson Martin Nesirky said that nothing had been confirmed, the documents referred to "may or may not exist."

   Well, it exists and cannot be covered up. Inner City Press put it online here.

  Asking about the UN system human rights plan citing failure in Sri Lanka as its impetus, which it published on October 14, Inner City Press sought clarification from Nesirky: was this proposal to merge "Rule of Law" into human rights the UN's main response?

Nesirky replied that Inner City Press must be a "member of the magic circle," since it cites "documents that may or may not exist."

Really? Here is the post Sri Lanka "action plan" which Inner City Press published on October 11.

Here is the UN system human rights / rule of law proposal Inner City Press published on October 14.

Back on October 11, Nesirky's associate Farhan Haq told Inner City Press "in terms of other information that we can put out, we’ll be preparing a summary of the Action Plan."

Actually, the "one pager" of the action plan already existed. Inner City Press had it, and now publishes it here.

  The UN already failed, massively, in Sri Lanka in 2009. Why would it now be trying to deny the existence of its own reports into the matter? We will have more on this. Watch this site.

Footnote: Despite Nesirky saying he had read the UN's transcript of what his associate Farhan Haq said on October 11, when his office called "the lid is on" and closed at 6:30 pm on October 17, the day's noon briefing transcript had still not been put online.

  Inner City Press has noted that these UN transcripts are intentionally inaccurate, for example when Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson was the guest, omitted the name "Free UN Coalition for Access" which the UN otherwise tries to silence but leaving in "UN Correspondents Association," Ban's UN Censorship Alliance (including on Sri Lanka, here).

 So we are using video now, as more trustworthy. Click here for a sample, and there will be more.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 10, updated -- The day after the UN was sued for bringing cholera to Haiti, Inner City Press asked French Ambassador Gerard Araud about the case, and how the UN should respond since it is "pretty clear the UN brought cholera to Haiti." Video here, from Minute 9:04.

Araud replied, "that's your judgment, that the UN brought cholera, that's your assessment, you can make it."

But even those who wrote the UN's first cover-up report have recanted it and admitted that a strain identical to that from Nepal where the UN brought peacekeepers from caused cholera in Haiti.

  On the class action lawsuit, a copy of which Inner City Press put online yesterday morning here, Araud said "that for UN to answer, the UN has made an answer, the assessment of the Secretariat" -- apparently referring to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's pre-lawsuit ruling that the claims were "not receivable."

  Araud continued, about the "state of law," that "it will be to the court to decide... I'm sure that the UN will accept the decision."

  Actually, even in the UN's dubious in-house legal system, Ban Ki-moon appeals nearly every decision against him, including for lack promised of whistleblower protection.

  Inner City Press then asked Araud about what Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe said in the General Debate last month, that the UN has a "moral responsibility" for cholera in Haiti.

Araud scoffed and said, "moral responsibility is a very vague term." Video here, from Minute 10:22.

Inner City Press tweeted this, and minutes later Haiti Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe wrote to Inner City Press by Twitter: "@innercitypress do you have a question? #haiti #cholera #UN #UNSC #UNSG"

@innercitypress do you have a question? #haiti #cholera #UN #UNSC #UNSG

— Laurent Lamothe (@LaurentLamothe) October 10, 2013

Yes, Inner City Press had and has questions, and has now sent three to Lamothe's office, including about testimony yesterday on Capitol Hill about Haiti. Watch this site.

Footnote: Yesterday Ban Ki-moon's Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq answered Inner City Press that UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous now screened peacekeepers for cholera, he thought: "I believe that part of our lessons learned from this has been to screen peacekeepers for cholera." Inner City Press asked him to check, saying "I haven't heard that they are."

  Having no response 24 hours later, Inner City Press asked Haq at Thursday's noon briefing and he said -- only when asked a second time -- that Ladsous' DPKO does NOT screen for cholera. When was that answer going to be provided?Video here from Minute 9:38.  [And see update below.]

   Inner City Press asked Ladsous a simple question in front of the Security Council on Thursday, which he refused to answer. This "farce" was reported earlier this week in the UK New Statesman, here. We will pursue all of this. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 5 -- Why didn't the UN chemical weapons team ever go to Khan al Assal, which Syria asked them to visit back in March 2013? First the UN demanded access to other sites. Then once in Damascus, it dropped Khan al Assal in favor of al Ghouta - then left the country.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared the result report by Ake Sellstrom "overwhelming" before he even saw it. Then he sent Sellstrom back from September 25 to September 30. Finally it seemed Khan al Assal would be visited.

But it wasn't, the UN has yet to explain why. Inner City Press asked on both October 3 and was told the answer was in a previous transcript. But it wasn't. So Inner City Press asked again on October 4, transcript and video here and below:

From the UN's October 3 transcript:

Inner City Press: Angela Kane says that she, in hindsight, regrets not having simply gone to Khan al-Asal, but instead, having requested to go to other sites which led to these, these months’ delay; so, one, I wanted to know whether the Secretary-General also has that analysis that the delay may have actually played some role in the further use of chemical weapons. And I also wanted to know whether the [Åke] Sellström team, in their most recent visit, just to be sure: did they, did they actually get out to Khan al-Asal?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I have already answered that, Matthew: no, they did not.

Inner City Press: Alright. So, why not? That’s what, I’d only learned yesterday, I may, I might have missed your earlier answer, but why didn’t they go where they were initially going to speci--

Spokesperson: I answered that, as well.

Inner City Press: Okay. Can you say why?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Read the transcript.

Then, after Inner City Press reported on this exchange in a story about Ban Ki-moon's meeting, with Angela Kane present, with Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif, Nesirky's office sent this:

Subject: Your question at the Noon Briefing
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

In reference to your question at the [October 3] Noon Briefing, the Spokesperson said the following at the Noon briefing on 30 September 2013:

Question: Thank you, Martin. Just had a quick question about Dr. Sellström’s mission: Does that mean he won’t go back to Syria now, now that he is finalizing the report and they didn’t go to Khan al-Assal in the end?

Spokesperson: They are now heading out of Syria with the aim of finalizing their report. And I will be able to provide details on where they have been, but not right at this moment. They have not visited Khan al-Assal to my knowledge. But that does not mean that they have not been able to collect a large body of information, which they had been doing in any case in the lead up to their initial visit and then to their return. And so, if I have any more details, I will let you know. And I know also that they will now be seeking to marshal all of the information that they do have with the aim of putting that report together by the end of October, as we just said.

Inner City Press published the above in full, while still asking: why? And the next day on October 4, Inner City Press asked again:

Inner City Press: I did read the transcript; it’s not like I don’t read these things and it was sent to me again, I just want to... forgetting the transcript and without any disrespect, I just wanted a simple answer why the UN never went to Khan al-Asal. And I read, I read it a number of times; maybe I am being dense, but was it that it they couldn’t get there? Was it that the, the, the, it was too deteriorated? I am not suggesting those are the reasons, I just want to know what the reason is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, it does say, not in that particular part that you have in front of you; it does say on 30 September, that transcript from Monday, or let’s be clear about it: I said there are a number of reasons, potential reasons. And one of those includes that with the passage of time, it becomes… I don’t think you expect me, I know you are reading what I said, you don’t think you’d expect me to say exactly what I said on Monday?

Inner City Press: I am asking you a kind of a substantive question; what would you say to those who say it’s, it is a shame that if the request, the initial request to go to Syria was to visit this one place, it seems to cry, to call out for an answer of why what was initially requested was not done.

Spokesperson Nesirky: Right, right, so, listen: As I have said, as I have said here a number of times, there are a number of factors why it was not possible or feasible to go. And one of those is that with the passage of time, there is a deterioration of the material that could be used for sampling, and, therefore, to help decide whether chemical weapons were used or not. But as I also said, there is a portfolio of different ways that the team, the investigation team, can gather evidence and try to determine at a distance whether chemical weapons were used. That’s one of the possible constraints. Another is obviously security. And with regard to the broader question about the passage of time, everybody knows that it was not for want of trying that the team did not get there until August. As you well know from March, there was extremely hard work done on both sides — meaning the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the form of the Office for Disarmament Affairs — to make this work. It was not easy. And that’s been plainly said by any number of people, including the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. But the fact of the matter is that everyone persevered because there was an interest to get in. And eventually, they were able to get in and they were able then to determine that chemical weapons had indeed been used in that incident on 21 August; and they furthermore have continued both outside and then, on a subsequent visit to Syria that ended on Monday, to gather material so that they can present a final report at the end of this month.

  That says why the UN thought it wasn't WORTH going to Khan al Asal, not why they COULDN'T go to the spot that Syria had asked them to visit. It's like Ban Ki-moon meeting at his (UN-provided) residence with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba -- a reflection of where Ban is coming from.

  Footnote: Ban's partners in the UN Correspondents Association, whose Executive Committee is dominated by Gulf and Western media from Al Arabiya and Reuters, where as Nesirky points out he worked for 25 years (video here), hosted Jarba for a faux UN briefing in July, on which Nesirky refused to answer questions by the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info about whether this really WAS a "UN briefing," and why this room is given by the UN to a partisan organization. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 5 -- The mass rape of 135 women in Minova in November 2012 by two units of the Congolese Army to which the UN still provide support is an issue on which UN Peacekeeping has been far less than transparent.

When Inner City Press, which has inquired into the rapes with exclusives since last November, asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, he refused to answer at all. Video compilation here.

  More recently after spin UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky has said it is entirely a matter for the Congolese authorities -- this despite the UN's continued support to the 41st and 391st Battalion in seeming contravention of Ban's stated Human Rights Due Diligence Policy.

Now with the UN Security Council in Kinshasa for meetings, Inner City Press has reports from multiple sources that the issue was raised, including to President Joseph Kabila himself.

UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant to his credit gave an open answer less than an hour ago, by Twitter: "@innercitypress Yes we have just seen Pres Kabila. Minova crimes raised by me & others with Defence and Interior Ministers."

Inner City Press has further learned that the "others" referred to by Lyall Grant include US Ambassador Samantha Power, who raised the issue not only to the Defense minister and to the Interior minister (accompanied by the Justice Minister in the meeting with the Security Council) but to President Kabila himself.

A complaint is that the claimed investigation has been far too slow, and that only junior soldiers have been jailed. Inner City Press is informed that the Ministers responded that twelves officers were suspended, and may be prosecuted, after investigation.

How is this investigation taking from November 2012 until now, October, more than ten months later? And what is President Kabila's response?

It must be noted for the context of Ambassador Power's question to Kabila that the 391st Battalion was trained by the US. Inner City Press, after reporting, got a US Mission to the UN comment on it, here.

  French Ambassador Gerard Araud, who dropped out of the trip at the last minute after his Mission hand-picked which correspondents could accompany and cover the UN trip and rejected Inner City Press, had earlier told the Press that the units implicated in the Minova rapes were the DRC's "best" units.

@innercitypress Yes we have just seen Pres Kabila. Minova crimes raised by me & others with Defence And Interior Ministers.

— Mark Lyall Grant (@LyallGrant) October 5, 2013

  The Security Council is now dining with the DRC Prime Minister; tomorrow they head east to Goma. We will continue to cover the trip. Watch this site.

  For viewing: in this video, Ladsous refused to answer Inner City Press' question about the Minova rapes, then took into the hall some favored correspondents, including one individual selected by France for this trip, as well as Reuters and AFP: click here.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 27 -- After the UN Security Council adopted its Syria chemical weapons resolution 15-0, things got interesting.

  In the chamber, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius claimed the resolution provides for accountability, which is false; his Chinese counterpart said that Japan used chemical weapons against China, which is true.

  At the stakeout, Inner City Press asked Syria's Permanent Representative Bashar Ja'afari about the French sponsored event the previously date, Group of Friends of the Syrian People, where Saudi-sponsored rebel Ahmad al Jarba was declared the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

  Ja'afari replied that he told Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in advance, that the so-called side event violated the UN Charter; he added that Fabius has a "surreal" view of the resolution and the law.

  History too, apparently. Inner City Press asked Fabius, when he came out, how the Jarba event complied with the UN Charter.

  Fabius said he hadn't fully understood what Ja'afari said.

  Inner City Press said, en pasant, "Clearly."

  Fabius said, Either did you, probably. Video here, from Minute 4:16.

  Then Fabius said that while perhaps there was an issue under "the rules" -- that would be, the UN Charter -- it was clear that Assad killed 1,500 people.

  But, it occurred, when Sri Lanka killed 40,000 people in 2009, France didn't call any meeting, much less declare someone other than Mahinda Rajapaksa to be the representative of the Sri Lankan people.

  From the riser, a reporter from Al Mayadeen asked Fabius what about France killing Algerians. Fabius said, that's not a question. Then he turned to those closer to him, saying let's find "a real journalist."

  And so it is more clear that this French government, far from respecting freedom of the press, deems those whose questions it does not like to be non-journalists.

   It is similar to the way France as "pen holder" on the Democratic Republic of the Congo made it its business to hand pick which correspondents can go on and cover the Security Council trip to the Great Lakes region, including Rwanda.

  Ban Ki-moon took only two questions, one from a reporter for among others France 24 and then Pamela Falk, the 2013 president of the UN Correspondents Association, host of a faux UN briefing by Jarba in July. The UK also called on her, after Reuters. This is how it works at the UN.

  But a question arises: what was Ban Ki-moon's response to being told, in advance, that the UN Charter was being violated by France in the ECOSOC Chamber with Jarba?

  Ban's Spokesperson's Office refused to answer Inner City Press' question about UNCA calling its session(s) with Jarba "UN briefings," saying, ask UNCA. That is not sufficient.

  It was said that Geneva Two should happen in mid-November; Australia's Gary Quinlan graciously stopped at the end of the evening and told Inner City Press that the next step is adopting the "humanitarian text" by next Wednesday. But wil that be a resolution or a Presidential Statement? Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 28 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to meet with Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba, why was it not in his UN office but rather in his residence? Why was it not listed in the UN Media Alert? Why was no UN Photo taken?

These questions have been asked of Ban's top two spokespeople, without answer. By contrast, when Ban met with his Syria chemical weapons team leader, Ake Sellstrom, he not only had a photograph taken - he flashed the first page of the report, expressing concern about sarin in Syria.

So why sneak around? What is Ban Ki-moon's response to the "urgent' September 24th letter sent to him and his Under Secretaries General of GA and Conference Management and the Department of Public Information? Inner City Press obtained and put that Syrian letter online, and also sent it to Ban's spokespeople seeking comment. There has been no response.

  And so we have to note: while Agence France Presse wrote a breathless story about the meeting, bragging that it is sure to make Syria's government angry, AFP did not disclose that its UN report Tim Witcher is on the Executive Committee of UNCA, a group which used its DPI-given room to hold a faux "UN briefing" for Jarba in July. This should have been disclosed.

  Another UNCA Executive Committee member bragged, without disclosure, that "Secgen meeting with Pres of the National Coalition #Syria opposition forces Ahmad al-Jarba."

  Inner City Press and the new Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info have repeatedly asked why the UN through DPI gives UNCA a room for faux UN briefing, and why Ban and his spokesperson give the first question to UNCA's 2013 president Pamela Falk, who sent out three invites for Jarba. Ban's Office, and then DPI, said "ask UNCA." This is a scam. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- How limited is press access to the UN General Assembly going to be this year? On the Saturday before the speeches begin, Italy sent out the following warning:

"Print journalists will have extremely limited space (10-12 spots standing room only) in one of the side booths and should report to the Media Center from where they will be accompanied by the UN press office on a 'first come / first served basis. TV/Photographers can follow from the TV booths in the General Assembly, accompanied by the UN press office on a “first come/first served” basis and should report to the Media Center; please be advised that due to the temporary location of the GA Hall, there are only 6 booths with limited capacity."

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has been challenging these restrictions at least since June. But at a press conference on September 13, when Inner City Press asked for FUNCA, this "standing room only" booth was presented as the response. Video here and embedded below.  FUNCA has issued a flier:

A booth without even laptops or a work table is not enough. And more stakeouts and Q&As must be provided. UN noon briefings should not be canceled, particularly not for mere two- or three-questions 'press conferences.'

The problems extend to the Security Council, with the media is penned in without electrical outlets; access to the UNSC’s trip to Africa has been ceded to France. A full range of coverage and questions must be permitted and not cut off. This is unacceptable censorship, as are the anonymous social media trolling and now counterfeiting begun by board members of the Association that does not want its name used. UN Room S-310 should be for all journalists, not only those paying money. We’ll have more on this.

Correspondents who have had their office space taken away and downgraded to a Green P pass are being blocked from re-entering the UN after “business hours,” even if their laptops are inside. To confine all media without UN office space to a North Lawn "Media Center," without even the stakeout around the corner that existed last year, is unacceptable.

  The UN must do better including on access. This is true not only for General Debate week, but for all year. This is true not only for media with offices in the UN, but for all those interested in covering the UN.

We'll have more on this. Watch this site -- and @FUNCA_info.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 14 -- Amid complaints about the Syria deal the US and Russia cut in Geneva, the UN's whining can only be heard, like a dog whistle, by a trained ear.

  Secretary General Ban Ki-moon tried hard to be relevant. He held press conference at headquarters, which has been increasingly rare for him. So what if he only took two or five questions? He got television face time.

  And US President Barack Obama in his prime time speech did finally get around to mentioning the UN, near the end of his speech. No mention of Ban Ki-moon, though: this was noticed.

  On Friday Ban got TV face time for comments in a "closed" meeting of the Women's International Forum, that his report, held back until Monday, will be "overwhelming" in showing the use of "chemical agents."

  Ban went on that Assad has committed many crimes against humanity and will face accountability. Click here for Inner City Press story, here for YouTube video.

  Some call it BanKi-leaks.

   But in terms of UN relevance, even Ban's gun jumping came too late. Whatever the report says, this deal has been cut. Perhaps Ban will say that his eleven hour leaking of the report helped bring Russia and Syria to the table. But that would be a weak claim, like the claim his UN didn't bring the cholera to Haiti.

  Even on the humanitarian front, on which certainly some good work is being done, the UN went out of its way not to confirm much less complain about threats to aid workers by extremist rebels, such as by ISIS in Jarabulus. When Inner City Press asked, it was disclosed that 11 UN staffers have been killed and others are still held hostage -- then no more information was given. Will it, now?

Look at what the UN dropped, in it race for relevance on Syria: in the Central African Republic, in one example reported by Inner City Press, slaughter and mayhem went on throughout the month of August with little to know UN action.

 Okay the Security Council's failure to pass a resolution was due to French diplomats being on vacation, and taking the Council's pen with them. (The country holding the pen on a Council agenda item are charged with drafting resolutions and statements.)

  Ban insisted he had not seen Ake Sellstrom's report and would have nothing to say until he did. Then he jumped the gun and told the Women's International Forum the report will be "overwhelming." (Lady's man, one wag commented.) But it came too late.

  How will Kerry's deal with Lavrov, and the UN's too-late role, be reviewed by non-Administration sources in Washington? How will those who waited for Obama -- or Obomber as some took to calling him -- for deliver a big blow react now? From the real world, we'll have more on this.

Footnote: The UN with little transparency gives a big room on the third floor, just above the Security Council, to a group called the UN Correspondents Association. It does not represent all resident correspondents at the UN.  It represents less then ten percent of the reporters who will cover the upcoming General Assembly, and is allowed or used by some in the UN to stealthy attack critical journalists.

But it has its functions: under 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS and first vice president Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, UNCA used the given room to hold a faux "UN briefing" for the Saudi-sponsored Syria rebel boss Ahmad al Jarba. The UN never clarified, despite requests from the Free UN Coalition for Access @FUNCA_info, whether this was somehow a "UN briefing."

 Will they now sponsor and amplify Jarba's complaints or just move on to the next... project? Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 14 -- The deal on Syria chemical weapons reached by the US and Russia marginalizes the UN and its Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who on Friday was bragging of his own "overwhelming" report to come out Monday. What will that report mean now?

  In the agreement, Ban's role is only to "submit recommendations," and even then "in consultation with the OPCW."

  But also quickly shown up as having limited relevance are the US' two partners in the Permanent Five members of the Security Council, France and the UK.

  France rushed to draft and promote a resolution last week that is now not only undercut by the US, but largely moot. Will either use their veto for what they say they believe in? Not if the US says not to. Hence Monday's lunch in Paris, between John Kerry and his counterparts William J. Hague and "Fabulous" Laurent Fabius.

  Speaking of spoon-fed, last week insider journalists were hyping up the French draft; several even skipped going to cover the P5 meeting on September 11 at the Russian Mission on 67th Street, in order to stay in the UN's air conditioning and be spoon-fed the French resolution and quotes about Ban's "overwhelming" report.

  Reuters ran a story that the meeting at the Russian mission concerned the French draft; it did not. The breathless stories about how the UN report will "finger" Assad, now just three days later, are seen as manipulative leaking. The timing was a hint that the game was slipping away from France and the UK and the media they feed.

  Now their game will shift to decrying violations right away, openly bemoaning as some already have the limits of the agreement, that is, that the US did not actually hit Syria with missiles. This seems to be the position of the Voice of America, at least at the UN.

  Maybe it takes a while for marching orders to trickle down from John Kerry, who serves of VOA's Broadcasting Board of Governor, to the bureau at the UN, the land that time forgot.

  VOA helpfully (or hopefully) tweeted that the US remains prepared to act, something echoed by the Reuters bureau chief who spied for the UN. His Agence France Presse counterpart, also exposed as a troll in MediaBistro, had nothing so say -- kind of like France. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 7 -- The war in Syria has a smaller, sickening echo into the UN in New York: the insider journalists who held a murky "UN briefing" with Saudi supported rebel boss Jarba are now stealthy trying to undermine critical media.

  During the week, a long-time UN Correspondents Association bigwig cut off a question about rebels using chemical weapons, and then demanded the UN spokesperson say what media the questioner worked for.

  Now this weekend, a seemingly larger team from UNCA is counterfeiting @InnerCityPress, one of two Twitterati 100 covering the UN named by Foreign Policy magazine. The UNCA insiders, many of whom merely re-tweet their corporate media's output or fawning selfie photographs with those in power, want to undermine the investigative Press.

So far with the counterfeit account they established on September 5, right after InnerCityPress.com analyzed how CBS, Reuters and Gulf media were the only ones allowed to ask questions of US Ambassador Samantha Power, they have reached out to make 900 follows.

  They get some follow-backs -- 38 so far -- one of whom later told Inner City Press, I thought you guys were starting a new account so I followed.

  That person and others then unfollowed. But the UNCA insiders have started a second counterfeit account. This one, because Inner City Press questions and continues to question the US' public evidence on chemical weapons, and why it did not commit at least to wait for the UN report, draws a link between Inner City Press and Syria's Assad -- anonymously, of course.

To be an anonymous part of an anonymous crowd making such attacks: this is the UNCA board.

  It is derivative and parasitic: they follow those who have chosen to follow @InnerCityPress or @FUNCA_info, the Free UN Coalition for Access which Inner City Press co-founded after quitting UNCA, seeing as they try to get journalists thrown out of the UN, and in the case of Reuters' bureau chief Lou Charbonneau, spy for the UN through UN accreditation official Stephane Dujarric. Story here, audio here, document here.

  Charbonneau told Dujarric that if he didn't thrown Inner City Press out of the UN, Charbonneau -- the go to guy for pro-Western spin -- might leave the UN. Now the UNCA-linked counterfeit account follows Dujarric.

  AFP's Witcher complained to UN Security, leading with the way Inner City Press asked a question to UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who previously served on one of AFP's management boards.

  Now they follow and try to confusion countries' Mission to the UN, many of whom already follow the real @InnerCityPress. This was raised to the top of the UN Department of Public Information, when in February 2013 UNCA already had a half dozen of these anti-Press anonymous troll social media accounts, but it has continued.

 One observer called these UNCA Executive Committee members, not without irony, "Ban's shabiha." Or more generously, "Lapdogs with laptops."

  And DPI had threatened the suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' accreditation for hanging the sign of the Free UN Coalition for Access on the door of its shared office, while UNCA has five signs.

  The reality is, after some in the UN tried to get Inner City Press thrown out, after that these UNCA scribes took up the cause: Voice of America, Reuters through Charbonneau and now Michelle Nichols who works under him, Agence France Presse's Tim Witcher, and

Pamela Falk of CBS, figurehead 2013 UNCA president, who send sycophantic tweets at the Ambassadors of the US and UK, who are now followed by the/her UNCA counterfeit account;

Margaret Besheer of Voice of America, who tried to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN; and the Freedom of Information Act inquiries just keep revealing more.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 1 -- After UN chemical weapons inspector Ake Sellstrom spoke with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday morning about Syria, Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky took questions from the press.

One of the elephants in the room was John Kerry, or at least his announcement earlier in the morning that the US' lab tests of hair and blood samples from Ghouta show the presence of sarin.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky to comment on the US moving or saying it moved so much more quickly, and if the US has shared any of this evidence with the UN. To the latter, Nesirky later said that he didn't know. (It seems strange that it wouldn't come up on Ban's call with Sellstrom, but maybe in The Hague as on the UN's internal EZTV system CNN can't be heard.)

On the former, Nesirky said the UN is unique capable of conducting an impartial investigation, clarifying that this involved chain of custody. Inner City Press asked that since the US speed also involved faster lab work, did this mean Ban found the fast-labs less than credible? Nesirky returned to his prior answer.

Gulf media questioned why, if two Syrian officers are accompanying the samples, there are not two representatives from the rebels, presumably from Team Jarba. Nesirky replied that this was what had been negotiated.

Nesirky graciously allowed Inner City Press a final question, which were two. First, about Germany providing a plane to fly the samples and team to The Hague. Yes, Nesirky said, what's the second. Actually it was related to the implication of the first: that for the UN to accept free service from some member countries might undercut its perceived impartiality.

Inner City Press asked about a statement by Ban Ki-moon in Sunday's New York Times, Sunday Routine column:

I try to play golf. I do not have a membership, so I’m invited by some friends. The Korean ambassador has a membership. The ambassador of San Marino, [Alexander] Bodini, plays at Deepdale in Long Island. That’s a very good place. Another is Manhattan Woods, with the Korean ambassador.

Inner City Press asked Nesirky how the UN would respond to the argument this undermines the UN's or at least Ban's perceived impartiality. Nesirky said Ban also golfs with others; he gave the example of the UK (presumably Mark Lyall Grant, whose support of a particularly rough soccer team West Ham Inner City Press has previously reported.)

Inner City Press asked, as to Ban's social golfing, what about North Korea? Syria? Iran? Eritrea. There was laughter. Not that it is without humor, but why? Because the named countries or ambassadors don't play golf? (Inner City Press been jokingly asked if it thinks Syria's Ja'afari even knows how to play golf. But would Ban ask?)  Because of course Ban wouldn't golf with them? How are decisions made? Why aren't more disclosures made? Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 21 -- On Syria chemical weapons, the UN Security Council on Wednesday could not agree on a non-binding press statement or even "elements to the press." Instead at the end of the meeting August's Council president, Argentine Permanent Representative Perceval read a summary of the meeting. (And UK Deputy PR Parham spoke, video here.)

   Inner City Press asked her about the rejected draft press statement (on which Inner City Press first reported, here.) Perceval smiled, but did not answer.

  Nor did UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson answer any questions after he made a statement. After these two UN-televised, no-question press encounters, UK Deputy Permanent Representative Phillip Parham spoke to reporters, not on UNTV.

  He said some 35 countries have written to Ban Ki-moon. Inner City Press asked Parham about the rejected draft press statement: how many votes did it have, which countries blocked it. Parham said he would not "get into the internal discussions in the Council." Video here, and embedded below.

  Afterward a Security Council member, on a not for attribution basis -- see below -- told Inner City Press that "two Permanent members" said they needed to check with their capitals on the draft press statement, "which would have taken 24 hours, so we just did the summary."

Process: We say "not for attribution" because the UN Department of Public Information made it more difficult than ever to cover the Security Council meeting. Without explanation, earlier this week they said journalists now could not stand in an area between the so-called Turkish Lounge and the entrance stairs.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access repeatedly asked for clarification, on August 20 and at the August 21 UN noon briefing, then via @FUNCA_info.

@FUNCA_info Matthew: u asked to the q to a MALU staff and they answered. U may not have liked the answer but that's the answer. thx

— Stephane Dujarric (@StephDujarric) August 21, 2013

But by then another DPI staffer had said the press could stand in the space, to see, but only for short periods of time. How long?

So when did policy change? To whom was it explained? MT "@StephDujarric @FUNCA_info Matthew: u asked, they answered. thx"

— InnerCityPress (@innercitypress) August 21, 2013

  FUNCA wrote to the Under Secretary General of DPI, copying another FUNCA member who represents a wire service, but has yet to receive any explanation or response to this:

  A former UNCA president agreed, saying that space is for "off the record" communications, and commenting on the Free UN Coalition for Access. Well, it's not for DPI much less UNCA to tell journalists where to have on the record communications. We'll have more on this.

  It seems the UN is becoming a club of former heads of state from Europe. In the Congo, Kobler was quoted decrying the M23 rebels playing the ethnic card -- apparently without irony or self-consciousness.

   Reuters chimed in with a story asserting that the shelling of Goma came from M23. How do they know?  After the UN bragged that the M23 rebels have been pushed back so their artillery can't reach Goma, it's the same UN which continues to ascribe the shelling to... the M23.

   But even more symptomatic of the UN further losing its way is a comment by UN envoy Martin Kobler, perhaps through this spokesperson, that the shelling "will not go unpunished," that the UN and its Intervention Brigade should launch an "energetic" response... and punishment.

   When did the UN get into the business of military punishment? WHO got it into this business? Inner City Press has tracked this shift in UN Peacekeeping under its fourth French chief in a row, Herve Ladsous.

  Given that Ladsous as France's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN during the Rwanda genocide argued for the escape of the genocidaires into Eastern Congo, his Department of "Peacekeeping" Operations' vow now of "punishment" is even more striking. We will have more on this.

    For now this remains outstanding: at Friday's noon briefing, video here from Minute 10:15, Inner City Press asked the UN's outgoing deputy spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey about the answer, when Inner City Press and another journalist asked UN Peacekeeping acting chief Edmond Mulet Thursday if the M23 rebels had entered the security zone established around Goma.

  But later on Thursday, the wire service Reuters reported "a senior U.N. official, who asked not to be named, said that on Thursday the rebels entered a security zone surrounding Goma" -- which Mulet, the acting chief of DPKO, had just denied. Inner City Press and the other journalist waited to ask Mulet again, and got the same answer.

  So who is this "senior UN official who asked not to be named"? In UN Peacekeeping, only Herve Ladsous is senior to and could over-rule Mulet.

  Ladsous has in the past spoon-fed answers of dubious veracity to this same Reuters UN bureau bragging for example about the Congolese Army imposing accountability for the 135 rapes in Minova in November 2012.

   But with only a few arrests for the 135 rapes, Ladsous' DPKO continues supporting the 391st Battalion, even as it is now implicated in corpse desecration.

That the UN would try to use Reuters, willingly, resonates with a documented instance in June 2012 when Reuters UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau gave to UN official Stephane Dujarric an internal UNCA anti-Press document, three minutes after saying he would not do so. Story here, audio here, document here, in which Charbonneau tells Dujarric, "You didn't get this from me."

  So is Reuters' "senior UN official who asked not to be named" someone junior to Mulet, or as another journalist suggested, no one at all?

  On August 23, Del Buey said he knew what Mulet had said, and has "seen other reports." He said he'd have to check. But August 23 was his last day at the UN (the Free UN Coalition for Access wished him well, video here at Minute 9:55).  So we'll see. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 15 -- The coming UN General Assembly debate week will not be entirely closed to the media after all, Inner City Press has learned.

  After two months of protests by the Free UN Coalition for Access of the elimination of all 53 media seats in the interim General Assembly, Thursday morning an official of the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management told the Press and FUNCA that now "some" media seats will be set aside of the GA floor.

"I heard about your questions," the official said. But the Department of Public Information to which the questions were directed never answered at all.

On June 10, in connection with opposing a set of anti-access rules promulgated by DPI and its UN Censorship Alliance, UNCA, the Free UN Coalition for Access wrote to the top officials of DPI protesting that media and civil society were not allowed onto the new General Assembly hall in the North Lawn building.

FUNCA also noted that the media booths above the GA floor, for photographers, had no tables, no interpretation, and a single broken chair. (That remains the case today, August 15 -- nothing has been improved.)

DPI's answer was to threaten to suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' accreditation for hanging a sign of the Free UN Coalition for Access on the door of its shared office, despite the "United Nations Correspondents Association" having five signs.

  While DPI's Stephane Dujarric had in the past at least replied to access questions raised to him by twitter on @FUNCA_info, of late he has not replied to any such questions, including about stakeout videos not put online, and about the media seats in the GA.

  So FUNCA e-mailed the question above and below Dujarric in DPI and was told an answer was coming. None has arrived.

On August 13 Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson:

Inner City Press: in the upcoming General Assembly general debate week in the new interim General Assembly Hall, zero seats for the press or the public, which in the past could be in this mezzanine. So, what I wanted to know, it’s been difficult to find out, how that decision was made. It seems like it will be the first year, admittedly it’s a new space, but who, how was the decision made how these hundred and some seats in the back of the room are allocated and that none would go to the public or press?

Deputy Spokesperson: Well, I’ll have to find out for you, Matthew, I am not privy to that information, number one. Number two, it’s a much less… it’s a much smaller venue, and arrangements have had to be made, first of all, so that delegates and Member State delegates can be there.

Inner City Press: Given the things the Secretary-General said about civil society, etcetera, it seems if every class that sort of has a stake in the UN was reduced, it would be one thing, but now nothing for at least two classes of stakeholders, absolutely, so I just wanted to know who made the decision and how it was made.

Deputy Spokesperson: Well, as I said, I’ll have to find out for you, I don’t have that information.

  But by August 15 no answer was given. The DGACM official told Inner City Press he heard the question, and DGACM would now set aside some seats for media, finalizing it in a "coordination" meeting next week. Watch this site.