By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 6 -- The UN issued a rare admission of error on March 6, saying that contrary to policy weapons were moved by road, not air, in South Sudan for the Ghana peacekeepers recently arrived from Cote d'Ivoire.

The UN issued this:

Juba, 6 March 2014: It is the policy of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) that during the crisis in South Sudan all arms and ammunition for peacekeeping contingents are flown into respective areas of deployment and not taken by road. This is an important security measure.

In connection with the transport of cargo of general goods belonging to the Ghanaian battalion on its way to Bentiu, several containers were wrongly labelled and inadvertently contained weapons and ammunition. This is regrettable. The Ghanaian troops are part of the surge of UNMISS troops to assist South Sudan and the goods were en route to Bentiu, passing through Rumbek.

UN Headquarters intends to dispatch a high level investigation team to look into this matter on an urgent basis, in cooperation with the Government of South Sudan.

Pressed for more details, spokesperson Martin Nesirky declined. One wondered, if the UN can in essence apologize so quickly for weapons transport in South Sudan, why not for the 8,000 people killed by the cholera introduced into Haiti?

Then Inner City Press was sent links to the photos of the (UN) trucks, and of the weapons. Click here and here; h/t.

 Perhaps it's that the UN was caught red-handed, so to speak. So now what? Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 27 -- Even as Myanmar denies the rights of the Rohingya, Karen and Kachin and other people, the UN is inviting it to contribute troops to UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous, it was confirmed to Inner City Press on February 27.

   Earlier this month, Inner City Press asked the UN about the exclusion of "Rohingya" from upcoming UN-assisted census. On February 26, Inner City Press asked:

 Twenty four hours later, Nesirky and DPKO had provided no answer. So, even limited two a mere two questions -- no Sri Lanka -- by Nesirky, Inner City Press on February 27 asked again about Myanmar.

   Along with asking again if Nambiar invited Myanmar "peacekeepers," Inner City Press asked about president

   Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Nesirky said he wouldn't comment even this law while it is pending. Next month? After peacekeepers?

  Later on February 27, Nesirky's office sent this to Inner City Press:

   Under Ban and Ladsous, UN Peacekeeping has been advised by controversial Sri Lanka military figure Shavendra Silva; Ladsous has accepted a child soldier recruiter and user into "his" mission in Mali. Myanmar may be next.

   Is the UN still in denial about the exclusionary census it is supporting in Myanmar? Back on January 24, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: another Myanmar question. There is a census coming up. It seems that the United Nations system is involved in funding and maybe even participating in it. Both Kachin and Rohingya groups have expressed a lot of concerns. One, there is no box in the census thus far to check Rohingya, meaning… implying that they are not citizens. Also, Kachin, they have other complaints. I wanted to know: is UN aware of these? What steps are they taking, and will they fund a census that many groups think makes things worse rather than better?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, we will look into what we are doing on that question. We need some details about that.

  It was 19 days later, on February 12, that the UN Spokesperson's Office finally sent this response:

Subject: In response to your question on the Myanmar census.
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:02 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is the focal UN agency for providing technical and programmatic assistance to the Government for the census. It says that everyone in Myanmar will be counted in the census. UNFPA is supporting the Government to ensure that the census is fully inclusive and conducted according to international standards. Respondents will be asked to identify their ethnicity, with the option of selecting one of the categories used in the 1983 census or selecting "other" and writing in the name of another group. All of the responses will be coded and tabulated.

  Compare this belated Pollyanna answer by the UN and UNFPA to what the Myanmar government Minister for Immigration and Population U Khin Yi openly says:

"They say that their race is Rohingya. When a person says that his race is “B”, because he doesn’t want to mention his race as “A”, that means that race “A” no longer exists, but the race “B” is a new race. Since race “B” is a new race, there will be questions, such as “how did the race enter (the country)?” or “are they encroaching here?” When things become radical, I worry that it could harm peace and stability...We will record what the person says. If he says “A” then we will fill the form as “A”. The result will be, like I said before, that even if that term “A” is Rohingya, we will not recognize Rohingya as one of the 135 ethnic groups in Myanmar."

So this is "fully inclusive and conducted according to international standards"? The UN is at best in denial. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 13, updated Feb 14 below -- Amid reports that the US already provides or is ready to provide aid to armed groups in Syria like the Free Syrian Army (FSA), on January 29 Inner City Press first highlighted and then on January 30 first asked the US Mission to the UN about a finding in the UN's then-unpublished report on Children and Armed Conflict in Syria:

"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups." (Now final, here, Para 12).

  The US has cited the recruitment and use of child soldiers to suspend US aid to armies of governments which had previously been receiving it.  Inner City Press asked, and continues to ask,  how could the US provide aid to a non-state group which even the UN has found using child soldiers?

  On February 13, Inner City Press was able to put this question to the UN's humanitarian chief Valerie Amos, but not to US Ambassador Samantha Power who spoke just after Amos.

   Amos said "in terms of recruiting children into armed groups, we see culpability on all the sides to the conflict, and therefore anyone who has any kind of influence with those groups needs to be making it clear that this is not acceptable." Video here, from Minute 10:11.

   Given US statements about the Free Syrian Army, clearly the US has influence and leverage. So will the US use the leverage? Can it legally not?

  At the Security Council stakeout after Amos took five questions, including Inner City Press' question on FSA child soldiers, Ambassador Power took three: Al Arabiya, Associated Press and the New York Times. Inner City Press said, "Question on child soldiers?" and there was some reaction which we won't try to interpret. (The video is now online here, at end, also from Minute 10:11). But the question had still not been answered, as specifically regards the FSA child soldiers and the US 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act.

  Back on February 4, the UK Mission to the UN provided this response to Inner City Press:

    As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:

It is the sense of Congress that—

 (1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations;

 (2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1);

  There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings in a waiver by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?"

  Now we add: (in) consistent with the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.

 The report, now issued as a document of the UN Security Council under the symbol S/2014/31, goes on to recount:

"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."

  And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but as to the US and the recent report it is or is moving toward aiding the armed FSA, what steps will be taken on this UN report? Specifically, by the US, including in light of what Valerie Amos said on February 13 about using leverage? Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- The leaked audio of the US State Department's Victoria Nuland about Ukraine, best known for her "f*ck the EU" comment, continues to reveal more and more regarding relations between the US Administration and the United Nations, at least former US official Jeffrey Feltman.

  In the clip, Nuland told US official Geoff Pyatt that Jeff Feltman "got Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry can come in Monday or Tuesday" to Ukraine.

  On February 7 Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq if as described Jeff Feltman "got" Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to sent Serry to Ukraine. Video here and embedded below.

  While saying he would not comment on others' leaked conversations, Haq then told Inner City Press he (and presumably the UN) is not convinced Nuland was referring to Feltman or rather "another Jeff" (or Geoff).

  Inner City Press, after intervening questions trying in essence to bolster the UN's position, by the United Nations Correspondents Association president Pamela Falk of CBS who also praised Ban Ki-moon during the briefing, asked Haq if he was really positing a THIRD Jeff / Geoff who "gets" Ban Ki-moon to do things.  

   Earlier today Inner City Press reviewed how the Nuland leak was covered, by Reuters and (better) by Gawker.

   Reuters managed to not even MENTION Feltman in its long story about the leaked audio.

   Despite that, or because of it, UN spokesperson Haq gave the first, tone-setting question about the Nuland audio to Reuters' UN bureau chief.

  Gawker to its credit ran a transcript, but calls the apparently little known Feltman "Felton."

   Inner City Press first reported in March 2012 that Feltman would switch from being a US Assistant Secretary of State to UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs. The US essentially owns this UN position (US Lynn Pascoe was Feltman's predecessor), just as France owns UN Peacekeeping through Herve Ladsous and three other Frenchmen in a row before him. The UK for now has Humanitarian Affairs, twice in a row.)

  As Inner City Press first highlighted yesterday evening, at Minute 2:40 of the leaked audio Nuland says she spoke to Feltman and "he's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday" and "have the UN glue this thing, f*ck the EU." Listen here.

  Significant here, particularly given Feltman's previous position with the US government, is that Ban, ostensibly Feltman's boss, apparently didn't tell Feltman what to do. Rather, Feltman "got" Ban Ki-moon to agree to something that was pleasing to the US, to help the US "f*ck the EU."

   The Reuters piece is typical of its UN coverage, just as for example it delayed six days in reporting on a UN finding that the US (and UK and French) favored Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers, until the last Geneva Two talks were over. (Click here for that.) 

  Reuters UN bureau chief has even essentially spied for the UN, giving a UN media accreditation official an internal UN Correspondents Association anti Press document three minutes after promising not to.  Another Reuters filing to this same official has been banned from Google's Search after a cynical use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by the Reuters bureau chief. Click here for that, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ChillingEffects.org.
 
   Gawker runs this transcript:

  The US State Department and Mission, despite Inner City Press' written questions to the latter since January 30 for an explanation of how the US can support the Free Syrian Army now that it is named in the UN report Inner City Press first quoted on January 29 as a recruiter and user of child soldiers, has not answered, despite the terms of the US Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.

  When Ambassador Samantha Power spoke about Syria at the UN on February 6, only two questions were taken: Al Jazeera and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry serves.

  Nor has a simple question been answered about why the proposed replacement for UN Reform Ambassador Joe Torsella, Leslie Berger Kiernam, had her name "withdrawn." So we are less than confident that the US will explain the dynamic between the State Department and Feltman as reflect in Nuland's leaked audio. Perhaps the UN or Feltman -- or even Serry -- will explain. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30, longer form here -- After stand-offs including on how to describe the 1994 Rwanda genocide, on January 30 the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council, 15-0.

  The language compromised on is "the 1994 genocide
against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed."

  Sources exclusively told Inner City Press that the United States resisted calling it a genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda, even saying that there is a US policy against referring to it in this way.

   Inner City Press has asked the US Mission to the UN for an explanation. It was said one might be forthcoming after the vote.

  Where would such a US policy be written down? It seemed strange, particularly during a time of Holocaust events at the UN, from one about Hungary to another about Albania.

   On January 29, Inner City Press asked a US Council diplomat, who said spokespeople would be asked. Inner City Press was told to wait for the language to be final, then, for the vote.

  In the Council's January 29 debate, the representative of the DRC spoke about Rwanda and the M23 rebels. Rwanda's Deputy Permanent Representative replied with a series of questions: was it Rwanda who killed Lumumba? Was Rwanda responsible for Mobutu? Who hosted and failed to separate the genocidaires from Rwanda in 1994?

  This continued on January 30 after the vote.  Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said UN Peacekeeping should investigate links between the DRC Army and the FDLR.

  The DRC representative asked to be given specifics about links between his country's army the FARDC and the FDLR militia. The resolution voted on provides:

   As Inner City Press exclusively put online last June, some of these links were even specified in the UN Group of Experts report, for example:

  Going further back, it is impossible not to note, particularly given the lack of explanation or transparency, that US Permanent Representative Samantha Power began her 2001 article "Bystanders to Genocide" in the Atlantic with this sentence: "In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority."

  Given that, why would the US Mission be saying it had a policy of describing the genocide as being against the Tutsi minority? Inner City Press asked again: Since I'm told that the US has said that there is a government position not to say the 1994 genocide was against the Tutsis, can you say what that policy is? Why does it exist? Does it apply to other genocides or atrocities?

 As noted, Inner City Press also has pending with the US State Department a number of requests, including a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Administration's Atrocities Prevention Board.

  A Rwandan diplomat told Inner City Press these were Hutu killed not because of their ethnicity but because they opposed the genocide against the Tutsi. "This is a precedent," the diplomat said. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 25 -- With Syria talks in Geneva surprisingly going forward, with the two sides in the same room not speaking to each other but only to Lakhdar Brahimi, on January 25 "The Elders" made an announcement.

  Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as Martti Ahtisaari, Desmond Tutu and Ernesto Zedillo, will to the Iran from January 26 to 29, to discuss among other things "mutual respect" and peace in the region: that is, Syria.

  This comes after current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on January 20 reversed his "decision" of the previous day of inviting Iran to the Syria talks in Montreux. The contrast, some say, couldn't be clearer.

   (Among those not making the obvious comparison was Reuters editor in chief Stephen Adler, bylined on a dispatch from Davos identifying Annan as "Ex-Syria Envoy." Under Adler's watch, Reuters at least through its UN bureau has degenerated into a pass-through for Western missions, also seeking to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN then mis-using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to cover it it: that is, censor it from Google's Search. Click here for that story. DMCA filing here, via ChillingEffects.org).

   Now in Geneva Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al Ja'afari is speaking for the government. In New York, Ban's spokesperson's office has refused to answer a detailed "note verbale" from the Syrian mission about inaccurate answers to Press questions about who attack UN peacekeepers in the Golan.

 On January 20 in the Security Council, Ja'afari complained again of inaction on complaints by Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row. This is why the UN is not even the lead mediator on South Sudan, much less the Middle East or Syria.

Ending the Syria speeches in Montreux on January 22, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called them "productive." Then his spokesperson accused some non-Western media of being "disrespectful of the Secretary General of the UN," after he gave the last two questions to Bloomberg and NHK.  How was it productive?

   Even before the afternoon session began, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius took to the Montreux stakeout to say Syrian foreign minister Moallem was "aggressive." This is the same Fabius who in September at the UN declared Ahmad al Jarba the leader of the Syrian people, and refused to take critical questions from the media including about his country's practices.

   Australia was represented not by foreign minister Julie Bishop but rather its Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Woolcott (who also chairs a humanitarian high level group on Syria, it's been pointed out to Inner City Press.).  Bishop is on Washington, and soon New York.

   Ahmad al Jarba spoke next to last, thanking Saudi Arabia, viewed as his sponsor, as if in an Oscars speech. Ban Ki-moon wrapped up, calling it productive and asking the assembled (hand-picked, without Iran) minister to "wish [him] luck" as he went to speak to the media.

  There, the questions were chosen much as they are at the UN in New York, as documented and critiqued by the Free UN Coalition for Access -- but in Montreux, this was actively protested. (FUNCA also questioned the UN citing Ban's press conference as a basis to cancel its noon briefing in New York, on South Sudan, Central African Republic, Mali and other countries in which the UN is at least somewhat less marginal or US dominated.)

  When John Kerry held his press conference, only four questions were taken: CBS, a Turkish media, BBC and Al Hurra, on whose Broadcasting Board of Governors John Kerry himself serves. Freedom of the press at today's US State Department we covered yesterday, here.

After the UN's craven reversal on including Iran in the Syria session in Montreux, it has turned out to be a series of speeches mostly by countries significantly less important to that conflict and the region.

   In the morning session on January 22, Italy and Spain spoke and Japan offered money. Turkey spoke without mentioning the Kurds -- but neither did supposed representative of the range of Syrian opposition Ahmad al Jarba.

   Since Jarba's Saudi-sponsored, Saud al Faisal called him "Excellency," pomp like Jarba's faux "UN briefing" with Gulf and Western media in July.

  One of the UN's other too-few criticisms of military action in north Mail, the shooting into a crowd of protesters in Kidal on November 28, was disputed in the Security Council on January 16.

  In a statement prepared like a defense attorney, trying raise reasonable doubt, Mali's Permanent Representative Sekou Kasse said that the UN Mission MINUSMA elements closest to the shooting were 400 meters away, precluding them from "objective" testimony. The argument made was one must wait for the ballistic analysis ordered by the Malian government itself. Will that be credible?

 Again, similarly, can statements by the French Mission to the UN, about military action in its former colony Mali and related topics, be believed? If so, does that require disbelieving the UN itself, whose reports are different?

  In the run-up to the UN Security Council's January 16 meeting on Mali, both France and the UN Mission MINUSMA filed reports. It's worth comparing their accounts of the same incidents, for example on October 23, 2013 in Tessalit.

France gives a Polyanna report emphasizing its good works and downplaying death:

"On 23 October 2013, in response to an attack on a Chadian post in Tessalit by a commando made up of three armed terrorist groups using a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, the Operation Serval Liaison and Support Detachment assigned to the Chadian battalion assisted MINUSMA by conducting a patrol with a Mirage 2000D jet and sending a CASA 'Nurse' medical evacuation aircraft. The end result was that six wounded Chadians were evacuated and the remaining explosives were neutralized."

  The UN by contrast recounts seven deaths including five civilians (one child) and two peacekeepers:

"On 23 October, four individuals drove and detonated a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device into a MINUSMA checkpoint in Tessalit. Seven people were killed, including four adult civilians, a six-year-old boy and two MINUSMA peacekeepers."

  This type of disparities in reporting - misleading - would and should be delved into in legislative review sessions. But the Security Council, on which France uses its Permanent Five seat, confines such consultations to behind closed doors. How and where will these disparities be explained?

  One might say, at the Security Council stakeout. But Herve Ladsous, the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping, has said he has a "policy" against answering Press questions.

Earlier this week, French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud used the stakeout to rail against publication of a New York Police Department document concerning a French diplomat -- contrasting with the case of Indian diplomat Khobragade -- an NYPD document on which Araud's French Mission to the UN had declined to comment, responding only with threats that publication would a "hostile act."

 While continuing to pursue that, delving into the French report, and the roles of UN Peacekeeping, MINUSMA and their respective leadership(s), will be done elsewhere.

  At the UN stakeout on January 16, Araud called on French radio then went from there, most questions about the delay in MINUSMA deployment, not about the rapes, or the shooting of civilians, much less this.

The French report n Mali makes claims about the December 14, 2013 incidents in defense of a "bank building" in Kidal, an incident that when Inner City Press asked Araud about at the stakeout, Araud refused to answer, calling it a mere detail. Then why is it in France's self serving report, a report which is materially different that the UN's? We'll have more on this.

By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- Following yesterday's US indictment of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade for underpaying a domestic worker, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki today said that Khobragade was told that if she applies for another visa to the US, her name would be placed on a watch list.

  Back in 2011, though, Inner City Press uncovered and exclusively reported on the case of a French diplomat, Romain Serman, who after assaulting a New York Police Department officer while allegedly buying cocaine was allowed to leave the country before any indictment. See story here, arrest report here.

  It seems clear that Serman was NOT placed on any watch list, because he not only returned to the US -- he is now France's consul in San Francisco.

  While it may be debatable if assaulting a police officer when being arrested for cocaine purchase is more or less serious than allegedly underpaying a domestic worker, the disparity in US treatment between the French and Indian and French diplomat cannot be missed.

  The Indian diplomat was arrested, booked and stripped searched, indicted and told she'd be put on a visa watch list. The French diplomat Romain Serman was allowed to quietly leave the country without any indictment, and was allowed to return, as consul.

  Usually the agreement upon being allowed to leave the US in this way is that the person will not come back to the US. But, amazingly, Romain Serman came back to the US -- as France's consul in San Francisco, still.

  When Inner City Press reported this, the then spokesperson of the French mission demanded that Inner City Press remove the story from the Internet.

  As with stories on Sri Lanka that the United Nations Correspondents Association demanded be taken down from the Internet or Inner City Press face expulsion, Inner City Press refused. The French spokesperson called this a "hostile act" (Inner City Press countered that it was an act of journalism) and things proceeded from there.

  This becomes even more relevant now in light of reports not only of the disparity in indictment of Khobragade versus none for the French Serman, but of US State Department spokesperson Psaki's comments today about being put on a watch list.

  Back in April 2011, Inner City Press asked spokespeople at the US Mission to the UN and then Mark Toner at the State Department, "Was the State Department aware of Serman's arrest record when he re-entered in 2010, and how does applicable law and precedent allow this?"

 And we're still waiting for a response, as we are to FOIA requests pending at the State Department. Soon the new Free UN Coalition for Access will have to get on this case. Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 4 -- Even in South Sudan, the lack of transparency by UN Peacekeeping does not serve it. On December 30, Department of Peacekeeping Operations chief Herve Ladsous admonished South Sudan to not put in "caveat" on accepting troops from any country.

Though Ladsous didn't name the country -- for reasons that soon became obvious -- and later in the week UN spokesperson Farhan Haq declined to specify any country being considered for South Sudan, later on December 30 at the UN Mission of an African (and troop contributing) country Inner City Press was told Ladsous was trying to push into South Sudan peacekeeping from Morocco. Click here for more on that.

  After telling Inner City Press "I don't answer you Mister," Ladsous dodged about the impact of shifting peacekeepers out of Darfur, where two had just been killed, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Then he mentioned, for South Sudan, "half a regiment" from the MINUSTAH mission in Haiti. UN Video here, from Minute 3:09.

  Now, which country's half-regiment could that be? Questions have been asked, particularly in light of UN Peacekeeping's dubious record in Haiti: the introduction of cholera, multiple cases of sexual abuse or exploitation, nearly always followed by mere repatriation and no update on any discipline meted out, for example in the case of repatriated Sri Lanka peacekeepers.

  The website of the UNMISS mission in South Sudan lists fully 55 countries as contributing peacekeepers (Morocco notably is NOT among them) and some additional countries contributing UN Police, including Zimbabwe.

On January 2 Inner City Press asked UN acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq:

Inner City Press: Yes, Farhan. I wanted to ask you two questions about peacekeeping in South Sudan. One is that, it’s reported that India is unhappy with not being consulted in some of the ways their peacekeepers were used and intends to send its own military team to meet with its peacekeepers there. I wanted to know, separately, [Permanent Representative Asoke Kumar] Mukerji has, over the holidays, said that the Force Intervention Brigade may put peacekeepers in danger. What’s your response to that? And also, if you could confirm, I’ve heard that the UN wants to send Moroccan peacekeepers to South Sudan and they’re pushing back. And one of their reasons for pushing back is that Morocco is not a member of the African Union due to the Western Sahara. And I wanted if it’s DPKO’s (Department of Peacekeeping Operations) position that countries don’t have a right to have a sort of principled, political stand on why they wouldn’t take peacekeepers? Or should they take anyone that DPKO sends?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, we wouldn’t comment on the specifics of how we’re trying to bring more peacekeepers in. We, as you know, are in touch with a number of Member States trying to build up the forces, as was approved by the Security Council. And when we have details of which countries are coming in, we’ll provide those details at that point. But, I don’t have any specific names to give up until more arrivals come in.

Inner City Press: I ask that only because Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous at the stakeout made a big point of saying, it’s not… when the house is on fire, anyone must be taken. So, I just wanted to know, can you say… is that the UN’s position? That even if there’s a political, principled stated reason not to take them… that wouldn’t… that should be overridden?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: For us, the priority is to get as many peacekeepers in as we can. They’ve been authorized by the Security Council. We’re trying to get the right numbers in order to stop the bloodshed as soon as we possibly can. So, that’s our priority. But, if we have any specific announcements to make about different countries joining in, we’ll make it at that point. But, that’s not ready at this stage.

Inner City Press: And on India?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: I wouldn’t have any comment on that. Is that it? Okay? Pam?

Correspondent: Hi, Farhan. I’d like to just correct the record that was established at this briefing a few weeks ago that the UN Correspondents’ Association has not… does not have any new Samsung TV sets in the room, never has had and has never accepted any donation or loan from the UN for Samsung TVs. Thank you.

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: Yeah, thanks. I’m in receipt of a letter from the United Nations Correspondent’s Association, which says, which does read: “Please be advised that there are no new Samsung TV sets in the UNCA room and have never been. And the UN Correspondents’ Association has not accepted a donation or loan of new Samsung TVs”. Thanks for that update. We’ll try to get any updated guidance about the language that we had earlier received. Yes?

Inner City Press: Because I’m thinking maybe you’ll correct the transcript on the answer that was given to me in writing about the television. If so, do you have any response about the note verbale that was filed by Syria that we previously discussed here?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: No, there’s no response to that at present. But, yes, if there’s any fresh language on the language that was given to you, we’ll try to correct the record here. Yes, Lou?

Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 26 -- When the UN's envoy to South Sudan Hilde Johnson took press questions on December 26, she quoted and praised President Salva Kiir for his pledges on accountability.

  Inner City Press asked Johnson about reports that "young men from the Dinka community, many of them with no military training, were given uniforms and guns from various armories around the capital, including one located at President Kiir's own compound, known as J1."

  Johnson replied that several government armories had been "broken into" and army uniforms and equipment distributed. UN (inaccurate) transcript below.  To some, it was just what a defense lawyer, in this case for Kiir, would say. But in a real trial the question would be, Did you report them stolen at the time?

  In any event, it seems strange for Johnson at this time to be quoting with praise Salva Kiir, and speaking favorably of government control of Bor, which was re-taken by force. Does the government do that elsewhere (other than, for example, Sri Lanka)?

  Inner City Press asked Johnson about threats by Kiir's supporters to re-take Bentiu by force. Johnson said she hopes talks can proceed in tranquility and that option is not pursued. It fell short of saying, as the UN does elsewhere, don't re-take by force.

  One wanted to ask other questions, about the status of Yida camp (the UNHCR person to whom South Sudan OCHA referred Inner City Press is, who knew, out of the office from December 9 to January 9), of the UN base in Yuai from which the UN withdrew peacekeepers and of other UN facilities Inner City Press has asked in writing about, in for example Aweil, and in Kuacjok.

  Johnson was asked at the end of her briefing about reports UNMISS helped and or sheltered armed rebels. Her response, partially cut off by the understandably choppy audio from Juba, seemed limited to non-governmental fighters.

So Inner City Press has asked the UN Spokesperson, adding to the other questions left unanswered now for 120 hours, that while Johnson "spoke of disarming those who enter UNMISS bases... please state if this applied to the 27 SPLA fighters whom UNMISS spokesperson Joe Contreras was quoted by Reuters as saying sought shelter with with UNMISS in Rubkona, across the river from Bentiu, and separately state if UNMISS has sheltered SPLA fighters anywhere else in the past two weeks."

Watch this site.

Update: the UN put out a transcript with various inaccuracies, some intentional, such as leaving in "Reuters," "AP," "UNCA" (UN's Censorship Alliance) and even "Huffington Post contributor" -- but censoring out from the below "Inner City Press" and "Free UN Coalition for Access." They call it censorship, compare to UN video here at Min 20:39

[This was explicitly by Inner City Press & FUNCA] Question: I wanted to ask you about Bentiu. It’s been said that President Kiir’s forces had said they are going to retake or could have already retaken it. Has it been? Who’s in control in Bentiu and what’s the Mission’s position in terms of any retaking or any reentering by force? And also, I’m sure you saw in The Guardian December 23rd piece, hey said that President Kiir had spoken on accountability but in the middle of that article they said that, quote “young men from the Dinka community many of them with no military training were given uniforms from armories, including one located in President Kiir’s own compound known as J1”. And I wanted to know what do you make of that? Is your Mission in a position to look into this allegation against the President or at least arms within his compound. Do you think it’s possible that some of these atrocities have been committed by the Government or with the Government’s knowledge? In which case, what will your Mission do about it? Thank you.

Hilde Johnson: Well, first in regard to Bentiu, it’s too early to say…[inaudible]…there are two forces present and there might be attempt at retaking the city. However, what we are now hoping for is a political track can be established as soon as possible, which in that case would imply, we hope, that talks would be taking place in tranquility and that these operations would not be pursued. This is too early to say. We are waiting for the outcome of what has happened amongst the IGAD heads of State and their consultations.

As regards to what has unfolded in terms of human rights violations, abuse, and atrocities that seem to have been committed. All of those issues, and all of those allegations and reports, as I said, are being looked into by our human rights division, and they will investigate and verify. I may also add that during the night of 15 to 16 December several of the armories of the forces of the Government, whether Presidential Guard or SPLA, were broken into and a significant number of uniforms and arms were stolen and taken. So that is an important factual piece of information that also needs to be included in any of the investigations going forward. But it is far too early to assess anything in terms of possible perpetrators or indeed responsible actors. We need to see a solid verification and investigation process take place.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 20 -- In South Sudan amid UN talk of protecting civilians and rushing to more dangerous locations to do so, UN Peacekeeping is preparing to evacuate "40 UNMISS peacekeepers from a base in the Jonglei state town of Yuai this afternoon."

  Inner City Press on December 20 asked Security Council president Gerard Araud about this plan, what would happen to civilians under threat in Yuai. Video here, from Minute 12:53.

  Araud acknowledged that UN Peacekeeping, led by its fourth Frenchman in a row Herve Ladsous, is trying to pull out of Yuai -- in fact, it would already have done so, except its evacuation helicopters were fired at. Strangely, Araud then insisted quoting Ladsous' deputy Edmond Mulet that the UN is "on" (or in) the way, and not the target.

  As if to minimize the contradiction of claiming to be protecting civilians while evacuating armed personnel from where the civilians are, Araud said he understood there were no civilians inside the UNMISS base in Yuai.

Since all of his, and the UN's, understandings come from communications with its bases, Inner City Press asked about the breakdown in communications with the Akobo base, where two Indian peacekeepers and at least 20 civilians were killed. Araud called this a "detail" and refused to answer, saying "I'm in substantial questions." Video here, from Minute 19:47.

Inner City Press went to the day's UN noon briefing and asked acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about the plan to pull out of Yuai. Haq had just claimed that the UN is moving peacekeepers from less dangerous to more dangerous places. Now he doubled back and said it is a matter of concentrating UN forces where they can have an impact.

But what about the civilians in Yuai?

Inner City Press asked Haq about a quote by UNMISS spokesperson Joe Contreras that 27 soldier loyal to Salva Kiir sought refuge with the UN in Rubkona. Haq said he couldn't confirm that -- which is weird, since the UN's spokesperson in South Sudan has already said it.

  Also on (mis?) communications, Inner City Press asked about the 11 hour delay in the UN confirmation the death of two Indian peacekeepers and injuring of another which India's Ambassador Askoke Mukerji told Inner City Press about on the afternoon of December 19.

  Haq said the delay was because the UN must notify families, and implicitly chided anyone who reported the death of two (unnamed) peacekeepers before the UN did. He also chided reports that three peacekeepers had died. While other went this this, apparently not having spoken with Mukerjee but only watched a meeting on UNTV or relied on a tweet, Inner City Press even in its headline said 2 dead, one injured.

But this is how the UN operates -- it does anything it can to discourage real questions by turning then around, then doling out information selectively to journalists who will report positively (and often inaccurately).

   UN Peacekeeping, after Inner City Press first reported the Akobo deaths based on a direct conversation with Mukerje, sent other media but not Inner City Press information by e-mail. But UN Peacekeeping didn't make this information available to the public and other impacted people. It has become dysfunctional.

  As has the wider UN. Despite claims this week about a new post Sri Lanka failure "Rights Up Front" plan, in the midst of this South Sudan crisis spokesperson Haq on Friday announced no more briefings for the week -- just spin on the UN website. (The Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info, has protested).

  As was jotted inside the Security Council consultations on December 20, there is a "credibility crisis in the UN." Watch this site.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- After the UN Security Council adopted the French-drafted resolution on Central African Republic 15-0 on Thursday morning, France's Permanent Representative Gerard Araud came out and said the Council was finally shouldering its responsibility.

  In this, he ignored that while other Council members said they'd expected a resolution in August, they were told that since France "has the pen" on its former colony the CAR and was largely on vacation in August, there would be no resolution. (Araud has denied this, but the sources said what they said.)

  That was then, and this is now, with France deploying into Bangui. Inner City Press asked Araud why this, and France's intervention in Mali, are somehow not examples of the colonial FrancAfrique.

  Araud responded that France has no economic interest in CAR -- as with Mali, France's and its Areva's interest in low-tax uranium from Niger was ignored -- and that he is proud of his country. He went on, "answering a question you didn't ask," to say that Mali was about organized terrorists while CAR is about thugs who might just melt away, afraid of the French deployment.

  There were of course other questions: what of reports that Cameroon's Paul Biya told France he does not want Chad in the MISCA force? Why is France, in the midst of all this, replacing its ambassador to Bangui Serge Mocetti?

  But these questions weren't possible. Even with the UN microphone in front of Inner City Press and the question started, the French mission spokesman insisted it be moved to the far end of the stakeout to Reuters, "Monsieur Charbonneau" as Araud put it. (It was Araud to his credit and not the spokesman who subsequently relented and took Inner City Press' question on protection of civilians outside of Bangui, and about FrancAfrique.)

  Moments later when US Ambassador Samantha Power came out, she used her opening statement to agree with Araud on Inner City Press' FrancAfrique question, saying that for France this is only about protecting civilians. But Inner City Press was not called on to ask Power any follow up -- that was again the Western go-to Reuters, and Al Jazeera English, not viewable in the UN or, other than AJAM, in the US.

  Power insisted it is not a matter of the color of the helmet, that is, not a matter of whether it is a UN or an African Union mission. But a question left unanswered because not allowed to be asked: what does Power think the US role should be in these operations, in light of her book "A Problem from Hell"?

  What has the US military presence in the region, helping unsuccessfully chase down Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, been doing during this carnage in the CAR? Watch this site.

Footnote: it is not anti-humanitarian to ask economic questions. Yesterday Inner City Press reported on the competition for logistic contracts in Mali between the American firm Pacific Architects & Engineers and French companies Thales, Sodexho, Geos and others. Will Herve Ladsous, the fourth French head of UN Peacekeeping in a row, play a role in the decision?

  France's economic interests are acknowledged even by French diplomats, in the Financial Times. But Human Rights Watch's UN lobbyist, formerly of Le Monde and France 24, has churned out "analysis" with no mention of this interest. Thursday morning he was at the UNSC stakeout, from which recently another former UN correspondent now with an NGO was ordered to leave. This is how the UN works - or doesn't. The Free UN Coalition for Access is asking at least for some content-neutral rules, that apply to all. Watch this site.

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.