UN Admits Afghan 'Friendly Fire' May Have Killed US Staffer, US Mission Dodges

UNITED NATIONS, April 15 -- The UN covered up information that Afghan national forces killed its staff member Louis Maxwell, and then when asked by Inner City Press, belatedly disclosed an FBI investigation and said that "the preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to “friendly fire”, caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel" -- to another media, not the one which asked.

Management of information is one thing, but cover up and lies are another.

On April 14, based on a tip from a UN source in Afghanistan, Inner City Press asked about the death of UN staff member Louis Maxwell, a U.S. citizen, outside the UN's Kabul guesthouse on October 28, 2009. Given time to response, the UN send Inner City Press an email that the case was subject to a Board of Inquiry and FBI investigation, and that therefore there would be no more comment.

On April 15, Inner City Press asked again, including when the Board of Inquiry began, and why the UN had not retracted Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 2009 statements that the Taliban were responsible for Louis Maxwell's murder. UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press to "be careful" what words it used, and later said only that the Board of Inquiry began in January.

Nesirky's Associate Farhan Haq, however, issued a quote to another media -- which had not asked any questions at the UN's noon briefing -- that

"The preliminary conclusions of the mission's investigation raised the disturbing possibility that a specific UN staff member may have died due to 'friendly fire,' caused directly by responding Afghan security personnel. Once the BOI is finalized, we will share our findings with the Government of Afghanistan and if warranted we will ask for a thorough investigation surrounding the death of this UN employee and the circumstances of the deaths of the other UN employees."

  One questions why the UN didn't disclose this "disturbing possibility" when it became aware of it, and then refused to disclosed it to accredited media which asked about it in open UN noon briefing sessions. This UN goes lower and lower every day.

  Meanwhile, Inner City Press asked the US Mission to the UN

This is a request for comment on newly emerged information about the death in Afghanistan on October 28, 2009 of U.S. citizen Louis Maxwell.

At the time, Ambassador Rice said

I condemn in the strongest terms the brutal and cowardly attack in Kabul today on United Nations workers and members of the Afghan National Security Forces. An American citizen was among those who lost their lives. My heartfelt condolences and sympathies go out to the families and friends of all of the victims.

The United Nations has been doing vital work for the Afghan people for more than fifty years. The United States strongly supports the leadership and staff of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as they work bravely each day under incredibly difficult circumstances, and we are grateful to the Afghan National Security Forces for their commitment and sacrifice.

The international community stands together in its commitment to defeat those extremists seeking to halt democratic progress in Afghanistan. The United States stands firmly with the people of Afghanistan as they prepare for the November 7 presidential runoff elections.

http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/131010.htm

Yesterday, after I asked a question at the noon briefing, the UN Spokesperson's office sent me this

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Your questions on Louis Maxwell
To: Inner City Press

(further response on Louis Maxwell)

The United Nations has followed due process in investigating the death of staff in Afghanistan last October by instituting a Board of Inquiry after an initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Further actions by the United Nations will depend on its findings. The specific circumstances in which Louis Maxwell died are currently being investigated and it would be premature to comment further at this stage.

The United Nations is also cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. The United Nations has briefed the Maxwell family on the progress of its initial inquiries and is determined to support the family.

Questions: when did the US State Dept and, separately, Amb. Rice become aware of a credible alternative factual explanation of the attack and death, and of the US FBI's involvement in investigating this alternative explanation?

Why was Amb Rice's statement not amended at that time?

Is the statement going to be amended or supplemented now?

  While the US Mission to the UN declined to respond in writing, as part of a telephone conversation the Spokesman of the US Mission, Mark Kornblau, provide this on the record response:

"As the UN Spokesman noted yesterday, there are ongoing investigations by the UN and FBI. It would be premature for us to comment at this time."

  Some note that given the political situation between the Obama Administration and Hamid Karzai, the disclosure of a the murder of a U.S. citizen by Afghan national forces under Karzai's command would be inconvenient, to say the least. Asked about this concern, the US Mission to the UN had no on the record comment. Watch this site.

Footnote: the UN and US State Department might want to start changing their close to the chest communications strategy on this -- Inner City Press' Kabul sources say that ABC News has a crew on the ground now investigating Louis Maxwell's murder.

From the April 15 UN transcript:

Inner City Press: After yesterday’s noon briefing, your office issued a statement about the situation in Afghanistan -- the deaths of the UN staff, including Louis Maxwell -- saying, among other things, that “the United Nations is cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in its inquiries into this incident”. Because at times there have been some issues around UN cooperation with United States law enforcement, including in this building -- whether they have jurisdiction to come into the building, whether evidence is shared -- can you say when this cooperation began, of what it consisted, and ultimately isn’t it the UN’s responsibility? Who is leading the charge to find out who, in fact, killed these four UN staff members?

Spokesperson Nesirky: There is a Board of Inquiry, as I think you know. The United Nations instituted this Board of Inquiry after initial fact-finding by staff in Kabul and New York. The United Nations has been in contact with the responsible Afghan authorities in the course of its inquiries. The Board will submit its report in due course. Any further actions by the United Nations will depend on the findings, and it would be premature at this point to comment further.

Inner City Press: Like you had said, “as you were aware”, but I was not aware until yesterday afternoon that there was a Board of Inquiry.

Spokesperson: That is why you were aware, because you were told yesterday afternoon.

Inner City Press: Sure. Mr. Ban said clearly at the stakeout that this was an attack by the Taliban that had done it. Once the UN became enough aware that they created this Board of Inquiry, was there any thought given to saying “things are not as we first presented them”? And secondarily, on these boards of inquiry, how many of them are there? Are there just UN staff on it? Is it an outside Board of Inquiry? How many, I mean…

Spokesperson: There is a standard way to institute a board of inquiry, and I am sure that you are familiar with that. You have been here far longer than I have. The UN takes extremely seriously any incident which results in the loss of life in whatever circumstances of a UN staff member, and will investigate it thoroughly. And clearly the UN, as I mentioned, has been cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its inquiries into the incident. As we have also mentioned -- and I think you need to take that into account, too -- the United Nations has been briefing the family of Mr. Maxwell on its initial inquiries and will continue to support the family.

Inner City Press: Thanks for saying that, but this Board of Inquiry, you are saying, whenever staff are killed, the UN moves to this. Was this Board of Inquiry set up at the time that these five staff members were murdered? Or was it created at some later date, and what triggered its creation?

Spokesperson: Matthew, I should be very careful in the words that you are using. There is a Board of Inquiry and there is an investigation going on that involves the FBI. And the Afghan authorities are also investigating this, and it is part of -- as I mentioned earlier in a different context -- due process when you are investigating. Be very careful what words you are using.

Inner City Press: Is there any question… it is a question of who did the murder?

Spokesperson: There is an investigation going on.

Inner City Press: Right. Is it a new investigation? This took place in October and we are now in April. Has it been going on since October? I will just leave it at that. When was the date that this Board of Inquiry was instituted, since it is such a well known procedure how these things are done? When was it done? When was this created?

Spokesperson: I will let you know.

[The Spokesperson later added that, in January, the United Nations established a high-level Board of Inquiry to establish the facts and look for lessons learned.]

As UN Paid Darfur Rebel Leader Ateem, UN Claims It Didn't Know What Bassole Did: Scandal Grows

UNITED NATIONS, April 9 -- In September 2009, a conference about Darfur was convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia by the joint United Nations - African Union mediator, Djibrill Bassole.

  The goals included uniting various Darfur rebel groups under one umbrella to negotiate with Omar al-Bashir's National Congress Party, and replacing the leader of the Fur ethnic group and Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, Abdul Wahid Mohamed al Nur who refused to negotiate until his Fur people were not threatened with violence.

Conveniently, an alternative Fur leader emerged, offering to stand in for Wahid al Nur and to lead the umbrella group and make peace with al-Bashir: El-Tigani El-Sissi Ateem (sometimes written "Al-Tijani Al-Sissi").

  The UN-AU's Bassole embraced Al-Tijani Al-Sissi Ateem. But Al-Tijani Al-Sissi Ateem was at that time, and had been since 2005, a paid UN staff member, of the UN Economic Commission for Africa also based in Addis Ababa.

  In the run up to Sudan elections, sources told Inner City Press that compliant Darfur rebel leader Eltijani Elsissi Ateem was paid by the UN from 2005 through March 8, 2010. Inner City Press asked and wrote an exclusive story on March 28; UN staff say that Bassole was asked.

  On April 8, Sudan's Ambassador to the UN told Inner City Press that Eltijani is a "long time Darfur leader" who, as a convenient replacement for Fur leader Abdul Wahid Nur signed a deal with Omar al-Bashir's National Congress Party. Video here.

  Eltijani did this work while being paid by the UN, in violation of UN staff rules. Some now question the UN's role in replacing one Fur leader with another, paid by the UN.

Al-Sissi (at right) and Bashir's representative Ghazi, UN funding of Al-Sissi not shown

   The UN in New York has so far sought to dodge all of these questions. Twice Inner City Press has asked in UN noon briefings in New York, then in writing, but was referred to the UN Economic Council for Africa in Addis Ababa, the UN unit which employed Eltijani.

Tb both the UNECA and the UN in New York, Inner City Press posed these questions:

What were El-Sissi’s official job responsibilities for the UN system?

Was the UN aware that El-Sissi was a member of the Umma Party?

Was his travel to Doha, Qatar in February funded by the UN? Was he on official business, or annual leave at this time?

Were the activities of the “Addis Ababa Roadmap group” supported, facilitated, or participated in by the UN?

Did any meetings of the “Addis Ababa Roadmap group” take place on UN premises?

ECA questions: To what extent did or does UNECA have responsibilities relating to the unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team or the contribution in the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict?

Was the Head of UNECA aware of Mr. El-Sissi’s activities in the Darfur process while he was employed by the UN? How long was El-Tijani El-Sissi employed by the UN?

   After first proferring only a single sentence, that ""ECA is not aware of its staff members activities outside of work, including Mr. Ateem's," this was received

Subject: Re: Questions on deadline
From: Mdessables [at] uneca.org
Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:44 AM
To: Inner City Press, Matthew Russell Lee
Cc: S-G's Spokesperson, Deputy and Associate Spokespeople

Dear Matthew,

Mr. Eltigani Ateem started working for ECA on 10 February 2005 as Regional Advisor. Regional Advisory Services are made available upon request to Members states, sub-regional and continental organizations on socio-economic and political challenges.

In his capacity as Regional Advisor, Mr. Ateem, upon request of the Head of State of Libya, then Chair of the African Union (AU), to ECA's Executive Secretary, was asked to serve as resource person and help support the joint AU-UN efforts in addressing the Darfur conflict. As part of this process, Mr. Ateem traveled to Doha, Qatar in February 2010. This travel was not funded by ECA.

This initiative followed earlier involvement of Mr. Ateem who, at the request of the World Bank, served as a member of the Advisory Panel on Darfur Joint Assessment Mission in 2006.

ECA did not support, facilitate or participate in the activities of the “Addis Roadmap Group” and no meeting of the “Addis Roadmap Group” took place on ECA premises.

ECA is not aware of Mr. Ateem’s political affiliations.

ECA has no responsibility related to the Darfur Negotiations.

Myriam Dessables
Chief Information and Communication Service
UN Economic Commission for Africa

  A UN source, when told of the response that Mr. Al-Sissi's political affiliations were unknown, burst out laughing. At the April 9 UN noon briefing in New York, Inner City Press asked Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq which UN units were involved in work to unify the Darfur rebels: the Department of Peackeeping Operations under Alain Leroy, the Department of Political Affairs under Lynn Pascoe, or other UN units, like Bassole's?

   Haq acknowledged that to do political work while paid by the UN violates staff rules. But he said he would have to check which UN units were involved. There is no question that Bassole's UN-funded unit was involved. That Bassole was asked about Al-Sissi's status only confirms it.

UN's Ban and Bassole, funding of pro-government rebel not shown

   That Bassole's office is funded by the UN is demonstrated in para 6 of A/63/717 (dated 17 Feb 2009; "Budget for the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur for the period from 1 July 2009to 30 June 2010").

6. The Joint Mediation Support Team is supported by UNAMID. The Joint Chief Mediator, who is the head of the Team, reports to the Secretary-General through the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations and to the Chairperson of the African Union Commission through the Commissioner for Peace and Security. The Joint Chief Mediator liaises closely with the Joint Special Representative for UNAMID, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Sudan and Head of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) and other relevant stakeholders. The Joint Chief Mediator is entrusted with leading the mediation efforts between the parties to the Darfur conflict with a view to bringing them to peace negotiations.

The Chart on page 82 of this document (A/63/717) shows that under Bassole, he has 39 positions located in Addis, including 1 D-2, and 1 D-1.  One wonders how Mr Ateem fits into this.

Also, S/2010/151 (Letter dated 23 March 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Sudan to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council), dated 24 March 2010.  It includes a photocopy of the signed Doha agreement, which includes Eltigrani Ateem's signature.  Interestingly, he uses yet a different version and spelling of his name: "Dr. Tejani Sisei Mohammed Ateem"

Para 30 of the SG's Report on the United Nations Mission in Sudan (S/2009/357; 14 July 2009) said

The African Union-United Nations Joint Chief Mediator, Djibrill Bassolé, met with the Tripoli Group (comprised of five rebel movements) in Sirte, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from 28 to 30 June to discuss the possible participation of the Group in the Doha negotiations. The mediation also held broad consultations in Darfur, Khartoum and Tripoli with representatives from Sudanese civil society, non-governmental organizations and tribal leadership to underline the intention to broaden participation in the Darfur peace process.

Paras 69, 71 of the SG's Report on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (S/2010/50; 29 January 2010) stated

69. As the political process gains momentum, and in order to build on the significant work of the Joint Chief Mediator, Djibrill Bassolé, to increase engagement among the parties to the conflict, I urge all parties to cease armed confrontation and engage in a meaningful way in substantive, inclusive discussions.

71. In the context of the political process, it is critical that the national elections scheduled for April 2010 provide an opportunity for all Darfurians, particularly internally displaced persons, to participate fully and completely unhindered.

Bassole has already said he wants to leave his UN post. But that will not resolve the matter. Who knew what, when? Beyond the questions pending with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson's Office, Inner City Press has asked UNECA:

1. You say that Mr Ateem's travel to Doha in February 2010 was not funded by the UN. Who funded it? Were Mr Ateem's salary and benefits during his tenure as a UN employee from February 2005 to March 2010 funded by the UN, and if not, by whom?

2. Who was Mr. Ateem's reporting officer, viz to whom within ECA was he responsible?

3. Is ECA responsible for or does it take any credit for unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team, or contributing to the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict, or are these tasks which UNECA has nothing to do with?

While awaiting answers, and accountability, note that the UN is now doing all it can to dodge from the fact that for five years its Addis office employed as a staff member a former governor of Darfur who is also a significant figure in Sudan's Umma party.  This individual, Mr. Eltigani Ateem, who while serving as a UN staff member in the "NEPAD and Regional Integration Division" of the Addis-based UN Economic Commission of Africa, was assigned official responsibility for promoting the unification of Darfur armed groups and for developing a Darfur Road Map.

This raises significant questions about the staff selection and assignment practices of the UN, which we've seen before.  Is it appropriate for a former [and current] national political figure to be assigned work directly related to his own country?  Ibrahim Gambari, the UN's new envoy to Darfur who confirmed to Inner City Press that Al-Sissi worked for ECA, fell under fire for taking a leave to attempt to mediate disputes in the Niger Delta of his native Nigeria. But Al-Sissi was getting paid by the UN while moonlighting as a rebel leader in his native Sudan.

For their part, the UN is employing normal avoidance tactics in response to Inner City Press' questions.  First, the SG's assistant spokespersons refused to even accept numerous questions, deferring to UNECA's media shop.  After a time, UNECA finally responded, denying not only knowledge of Mr Ateem's political baggage, but also that UNECA had any role in supporting the "unification of armed groups" or the "road map."

Unfortunately for the UN, this evasion does not square with the facts.  "Subprogram 4" of UNECA's own "results" framework reflects the following claims:

http://www.uneca.org/rtpc/results/Subprogramme4ECRI.html

Result 2: Development of a set of policy recommendations for post conflict reconstruction and development in areas and countries emerging from conflict, with particular emphasis on Darfur; Unification of the Darfur armed groups and development of a common position and a common negotiating team; Contribution in the development of a road map for the resolution of the Darfur conflict.

Interestingly, in 2007 Mr. Ateem, in his UNECA capacity, presented a paper at a conference in the UK titled "The Root Causes of Conflicts in Sudan and the Making of the Darfur Tragedy."  This paper clearly identifies Ateem as working for the NEPAD & Regional Integration Division.  One telling excerpt from the paper states that

After the DPA was partially signed by one faction of the SLM in May 2005, some neighbouring countries introduced further polarisation within the rebel movements, something that has seriously jeopardized the AU/UN-led efforts to resuscitate the peace talks with the non-signatories.

 However, just two years later, at in late 2009 talks in Doha, Mr. Ateem expressed his qualified interest in becoming the leader of a unified Darfur rebel organization, reportedly stating "I'm ready to lead the new movement if all of you commit yourself to a real and strong unity."  The UN's Mr. Ateem finally got his wish in February 2010, UN/AU Mediator Djibril Bassole proudly (and rather strangely) announced Mr. Ateem's leadership of a unified Darfur rebel structure, and that this should "pave the way for holding constructive dialogue and setting frameworks for detailed negotiations that would lead to reaching a peace accord."

  Bassole has already said he wants to leave his UN post. But that will not resolve the matter. Who knew what, when? Watch this site.

In Central Asia, UN Ban Blind to Corruption, Skips Prisoners Rights and Water Wars

UNITED NATIONS, April 3 -- As the UN's Ban Ki-moon traipses Central Asia, what of political prisoners, UN hiring scandals and simmering cross border conflicts? Apparently for the UN Secretary General, these don't exist. Before Ban started his trip, Inner City Press asked why the UN was not even to solve the dam-based conflict between Tajkistan and Uzbekisan. Don't call it a conflict, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky said. What what should it be called? 
 
     As Inner City Press has reported, Uzbekistan opposes the Tajik dam so much it shut the country's border. Why isn't the vaunted Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia involved?

  A UN source alleging corruption in the UNRCCA notes

On the website of the Center, there is not a single word about the Dam. but there is a tender announcement for the fitness equipment for the gymnasium at the UNRCCA building - the former elite Demiryolchy Hotel. The question is whether the procurement of the fitness equipment is reconciled with the UN budget rules and regulations, or whether it is a good UN background for the unsolved Dam conflict.

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/ the left click Tenders http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4319

At Tnders page you could see translation: The Regional UN Center (UNRCCA) announces the tender: Fitness equipment for the gymnesium)

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4319&ctl=Details&mid=4408&ItemID=8098

http://unrcca.unmissions.org/portals/unrcca/gym.pdf is set of pictures.

Meanwhile

Miloslav Jenca (Slovakia), SRSG and head of UNRCCA, has published an article “Developments in Central Asia and the role of the UNRCCA” in International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy AffairsIssue no.02 /2009, Publisher: Research Center of the Slovak Foreign Policy Association (RC SFPA)

The curiosity is that it can be read only if the reader would pay 25 Euro (€) in advance (from each the price of Jenca’s article would be taken). Click here. the UN staff in general and of Jenca’s status in particular are not supposed to publish the UN related staff for money (not saying about other connotations).

Turkmenistan would be the first country in the SG tour – 2 April (would SRSG Jenca inform the SG of the fitness equipment tendered – especially of the ball to play at the beach?

  In the Fall of 2009, Inner City Press asked and was given the run-around about a hiring scandal in this Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia. Inner City Press posed this question in writing:

In a message dated 8/27/2009 3:50:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, montas [at] un.org writes:
Please refer your DPA questions to Jared Kotler
 
  I've been referred to you for a response to the allegations below concerning hiring in the Regional Center in Turkmenistan (the United Nations Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia).Also, please tell me when Jan Egeland's job with DPA ended, what he did during his tenure and how much he was paid.
 
on the RCPDCA, while here is more to this story, but let's start on deadline with confirmation or denial of the below:
 
During 2005-2007 Mr. Miloslav Jenca, Slovakia , worked in Tashkent as the OSCE Head of Office/OSCE Project Co-coordinator in Uzbekistan together with Ms. Polina Pomogalova , Uzbekistan , as his local general support staff:

http://www.osce.org/uzbekistan/photos.html?lsi=true&src=22&limit=6&pos=36

Mr.Jenca at OSCE, Uzbekistan

http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2007/10/27048_en.pdf
 

Ms. Polina Pomogalova at OSCE, Uzbekisan, page 3
 

 In December 2007 the UNRCCA ( United Nations Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia) was inaugurated by Lynn Pascoe, DPA in Ashgabat.
  

In April 2008 Mr. Miloslav Jenca was appointed UNRCCA Head and SRSG, (“…Mr.. Jenca, currently the Director of the Office of Slovakia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, recently served as head of mission for the OSCE centre in Tashkent , Uzbekistan …”) 

Soon after this Ms. Polina Pomogalova was appointed the Personal Assistant to the SRSG Jenca at UNRCCA: see the UNRCCA web site:
 
http://unrcca.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1995 

 
“…Ms. Polina Pomogalova, Personal Assistant to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Ambassador Jenca…”

Question: How could it be that Polina Pomogalova without a single day of the UN experience was shortlisted for an interview by PMSS while other candidates with the extensive UN experience in Central Asia and technically cleared to the positions of this category were not included? How could it be that the UNRCCA interview board recommended exactly Polina Pomogalova? The answer seems clear: she was the protégé of SRSG Jenca and it was he who had arranged everything.

  Again, there is more to this story, but let's start on deadline with what is the UN's / DPA's . the Center's response?

  The majority of the above was simply never responded to, just as the UN's Department of Political Affairs refused to respond to or address nepotism and hiring scandals in its Africa II unit and the Central African Republic. This lack of accountability extends to the UN's approach to human rights.

   As Ban left on April 1, Inner City Press asked his Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq if Ban would visit political prisoners:

Inner City Press: In terms of the Secretary-General’s trip through Central Asia, I’m wondering, various groups, including Human Rights Watch, have said this is an opportunity for him to address issues such as, in Uzbekistan, the failure to prosecute anyone for the Andijon massacre, as well as the abuse of political prisoners, religious minorities and others. What is the place of the issue of human rights in the Secretary-General’s trip, and specifically, is he going to raise Andijon while he is in Uzbekistan?

Associate Spokesperson Haq: I’m not going to get ahead of the Uzbekistan portion of the trip before it happens. What I will say is: it’s always clear whenever the Secretary-General visits countries that human rights, international humanitarian law and other norms are always part of what he discusses with his interlocutors. He certainly plans to do that over the course of his trip to Central Asia. And one of the things that he is going to do in the various countries that he visits is to reach out to civil society. As you know, civil society organizations have been developing in many of these countries. We will provide you with the details of those visits as they transpire. There is nothing really to say about them just yet.

Inner City Press: There are fairly high-profile, what are called political prisoners, although the Governments disagree in both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and I am wondering, does he have, when he says he’s going to reach out to civil society, can you say whether he’s actually asked to meet any imprisoned political figure?

Associate Spokesperson: I wouldn’t give the itinerary, the precise itinerary, of his meetings just yet, but we’ll provide those details as they arise. But certainly, he will be meeting with civil society, and the sort of concerns he brings on all of his trips he will also bring on this one.

On Haiti at UN, Dominican Dodging on Immigration, UNICEF on Staffing, IFAD to Forgive?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- The UN in New York was full of Haiti news on Friday, some of it misleading, other "off the record." At the day's noon briefing, by video hook up from Haiti Carlos Morales Troncoso, Foreign Minister of the Dominican Republic, bragged to the Press about his government's help to Haiti.

   Inner City Press asked about the blocking of sick Haitians, including infants, at the Dominican border. I haven't seen that report, Morales Troncoso replied. Video here, from Minute 25:57.

   Later on Friday there was a briefing by UNICEF about Haiti, but it remained unclear what information could be used by the press. UNICEF spokesman Chris De Bono introduced an official who could not, it seemed, be named.

   Inner City Press asked de Bono on the record why UNICEF had not been able to lead the water and sanitation cluster after the earthquake.

  De Bono replied that UNICEF had only ten international staff in country on the day of the earthquake, but was able to take over the WASH cluster by "day two."

  Inner City Press asked how many staff UNICEF has there now. De Bono said he didn't know, to email him for the answer. Inner City Press did, but as of 10 p.m., with a fundraiser on network television benefiting UNICEF among others, no response had been provided on how many staff UNICEF has in Haiti.

   Appearing with Ban Ki-moon on January 21, Bill Clinton was asked to which charities people should give. Only those with big presences in Haiti, Bill Clinton replied. So it would seem UNICEF should be able to say how many staff it had and has in Haiti. Inner City Press has also asked UNICEF about its operations in Sri Lanka and Somalia.

   Finally, a day after Inner City Press asked a question about the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development and its outstanding loans to Haiti, would the loans be forgiven? On January 22, spokesman Martin Nesirky said

"you asked a question, Matthew, yesterday, about the debt repayments by Haiti. The Secretary-General, of course, welcomes any efforts to ease financial burdens placed on Haitians. As for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, it says it has supported, and is supporting, rural and agricultural development in Haiti through seven loans, for a total amount of $90 million on highly concessional terms. Six of these loans are now completed and closed. And they’re covered by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries relief initiative, and consequently, the debt repayments are covered by debt relief. There is one loan not covered by that initiative, and repayments for this loan will not start before 2018. The Fund is now reviewing its approach towards these repayments with a view to call on its Member States to assist in directly supporting Haiti with further relief."

We'll see.  Inner City Press also asked, but Mr. Nesirky did not answer, about the material assistance the UN provides to bereaved families of international and national staff members:

Inner City Press: Can you either state now, or at the next briefing or in between, what material assistance is being provided to the families of those UN staff, both international and national, who perished in Haiti? And whether the benefits are the same, the material assistance? How, you know, between these two groups. And just what the number…? I’ve heard that [it’s] Schedule D of the benefits package, but I’d like to know what it is.

Spokesperson Nesirky: I’m sure you would. And I’m sure that more than you, the family members would like to know. And that is being worked on very intensively, and it’s something that occupies the mind of many people, not least the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press: But isn’t there a standard, I mean, isn’t there a UN policy? What I’m asking for is the policy, not actually what, what… You see what I mean?

Spokesperson: Yes, I do understand. This has to do with insurance and other matters, and that’s being looked into very closely by the right people in Field Support, in the Department of Management, Department of Human Resources Management.

Inner City Press: Sure. When a decision is made, you’ll…?

Spokesperson: The question of payments of whatever kind to family members or those who were injured is really a matter for them, between the United Nations and them. The principle that you refer to, of course, is something that we would want to make public.

Inner City Press: Isn’t it a public…? I mean, it’s a public organization.

Spokesperson: That’s what I’m saying. The principle is very clear. It’s a matter of public interest, you’re absolutely right. And on the principle, we will make it clear what’s going on. But, the details are something for the family members.

Watch this site.

On Haiti, Ban Says All Through UN, Through U.S. Not, Watchdog Possible, National Staff Questions Dodged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 15 -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in his third day in a room of addressing the Press about Haiti, declined to Friday to provide casualty figures, leaving that for his spokesman Martin Nesirky. Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban, in light of his call that all aid be "coordinated" through the UN, whether the $100 million announced by U.S. President Barack Obama will be part of the UN's $550 million flash appeal.

Mr. Ban answered that giving money NOT through the UN is a decision that any sovereign government can make. Only yesterday, he said that increased U.S. military presence in Haiti would be coordinated with the UN, or as some reporters heard it, under UN control.

Already, there is a call for an independent aid monitor. Inner City Press asked Ban about the idea. Ban said yes, there is a need for transparency, the idea will be studied. Notably, after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the UN allowed millions of dollars in aid to be taken by the Than Shwe government, as exposed by Inner City Press. The UN at first denied it, then admitted it, then later downplayed it.

Nesirky came back after Ban and took very few questions. The paper of record asked about visits to national staff members homes, which the Deputy SRSG described in response to Inner City Press' question on January 15, but only as to UNDP. Nesirky said the visits are continuing.

But are the peacekeeping mission's national Haitian staff all being visited?

  In terms of now 38 deaths among the "UN presence in Haiti," on January 14 the briefers from Haiti said that deaths are only listed once families are informed, which is coordinated through UN headquarters in New York.

But is that the process for national Haitian staff? Nesirky took no more questions. So here's another: what about contractors who worked for the UN? At UN headquarters in New York, the cooking and cleaning and even UN TV is done by contractors, many of whom have worked in and for the UN for more than a decade. But such contractors would not show up or be counted, as the UN is doing it. Watch this site.

On Sri Lanka, Last Act of UN's Ban Was Three Months Ago, Despite War Crimes, Authentication by Alston

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 8 -- The UN on Friday acknowledged that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's most recent call for accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka was more than three months ago. Video here, from Minute 13:19.

  Since then, former general Sarath Fonseka has accused senior minister and Presidential brother Gotabhaya Rajapaksa of ordering the summary execution of surrendering Tamil Tiger officials, and video footage depicting Sri Lankan Army soldiers shooting blindfolded and naked prisoners has been authenticated by UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston -- yet Ban has done nothing more.

On January 7, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Philip Alston... said that the Secretary-General, he believes, has the power and should appoint such a panel as he has done in the case of Guinea, for example. What’s the Secretary-General’s response? ...Will he do what Mr. Alston is suggesting?

  Mr. Nesirky answered that

the Secretary-General has informed the Government of Sri Lanka that he is considering the appointment of a Commission of Experts to advise him further and to assist the Government in taking measures to address possible violations of international human rights and humanitarian law

  Most media took this at face value, and reported that alongside Alston's findings and Fonseka's accusation of war crimes, Ban was somehow raising the pressure or scrutiny on Sri Lanka. This is not true, however.

  Essentially, in response to a UN Special Rapporteur urging that Ban at least appoint a panel of inquiry into war crimes and the death of tens of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, as he unilaterally in response to 157 deaths in Guinea, Ban's spokesman said that Ban has told the government he might do this in Sri Lanka.

  But after Inner City Press asked when, specifically, Ban had communicated this to the Rajapaksa administration, Nesirky had to belatedly acknowledge that it had been in mid-September. Since then, it seems clear, nothing has been done.

  Inner City Press asked, how long can consideration be described as active without it resulting in anything? Video here, from Minute 15:04. Nesirky responded that since September, when they received Ban's letter from his political advisor Lynn Pascoe, the Sri Lankan government "will have been considering it."

  But this has had no, or even negative, results. Following Alston's January 7 authentication of the summary execution footage, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa said conclusorily that his "security personnel haven't been involved in any misconduct," and complained that Alston had "breached UN protocol" by not showing them his report before going public. Since this was described in many news articles as Sri Lanka accusing the UN of violating protocol, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about it in this way. Video here, from Minute 15:41.

  Nesirky pointed out that the Sri Lankans have not complained about Ban Ki-moon at all. And that... says it all. Watch this site.

UN's Afghan Selection Colored by Nepotism and No-Show Jobs, Karzai Veto Threats

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 1 -- With the short list for the UN's top post in Afghanistan reportedly narrowed down to three, UN sources confirm to Inner City Press that the push is on to get approval for Staffan de Mistura, currently in a virtually no-show job with the World Food Program.

  What many in the UN but few outside it talk about is di Mistura's previous choice of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's son in law Siddarth Chatterjee as his deputy in Iraq, and the role they think this plays in de Mistura's frontrunner status.

  While Mr. Ban has shown discomfort and anger about any questions concerning the fast promotions his son in law has received since he became Secretary General, few explanations have been given.

  That UN officials like de Mistura and now Jan Mattsson of the UN Office of Project Services, where Chatterjee has been given a D-1 position that is quietly being upgraded to D-2, ingratiate themselves with UN Headquarters by promoting the Secretary General's son has also not been addressed.

  Inner City Press, which covered both of these Chatterjee promotions, the latter exclusively, was chided by Mr. Ban's previous Spokesperson Michele Montas to stop asking about Chatterjee in the UN's noon briefings, but rather to get answers from Ban's senior advisor Kim Won-soo.

   This meeting was quickly changed to be "off the record," and then canceled. South Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative then took Inner City Press to lunch and provided a detailed defense of the promotions and of Mr. Ban. (Later, he claimed the lunch was only about September's UN General Debate.)

   Chatterjee himself took to calling and making legal threats to journalists who had picked up on Inner City Press' reports on his promotions, and getting them removed from the Internet, at least from web sites hosted in his native India.

  It is not clear if Chatterjee made these calls during time he was being paid by UNOPS. It is clear, however, that UNOPS devoted staff time to media strategies to defend Chatterjee's promotions and Chatterjee himself, work it hard to imagine being done if he was not the UN Secretary General's son.

  In the week between Christmas and New Year, Inner City Press submitted to Mr. Ban's new Spokesman Martin Nesirky questions about Siddarth Chatterjee, including about his promotions, qualifications and fitness.

  While on the afternoon of Christmas Eve Mr. Nesirky's office provided at least cursory answers to other questions asked, including referring questions about possible nepotism by a Ban appointee to another spokesperson, the questions about Ban's son in law not only were not answered, they were not mentioned. But they will not go away. The responses are being sought only in fairness, explicitly on deadline. Watch this site.

   The other two named candidates are Jean Marie Guehenno, strangely with the backing of the New York Times, and Ian Martin, currently in an ill-defined role with the UN Department of Political Affairs. What the Times did not mention about Mr. Guehenno, in fairness, is that after he was replaced by fellow Frenchman Alain Le Roy, he was given a no show UN Under Secretary General position for "Regional Cooperation."

  While that post should have involved liaising between the UN and NATO, for example, or ECOWAS or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, months into the job Guehenno candidly admitted to Inner City Press that he had done no work at all. He was shut in writing a book. How its publication, or the timing of its publication, may be related to the current campaigning for the Kabul post is not clear.

  Following his candor, Guehenno clammed up. At a recent forum about illegal mining in the Congo, at which questions about the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Congo's involvement with rogue Army units who mine and massacres, Guehenno explicitly refused to answer any questions from Inner City Press. While in the midst of his campaign for Kabul he perhaps felt he had nothing to gain, ham handed rebuffing of the press would not make Guehenno that different front Kai Eide, outgoing in only one of the word's two senses.

  Ironically, Guehenno is also mentioned by human rights groups as a candidate to take over from Alan Doss at the UN Mission in the Congo. Doss is himself embroiled in a nepotism scandal since Inner City Press received and published his e-mail telling the UN Development Program to bend and break UN rules and give a job to his daugther.

  Mr. Ban five months ago promised an investigation, but some attribute the delay to Ban's own resistance to nepotism questions. Doss may be allowed to serve out his contract then Guehenno, if still available, be given the Congo job.

  Ian Martin appeared to go a good job in Nepal, although it appears now to be unraveling. When Inner City Press asked him in a UN hallway about Kabul, Martin laughed. Later he clarified he was not laughing with Inner City Press, only laughing. And laughter may be one of the many things there is not enough of in Kabul.

Footnote: Inner City Press is also told that the U.S., not wanting to be upstaged in Afghanistan, has joined Ban in pushing President Hamid Karzai to accept de Mistura. But Karzai, who previously vetoed the proposal to make Paddy Ashdown a "Super Envoy" to Afghanistan, is near to issuing a similar veto of di Mistura. Watch this site.

Unauthorized Entry into Ban's Home and Party Dodged by UN, Disputing Obama Analogy

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 24 -- At UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's official residence on December 22, an individual with no invitation and no UN pass crashed Mr. Ban's holiday party, multiple sources tell Inner City Press.

  They describe Mr. Ban's personal secretary Ms. Kim stopping the individual and being told -- falsely as it turns out -- that the individual works for the UN Department of Political Affairs but for some reason had no pass or identification, and being let in.

  Ms. Kim asked, "What section?" and was told, "Elections" -- the unit embroiled in controversy following its role in the flawed Afghan election. 

  But despite reason to believe the person was not even from the UN, he passed security into Mr. Ban's residence. The individual even received a gift from Mr. Ban, before proceeding to enter without authorization other UN premises.

  On December 23, Inner City Press approached Mr. Ban's new spokesman Martin Nesirky on his way to the day's noon briefing, and asked about the incident, even suggesting he ask Ban's secretary Ms. Kim. Nesirky returned to his office and put in an inquiry. Inner City Press put the question on the record during the noon briefing and was promised an answer.

  Later on December 23, Nesirky tersely e-mailed Inner City Press that "there was no security breach."

  On December 24, Inner City Press sought and receive additional information, including the identity of the person -- also not invited, but having a UN pass -- who brought the party crasher, and other identifying details.

  After that day's noon briefing, Inner City Press went to Nesirky's river view office and asked what he had meant, that there had been no security breach. Nesirky said that the UN doesn't discuss security arrangements.

  When Inner City Press noted that in Washington in the wake of gate crashing at President Obama's state dinner with India a whole Congressional hearing on the topic of security was held, Nesirky said the situations were not at all analogous.

  Why, Inner City Press asked, because Obama is so much higher profile than Ban? Nesirky said that wasn't it -- without specifying what he meant -- and insisted "there is no story."

  Nesirky chided Inner City Press for pursuing the issue, and even said he would only ask Ban's office a second time if Inner City Press returned with not only the first but also the last name of the gate crasher. This is pointless, since by two witnesses' account, Ban's secretary did not even write down the person's name.

  While Mr. Nesirky's deputy reportedly made belated telephone calls Thursday afternoon, seemingly to quiet possible witnesses, Inner City Press called Mr. Ban's office and asked to speak with Ms. Kim, on deadline.

  After the first transfer, a female voice began and then hung up. When Inner City Press called back, the response was that Ms. Kim was no longer available. Inner City Press left a cell phone number stating it was for a story being written that day, on deadline. The deadline has passed.

  What Inner City Press finds troubling is that the UN would reflexively claim that "there was no security breach," then would refuse to confirm or deny specific facts about unauthorized entry into the Secretary General's official residence.

  Relatedly, if these are the UN's answers on an incident at the Secretary General's residence, how are the answers on human rights, peace and security and even environmental issues more credible?

  Whereas governments and legislatures make for at least some accountability, often in the UN there is no accountability, and it starts at the top. Watch this site.

From the December 23, 2009 transcript

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think you have another question, I’m pretty sure you do.

Inner City Press: Okay, I do. No, actually, then I will if I get your drift. It’s… I wanted to… I guess, and it’s something that maybe you’ll have an answer on later today, but some are saying that in yesterday’s reception at the Secretary-General’s residence that there was an unauthorized attendee, and that the personal secretary to the Secretary-General, you know, was aware of this and for some reason it was waived. I wanted to know both what the procedures are, given, in light of the event at the White House at the State dinner for India, what are the relevant procedures at the UN for such things, and is it in fact the case that an unauthorized attendee attended, and what will be done about it?

Spokesperson: Yes, you mentioned this as we were passing in the corridor just now. I don’t have an immediate answer for you on this specific incident. And also, in more general terms, I would not wish to go into details about security arrangements. That’s clearly not appropriate, but I can just assure you that the security detail for the Secretary-General is extremely rigorous and they work extremely hard for the Secretary-General’s safety. That’s put in a general context, and the more specific question you’ve raised, I’ll see what I can find out. It’s not something that I was aware of.

[The Spokesperson later confirmed that there was no security breach at the Secretary-General’s residence.]

Subsequent e-mail:

Subj: your question about SG residence last night
From: unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com
Sent: 12/23/2009 12:33:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Further to the Spokesman's response at the briefing to the above, there was no security breach at the SG residence last night.

As UN Cameras' Footage Can Be Used to Identify Whistleblowers, They Remain in Place

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 16 -- A day after the UN promised to move the surveillance cameras it installed over the area to which it has moved journalists during its Capital Master Plan renovation, the UN specified that the footage could be used by its Office of Internal Oversight Services. Since OIOS investigates, among other things, leaks by UN staff including to the press, concerns about the cameras placement over the desks of investigative reporters only grew.

  Inner City Press first exposed the cameras on December 13-14. On December 15, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky how the cameras' footage was used, and who could see it. At the December 16 UN noon briefing, Mr. Nesirky read a statement that

"I was asked yesterday about the cameras being relocated... how recorded data is used. In accordance with General Assembly rulings, there are very strict guidelines regarding the use of data taken from cameras... only used for legitimate security reasons, on rare occasions the Office of Internal Oversight Services may request some data for its work."

  OIOS investigates, among other things, leaks by UN staff.

  So according to Mr. Nesirky's statement, OIOS could request and review at least a month's footage and see who met with or gave documents to reporters covering the UN.

  Twenty four hours after Mr. Nesirky said the cameras would be moved, they were still in place. Watch this site.

Sri Lanka Falls Off Radar of UN and US, Despite Rapp Report and Disappearances

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 -- How far the plight of the Tamils and other minorities in Sri Lanka has fallen off the radar of the United States and United Nations was made clear on Thursday. After US Ambassador Susan Rice made remarks to the press about human rights day and accountability, Inner City Press asked her about "the State Department report on Sri Lanka that seemed to allege war crimes, what [are] the next steps for the State Department on Mr. Rapp’s report?"

  Ambassador Rice answered, "with respect to Sri Lanka, and frankly other instances of alleged and definite human rights abuses, we will examine these with seriousness internally, and look at what steps we might take bilaterally to reflect those concerns, with respect to any nation. And the President in his remarks in Oslo mentioned today Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma specifically." Video here, from Minute 6:15.

  Last week, as Stephen Rapp walked into the UN Security Council, Inner City Press asked him about the Sri Lanka report he had signed. "We are pushing hard on that," Rapp said. But what exactly is being done? Another report authored by Senator John Kerry urges rapprochement with Sri Lanka. So what was that about accountability?

  The UN, too, spoke of accountability of one of three things necessary in Sri Lanka. On December 10, Inner City Press asked the UN official who has most visited Sri Lanka, John Holmes, about reports of people released from the Manik Farm camp only to be put in other closed camps, and about additional disappearances. Video here, from Minute 20:15.

  Holmes said he wouldn't call those disappearance, rather that people who previously worked with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were "still being identified" and put into "rehabilitation camps." Video here, from Minute 21:31. Holmes put the number at "ten to eleven thousand," fewer that those the Red Cross has been allowed to visit. Again, what about accountability? Watch this site.

From the US Mission's transcript:

Inner City Press: Parliamentarians from 29 countries have written to the Council asking for them to setup a commission of inquiry on what the call crimes against humanity committed by the military government of Myanmar/Burma. I’m wondering if you received that and what you think of it. And the State Department report on Sri Lanka that seemed to allege war crimes. What’s the next steps for the State Department on Mr. Rapp’s report? What steps are going to be taken?

Ambassador Rice: I have not seen the letter you reference on Burma so I won’t comment. With respect to Sri Lanka, and frankly other instances of alleged and definite human rights abuses, we will examine these with seriousness internally, and look at what steps we might take bilaterally to reflect those concerns, with respect to any nation. And the President in his remarks in Oslo mentioned today Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma specifically. And obviously we will continue our discussions here in the United Nations and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council on what action might be desirable and feasible multilaterally. Thank you.

As Africans Threaten Ban on UNDP Post, Panel Unnamed Beyond Diarra, Downgraded Conference

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 24 -- The controversy over the number two position in the UN Development Program, which the African Group says was committed to it but which was slated to be given to a Costa Rican candidate, "has the potential to cost Ban Ki-moon a second term," an African official told Inner City Press on Tuesday.

  "The African Group will blame Ban," he said, adding that Mr. Ban is being "misled by his senior advisor. The Africans won't accept the Egyptian either," he said, referring to reports that rather than the recommended Cameroonian candidate or "another African woman," the Ban administration is now considering handing the post to Egypt's Permanent Representative.

  Inner City Press, which has exclusively covered the story for a week, has been told that UN official Cheick Sidi Diarra, who attempts to cover both small island developing states while purporting to fill the merged Office of the Special Advisor on Africa, was on the panel interview candidates for the UNDP post.

  Sources on the panel say that they recommended two candidates, the Cameroon "doctor economique" Inner City Press has previously reported on, and an African woman. At the November 24 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's outgoing Spokesperson Michele Montas if Diarra was on the panel, and to confirm who the other member were.

  "We don't comment on members of the panel," Ms. Montas replied. Video here, from Minute 22:40.

  Inner City Press then asked simply for confirmation of who named the panel. Even this, Ms. Montas declined to answer, saying it's "different groups for different departments."

  Finally, Inner City Press asked who makes the decision on the Associate Administrator post at UNDP: Ban Ki-moon or Helen Clark? Ms Montas said the position is "approved by both."

  On November 23, Inner City Press asked a UNDP spokesman and Assistant Secretary General -- and Assistant Administrator -- Olav Krjoven about the number two post. The UNDP spokesman said "we can take that up immediately afterwards." Video here, from Minute 22:40.

  But after the press conference, about energy poverty, the UNDP spokesman would not say when Helen Clark will finally be available for questions. We'll have something to say after the nomination is made, he said. But by then it will be too late.

  Also on November 23, Inner City Press asked the previously head of UNDP's executive board, Ambassador Carsten of Denmark, whether the post has been committee to the African Group, and whether given the percentage of UNDP's work that is in Africa, whether having an African in this senior post might be important.

  Ambassador Carsten replied that while he didn't "want to go into the Associate Administrator" issue, he rejects any "sub geographic" claims. He said "we accept a link between Administrator and Associate between donor and development partners" but "we would not like to narrow it down." Video here, from Minute 20:10.

  So despite the African Group's statement that the post was committed to them, now a major European donor denies it, the Secretary General's Spokesperson tries to deflect questions and responsibility for the decision, and the Secretariat prepares, reportedly, either to push ahead with the Costa Rican nomination or the Egyptian "diversion." Watch this space.

Footnote: it's not as if Helen Clark is running UNDP so well, a development expert told Inner City Press, pointing at the "failure" of the upcoming South -South Cooperation meeting in Nairobi, which was downgraded from a summit to a "ministerial" to, now, only involving ambassadors. Helen Clark, who appears to have the travel (and DSA) bug, will go, December 1 to 3. But the promised heads of state and ministers will not be there. Great planning, UNDP...