Monday, May 20, 2013

UN Blames "Clerical Error" For Cutting Off UNTV of Palestine's Saeb Erakat Speech, After 7 Hours; Are Closed Meetings Filmed?



By Matthew Russell Lee
  Inner City Press asked the question right after the cut-off,wrote about it, and six and a half hour later was told by the chief of UNTV Stephane Dujarric, "On the video coverage of the Palestinian meeting, we were advised by the conference officer that the meeting would now be closed. For further information, I would ask you to speak to the organisers of the event."
  But the day's UN Journal clearly said that the session would be webcast, that is, televised:
Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
10:30 to 13:00 352nd meeting [webcast] Economic and Social Council Chamber (CB)
Briefing by Mr. Saëb Erakat, Member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Chief Palestinian Negotiator
  The UN having announced in advance that something would be televised would seem to trump whatever an unnamed conference officer said, no? So Inner City Press again asked Dujarric:
"Once UNTV cut off, I went to the balcony and [the meeting was not closed.] And later, at least after the noon briefing, the UNTV broadcast was back on. Not sure how to square any of this with the answer you've sent, now at 6 pm. Who is the conference officer you are referring to? I'm writing on this."
  Dujarric responded: "As for the Palestinian meeting, that's the info I have now. When I get something more, I will share." Inner City Press continued to wait before publishing this article. Then, past 7:15 pm, this from the UN's Dujarric:
From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pressing Q: why did UNTV cut off while Saeb Erakat spoke on Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People? & bulletin board, etc
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Cc: funca [at] FUNCA.info, Maher Nasser [at] un.org
Dear Matthew, Due to a clerical error the meeting was listed as closed and notate available to UNTV. However, we will have a recording made available to us tomorrow. It will then be posted on the UN webcast page.
Best
Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Director, News & Media Division | Department of Public Information
United Nations Headquarters | Room: S-1056 New York, NY, 10017
  It's still hard to understand what "clerical error" could have been deemed to trump the day's UN Journal, which plainly listed the session as open and webcast. 
  Getting these procedures right is important. Why would UNTV rely more on an unnamed conference officer and unspecific clerical error than on the UN Journal and UN Department of Public Information's Media Alert, which listed the session as open?
  And if a recording exists, the session was video-taped. Does this mean that other meetings that UNTV thinks, rightly or wrongly, are closed are video-taped?
  These are questions that people including diplomats were asking as Monday came to an end in the UN's North Lawn building. We'll have more on this tomorrow. Watch this site.
Posted by at

On Madagascar, UN's Ban Ki-moon Again Calls for Withdrawal of Rajoelina AND Lalao Ravalomanana: Her Forced Exile OK?



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 16 -- Amid growing controversy in and about Madagascar, at the UN noon briefing on May 13, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky:
Inner City Press: On the Madagascar question, is, is, there has been since I last asked this, the SADC (Southern African Development Community) has come out and said that three candidates, they are encouraged to withdraw their candidacies, saying they are not consistent with the road map. This is Mr. [Andry] Rajoelina, also Lalao Ravalomanana and another candidate. And so, one, I wanted to know if there is a UN response to that, but two, since Ms. Ravalomanana is being barred for having been out of the country, and this was a forced exile by the Government, I am wondering whether the UN has any view on forced exile, that being used as a basis to bar a candidate from running.
Spokesperson Nesirky: We can check for you on that, Matthew. I don’t have anything right now.
  But it was not until Wednesday, 47 hours after the question, that a response arrived. But the UN response did, deferring to SADC, take or adopt a position:
Subject: Your question on Madagascar
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
In response to your questions at the noon briefing concerning Madagascar, the Spokesperson can say the following:
The United Nations is supporting the Southern African Development Community's (SADC's) mediation efforts to ensure a peaceful transition in Madagascar, and what SADC has urged is that President Rajoelina, the former first lady, Lalao Ravalomanana, and former President Didier Ratsiraka all consider withdrawing their candidatures to ensure the peaceful conduct of the elections and stability in Madagascar.
  With this answer, the UN takes a position if only indirectly on forced exile: it's fine, or at least can legitimately be used, in the UN's view, to encourage a candidate to withdrawn.
  Now on May 20, Ban Ki-moon has put out this statement:
Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Madagascar
The Secretary General shares the concerns expressed by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union over the latest developments in the electoral process in Madagascar. The presentation of candidate nomination papers by Transition President Andry Rajoelina, Mrs. Lalao Ravalomanana and former President Didier Ratsiraka, and the decision of the Special Electoral Court to endorse those candidatures, is in violation of the spirit of the SADC-mediated Road Map.
United Nations assistance to the electoral process is conditional upon strict adherence by all parties to the Road Map as the sole framework for a restoration of the full legitimacy of the Government of Madagascar.
The Secretary General calls on all stakeholders to comply with the SADC Organ Troika and the African Union Peace and Security Council decisions, so that elections can take place in accordance with the calendar prepared by the Independent National Electoral Commission for the Transition and endorsed by the United Nations.
New York, 20 May 2013
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to return to one’s country as a basic human right. So to maintain, as France and SADC -- and now the UN -- do, that Mrs. Ravalomanana’s candidacy is not legitimate is to condone forced exile as a means for preventing someone from taking part in the political life of their nation.
After the CES decided on May 3 that Lalao Ravalomanana is officially a candidate, France announced on May 6 its“deception” on learning that the CES accepted Lalao Ravalomanana’s candidature.
  Inner City Press had asked, What is the UN’s position regarding Mrs. Ravalomanana’s forced exile in July 2012? Does the UN consider forced exile to be a legitimate reason for barring a person from being a candidate for election in his or her country? And that question has apparently been answered. Watch this site.
Posted by at

Cyprus President's Downer Letter "Has Not Yet Come to the Attention" of Ban Ki-moon: Lost in the Mail?



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- The UN's envoy on Cyprus, Alexander Downer, also works for a "consultancy," Bespoke Approach. Recently his public statements about a May 29 dinner involving Cyprus' new president Nicos Anastasiades landed him, in the language of a Cypriot headline, "in the dog house."
  The Cyprus Mail reported that "Anastasiades yesterday accused UN Special Adviser Alexander Downer and his team of undermining the president’s credibility and the prospects of resuming peace talks in a letter sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Anastasiades threatened to pull out of the UN-planned dinner between himself and Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu on May 29, unless the UN chief could provide personal assurances that it would be a 'social event' only. The two-page letter, revealed by state broadcaster CyBC last night, is dated May 17, 2013."
  Since the letter was reported by the state broadcaster, it seemed sure the UN was aware of it and would respond. At the UN in New York on May 20, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey, video here from Minute 11:37:
Inner City Press: it is said that the President, new President of Cyprus has written to the Secretary-General complaining about Alexander Downer having either mis-described or mis-set up a dinner with the Turkish Cypriot leader, Dervis Eroglu. Are you aware of this letter being received? It is reported in the Cyprus press and it says that they are… they may both pull out of the dinner and out of talks. So, it seems serious.
Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, Matthew, as Martin has said on a number of occasions here, we… the Secretary-General gets many letters throughout the day and we are not privy often at the first moment that these letters are received. We will check to see and we will get back to you.
  And Del Buey's office did get back to Inner City Press, just before 5 pm, with this:
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Regarding your question on the letter from President Anastasiades to the Secretary-General
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Regarding your question today on the letter from President Anastasiades (Republic of Cyprus) to the Secretary-General, the Department of Political Affairs has provided the following information:
The letter from President Anastasiades to the Secretary-General has not yet come to the attention of the Secretary-General.
  Does this mean that a May 17 letter "revealed" on Cyprus' state broadcaster had still not reached New York, three days later? Or that it had arrived, but that since Ban Ki-moon is traveling (and will be for another week), the Cyprus president's letter has not been brought to the attention of the Secretary General?
  More substantively, given the threat, what is the UN's response, a "mediator"? What is Downer's response? Watch this site.
Posted by at

After Internship in UN Auctioned for $26,000 for RFK Young Leaders, Buyer Might Not Be Let In, ICP's Told, Forms Reformed?



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- An internship in the UN was auctioned off, ultimately for $26,000, in a process extensively covered and questioned by Inner City Press. The UN said it was embarrassed by the auction or the "optics," and resisted Inner City Press' questions about the sale.
After Inner City Press asked several times about, the description of the internship being auctioned was "amended," as the UN spokesman put it, to read:
"Take advantage of this exclusive opportunity for a 6-week internship in NYC working for Bruce Knotts, Chair of the UN-NGO Committee on Human Rights. You will gain inside knowledge of just how the UN really operates and have tremendous opportunities to make invaluable connections. This truly is the ultimate internship opportunity for any college or graduate student looking to get their foot in the door!"
The auction, on CharityBuzz.com, said it was to benefit the RFK Young Leaders. Press inquiries to that entity and its parent, the RFK Center, did not yield any answers. But today, at least, we have a detailed answers about how such internships or grounds-passes work, from the Director of the UN Department of Public Information's Outreach Division, Maher Nasser.
  Inner City Press, along with another DPI question to which it is still awaiting the answer -- why was UNTV shut off while Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat was giving a speech on Monday morning -- asked Nasser, "I heard when you told DPI-NGO orientation that it makes the UN look bad, and that the UN is not obligated to let the person ('m. alam') who purchased the internship into the building. Is that the case? And you could keep me informed on this, when the purchased internship is to begin and what the UN / DPI does?"
  To his credit, Nasser provided Inner City Press with the most detailed UN response to date on the auctioned internship:
Subject: Question re the auctioned internship, thanks
From: Maher Nasser [at] un.org
Date: Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Hi Matthew, On the internship issue, as you know from the relevant website, this was for an internship with an NGO, not an internship at the UN. The optics of it and use of the UN's image implied otherwise, which is why I flagged it in the orientation with newly associated NGOs as something that hurts the UN and is not acceptable.
Every NGO associated with DPI is entitled to only six yearly passes, two of which are for youth representatives. The names to whom the passes are issued are provided by the president/head of each NGO. By providing the names, the NGO certifies that these names represent the NGO concerned. Up till now, we have had no reason not to grant a pass to people designated as representing an NGO. An old system of temporary passes issued throughout the year was discontinued by DPI several years ago.
With reference to the six names provided, and as I said above, this has not happened in the past, if we find out that someone had to pay or buy a slot on that list, we would take it up with the concerned NGO and depending on the feedback, not endorse that name for a pass.
In view of the case of the auctioned internship, we are preparing language to be added to the forms to be completed by DPI associated NGOs to avoid such possibilities in the future.
  So at a minimum, the "m. alam" on whose behalf $26,000 was bid for this internship might not be endorsed for a pass to actually enter the UN. Would they get a refund? And what do the UN-NGO Committee on Human Rights and the RFK Center have to say? Watch this site.
Footnote: While we await another division of DPI's promised answer to the Free UN Coalition for Access about how and why UNTV shut off during Saeb Erakat's speech, we note complaints received about the press corps move-back to the Secretariat building, particularly among broadcasters about special charges, special deals, special inquiries. The DPI official in question is aware of several of these complaints; watch this site.
Posted by at

UNreal: At UN, Kingdom of Atooi Claims "Seat 25" and Pitches New Currency, Follow this Money?


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- Puerto Rico is debated at the UN as a case of decolonization, but Hawai'i is not. Still on Monday the King or Ali'i Nui of of the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi appeared at a UN press conference to launch a new currency and encourage people to buy it.
Inner City Press asked three questions: is the King trying to get Atooi inscribed on the list of non self governing territories, as happened May 17 with French Polynesia? The answer was unclear. The king, Aleka Aipoalani, said Atooi already has a seat -- "number twenty five" in the General Assembly, he said.
  What are the benefits of minting your own currency? Will the coins just be worth the weight of the precious metals they're make of, or will there be some sort of sovereignty premium? 
   Here the King deferred to his expert, a man citing "Sovereign Economics" and displaying slides of the coins. Everyone will have their own reasons for buying, he said.
  Finally Inner City Press asked, who is sponsoring this press conference? It's said that only if sponsored by a country or a UN entity is a press conference allowed and televised. (Others come in through the backdoor of UNCA, but these are not on UN Television.) The answer, after a pause, was that the press conference was sponsored by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
  Only an hour and a half earlier, Inner City Press covered then wrote about a press conference of the PFII, with representative from Kenya, Fiji, Canada and Alaska. This currency press conference felt different. Like we said, follow the money. Watch this site.
Footnote: all this takes place in a UN that wouldn't even distribute the letter of Somaliland, and is purported to "give" its airspace by the Somalia. We'll have more on this.

Posted by at

UN Slow in Boma in South Sudan, Has Nothing on Nepali Death in Lebanon: What's Wrong with UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous?



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- What's wrong with UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous? The press in Nepal is full of stories about a Nepali soldier who died -- or was "martyred" -- on May 16 serving Ladsous' UNIFIL in Lebanon.
  But nothing was announced. Last week Ladsous "announced" the news of the third kidnapping of peacekeepers in the Golan Heights in a conversation with a few hand-picked friendly journalists. Now, the death of a peacekeeper is not even announced in that fashion.
  At the May 20 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked about the death of the Nepali peacekeeper, identified as Deepak Thapa Magar. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduard Del Buey said he didn't have any information about the death -- that is, DPKO had not provided Ban's spokesperson's office even with an if-asked about the death.
  Last week Del Buey answered a question about Ladsous' strange and selective mode of releasing information only to journalists friendly to him by saying "Ask DPKO." So Inner City Press did ask DPKO, three days ago -- and the question, at least the one that Del Buey said should be put to DPKO, has still not been answered. Here's video from the May 20 briefing.
  The problem is wide-spread. Also on May 20, Inner City Press asked what Ladsous' mission in South Sudan has been doing while the town of Boma was overrun and deserted. (This question was also twice tweeted at the UN Peacekeeping "social" media account over the weekend, without response).
  Del Buey replied that UNMISS "as soon as conditions allow" will be sending an assessment mission to assess the need to protect civilians. But civilians already had to flee.
  As we asked, and will continue to ask: what is WRONG with UN Peacekeeping under Herve Ladsous? Watch this site.
Posted by at

As Palestine's Saeb Speaks about Israeli Settlements, UNTV Goes Dark, Protest by FUNCA



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- Monday's UN meeting on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People featured negotiator Saeb Erakat; it was listed in the UN Journal as being open and (UN) televised. And at the beginning it was.
Erakat said, for example, that since 2009 Netanyahu has averaged 11 settler housing units every day. Then the UNTV screen went black, with the sign: "The Meeting is Closed."
  Inner City Press ran to the Economic and Social Council chamber and asked a UN Security guard, who did not say the meeting was closed. Inner City Press went to the balcony; Erakat was still speaking.
  On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, this question was sent to the chief of the Department of Public Information and the manager of UNTV, which has also of late cut off when Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari was speaking. 
  (As Inner City Press reported, and FUNCA complained about, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous had his spokesman seize the UNTV microphone to try to avoid a Press question about the 135 rapes in Minova by the Congolese Army. This has still not be publicly addressed.)
While we wait the response of UNTV or DPI, including on other issues raised by FUNCA, about the reforms to the UN Media Access Guidelines that FUNCA proposed in February, snafus with the move and the "fakeout at the stakeout" conducted by UK prime minister David Cameron and Reuters / UNCA last week, here is an Inner City Presstweeted photo from inside the clearly open meeting on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. 
 Apparently even the right to be accessible to the public as promised in the UN Journal is not "inalienable." Watch this site.
Posted by at

As Menkerios Adds AU Addis Job to His Sudans Post, Where Will Cost Save Go? UN Banning Whistleblowers



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 -- While the UN continues to waste money, for example by having its purported Sahel envoy Romano Prodi based in Italy, last week some potential savings emerged, if only temporary.
Haile Menkerios was named UN envoy to the African Union in Addis Ababa; the announcement said he will remain as envoy on Sudan and South Sudan. This is called, in UN-ese, double hatting. The AU post used to be at the Assistant Secretary General level but it being bumped up to Menkerios' current pay scale as an Under Secretary General level, like Prodi. It seems unlikely the Addis post will ever be shifted back down.
But even in the UN system, it seems unlikely he will get both the USG and the Assistant Secretary General ASG salaries. So the latter will be "saved."
But how will the savings be used? A knowledgeable UN budget source tells Inner City Press that it could be used for budget lines which are over-spent, or for so-called "vacancy management" -- short term, unfunded jobs, "uncontrolled."
Recently Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office for Ban's response to criticism of Sahel envoy Prodi being based in Rome. They said they would look into it: but so far nothing. Watch this site.
Footnote: meanwhile Ban Ki-moon on May 14 filed an appeal to the case of whistleblower James Wasserstrom. Ban had gotten rare, and in this instance unwarranted we think, praise for merely announcing he would hire a consultant on the protection of whistleblowers. Is this appeal the result of that consultation? We hope to have more on this.
Posted by at

Sunday, May 19, 2013

In Jordan, IPI Debates Who Is a Journalist As Corporate Media Lashes Out, Spoon-Fed at UN



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- They gathered in Jordan in the shadow of the Syrian conflict and asked themselves, Who is a journalist?
  It was an opening session of the International Press Institute's "World Congress," and a range of attitudes, from self-serving to open, were on display, if only by twitter. (Tellingly, the event was not live-streamed, but hundreds of tweets from inside the Versailles-like hall conveyed the debate.)
  Corporate for-profit media is in hard times, and so it is important to them to circle the wagons and protect what's left of their monopoly, such the way lawyers and even doctors do, in the developed world.
  But others on the panel took a broader view. Laura Weffer Cifuentes from Venezuela focused on passion, calling journalism a "way of life." John Yearwood said simply that anyone involved in the mass distribution of news is a journalist. 
  What is mass, for example on Twitter? Five thousand followers? Or like some "professional" journalists, less than a thousand?
  Does typing up information spoon-fed by a public figure make you a journalist? At the UN, which Inner City Press covers in detail, does being a pass through from the views or even "scoops" of particular powerful countries' embassies make you a journalist?
  What is clear to Inner City Press is that big corporate mediacannot be the ones to decide who is a journalist. At the UN they have tried it, between Reuters and Agence France Presse and Voice of America - and at least for now it hasfailed. 
  But they continue to try, lobbying UN media accreditation official Stephane Dujarric (himself formerly of corporate media) to deny UN media space to the investigative Press.
  The moderator or main panelist was Jim Clancy from CNN. He recently spoke at the UN, where corporate media have tried to get others thrown out. It was raised to such paragons as the Committee to Protect Journalists, who did nothing. They are funded by the corporate media which tried to eject others. Something must be done.
  From the audience in Amman, a representative of the Ford Foundation (a "partner" of the endeavor) posited that it is the public who decides who is a journalist. But the professionals among them resisted, referring to education or membership in a union. Style over substance, form over function.
  There are acts of journalism, some less opinionated that others. To live tweet a Security Council debate is one thing. To find fresh information is another. To retype spoon-fed propaganda? We're not saying they don't have a place. But they can't define it. Watch this site.
Posted by at

"Tower of Basel" Exposes Bank Which Could Have Stopped Subprime Meldown - But Didn't: Capsule Review of Lebor's Book


By Matthew Russell Lee, Capsule Review
UNITED NATIONS/NYC, May 19 -- Why did it take so long for someone to write an investigative book about the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and Bank for International Settlements? Henry Morgenthau tried to close down the BIS in 1945 for having collaborated with the Nazis.
  While it doesn't seem to have been what triggered author Adam Lebor's interest in Basel, the subprime financial meltdown since 2008 certainly makes how and on what issues global bank regulation is directed a matter of more general concern.
  If the central bankers who meet every two months in Basel had been concerned for the lower income people being targeted with high cost mortgages, it is possible that Countrywide, Ameriquest and CitiFinancial which made the loans, and Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup which were among the largest securitizers, would not have failed or required huge bailouts.
  Lebor, whose seven previous non-fiction books include one criticizing the UN for its role in Srebrenica and elsewhere, runs through the history of Basel and its past and present lack of transparency in his "Tower of Basel," officially out in June from PublicAffairs.
  In a perfunctory hat-tip to social media, the Bank has a twitter account @bis_org, whose 13,000 followers Lebor cites while noting that all tweets are to already publicly available documents like speeches. This from, as Lebor's subtitle has it, "The Secret Bank that Runs the World."
  What if the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, even now, were to set minimum standards for consumer protection? Who might even propose it? The US Federal Reserve's Daniel Tarullo is coming in atop the Financial Stability Board, the incoming head of the Bank of England.
  Lebor's book will be helpful for future work on and in Basel. His "Complicity with Evil: The UN in the Age of Modern Genocide" has provided useful; it could be updated with chapters on for example Sri Lanka and the UN bringing cholera to Haiti then dismissing all legal claims.
  Lebor is based in Budapest, and Hungary appears more than it otherwise might in his book. He is, this same month, releasing a free e-book short story, and traveling to New York to give a June 4 talk at the Museum of American Finance. We recommend both.

Posted by at

On North Korea, Ban Ki-moon's Two Fast & Different Comments, On Golan Kidnaps, Slow & No Comment: Double Speak?



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, May 19 -- With North Korea firing short-range missiles into the sea again, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made targeted and then bland comments, back to back, to RIA Novosti and then in writing, through his spokesperson.
  In Moscow to RIA Novosti, Ban said "We are very worried over North Korea's provocative action. I hope North Korea will refrain from further such actions. They must soon return to talks and lower tensions."
  Three sentences, three pronouns. Who the "we" in the first sentence is meant to be is not clear: the UN Secretariat? Those traveling with Ban? The entire international community?
  Then the following was e-mailed out:
The Secretary-General is aware of reports that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) yesterday (18 May) launched short-range guided missiles into the sea off the eastern coast of the Korean Peninsula.
The Secretary-General remains concerned about provocations and tensions on the Korean Peninsula, particularly given the risks of miscalculation and dangerous escalation.
He stands ready to help facilitate the process of peace and trust-building on the Korean Peninsula.
Three separate paragraph (well, each one a sentence), less finger-pointing, more offering.
By contrast to this fast double comment on missile that hit only water, when UN Peacekeepers were kidnapped for the third time in the Golan Heights on May 15, Ban said... nothing.
The news was left to be "announced," if it can be called that, to small group of sympathetic reporters or sycophantic scribes by Herve Ladsous, whom Ban accepted without question from France as that country's fourth Peacekeeping boss in a row.
  When Inner City Press asked for confirmation and comment from Ban's three top spokespeople as well as Ladsous' three, the response came more than three hours later, from Ladsous' team, not Ban's.
  Then eight hours after that, Ban's office finally e-mailed out a confirmation of the kidnapping. Unlike on North Korea, it had no comment from Ban.
  On Friday at the UN, two countries' diplomats told Inner City Press it was "strange" and "inappropriate" for Ban to have waited so long, and then had no comment on the kidnapping of UN Peacekeepers.
  One opined it is because of the allegation in the General Assembly of the involvement in the kidnapping of Qatar, whose former Ambassador Ban has named the High Representative for the UN Alliance of Civilizations.
  In any event there are two comparisons: on North Korea between what Ban told RIA Novosti then what his spokesperson said, and between those two and his Office's delay and then no-Ban-comment on the kidnapping of UN Peacekeepers.
  We'll have more on this -- for now, here is video of Ban's deputy spokesman telling Inner City Press he wouldn't explain even when Ban's Office knew of the kidnapping, nor why it was left to the reclusive Ladsous to "announce" to scribes. The Free UN Coalition for Access protested this. Watch this site.
Posted by at

Saturday, May 18, 2013

On Syria, Reuters Floats One-Source Trial Balloon for a UNSC Resolution: UK's Pass-Through, Scameron Redux






By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 17 -- Friday night from the UNReuters ran a piece about Syria purporting to be news which was little more than a single sourced advocacy piece for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution that hasn't even been introduced yet.
  The piece ends with a (blind) quote that it would be "quite difficult for the Russians to hold out against it." Really?
The Reuters piece says it is based on what "U.N. diplomats said" -- that is, plural. But there is only one diplomat quote, repeatedly.
  Earlier in the week, independent journalists at the UN were summoned to a press stakeout by UN prime minister David Cameron, who after a short statement said he "understood" that Reuters UN had a question. 
  It is all too obvious; these fake-outs at the stakeout are being opposed by the new Free UN Coalition for Access, along with the selective spoon-feeding of news, even about the kidnapping of UN peacekeepers, by UN official Herve Ladsous, see Inner City Press May 17 story and video.
  But at that fake-out at the "Scameron" stakeout, Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau tried to dress up the propaganda, like Kim Jong-un saying he "understood" that KCNA had a question, by claiming he was called on as the UN Correspondents Association.
  If so, he sold out the decaying group's dues paying members in order to promote himself, Reuters, the UK and their identical positions on Syria, which are not shared by all members of UNCA by any means. 
 But the entity, now known as the UN's Censorship Alliance, is increasingly used by Gulf and Western big media to advance their own interests.
Because UNCA has continued, even on this weekend, its anti-Press campaign via anonymous social media accounts associated with Reuters, we note that this Reuters Friday night piece is bylined Michelle Nichols, who appears in a UK Mission to the UN video speaking ironically about World Press Freedom Day. We'll have more on this. For now, on the record media critique is quite different from big media using anonymous accounts against smaller competitors, which Reuters and others in UNCA are engaged in.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)