Byline: Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unprivate121407.html
UNITED NATIONS, December 14 -- In the run-up to the Security Council's December 19 meeting about Kosovo, even the format of the meeting has been in dispute. On December 12, Italian Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, this month's Council president, said that in that day's discussion, which he called a tour de table, the disagreement was whether Kosovo would be allowed to speak for itself, or only, as the current legal framework dictates, would be spoken for by the UN mission in Kosovo, UNMIK. Amb. Spatafora, always upbeat, emphasized that there had been unanimity that the meeting would "not be in the consultations room" and that it would be "transparent."
On Friday Amb. Spatafora returned to the same microphone and announced that Kosovo would speak for itself, in the main Council chamber -- but that the meeting would be "private." That means, no attendance by the public or the press. How then is it transparent? Inner City Press asked, and the response was to emphasize that the meeting is being held in the big room, the chamber, and not the consultations room. Video here. So at the UN, does the concept of transparency depend more on which room a meeting is held in than on whether the public and press can hear what happens?
Ambassadors, at least some, at the UN can be reached with questions. Inner City Press asked the UK's Permanent Representative John Sawers for his view on the meeting being private. "Our priority was the representative of Kosovo speaking at the Council," Amb. Sawers said. "Russia tried to prevent that [but] in the end gave in, in return for a private meeting." But what about transparency? Inner City Press asked France's Deputy Permanent Representative Jean-Pierre Lacroix, who explained that "what we had to come to was an agreement, a consensual one." He said "Russia knew we had the votes" so "the Russian came up with this proposal" to have Kosovo speak for itself, but only in a private meeting. "What prevailed was the sense that if we can resolve through consensus, let's do it... we can have it without resort to the vote."
This aversion to voting is at work on the UN budget as well. It is said that the while negotiations continue among staff experts in the Fifth Committee's meetings in the basement of the UN, around $100 - $150 million, the U.S. is calling around at the level of ambassadors and even capitals, promoting the idea of merely extending the current budget for six months, until the Secretariat some up with a proposal that is not "piecemeal," and not, from the U.S. perspective, such a large increase. On Friday several insiders told Inner City Press that yes, the budget is the big story at the UN, not covered because both the Secretariat and most of the member states, even those which temporarily go public, like it that way. But when public business is conducted in private meetings, the press must ask questions.
As has previously been emphasized to Inner City Press, in connection with the review of the UN's no-bid $250 million contract with Lockheed Martin, at the UN transparency may only mean disclosure to states, in closed meetings, not to the public. At Friday's noon briefing, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe said that she does not speak for the Department of Peacekeeping Operation's Number Two, Edmond Mulet, who Thursday declined to answer Inner City Press's request for a description of the responses given to the budget committee's questions about the contract. Video here, last Minute. He referred to another split-off unit, the Department of Field Support, for which Ms. Okabe also seems not to speak. So who speaks for these UN departments? To be continued.
