Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un3gucci020408.html
UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Asked about the propriety of Gucci using the UN's North Lawn to promote a store opening, and whether the UN should have inquired into whether Madonna's "Raising Malawi" entity is a registered non-profit organization, UN Under Secretary-General for Management Alicia Barcena on Monday said Gucci's ad is inappropriate, and that UNICEF should have investigated "Raising Malawi." Video here, from Minute 19:13.
It seemed clear, following Ms. Barcena's admission, that UNICEF has questions to answer. But a senior UNICEF official, asked by Inner City Press on Monday afternoon if any UNICEF spokesperson will come address the issues said no, that yet another organization, UN Fund for UNICEF, should be the one to answer. UN Fund for UNICEF, in turn, refuses to answer any questions about Raising Malawi, much less Gucci, and the public relations firm for the event says that the "red carpet is filled."
The UN of late speaks about accountability, but on this mis-use of the UN's lawn and name, the finger pointing goes from the Secretariat to UNICEF to a non-UN fundraising entity to a non-registered purported charity to a PR flak who refuses to answer questions. Welcome to the UN system in 2008 -- raiding Malawi.
Inner City Press began questioning this use of the UN's North Lawn two weeks ago, when construction of a now-massive edifice began. UN Fund for UNICEF, to whom Inner City Press was directed, refused to answer questions. Finally an e-mail response was sent that tables for the event cost $25,000 to $100,000. US Fund for UNICEF's spokesperson Marissa Buckanoff said she was unable to comment on Raising Malawi's 501(c)3 status"-- that is, whether or not it is a registered non-profit organization in its own right, or only a part of the Kabbalah Center of Los Angeles. The PR firm handling the event told a reporter, not with Inner City Press, who asked about coverage on Wednesday evening that "unfortunately there is no press inside the event and the red carpet has already been filled." Kelly Moss of KDC Worldwide continued that "we will have plenty of B Roll that we'd to share so that you can still cover the event." The non-Inner City Press reporter has ask how an event can be held at the UN with UN accredited-correspondents barred.
But the bare minimum, it would seem, would be for UNICEF, who stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the event and whose name is the reason the UN land was given, to answer questions. USG Barcena gave a press conference on Monday about UN accountability, and Inner City Press asked who had approved this use of the UN's North Lawn by Gucci and Raising Malawi. "We received a request from UNICEF," Ms. Barcena replied, calling UNICEF a "sister organization" and adding that "we do not deny use to any sister organization." Inner City Press asked if Gucci's statement that the event on UN grounds is in celebration of Gucci opening a flagship store on Fifth Avenue is appropriate. "No, I don't think so," Ms. Barcena said.
So who is responsible? Barcena made it clear that she relied on UNICEF, calling their cause "important" and UNICEF an "'honorable partner." UNICEF chief Ann Veneman has not taken questions from the UN press corps in UN headquarters in almost a year.
There have been previous questions about the fundraising judgment of UNICEF or its doppelganger US Fund for UNICEF. In May 2007,Inner City Press asked UNICEF for "information about who paid and how the reported $150,000 performance fee [for Snoop Doggy Dog] for benefit for UNICEF on April 17, 2007, at Cipriani Wall Street (see NY Post of April 19, 2007)."
UNICEF replied that "this was not a UNICEF run event. Cipriani organizes a concert series each year and this year, the US Fund for UNICEF was the beneficiary. We didn't incur any costs."
But since UNICEF directs prospective individual donors to the US Fund for UNICEF, it might have been important to respond to the New York Post so that readers were aware that the incident described, in which the toasted rapper Snoop Dogg refused to perform despite the $150,000 fee, was not directly attributable to UNICEF. The NY Post item ended up being re-reported in England, Houston and even Korea, and not only (as UNICEF seems to view dismissively) Fox, which reported that Snoop Dogg
"also insisted that 10 members of his personal posse be flown over first-class, and at the last minute almost didn't attend the concert, as his dressing room wasn't decked out with an Xbox for playing video games. 'We finally found someone who lent us their kids' Xbox,' an insider told Page Six. According to the paper, Snoop and his sidekicks were an hour late making it to the stage, which meant that the Pussycat Dolls (who were paid $300,000 to perform) were forced to speak, and consequently thanked "Unicel" instead of UNICEF. 'The idea that organizations pay and pamper these already rich people is disgraceful,' said Mia Logan, a New York mother whose 3-year-old daughter is suffering from a severe heart condition. 'If stars need to benefit financially, then it's obvious they have no interest in the cause. Just think how many lives could be saved with that money instead.'"
When UNICEF kept it fundraising shenanigans out in the wider city, it was one thing. But now it's brought onto UN land itself, and no one will answer questions about it. In the longer term, if UNICEF is focused on its and the UN's "brand," not all benefits... provide a benefit. The same NY Post, on February 6, 2007, quoted
"UNICEF spokeswoman Lisa Szarkowski [that] celebrities are often a vital, invaluable part of raising public awareness. And she concedes that the hierarchy of humanitarianism can be just as ruthless as that of any casting director or nightclub doorman. For years, she has been trying to book longtime activist / UNICEF ambassador Mia Farrow on various talk shows to discuss Darfur - but no one wanted to book her, because she lacks pop cultural currency."
It is again worth noting that UNICEF chief Ann Veneman has not taken questions from the UN press corps in UN headquarters in almost a year. When Inner City Press asked a senior UNICEF official that someone from UNICEF come and give a briefing about the event, the response was that all inquiries should be directed to UN Fund for UNICEF. Maybe, if money talks, they can let private commercial interests use the UN lawn for an ad. But they should not be able to outsource the responsibility to answer answers about this (mis) use of the UN. This is sleight of hand is or should be beneath UNICEF. But who will answer the questions? Developing.
