By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unama5leak122109.html
UNITED NATIONS, December 21, updated -- After the UN's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar was quoted on December 17 that the UN knew its Afghanistan deputy Peter Galbraith was pitching the overthrow of Hamid Karzai to Joe Biden and this was "one of several factors" why he was fired, the UN refused to elaborate. This continued on December 21, when UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky declined to comment on Inner City Press' questions about Mr. Nambiar.
Mr. Nesirky, previously answering Inner City Press' question, said that because Galbraith was challenging his termination, it would not be appropriate to comment. This was not said at the noon briefing when the question was asked. Rather, it was inserted later into the transcript.
The next day, Inner City Press asked if Galbraith had launched his challenge before or after Vijay Nambair's quote. Nesirky said he'd check.
Now Galbraith tells Inner City Press that this challenge was filed on December 10, well before Nambiar's comment. If true, the UN's stated reason for now refusing to comment appears in a different light.
Being "tired" of l'affaire Galbraith is one thing. But the issue of fraud in the Afghan election, and the UN's role in it, should not be allowed to be buried on now specious legal grounds.
In his e-mail to Inner City Press, below, Galbraith raises an issue of media ethics. Knowing both sides of this dynamic, Inner City Press for now simply presents Galbraith's submission, on which we will follow up.
For now we say: whether one sides with the UN or Galbraith in this conflict, the issue of fraud in Karzai's election is larger. Watch this site.
From: Peter Galbraith
To: Matthew.Lee at InnerCityPress.com
Sent: 12/20/2009 1:37:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: Press Q from UN: did you disclose oil interest, if so did UN leak it?
I filed my action on December 10, before Nambiar's quote. Having failed to come up with a plausible explanation for my dismissal, the UN now seeks to use the legal action as a pretext to stop discussing the matter, and the underlying issue of how it handled fraud in the Afghanistan elections. The fact that Vijay Nambiar chose to speak out on my case after I commenced legal action places his quote--and the whole new York Times story--in a rather different context. At the time he wrote his story about my supposed plot to oust Karzai, New York Times reporter James Glanz knew I had started legal action but chose not to share it with the New York Times readers until a separate story the the next day which carefully did not say when the legal action began. For the record, there was no plan to oust Karzai and the story is a complete phony.
Like you, New York Times readers are smart enough to smell a rat in a story about an event that supposedly occurred two months earlier but is only "leaked" after legal action begins. It is too bad, Glanz did not think it important for them to know that.
I am more optimistic than you that the UN legal system will produce the accountability that is so important in this matter.
Watch this site.
