By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unban1crasher122409.html
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.
A question is, what does the UN mean by "security breach"? Watch this site.And see, www.innercitypress.com/unban1crasher122409.html
