By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban3ipcc022410.html
UNITED NATIONS, February 24 -- Three weeks after the UN told the Press that "it's not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ban Ki-moon pointedly urged member states to "reject the last-ditch attempts by climate skeptics to derail negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in the [IPCC] fourth assessment report."
Some wondered, if the UN saw no need to respond three weeks ago but now belatedly steps into the ring, does this indicate the type of desperation exhibited by the UN's hastily put together press conference after Yvo de Boer announced his resignation?
At Wednesday's UN noon briefing, three weeks after Inner City Press asked for comment on the IPCC's misuse of NGO press releases as science, it inquired into Ban's belated comment on the controversy, and his characterization of all who critique errors in the report as "climate skeptics."
Inner City Press asked asked how Ban's upbeat read out on Copenhagen squared with his Timor L'este envoy Ameerah Haq's frank statement to the Press that Copenhagen was a disappointment, reiterated February 23 at the UN Security Council stakeout.
Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky was once again testy, chiding Inner City Press that
"if you want to try to chip away between different people saying different things at different times, you could do that pretty much every day, and maybe you will... if you look at what might have been, had there not been the level of movement that there was in Copenhagen, then things would look even worse. Nobody has said that this is precisely what everybody wanted. Many people -- Yvo de Boer, Janos Pasztor -- who sat here right after the Copenhagen Conference with Bob Orr and spelled out what the role of the United Nations had been in getting to a good point, but that it was not good enough; that more needed to be done. So, it’s very easy to try to push a wedge between two different people."
After this diatribe, several correspondents asked Inner City Press in essence, what is wrong with Nesirky? To compare two statements is basic journalism. And to report on now-acknowledged errors in an inter governmental body's scientific report is not necessarily "climate skepticism" -- it is journalism. The UN does not seem to understand this.
Inner City Press asked, on February 3 and 24 and even before, for Ban's comments on IPCC chair Pachauri's refusal to make financial disclosure about income he receives from Deutsche Bank and others for advice related to his IPCC job. Nesirky responded that "To come back to the part of the question about business dealings and disclosure, this is something that he himself, Mr. Pachauri has spoken about himself, and I have no need to elaborate further on what he himself has said."
That's leadership. The person more and more widely accused of lacking transparency has rejected the charges. What more could the head of the Organization need to say? Perhaps, as on Himalaya Gate, Mr. Ban will comment in three weeks. Watch this site.
Footnote: beyond her refreshingly candid comments on Copenhagen as disappointment, Ms. Haq also answered Inner City Press' questions about an incident in which UN Police in Timor L'este were filmed standing by at Timor L'este police beat up a protester. She said it is under investigation, and that UNPOL has a duty to report. But don't they also have a duty to protect civilians?
