UNITED NATIONS, August 5 -- When the UN made a statement on Kashmir, then stepped away from it and blamed it on an Associate Spokesman, there was more than met the eye. Inner City Press has inquired and finds the following: the initial response on the violence in Kashmir was produced by the UN Department of Political Affairs, in what is called it “morning prayers” meeting, chaired by DPA chief Lynn Pascoe.
Then, even before the statement was released, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, a former Indian diplomat and intelligence operative, edited the statement, “watering it down” as one senior UN official puts it.
After UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq emailed the statement to four journalists and it was published, the Indian Mission to the UN protested. They came to meet with the UN, Mr. Nambiar, for more than two hours. Apparently, Nambiar did not fully disclose his initial role in editing the statement.
Next, the UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky stepped away from the statement, emphasizing that Ban Ki-moon never said it, and it was mere “guidance from the Secretariat,” and claiming that it had been misinterpreted. How?
On August 4, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to think it through: if he could walk away from this statement attributable to the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary General, how can any of his future statements be taken seriously? I have said all I am going to say, Nesirky replied. Okay...
Footnote: attendees that DPA's "morning prayers" quote Pascoe, for example that "Hillary Clinton is going to Colombia, what does she think she can accomplish?" While some attendees conclude from this that Pascoe is aligned with US Republicans who appointed him, others say it establishes his "street cred" as an internaional civil servants. But is this what HRC and Obama want? Watch this site.
From the UN's August 3 noon briefing transcript:
Inner City Press: a controversy has arisen around a statement that Farhan Haq had put out, talking about Indian-occupied Kashmir and calling for restraint. And, basically, it says that the Indian Foreign Ministry or Ministry of External Affairs has taken issues with it, that your Office has clarified that the Secretary-General never made those comments. Have you seen that story, and what can you do to clarify the seeming discrepancy between the Indian Foreign Ministry and your Office?
Spokesperson Nesirky: The Spokesperson’s Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and that seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary-General.
Question: What was taken out of context? This was a formal statement.
Spokesperson: Let me repeat what I just said: the Spokesperson’s Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and it seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary-General. That’s what I have; I don’t have anything to add.
Question: But the statement said the Secretary-General calls for restraint, and is there concern about it?
Spokesperson: As I said, I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve just said.
From the UN's August 4 noon briefing transcript:
Inner City Press: Some think that the way that it was answered yesterday — it’s hard for them to take; what weight should statements by the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General be given if they’re later characterized as mere guidance and the Secretary-General didn’t mean them. For your own purposes, how do we — is this a one-off, or does this somehow change; you get a statement today about Tanzania — is that a statement of the Secretary-General, or is it mere guidance, and from who — who gave the guidance on Kashmir?
Spokesperson Nesirky: You know very well what it said [on Tanzania]: it said “a statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General”, and that clearly is a statement. But I don’t have anything beyond what I’ve already said on this topic. Okay?
No, not okay.